[Environment-related contact allergies].

W. Straff,A. Schnuch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S00103-006-0010-Z

2006-08-01

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Treatment of Pediatric Mild Persistent Asthma with Low-Dose Budesonide Inhalation Suspension Vs.montelukast in China

Chen Zhi-Min,Zhao De-Yu,Xiang Li,Hong Jian-Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-021-00464-7

2021-01-01

World Journal of Pediatrics

Abstract:There are limited studies comparing budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) with montelukast in real-world settings where treatment adherence and persistency may be suboptimal. This real-world study aims to investigate the control effectiveness of montelukast or BIS as a monotherapy in Chinese children with mild asthma. Data were derived from a retrospective questionnaire-based analysis of 2‒14-year-old children with mild persistent asthma, who received either 500 µg of BIS (n = 153) or 4‒5 mg of montelukast (n = 240) once daily. The indicators of asthma control, the Asthma Control Test (ACT)/Childhood ACT (C-ACT) score, and the asthma-related medical costs were assessed. The differences between the two groups were compared using an unpaired t-test (normally distributed), Mann–Whitney U test (non-normally distributed) or chi-squared test (categorical variables). Medication compliance in the past 3-month period was better in the montelukast group than in the BIS group (P = 0.042). The montelukast group exhibited better asthma control in the past 4-week period, including lower percentages of asthmatic children with symptoms more than twice a week (P = 0.021), had night waking or night coughing (P = 0.022), or required reliever medication more than twice a week (P < 0.001). The montelukast group had a lower percentage of children with an ACT/C-ACT score ≤ 19 (P = 0.015). Caregivers reported a significantly better exercise tolerance in the children who received montelukast vs. BIS in the past 12 months (P < 0.001). Significantly higher medical expenditures attributable to asthma in the past 12 months were observed in the BIS group vs. montelukast group (P < 0.001). Both treatments provided acceptable overall asthma control in children with mild persistent asthma; however, more reliever medication and more medical expenditures attributable to asthma were needed for BIS vs. montelukast in real-world settings, where factors such as compliance were also taken into account.
Different oral corticosteroid regimens for acute asthma

Rebecca Normansell,Kayleigh M Kew,George Mansour

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011801.pub2

2016-05-13

Abstract:Background: Asthma is a common long-term breathing condition that affects approximately 300 million people worldwide. People with asthma may experience short-term worsening of their asthma symptoms; these episodes are often known as 'exacerbations', 'flare-ups', 'attacks' or 'acute asthma'. Oral steroids, which have a potent anti-inflammatory effect, are recommended for all but the most mild asthma exacerbations; they should be initiated promptly. The most often prescribed oral steroids are prednisolone and dexamethasone, but current guidelines on dosing vary between countries, and often among different guideline producers within the same country. Despite their proven efficacy, use of steroids needs to be balanced against their potential to cause important adverse events. Evidence is somewhat limited regarding optimal dosing of oral steroids for asthma exacerbations to maximise recovery while minimising potential side effects, which is the topic of this review. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of any dose or duration of oral steroids versus any other dose or duration of oral steroids for adults and children with an asthma exacerbation. Search methods: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. This search was up to date as of April 2016. Selection criteria: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated one dose or duration of oral steroid versus any other dose or duration, for management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies involving both adults and children with asthma of any severity, in which investigators analysed adults and children separately. We allowed any other co-intervention in the management of an asthma exacerbation, provided it was not part of the randomised treatment. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias; all data were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion with the third review author or with an external advisor.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model, and we carried out a fixed-effect analysis if we detected statistical heterogeneity. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. Main results: We included 18 studies that randomised a total of 2438 participants - both adults and children - and performed comparisons of interest. Included studies assessed higher versus lower doses of prednisolone (n = 4); longer versus shorter courses of prednisolone (n = 3) or dexamethasone (n = 1); tapered versus non-tapered courses of prednisolone (n = 4); and prednisolone versus dexamethasone (n = 6). Follow-up duration ranged from seven days to six months. The smallest study randomised just 15 participants, and the largest 638 (median 93). The varied interventions and outcomes reported limited the number of meaningful meta-analyses that we could perform.For two of our primary outcomes - hospital admission and serious adverse events - events were too infrequent to permit conclusions about the superiority of one treatment over the other, or their equivalence. Researchers in the included studies reported asthma symptoms in different ways and rarely used validated scales, again limiting our conclusions. Secondary outcome meta-analysis was similarly hampered by heterogeneity among interventions and outcome measures used. Overall, we found no convincing evidence of differences in outcomes between a higher dose or longer course and a lower dose or shorter course of prednisolone or dexamethasone, or between prednisolone and dexamethasone.Included studies were generally of reasonable methodological quality. Review authors assessed most outcomes in the review as having low or very low quality, meaning we are not confident in the effect estimates. The predominant reason for downgrading was imprecision, but indirectness and risk of bias also reduced our confidence in some estimates. Authors' conclusions: Evidence is not strong enough to reveal whether shorter or lower-dose regimens are generally less effective than longer or higher-dose regimens, or indeed that the latter are associated with more adverse events. Any changes recommended for current practice should be supported by data from larger, well-designed trials. Varied study design and outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Greater emphasis on palatability and on whether some regimens might be easier to adhere to than others could better inform clinical decisions for individual patients.
Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Intermittent Oral Corticosteroid Prescribing Patterns in Asthma

