Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in primary care asthma management: effects on bronchial hyperresponsiveness and asthma control

Differences in the effectiveness of single, dual, and triple inhaled corticosteroid therapy for reducing future risk of severe asthma exacerbation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Importance

The effectiveness of different combinations of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapies in reducing severe exacerbations of adult asthma remains unclear.

Objective

This network meta-analysis (NMA) extensively evaluated the treatment effects of single ICS; dual ICS i.e., ICS/long-acting β2-adrenergic agonists (LABA); ICS/LABA as single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART); and triple ICS, i.e., ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in preventing severe asthma exacerbations.

Data sources

A systematic search of English databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, was conducted until December 31, 2022, using PRISMA-NMA.

Study selection

Using the PICOS criteria, the questions for this study were carefully selected so that the correct keywords could be identified.

Data extraction and synthesis

A pairwise meta-analysis was used to select trials based on the criteria for minimizing heterogeneity (I2). Subsequently, the "BUGSnet" package of R software was used to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were risk rate and annualized rate ratio of severe asthma exacerbations.

Results

This review included 56 randomized control trials (RCTs; n = 78,171 patients). As the pairwise meta-analysis demonstrated that the annualized rate ratio of severe asthma exacerbation had moderate heterogeneity, we analyzed the risk rate of severe asthma exacerbation using a network meta-analysis. In terms of direct/indirect comparisons with non-ICS, single ICS, dual ICS, SMART, and triple ICS reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 34 %, 47 %, 58 %, and 57 %, respectively. SMART and triple ICS showed high effectiveness in reducing severe exacerbations.

Conclusion

AND RELEVANCE: SMART and triple ICS were ranked higher in effectiveness in reducing severe asthma exacerbations in comparison with other therapies, indicating that these are the most effective treatments for reducing the future risk of severe asthma exacerbations.

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol reliever only in mild asthma

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Mild asthma treatment recommendations include intermittent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol dosing or regular ICS dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever. Due to the heterogeneity of asthma, identification of traits associated with improved outcomes to specific treatments would be clinically beneficial.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of patient traits on treatment outcomes of regular ICS dosing compared with intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Searches identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing treatment arm, reporting traits and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 11 RCTs of mild asthma, of 14,516 patients. A total of 11 traits and 11 outcomes of interest were identified. Of these, a feasibility assessment indicated possible assessment of three traits (age, baseline lung function, smoking history) and two outcomes (exacerbation rate, change in lung function). The NMA found no significant association of any trait with any outcome with regular ICS dosing relative to intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes between RCTs limited analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic analysis of associations between patient traits and differential treatment outcomes in mild asthma. Although the traits analysed were not found to significantly interact with relative treatment response, inconsistent reporting from the RCTs prevented assessment of some of the most clinically relevant traits and outcomes, such as adherence. More consistent reporting of respiratory RCTs would provide more comparable data and aid future analyses.

Systematic literature review of traits and outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of asthma with regular dosing of inhaled corticosteroids with short-acting β2-agonist reliever, as-needed ICS/formoterol, or ICS/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy

INTRODUCTION

Asthma treatments based solely on diagnostic label do not benefit patients equally. To identify patient traits that may be associated with improved treatment response to regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICSs) dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol-containing therapy, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted.

METHODS

Searches of databases including MEDLINE and Embase identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma, aged ≥12 years, published 1998-2022, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment arm, and reporting patient traits and outcomes of interest. Relevant data was extracted and underwent a feasibility assessment to determine suitability for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 39 RCTs of 72,740 patients and 90 treatment arms, reporting 11 traits and 11 outcomes. Five patient traits (age, body mass index, FEV1, smoking history, asthma control) and five outcomes (exacerbation rate, lung function, asthma control, adherence, time to first exacerbation) were deemed feasible for inclusion in meta-analyses due to sufficient comparable reporting. Subgroups of clinical outcomes stratified by levels of patient traits were reported in 16 RCTs.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review of studies of regular ICS dosing with SABA or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment strategies in asthma identified consistent reporting of five traits and outcomes, allowing exploration of associations with treatment response. Conversely, many other traits and outcomes, although being potentially relevant, were inconsistently reported and limited subgroup reporting meant analyses of treatment response for subgroups of traits was not possible. We recommend more consistent measurement and reporting of clinically relevant patient traits and outcomes in respiratory RCTs.

