Inhaled Corticosteroids Inhalers Research Articles

Low carbon footprint inhalers in England: a review of dispensing data

IntroductionDue to propellants, metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) have a higher carbon footprint than low carbon footprint inhalers (LCFIs), such as dry powder or soft mist inhalers (1). Consequently, pMDIs contribute 3.5% of the NHS’s CO2 equivalent emissions (2). Local and national guidelines (NICE, British Thoracic Society) have attempted to increase use of LCFIs, but their effects and factors influencing success are unknown.AimTo investigate temporal and geographical variation in LCFI dispensing in England over five years.MethodsClinical commissioning group (CCG) dispensed items (March 2016-February 2021) were obtained from openprescribing.net for five classes of inhaler where a choice between pMDIs and LCFIs is available: short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), ICS plus LABA inhalers (ICS/LABA) and ICS/LABA plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist inhalers (ICS/LABA/LAMA). CCG population age profiles were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. CCG emergency hospital admission and mortality rates were obtained from Public Health England. CCG formularies and guidelines were reviewed to identify where guidance is available to prescribers.To control for total inhaler dispensing, the key measure used is the %LCFI: the number of LCFI items dispensed relative to the total number of pMDI and LCFI items. Multivariate regression models were used to investigate geographical variation.ResultsThe total annual %LCFI increased from 19.5% to 26.3% over the study period. This was driven by the introduction of ICS/LABA/LAMA inhalers in 2018, as %LCFI decreased for SABA, ICS and ICS/LABA inhalers. %LCFI varied between classes. In the final year, it ranged from 6% for both SABA and ICS inhalers, to 41.2% and 43.9% for ICS/LABA and ICS/LABA/LAMA inhalers, respectively. Interestingly, the cost per item for ICS/LABA and ICS/LABA/LAMA inhalers was similar for both pMDIs and LCFIs, but for SABA and ICS inhalers LCFIs were more expensive.%LCFI in the final year varied between CCGs (10.7% to 30.9%). The North West, and Birmingham and London areas had consistently higher %LCFI for all classes. For SABA and ICS inhalers, both the presence of advice on climate change in CCG guidelines or formularies, and greater CCG asthma prevalence, were significantly associated with higher %LCFI (p<0.05). The proportion of CCG population <15 years had a significant negative association with %LCFI for ICS and ICS/LABA inhalers (p<0.05). There were no clinically significant associations between %LCFI and either emergency hospital admission or mortality rates.ConclusionCurrent initiatives have not been successful in increasing the use of LCFIs, indicating limited implementation of guidelines for unknown reasons. Further action is required to reduce the carbon footprint of inhaler prescribing. Actions to address the financial disincentives to LCFI prescribing, CCG leadership (e.g. guidelines) and the appropriate use of LCFI in young people should be considered. Research into facilitators and barriers to LCFI use would support this. An important limitation is the use of dispensed items data rather than the number of inhalers, although there is no evidence that the number of inhalers per item varies between pMDIs and LCFIs. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted prescribing patterns and long-term NHS projects.References(1) Wilkinson AJK, Braggins R, Steinbach I, Smith K. Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e028763.(2) Environmental Audit Committee. UK progress on reducing F-Gas emissions inquiry: Fifth report of session 2017-19. London (UK): House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee; 25 April 2018. Available from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/469/469.pdf: [Accessed 27 September 2021].

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma well controlled by LABA and inhaled corticosteroids.

Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved". To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication. We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA. Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events. Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5). This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.

Stepping down inhaled corticosteroid use in asthma ‐ who is responsible?