Trung Tran,Heath Heatley,Arnaud Bourdin,Andrew Menzies-Gow,David Jackson,Ekaterina Maslova,Jatin Chapaneri,William Henley,Victoria Carter,Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan,Cono Ariti,John Haughney,David Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s452305

2024-06-21

Journal of Asthma and Allergy

Abstract:Trung N Tran, 1 Heath Heatley, 2 Arnaud Bourdin, 3 Andrew Menzies-Gow, 4, 5 David J Jackson, 6 Ekaterina Maslova, 5 Jatin Chapaneri, 5 William Henley, 2, 7 Victoria Carter, 2 Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan, 2 Cono Ariti, 2 John Haughney, 8, 9 David Price 2, 9 1 BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2 Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 3 Department of Respiratory Diseases, PhyMedExp, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 4 Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals and School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; 5 BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 6 Guy's Severe Asthma Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; 7 Department of Health and Community Sciences University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK; 8 NHS Clinical Research Facilities, Glasgow, UK; 9 Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Correspondence: David Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num06-76, Midview City, 573969, Singapore, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email Purpose: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use for asthma is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, no study has investigated this in relation to patterns of intermittent OCS prescription. Methods: This historical UK cohort study used primary care medical records, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, from 2008 to 2019, of patients (≥ 4 years old) with asthma prescribed intermittent OCS. Patients were categorized by OCS prescribing pattern (one-off [single], less frequent [≥ 90-day gap] and frequent [< 90-day gap]) and matched 1:1 (by sex, age and index date) with people never prescribed OCS with/without asthma. HCRU (reported as episodes, except for length of hospital stay [days] and any prescription [records]) and associated costs were compared between intermittent OCS and non-OCS cohorts, and among intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Results: Of 149,191 eligible patients, 50.3% had one-off, 27.4% less frequent, and 22.3% frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Annualized non-respiratory HCRU rates were greater in the intermittent OCS versus non-OCS cohorts for GP visits (5.93 vs 4.70 episodes, p < 0.0001), hospital admissions (0.24 vs 0.16 episodes, p < 0.0001), and length of stay (1.87 vs 1.58 days, p < 0.0001). In the intermittent OCS cohort, rates were highest in the frequent prescribing group for GP visits (7.49 episodes; p < 0.0001 vs one-off), length of stay (2.15 days; p < 0.0001) and any prescription including OCS (25.22 prescriptions; p < 0.0001). Mean per-patient non-respiratory related and all-cause HCRU-related costs were higher with intermittent OCS than no OCS (£ 3902 vs £ 2722 and £ 8623 vs £ 4929, respectively), as were mean annualized costs (£ 565 vs £ 313 and £ 1526 vs £ 634, respectively). A dose–response relationship existed; HCRU-related costs were highest in the frequent prescribing cohort (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Intermittent OCS use and more frequent intermittent OCS prescription patterns were associated with increased HCRU and associated costs. Improved asthma management is needed to reduce reliance on intermittent OCS in primary care. Keywords: asthma, costs, healthcare resource utilization, intermittent, oral corticosteroids Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are recommended by major treatment guidelines and recommendations, such as those from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), for the management of asthma exacerbations. 1 Use of OCS, including short-term or periodic (<5 mg/day/year) for the management of asthma is associated with an increased risk of short- and long-term adverse outcomes and premature death, compared with non-use of OCS. 2–4 We previously demonstrated that this association is consistent across age, asthma severity (GINA treatment step) and prior inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance or short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) reliever use. 5 Our data also showed an association between one-off use of OCS and a significantly increased risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes versus non-OCS use. 5 Despite this increased risk for adverse outcomes, the limited use recommended by guidelines, and the availability of novel therapies for the chronic treatment of asthma, recent data suggest that OCS are still -Abstract Truncated-

immunology,allergy,respiratory system
Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yuji Oba,Sumayya Anwer,Tarang Patel,Tinashe Maduke,Sofia Dias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013797.pub2