Understanding the Updates in the Asthma Guidelines

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that affects millions of Americans, with variable symptoms of bronchospasm and obstruction among individuals over time. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) published the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines based on the latest research since the 2007 Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3). The following article reviews the 21 new recommendations on the six core topics in asthma: use of intermittent inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy, use of the fractional exhaled nitric oxide test in asthma diagnosis and monitoring, indoor allergen mitigation, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate recommendations as strong or conditional based on the evidence. The recommendations were based on systematic reviews of the literature and focused on patient-centered critical outcomes of asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and asthma-related quality of life. Understanding the recommendations with consideration of individual values through shared decision-making may improve asthma outcomes.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

Novel genes and insights in complete asthma remission: A genome-wide association study on clinical and complete asthma remission

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease without a cure, although there exists spontaneous remission. Genome-wide association (GWA) studies have pinpointed genes associated with asthma development, but did not investigate asthma remission.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a GWA study to develop insights in asthma remission.

METHODS

Clinical remission (ClinR) was defined by the absence of asthma treatment and wheezing in the last year and asthma attacks in the last 3 years and complete remission (ComR) similarly but additionally with normal lung function and absence of bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). A GWA study on both ClinR and ComR was performed in 790 asthmatics with initial doctor diagnosis of asthma and BHR and long-term follow-up. We assessed replication of the 25 top single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 2 independent cohorts (total n = 456), followed by expression quantitative loci (eQTL) analyses of the 4 replicated SNPs in lung tissue and epithelium.

RESULTS

Of the 790 asthmatics, 178 (23%) had ClinR and 55 ComR (7%) after median follow-up of 15.5 (range 3.3-47.8) years. In ClinR, 1 of the 25 SNPs, rs2740102, replicated in a meta-analysis of the replication cohorts, which was an eQTL for POLI in lung tissue. In ComR, 3 SNPs replicated in a meta-analysis of the replication cohorts. The top-hit, rs6581895, almost reached genome-wide significance (P-value 4.68 × 10^-7 ) and was an eQTL for FRS2 and CCT in lung tissue. Rs1420101 was a cis-eQTL in lung tissue for IL1RL1 and IL18R1 and a trans-eQTL for IL13.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

By defining a strict remission phenotype, we identified 3 SNPs to be associated with complete asthma remission, where 2 SNPs have plausible biological relevance in FRS2, CCT, IL1RL1, IL18R1 and IL13.

Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) and the evolution of asthma management within the GINA guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) annual report summarizes the latest evidence for asthma management. GINA recommends stepwise pharmacological treatment, advocating inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus rapid, long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) delivered in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief at Steps 3 (moderate persistent asthma requiring 1-2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), 4 (severe persistent asthma requiring ≥2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), and 5 (higher level care and/or add-on treatment). Areas covered: Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence demonstrate that flexibly dosed budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief (Symbicort® Maintenance And Reliever Therapy [SMART]) is associated with reductions in severe exacerbations, prolongs time to first exacerbation, and provides fast symptom relief. Expert commentary: SMART provides greater or equal levels of sustained asthma control than similar or higher fixed doses of ICS/LABA plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed or higher ICS plus SABA as needed, with lower overall ICS doses and cost. The simplified dosing strategy may improve adherence and overall asthma control but relies on patient education. Budesonide/formoterol as needed in mild asthma (patients qualifying for regular low-dose ICS) is currently under investigation in two double-blind randomized studies, SYGMA1/2 (NCT02149199/NCT02224157), comparing budesonide/formoterol as needed with budesonide plus SABA and SABA alone.

Combining genomewide association study and lung eQTL analysis provides evidence for novel genes associated with asthma

BACKGROUND

Genomewide association studies (GWASs) of asthma have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that modestly increase the risk for asthma. This could be due to phenotypic heterogeneity of asthma. Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is a phenotypic hallmark of asthma. We aim to identify susceptibility genes for asthma combined with BHR and analyse the presence of cis-eQTLs among replicated SNPs. Secondly, we compare the genetic association of SNPs previously associated with (doctor's diagnosed) asthma to our GWAS of asthma with BHR.

METHODS

A GWAS was performed in 920 asthmatics with BHR and 980 controls. Top SNPs of our GWAS were analysed in four replication cohorts, and lung cis-eQTL analysis was performed on replicated SNPs. We investigated association of SNPs previously associated with asthma in our data.

RESULTS

A total of 368 SNPs were followed up for replication. Six SNPs in genes encoding ABI3BP, NAF1, MICA and the 17q21 locus replicated in one or more cohorts, with one locus (17q21) achieving genomewide significance after meta-analysis. Five of 6 replicated SNPs regulated 35 gene transcripts in whole lung. Eight of 20 asthma-associated SNPs from previous GWAS were significantly associated with asthma and BHR. Three SNPs, in IL-33 and GSDMB, showed larger effect sizes in our data compared to published literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining GWAS with subsequent lung eQTL analysis revealed disease-associated SNPs regulating lung mRNA expression levels of potential new asthma genes. Adding BHR to the asthma definition does not lead to an overall larger genetic effect size than analysing (doctor's diagnosed) asthma.