Asthma is a very common condition affecting 5.4 million people in the United Kingdom. Daily use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prevents acute exacerbations and reduces need of other inhalers (ie Salbutamol). They are however amongst the most expensive prescription medicines in the UK, bearing a substantial financial burden on the NHS. ICS use is also linked with a higher risk of side effects such as developing oral thrush. Guidelines published by NICE stress that apt patient education is one necessary component of managing asthma, to increase adherence to treatment and subsequently improve symptomatic control. To assess the degree of adherence to ICS treatment, the files of all asthmatic patients currently prescribed ICS were analyzed, focusing on regularity of dispensing medicines. The results showed that the vast majority of patients were using their ICS inhaler in an ad-hoc fashion and not as prescribed; concluding that these patients did not require their ICS inhalers (either entirely, or at their current dosages). A significant cause of this was identified as being a lack of, or poor use of, communication between the practitioner and patient at the time of prescribing. In conclusion, insufficient patient education at time of starting medicines leads to poor adherence to treatment and causes financial inefficiencies regarding prescribing, for any given practice. Patient understanding must always be gauged, at the time of starting ICS treatment, and thereon, during subsequent consultations. To aid this process, a patient information leaflet should be used as means of signposting for the practitioner and as a treatment record for the patient.

Combination corticosteroid/β-agonist inhaler as reliever therapy: A solution for intermittent and mild asthma?

The recommended treatment of mild asthma is regular maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with a short-acting β-agonist as a separate inhaler used when needed for symptom relief. However, the benefits of regular ICS use in actual clinical practice are limited by poor adherence and low prescription rates. An alternative strategy would be the symptom-driven (as-required or "prn") use of a combination ICS/short-acting β-agonist or ICS/long-acting β-agonist inhaler as a reliever rather than regular maintenance use. The rationale for this approach is to titrate both the ICS and β-agonist dose according to need and enhance ICS use in otherwise poorly adherent patients who overrely on their reliever β-agonist inhaler. This strategy will only work if the β-agonist component has a rapid onset of action for symptom relief. There is evidence to suggest that this regimen has advantages over regular ICS therapy and might represent an effective, safe, and novel therapy for the treatment of intermittent and mild asthma. In this commentary we review this evidence and propose that randomized controlled trials investigating different combination ICS/β-agonist inhaler products prescribed according to this regimen in intermittent and mild asthma are an important priority.

A self-rating scale for patient-perceived side effects of inhaled corticosteroids

BackgroundPatient-reported side effect questionnaires offer a simple method for the systematic measurement of drug-related side effects. In order to measure patients' inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) related side effect perceptions the 14-day retrospective Inhaled Corticosteroid Questionnaire (ICQ) was developed. In this research we aim to assess the construct validity and reliability of the ICQ and test its responsiveness to dose changes in adult asthma patients.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, current inhaler users with asthma completed the ICQ (27 with non ICS inhaler; 61 BDP equivalent daily ICS low dose ≤400 μg; 62 mid dose 401–800 μg; and 105 with high dose >800 μg). We generated 3 construct validity hypotheses: 1) a hierarchical dose-response pattern for scoring of the individual items on the ICQ, and statistically significant differences in the scores of each of the 15 ICQ domains by ICS dose group 2) an association between ICS dose and ICQ scoring after adjusting for appropriate confounders in multiple regression; 3) greater convergence between local side effect domains than between systemic and local domains of the scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed on a randomly selected subgroup of patients (n = 73) who also completed the ICQ a second time after 7 days. In a separate longitudinal study, 61 patients with asthma completed the ICQ at baseline and after changing their daily ICS dose, at 2- and 6- months, in order to test the ICQ's responsiveness.ResultsAll three construct validity hypotheses were well supported: 1) a statistically significant difference existed in scores for 14 domains, the high ICS dose group scoring highest; 2) ICS dose independently predicted ICQ scoring after adjusting for confounders; 3) greater convergence existed between local ICQ domains than between local and systemic domains. The ICQ had good reproducibility: test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥0.69 for all but the 'Facial Oedema' domain. In the longitudinal study, ICQ scores for 'Voice Problems' changed significantly at 2- and 6-months from baseline and other ICQ domains displayed trends in scoring change accordant with dose modulation at 6-months.ConclusionThe ICQ has good dose-related discriminative properties, is valid, reliable, and shows potential responsiveness to ICS dose change.