2023-08-21

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022. Selection criteria: We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration. Data collection and analysis: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe). Main results: We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity. Authors' conclusions: The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.
Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children

Kayleigh M Kew,Charlotta Karner,Stephanie M Mindus,Giovanni Ferrara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009019.pub2

IF: 8.4

2013-12-16

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids.OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol).DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality).MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12.

medicine, general & internal
Real-world use of inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol as needed in adults with mild asthma: the PRIME study

Guy Brusselle,Francesco Blasi,Christian Gessner,Piotr Kuna,Peter Wark,Glauco Cappellini,Emilie Oosterom,Marielle Van Der Deijl,Enrica Bucchioni,Eva Topole

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00174-2024

2024-09-30

Abstract:Introduction: Inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol fumarate (ICS/FF) as needed is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) as sole therapy in adults with mild asthma, with low-dose maintenance ICS plus short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) as an alternative. SABA alone is no longer recommended. Given these changes in recommendations, the observational PRIME study aimed to describe real-world treatment patterns in mild asthma in Europe. Methods: Adults with asthma receiving low-dose maintenance ICS, or as needed ICS/FF or SABA were followed for 6 months. Data collected included Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire 5-item (ACQ-5), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and asthma exacerbations. Results: The study was conducted in 883 patients in Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain; 833 (94.3%) completed follow-up. At enrolment, 32.2% received maintenance ICS, 56.3% ICS/FF as needed and 11.6% SABA as needed; 57.4%, 61.2% and 54.9%, respectively, had well-controlled asthma (ACQ-5/ACT definition). After 6 months, changes in mean FEV1 were small in the maintenance ICS and ICS/FF as needed groups, whereas there was a decline in FEV1 in the SABA as needed group. ACQ-5 total score improved from baseline in all three groups; 0.4%, 0.4% and 2.0% patients, respectively, had a severe exacerbation during the study. Conclusions: More patients received ICS/FF as needed than SABA as needed, suggesting that physicians are aware of the latest treatment recommendations. This real-world study provides additional support to the use of ICS/FF as needed as preferred treatment for patients with mild asthma, whereas SABA as needed was associated with a fall in lung function and more severe exacerbations.
Intravenous methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone combined with inhaled budesonide in acute severe pediatric asthma

Prabhavathi Gummalla,Diana Weaver,Youssef Ahmed,Vikas Shah,Michael Keenaghan,Sule Doymaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2020.1808988

Abstract:Introduction: Corticosteroids are important part of acute severe asthma (ASA) management in pediatric intensive care units. Few studies look at the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in critical care settings. We aimed to investigate the potential beneficial effects of ICS when added to intravenous corticosteroids in pediatric patients with ASA admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial involving pediatric patients aged 1-21 years admitted to PICU with ASA. Patients were randomized into 2 groups using block randomization. Patients in Group A received intravenous methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day) alone and patients in Group B received intravenous methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day) plus budesonide nebulization (0.5 mg every 12 h). Main outcomes were duration of continuous albuterol treatment, PICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and need and duration of respiratory support. Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, in which a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Duration of continuous albuterol treatment was not different between the 2 groups median/(QR), 30/(18-51) vs. 25/(14-49). (p = 0.38) PICU and hospital LOS between the 2 groups was similar, median/(QR), 44/(30-64) vs. 46/(30-62), (p = 0.75) and 78/(65-95) vs.72/(58-92), (p = 0.19). Number of patients requiring respiratory support was 22(58%) in Group A and 25(64%) in Group B (p = 0.19). Conclusions: In critically ill children with ASA, intravenous methylprednisolone combined with inhaled budesonide did not shorten the duration of continuous albuterol inhalation treatment, the PICU and hospital LOS, and the need for respiratory support.
Can energy transfer be an indicator for DNA intercalation?