The Asthma Control Questionnaire as a clinical trial endpoint: past experience and recommendations for future use

The goal of asthma treatment is to control the disease according to guidelines issued by bodies such as the Global Initiative for Asthma. Effective control is dependent upon evaluation of symptoms, initiation of appropriate treatment and minimization of the progressive adverse effects of the disease and its therapies. Although individual outcome measures have been shown to correlate with asthma control, composite endpoints are preferred to enable more accurate and robust monitoring of the health of the individual patient. A number of validated instruments are utilized to capture these component endpoints; however, there is no consensus on the optimal instrument for use in clinical trials. The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) has been shown to be a valid, reliable instrument that allows accurate and reproducible assessment of asthma control that compares favourably with other commonly used instruments. This analysis provides a summary of the use of ACQ in phase II, III and IV asthma trials. Comparisons between the ACQ and other instruments are also presented. Our analysis suggests that the ACQ is a valid and robust measure for use as a primary or secondary endpoint in future clinical trials.

Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of current maintenance strategies in preventing exacerbations of asthma.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane systematic reviews on chronic asthma, complemented by an updated search when appropriate. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TRIALS OF Adults with asthma randomised to maintenance treatments of at least 24 weeks duration and that reported on asthma exacerbations in full text. Low dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment was the comparator strategy. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations. The secondary outcome was the composite of moderate or severe exacerbations. The rate of withdrawal was analysed as a safety outcome.

RESULTS

64 trials with 59,622 patient years of follow-up comparing 15 strategies and placebo were included. For prevention of severe exacerbations, combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists as maintenance and reliever treatment and combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists in a fixed daily dose performed equally well and were ranked first for effectiveness. The rate ratios compared with low dose inhaled corticosteroids were 0.44 (95% credible interval 0.29 to 0.66) and 0.51 (0.35 to 0.77), respectively. Other combined strategies were not superior to inhaled corticosteroids and all single drug treatments were inferior to single low dose inhaled corticosteroids. Safety was best for conventional best (guideline based) practice and combined maintenance and reliever therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies with combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists are most effective and safe in preventing severe exacerbations of asthma, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports.

Development of a brief questionnaire (ICQ-S) to monitor inhaled corticosteroid side-effects in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Side-effect concerns impede adherence with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and often underlie poor asthma control. We developed a brief version (ICQ-S) of the 57-item Inhaled Corticosteroids side-effect Questionnaire (ICQ) to facilitate side-effect monitoring in busy clinics.

METHODS

Part 1: After completion by 482 patients with doctor-diagnosed asthma, each ICQ item underwent item reduction analysis. Part 2: Patients prescribed ICS for asthma completed the ICQ at baseline (BL), ICQ-S at day 14 (D14) and day 28 (D28), and 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ) at BL, D14 and D28. 14-day test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between ICQ-S scores and internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha (α) coefficient and item-total correlations of ICQ-S. Criterion validity was assessed by correlations (Spearman's rho) between ICQ and ICQ-S total score. Patients reported duration and difficulty of ICQ-S completion at D28.

RESULTS

Part 1: The ICQ-S consists of fifteen local/systemic ICS side-effects of similar range to the full ICQ. Part 2: 62 asthma patients (mean ACQ score 0.79 ± SD 0.83) prescribed daily ICS [BDP-equivalent median dose 1000 μg (IQR: 500, 1000)] participated. ICC between ICQ-S scores was 0.90. All item-total correlations were rho ≥ 0.20. The ICQ-S demonstrated criterion validity, for example, ICQ and ICQ-S were strongly associated (rho = 0.86). 81% of patients completed the ICQ-S within 5 minutes and 97% found completion 'not difficult'.

CONCLUSION

The ICQ-S is a brief, patient-friendly tool with good reliability and validity, which may be useful for monitoring ICS side-effects in clinical practice.

Step-down of budesonide/formoterol in early stages of asthma treatment leads to insufficient anti-inflammatory effect

OBJECTIVE

Administration of the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is the main treatment strategy for bronchial asthma. The ICS/LABA dosage can be reduced (stepped down) when the patient's symptoms and lung functions are well-controlled. In this study, we obtained fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurements to clarify whether the anti-inflammatory effect of budesonide/formoterol is shortened by step-down.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients who visited the Kawasaki Medical School Hospital with newly diagnosed asthma from November 2008 to July 2010 received budesonide/formoterol for 8 weeks or more. In 29 patients, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s% predicted increased to 80% or more, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score decreased to 0.5 or less within 12 weeks. These 29 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dosage-continued group (n = 14) and the step-down group (n = 15). Then, the impact of budesonide/formoterol step-down on ACQ score, pulmonary function and FeNO level was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

In the step-down group, the dosage was stepped down from 538 mcg/day to 331 mcg/day. In both groups, pulmonary function indicators and symptoms did not change. However, the mean FeNO level decreased significantly in the dosage-continued group (from 50.9 ppb to 45.0 ppb), and increased significantly in the step-down group (from 51.0 ppb to 65.7 ppb).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be more careful when stepping down budesonide/formoterol based solely on patients' symptoms and/or pulmonary function.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded.In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias).Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence).One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm).The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials.Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT.Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.

Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. However, often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov web site up to October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32; the large confidence interval translates into a risk of exacerbations in the intermittent ICS group varying between 17% and 25%, assuming a 19% risk with daily ICS). Age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β2-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, there was low quality evidence that intermittent and daily ICS strategies were similarly effective in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events. The strength of the evidence means that we cannot currently assume equivalence between the two options.. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. Clinicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in Asian patients (aged ≥16 years) with asthma: a sub-analysis of the COSMOS study

BACKGROUND

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), budesonide, and a rapid long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA), formoterol, in a single inhaler for use as maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™) effectively achieves a high level of asthma control and reduces exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalizations. The COSMOS study, a multinational, 12-month study (N = 2143), compared budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol, allowing physicians to modify maintenance doses of both combinations according to routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post hoc sub-group analysis of the COSMOS study is to provide focused data on budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol in patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled across Asian countries, specifically China, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

METHODS

This sub-analysis of the COSMOS study concerns all 404 randomized patients ≥16 years of age (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 69.1%) who were recruited from Asian countries. Patients received either budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™, n = 198), starting dose 160 mg/4.5 mg two inhalations twice daily (bid) [plus additional as-needed inhalations], or salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide(®) Diskus(®), n = 206), starting dose 50 mg/250 mg bid (plus salbutamol [Ventolin(®)] as needed). Maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks (budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus as needed, n = 198; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol, n = 206). To allow for free adjustment in maintenance doses in both arms, the trial was performed open-label; maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks. The time to first severe exacerbation (defined as deterioration in asthma resulting in hospitalization/emergency room treatment, oral corticosteroids for ≥3 days or unscheduled visit leading to treatment change) was the primary variable.

RESULTS

The time to first severe exacerbation was prolonged in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol (log-rank p = 0.024). The risk of a first exacerbation was reduced by 44% (hazard ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32, 0.95; p = 0.033) in patients using the adjusted budesonide/formoterol regimen versus titrated salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. The overall exacerbation rates were 0.16 versus 0.26 events/patient-year, respectively, with a 38% reduction (rate ratio 0.62/patient/year; 95% CI 0.41, 0.94; p = 0.024) in favour of the budesonide/formoterol regimen. Compared with baseline, both regimens provided clinically relevant improvements in asthma control, quality of life and FEV(1); no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. Mean adjusted (standard deviation) ICS dose (expressed as beclomethasone dose equivalents) during treatment, including as-needed budesonide doses, was 944 (281) and 1034 (394) μg/day, respectively, in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSION

In patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled from Asian countries as part of the COSMOS study, the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever regimen was associated with a lower future risk of exacerbations versus the physicians' free choice of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol. Single inhaler combination treatment with maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol was also at least as efficacious as salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol in improving current asthma control.

Canadian Thoracic Society 2012 guideline update: diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers, children and adults

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) published a Consensus Summary for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children six years of age and older, and adults, including an updated Asthma Management Continuum. The CTS Asthma Clinical Assembly subsequently began a formal clinical practice guideline update process, focusing, in this first iteration, on topics of controversy and⁄or gaps in the previous guidelines.

METHODS

Four clinical questions were identified as a focus for the updated guideline: the role of noninvasive measurements of airway inflammation for the adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy; the initiation of adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for uncontrolled asthma; the role of a single inhaler of an ICS⁄long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination as a reliever, and as a reliever and a controller; and the escalation of controller medication for acute loss of asthma control as part of a self-management action plan. The expert panel followed an adaptation process to identify and appraise existing guidelines on the specified topics. In addition, literature searches were performed to identify relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. The panel formally assessed and graded the evidence, and made 34 recommendations.

RESULTS

The updated guideline recommendations outline a role for inclusion of assessment of sputum eosinophils, in addition to standard measures of asthma control, to guide adjustment of controller therapy in adults with moderate to severe asthma. Appraisal of the evidence regarding which adjunct controller therapy to add to ICS and at what ICS dose to begin adjunct therapy in children and adults with poor asthma control supported the 2010 CTS Consensus Summary recommendations. New recommendations for the adjustment of controller medication within written action plans are provided. Finally, priority areas for future research were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The present clinical practice guideline is the first update of the CTS Asthma Guidelines following the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee's new guideline development process. Tools and strategies to support guideline implementation will be developed and the CTS will continue to regularly provide updates reflecting new evidence.