K. Hyun,S. Choi,S. Lee,S. Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4165(96)00111-0

1997-03-15

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:
Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment on 15-Year Longitudinal Respiratory Function Changes in Adult Patients with Bronchial Asthma

Terufumi Shimoda,Yasushi Obase,Reiko Kishikawa,Tomoaki Iwanaga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000353910

2013-01-01

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Bronchial asthma is mainly controlled by inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment, and discontinuation of ICS treatment can worsen asthma symptoms and reduce respiratory function. However, the longitudinal impact of ICS on lung function in adult patients is unknown.METHODS: To determine whether regular ICS treatment can prevent long-term lung function deterioration in adults with bronchial asthma, we recruited 167 adult asthma patients who first visited Fukuoka National Hospital in 1995 and underwent lung function tests in 1995, 1996 and 2010. Regular ICS treatment was continued in 102 patients (regular group), while 39 patients received irregular ICS treatment (irregular group). Changes in lung function were compared retrospectively between the groups. The influences of smoking, disease severity and disease duration were also analyzed.RESULTS: The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) values increased in the regular group 1 year after the initiation of therapy, but they decreased in the irregular group. At year 15, the predicted FEV₁% had decreased significantly more in the irregular group than in the regular group (p < 0.05); FEV₁ decreased by 28.2 ml/year (SD 24.5) in the regular group and by 44.6 ml/year (32.5) in the irregular group (p < 0.05). The decrease in FEV₁ was greater in smokers than in nonsmokers, despite regular ICS treatment, and it was significantly greater in patients with severe asthma than in those with mild or intermittent disease. Delay in ICS initiation also affected the annual FEV₁ decrease.CONCLUSIONS: Regular ICS, introduced early when symptoms are mild, could prevent lung function from worsening significantly. Smoking should be strongly discouraged in asthma patients.

immunology,allergy
Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

Andrea Georgiou,Reshma Ramesh,Peter Schofield,Patrick White,Timothy H Harries

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S436525

2024-06-21

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. It should only be prescribed to COPD patients who are not adequately controlled by dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy and who have ≥2 exacerbations per year and a blood eosinophil count ≥300cells/µL. ICS therapy is widely prescribed outside guidelines to COPD patients, making ICS withdrawal an important consideration. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the effect of ICS withdrawal on exacerbation frequency, change in lung function (FEV1) and to determine the proportion of COPD patients who resume ICS therapy following withdrawal. Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which compared ICS withdrawal with ICS continuation treatment were included. Cochrane Central, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase and OVID Medline were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quality assessment of RCTs was conducted using GRADE. Meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses of RCTs of ICS withdrawal, stratified by blood eosinophil count (BEC), was undertaken. Results: Ten RCTs (6642 patients randomised) and 6 observational studies (160,029 patients) were included in the results. When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS withdrawal and continuation trial arms. The evidence for these effects was of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion on the proportion of patients who resumed ICS therapy following withdrawal (estimated range 12-93% of the participants). Discussion: Withdrawal of ICS therapy from patients with COPD is safe and feasible but should be accompanied by maintenance of bronchodilation therapy for optimal outcomes.
The Follow-Up Study of Stepping Down Inhaled Corticosteroids in Childhood Asthma

sharon kling,r p gie

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective To explore the course of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)in moderate to severe childhood asthma, assess the possibility of successful withdrawal of ICS following a good control. Methods There 84 children (5~12 years old)with moderate to severe asthma were allocated to receive budesonide dry power 400μg/d or 600μg/d,depending on the age,once achieved asthma control for a period,ICS reduced 50% to a maintenance level,later the dosage was reduced by 50~100μg at intervals of 3 months,then followed by 24 months. Results The initial period on a high dose was 5.7 months (4~10 months),the mean total duration of treatment was 26.4 months(20~39 months)。of the 62 children who successfully withdrawaled,51(82.3%)remained well,9(14.5%)had mild episodes of wheezing,2(3.2%)had troublesome recurrences。 Numbers(%)of patients with asthma exacerations and related events as visit to emergency department ,absece from school, admission to hospital are all lower than pretherapy (χ2=58.899,73.255,94.891,4.2799; P0.001 or P0.05). Conclusion Children with asthma who require moderate to high dosage ICS once achieving good control for more than 3 months,ICS can be reduced by 50% . It is possible to withdraw ICS in a significant proportion asthmatic children who has been on a maintence dose for a considerable period.
Short- and medium-term effect of inhaled corticosteroids on exhaled breath biomarkers in severe asthma

Max Wilkinson,Brian Keevil,Rob Niven,Stephen J Fowler,Fahad Alahmadi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/ac7a57

2022-06-21

Journal of Breath Research

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of therapy in asthma, but benefits vary due to disease heterogeneity. Steroid insensitivity is a particular problem in severe asthma, where patients may require systemic corticosteroids and/or biologics. Biomarkers sensitive to ICS over a short period of time could inform earlier and more personalised treatment choices. Objective: To investigate how exhaled breath biomarkers change over two-hours and one-week following monitored ICS dosing in severe asthma patients with evidence of uncontrolled airway inflammation. Method: Patients with severe asthma and elevated FeNO (≥45ppb, indicative of active airway inflammation) were recruited. Exhaled breath biomarkers were evaluated using fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), exhaled breath temperature (EBT), particles in exhaled breath (PExA) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Samples were collected over 2 hrs following observed inhalation of 1000mcg fluticasone propionate, and at a second visit 1 week after taking the same dose daily via an inhaler monitoring device that recorded correct actuation and inhalation. Changes in parameters over 2 hrs were analysed by the Friedman test and 1 week by Wilcoxon's test (p-value for significance set at 0.05; for VOCs false discovery rate q of 0.1 by Benjamini–Hochberg method applied). Results: 17 participants (9 male) were recruited with median (IQR) age 45 (36-59) yrs. EBT (p<0.05) and levels of six VOCs (q<0.1) fell over the 2 hrs after high dose ICS; there were no changes in FeNO or PEXA. After one week of using high dose ICS, there were falls in FeNO, EBT and two VOCs (p<0.05), but no changes in PEXA. Conclusion: Reduction in exhaled breath temperature over the short and medium term after high dose ICS may reflect airway vascular changes, and this, together with the observed changes in exhaled VOCs, merits further investigation as potential markers of inhaled corticosteroid use and effectiveness.

biochemical research methods,respiratory system
Assessing The Mean Reversion Behavior Of Fiscal Policy: The Case Of Asian Countries

Evan Lau,A. Z. Baharumshah

2005-04-01

Abstract:Maintaining sustainable fiscal policy has been increasingly important in the scope of economists and the policy makers as the key requirement of macroeconomic stability and sustainability of an economy. Without exception, the issue of fiscal sustainability also being in the spotlight for the developing countries especially in Asian, after the financial shock in 1997. Motivated by this development, this paper test the mean-reverting behavior of fiscal position by adopting families of univariate and panel unit root tests for the panel of ten Asian countries. Univariate unit root tests indicates that the fiscal position follows a non-stationary process of I(1) while mean reverting property were detected when we adopt the commonly used panel unit roots techniques. By utilizing the series-specific panel unit root test developed by Breuer et al. (2002, SURADF) that allows one to test for the presence of non-stationarity within individual cross sectional of the panel, we found that four out of ten countries in the panel are stationary suggesting little evidence of fiscal sustainability in Asian. These results also confirm the complexity properties of the panel data.
Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Daniel G Rayner,Dario M Ferri,Gordon H Guyatt,Paul M O'Byrne,Romina Brignardello-Petersen,Farid Foroutan,Bradley Chipps,Kaharu Sumino,Tamara T Perry,Sharmilee Nyenhuis,John Oppenheimer,Elliot Israel,Flavia Hoyte,Katherine Rivera-Spoljaric,Ellen McCabe,Susana Rangel,Lindsay E Shade,Valerie G Press,Lisa Hall,Dia Sue-Wah-Sing,Angel Melendez,Hilarry Orr,Tonya Winders,Donna D Gardner,Kathyrn Przywara,Matthew A Rank,Leonard B Bacharier,Giselle Mosnaim,Derek K Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.22700

IF: 11.816

2024-10-28

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective: To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study selection: Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main outcomes and measures: Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results: A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and relevance: In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.
Observational UK cohort study to describe intermittent oral corticosteroid prescribing patterns and their association with adverse outcomes in asthma

Heath Heatley,Trung N Tran,Arnaud Bourdin,Andrew Menzies-Gow,David J Jackson,Ekaterina Maslova,Jatin Chapaneri,Derek Skinner,Victoria Carter,Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan,Con Ariti,John Haughney,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2022-219642

2022-12-27

Thorax

Abstract:Introduction Oral corticosteroids (OCS) for asthma are associated with increased risks of developing adverse outcomes (adverse outcomes); no previous study has focused exclusively on intermittent OCS use. Methods This historical (2008–2019) UK cohort study using primary care medical records from two anonymised, real-life databases (OPCRD and CPRD) included patients aged≥4 years with asthma receiving only intermittent OCS. Patients were indexed on their first recorded intermittent OCS prescription for asthma and categorised by OCS prescribing patterns: one-off (single), less frequent (≥90 day gap) and frequent (<90 day gap). Non-OCS patients matched 1:1 on gender, age and index date served as controls. The association of OCS prescribing patterns with OCS-related AO risk was studied, stratified by age, Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2020 treatment step, and pre index inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) prescriptions using a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model. Findings Of 476 167 eligible patients, 41.7%, 26.8% and 31.6% had one-off, less frequent and frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns, respectively. Risk of any AO increased with increasingly frequent patterns of intermittent OCS versus non-OCS (HR; 95% CI: one-off 1.19 (1.18 to 1.20), less frequent 1.35 (1.34 to 1.36), frequent 1.42 (1.42 to 1.43)), and was consistent across age, GINA treatment step and ICS and SABA subgroups. The highest risks of individual OCS-related adverse outcomes with increasingly frequent OCS were for pneumonia and sleep apnoea. Conclusion A considerable proportion of patients with asthma receiving intermittent OCS experienced a frequent prescribing pattern. Increasingly frequent OCS prescribing patterns were associated with higher risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Mitigation strategies are needed to minimise intermittent OCS prescription in primary care.

respiratory system
Intermittent prophylactic antibiotics for bronchiectasis.

Sally Spencer,Tim Donovan,James D Chalmers,Alexander G Mathioudakis,Melissa J McDonnell,Anthony Tsang,Peter Leadbetter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013254.pub2

IF: 8.4

2022-01-07

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Bronchiectasis is a common but under‐diagnosed chronic disorder characterised by permanent dilation of the airways arising from a cycle of recurrent infection and inflammation. Symptoms including chronic, persistent cough and productive phlegm are a significant burden for people with bronchiectasis, and the main aim of treatment is to reduce exacerbation frequency and improve quality of life. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy aims to break this infection cycle and is recommended by clinical guidelines for adults with three or more exacerbations a year, based on limited evidence. It is important to weigh the evidence for bacterial suppression against the prevention of antibiotic resistance and further evidence is required on the safety and efficacy of different regimens of intermittently administered antibiotic treatments for people with bronchiectasis. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intermittent prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted searches on 6 September 2021, with no restriction on language of publication. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration comparing an intermittent regime of prophylactic antibiotics with placebo, usual care or an alternate intermittent regimen. Intermittent prophylactic administration was defined as repeated courses of antibiotics with on‐treatment and off‐treatment intervals of at least 14 days' duration. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis confirmed by high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), plain film chest radiograph, or bronchography and a documented history of recurrent chest infections. We excluded studies where participants received high dose antibiotics immediately prior to enrolment or those with a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), primary ciliary dyskinesia, hypogammaglobulinaemia, sarcoidosis, or a primary diagnosis of COPD. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. We did not exclude studies on the basis of review outcomes. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or relative risk (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted GRADE assessments for the following primary outcomes: exacerbation frequency; serious adverse events and secondary outcomes: antibiotic resistance; hospital admissions; health‐related quality of life. We included eight RCTs, with interventions ranging from 16 to 48 weeks, involving 2180 adults. All evaluated one of three types of antibiotics over two to six cycles of 28 days on/off treatment: aminoglycosides, ß‐lactams or fluoroquinolones. Two studies also included 12 cycles of 14 days on/off treatment with fluoroquinolones. Participants had a mean age of 63.6 years, 65% were women and approximately 85% Caucasian. Baseline FEV 1 ranged from 55.5% to 62.6% predicted. None of the studies included children. Generally, there was a low risk of bias in the included studies. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 14 days on/off. Ciprofloxacin reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared to placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; I 2 = 65%; 2 studies, 469 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), with eight people (95% CI 6 to 28) needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome. The intervention increased the risk of antibiotic resistance more than twofold (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.35; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 624 participants; high‐certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, lung function (FEV 1 ), health‐related quality of life, and adverse effects did not differ between groups. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 28 days on/off. Antibiotics did not reduce overall exacerbation frequency (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1695 participants; high‐certainty evidence) but there were fewer severe exacerbations (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; I 2 = 54%; 3 studies, 624 participants), though this should be interpreted with caution due to low event rates. The risk of antibiotic resistance was more than twofold higher based on a pooled analysis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.42; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 685 participants; high‐certainty evidence) and consistent with unpooled data from four further studies. Serious adverse events, time to first exacerbation, duration of exacerbation, respiratory‐related hospital admissions, lung function, health‐related quality of life and adverse effects did not differ between study -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids from patients with COPD with mild or moderate airflow limitation in primary care: a feasibility randomised trial

Timothy H Harries,Gill Gilworth,Christopher J Corrigan,Patrick Murphy,Nicholas Hart,Mike Thomas,Patrick T White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001311

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently prescribed outside guidelines to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with mild/moderate airflow limitation and low exacerbation risk. This primary care trial explored the feasibility of identifying patients with mild/moderate COPD taking ICS, and the acceptability of ICS withdrawal. Methods: Open feasibility trial. Outcome measures included prevalence of suitable participants, feasibility of their identification, their willingness-to-accept open randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation over 6 months follow-up. Results: 392 (13%) of 2967 patients with COPD from 20 practices (209 618 population) identified as eligible for ICS withdrawal by electronic search algorithm. After individual patient record review, 243 (62%) were excluded because of: severe airflow limitation (65, 17%); one or more severe or two or more moderate COPD exacerbations in the previous year (86, 22%); asthma (15, 4%); and severe comorbidities (77, 20%). After exclusion, 149 patients with COPD were invited to participate and 61 agreed to randomisation. At clinical assessment, 10 patients exhibited undocumented airflow reversibility (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) reversibility >12% and >200 mL); 2 had suffered two or more undocumented, moderate exacerbations in the previous year; 7 had severe airflow limitation; and 2 had normal spirometry. Finally, 40 were randomised. One patient died and one was lost to follow-up. 18 (45%) of the 38 (10 withdrawal and 8 usual care) exhibited previously undocumented FEV1 variability suggestive of asthma, supported in the withdrawal group by significant associations with elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide (p=0.04), elevated symptom score (p=0.04), poorer quality of life (p=0.04) and atopic status (p=0.01). Conclusions: Identifying primary care patients with mild/moderate COPD suitable for ICS withdrawal is feasible but requires real-time verification because of unreliable recording of exacerbations and lung function. Suitable patients accepted randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation for the purposes of future studies. Follow-up compliance was high. Nearly 50% of participants with a diagnosis of mild/moderate COPD demonstrated previously undocumented FEV1 variability during follow-up, mandating monitoring for at least 6 months following withdrawal to exclude undiagnosed asthma.
Inhaled Budesonide vis-à-vis Inhaled Mometasone in Chinese Children with Mild Persistent Asthma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study

Pei Gao,Ying Ding,Bingru Yin,Haoxiang Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000518733

IF: 3.4293

Pharmacology

Abstract:Introduction: A very limited option of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is approved for pediatric use in China because in children the use of ICSs for long periods is associated with dose-dependent growth reduction. Due to the lack of consensus on which is the best ICS-based treatment option to manage mild persistent asthma in children, the present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide (BUD)-based therapy vis-à-vis mometasone-based therapy in children with mild persistent asthma. Methods: A single-center, retrospective study was conducted in asthmatic children aged between 6 and 11 years. BUD and mometasone furoate (MF) were administered as per the approved dosing regimen using pressurized metered-dose inhalers via oral inhalation route for a period of 12 weeks. The study outcome was assessed in terms of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), symptom scores, and nonoccurrence of side effects. Results: Among the 77 asthmatic children, 71 completed the study treatment and were used in carrying out the analysis. The improvement of spirometric parameters like FEV1, Tiffeneau-Pinelli index (FEV1/forced vital capacity [FVC]), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) values observed in the MF cohort was significantly greater than those of the BUD cohort (p < 0.05 for all). An increase of approximately 12%/child was observed for FEV1/FVC ratios for the BUD cohort and MF cohorts. After the 12-week study, the PEFm and PEFe values increased to about 50 L/min/child for the BUD cohort and about 98 L/min/child for the MF cohort. During the study, no asthma exacerbation event was observed in the MF cohort, whereas 1 child in the BUD cohort had asthma exacerbation in week 4. The use of rescue medication during the study was required for 16.2 and 6% of children, respectively, for BUD and MF cohorts. Owing to low dosing frequency, MF could provide a better treatment approach than BUD due to improved patient compliance. Conclusions: Although both drugs showed improvement in the quality of life of asthmatic children with manageable treatment-emergent adverse effects, the improvement was augmented in MF-treated children. Level of evidence: The level of evidence was III. Technical Efficacy Stage: The technical efficacy stage was 4.
Efficacy of oral corticosteroids for acute preschool wheeze: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Bohee Lee,Steve Turner,Meredith Borland,Péter Csonka,Jonathan Grigg,Theresa W Guilbert,Tuomas Jartti,Abraham Oommen,Jonathan Twynam-Perkins,Steff Lewis,Steve Cunningham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(24)00041-9

IF: 102.642

2024-03-23

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract:Summary Background Oral corticosteroids are commonly used for acute preschool wheeze, although there is conflicting evidence of their benefit. We assessed the clinical efficacy of oral corticosteroids by means of a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Methods In this systematic review with IPD meta-analysis, we systematically searched eight databases (PubMed, Ovid Embase, CINAHLplus, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov , EudraCT, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO Clinical Trials Registry) for randomised clinical trials published from Jan 1, 1994, to June 30, 2020, comparing oral corticosteroids with placebo in children aged 12 to 71 months with acute preschool wheeze in any setting based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes framework. We contacted principal investigators of eligible studies to obtain deidentified individual patient data. The primary outcome was change in wheezing severity score (WSS). A key secondary outcome length of hospital stay. We also calculated a pooled estimate of six commonly reported adverse events in the follow-up period of IPD datasets. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses employing a random-effects model were used. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020193958. Findings We identified 16 102 studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and June 30, 2020, from which there were 12 eligible trials after deduplication and screening. We obtained individual data from seven trials comprising 2172 children, with 1728 children in the eligible IPD age range; 853 (49·4%) received oral corticosteroids (544 [63·8%] male and 309 [36·2%] female) and 875 (50·6%) received placebo (583 [66·6%] male and 292 [33·4%] female). Compared with placebo, a greater change in WSS at 4 h was seen in the oral corticosteroids group (mean difference –0·31 [95% CI –0·38 to –0·24]; p=0·011) but not 12 h (–0·02 [–0·17 to 0·14]; p=0·68), with low heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 =0%; τ 2 <0·001). Length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the oral corticosteroids group (–3·18 h [–4·43 to –1·93]; p=0·0021; I 2 =0%; τ 2 <0·001). Subgroup analyses showed that this reduction was greatest in those with a history of wheezing or asthma (–4·54 h [–5·57 to –3·52]; p interaction =0·0007). Adverse events were infrequently reported (four of seven datasets), but oral corticosteroids were associated with an increased risk of vomiting (odds ratio 2·27 [95% CI 0·87 to 5·88]; τ 2 <0·001). Most datasets (six of seven) had a low risk of bias. Interpretation Oral corticosteroids reduce WSS at 4 h and length of hospital stay in children with acute preschool wheeze. In those with a history of previous wheeze or asthma, oral corticosteroids provide a potentially clinically relevant effect on length of hospital stay. Funding Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Strategies to Prevent Asthma Exacerbations and Increase Symptom-Free Days in Asthmatic Children: A Network Meta-Analysis

Yile Zhao,Sheng Han,Jinxin Shang,Xizi Zhao,Run Pu,Luwen Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02770903.2015.1014101

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma. Methods: A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (<= 18 years) of >= 4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome. Results: Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12 010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium-or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant. Conclusions: Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium-or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

[Environment-related contact allergies].

Treatment of Pediatric Mild Persistent Asthma with Low-Dose Budesonide Inhalation Suspension Vs.montelukast in China

Different oral corticosteroid regimens for acute asthma

Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Intermittent Oral Corticosteroid Prescribing Patterns in Asthma

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children

Real-world use of inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol as needed in adults with mild asthma: the PRIME study

Intravenous methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone combined with inhaled budesonide in acute severe pediatric asthma

Can energy transfer be an indicator for DNA intercalation?

Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment on 15-Year Longitudinal Respiratory Function Changes in Adult Patients with Bronchial Asthma

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

The Follow-Up Study of Stepping Down Inhaled Corticosteroids in Childhood Asthma

Short- and medium-term effect of inhaled corticosteroids on exhaled breath biomarkers in severe asthma

Assessing The Mean Reversion Behavior Of Fiscal Policy: The Case Of Asian Countries

Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Observational UK cohort study to describe intermittent oral corticosteroid prescribing patterns and their association with adverse outcomes in asthma

Intermittent prophylactic antibiotics for bronchiectasis.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids from patients with COPD with mild or moderate airflow limitation in primary care: a feasibility randomised trial

Inhaled Budesonide vis-à-vis Inhaled Mometasone in Chinese Children with Mild Persistent Asthma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study

Efficacy of oral corticosteroids for acute preschool wheeze: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Effectiveness of Drug Treatment Strategies to Prevent Asthma Exacerbations and Increase Symptom-Free Days in Asthmatic Children: A Network Meta-Analysis