Treatment Of Mild Persistent Asthma Research Articles

Comparison of the Effects of Beclomethasone Dipropionate and Budesonide in the Treatment of Children with Mild, Persistent Asthma.

ObjectiveTo compare the mean change in peak expiratory flow values in children receiving inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate versus inhaled budesonide in the treatment of mild persistent asthma.MethodThe medical records of 60 patients from the outpatient department (OPD)/emergency room (ER), National Institute of Child Health, Karachi, who received beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 200 µg one puff and budesonide (BUD) 200 µg one puff twice a day for treatment of mild persistent asthma from March 10, 2020, to August 10, 2020, were explored.ResultsThe mean age of children was 10.56 ± 3.01 years in the BUD group and 10.05 ± 3.54 years in the BDP group. The mean change in peak expiratory flow % in the BUD group was 15.69 ± 3.59%, and in the BDP group, it was 13.59 ± 4.26% (P-value=0.04)ConclusionBDP and budesonide (BUD) were both found to be effective for the treatment of mild persistent asthma in children. However, we found that BUD had better efficacy compared to BDP.

Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed for The Treatment of Mild Persistent Asthma

Objective: To summarize literature assessing the safety and efficacy of budesonide/formoterol, a low dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta agonist (LABA) used as needed for the treatment of adult patients with mild persistent asthma requiring step 2 therapy compared to low dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus short-acting beta agonist (SABA) and SABA monotherapy. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed (1966-October 2020), EMBASE (1973-October 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted using the following search terms: budesonide, formoterol, as needed, and mild asthma. Study selection and data extraction: Randomized, controlled trials with data describing as needed use of budesonide-formoterol in the treatment of mild, persistent asthma were included. Data synthesis: Current trials demonstrate a reduced risk of exacerbation and an improvement in symptom control in patients receiving budesonide/formoterol as needed when compared to as needed SABA alone. However, when compared to scheduled budesonide maintenance, patients receiving budesonide/formoterol as needed experienced worse symptom control and mixed exacerbation results. Relevance to patient care and clinical practice: This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol as needed for patients with mild asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), a global strategy for asthma management and prevention adopted this change in 2019, and the most recent updated Expert Panel Report 4 of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) did not address this area. Conclusions: Based on this review of the literature, further study is needed to determine the place in therapy for budesonide/formoterol as needed in the treatment of mild persistent asthma. Low-dose ICS should remain the standard of therapy in patients with mild asthma requiring Step 2 therapy.

Multidisciplinary consensus on inhaled therapy in asthma

ABSTRACT Background Asthma is managed by health professionals from different specialties. We aim to reach a consensus on the optimal use of inhaled therapy and the initial steps of asthma treatment, taking into account the opinions of the involved specialists. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used. A scientific committee provided 52 controversial statements, which were submitted to primary care physicians, allergists, and pulmonologists. Discrepancies among specialties were evaluated. Results A total of 209 specialists completed the questionnaire (20.2 ± 9.3 years of asthma management experience). A consensus was reached on 37 statements (71.1%), discrepancies among specialties were found in 14. The most recommended maintenance treatment for mild persistent asthma in adults/adolescents was low-dose-inhaled corticosteroids daily. MART (Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) was recommended as salvage treatment for moderate persistent asthma. Panelists agreed on the most frequent critical errors with pressurized Metered-Dose Inhalers or Dry-Powder Inhalers, and considered that Breath-Actuated Inhalers are a suitable option for all patients with the ability to inhale voluntarily. Conclusions The experts endorse the main guidelines recommendations; however, do not fully agree on recent GINA recommendations about the treatment of the initial steps of the disease. The experts value positively the differential characteristics of BAI over other devices.

Association Between Inhaled Corticosteroid Use and Bone Fracture in Children With Asthma

Daily use of inhaled corticosteroids is a widely recommended treatment for mild persistent asthma in children. There is concern that, similar to systemic corticosteroids, inhaled corticosteroids may have adverse effects on bone health. To determine whether there is an increased risk of bone fracture associated with inhaled corticosteroid use in children with asthma. In this population-based nested case-control study, we used health administrative databases to identify a cohort of children aged 2 to 18 years with a physician diagnosis of asthma between April 1, 2003, and March 31, 2014, who were eligible for public drug coverage through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program (Ontario, Canada). We matched cases of first fracture after asthma diagnosis to fracture-free controls (ratio of 1 to 4) based on date of birth (within 1 year), sex, and age at asthma diagnosis (within 2 years). We used a 1-year lookback period to ascertain history of inhaled corticosteroid use. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to obtain an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval for fracture, comparing no inhaled corticosteroid use vs current, recent, and past use. Inhaled corticosteroid use during the child's 1-year lookback period, measured as current user if the prescription was filled less than 90 days prior to the index date, recent user (91-180 days), past user (181-365 days), or no use. First emergency department visit for fracture after asthma diagnosis, identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes. This study included 19 420 children (61.0% male; largest proportion of children, 31.5%, were aged 6-9 years at their index date). The multivariable regression results did not show a significant association between first fracture after asthma diagnosis and current use (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.17), recent use (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07), or past use (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) of inhaled corticosteroids, compared with no use, while adjusting for sociodemographic factors and other medication use. However, use of systemic corticosteroids in the 1-year lookback period resulted in greater odds of fracture (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33). Systemic corticosteroids, but not inhaled corticosteroids, were significantly associated with increased odds of fracture in the pediatric asthma population.

Physicians' preference for controller medication in mild persistent asthma.

Although the asthma guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids(ICS) or leukotriene receptor antagonists-(LTRAs) for the treatment of mild persistent asthma, factors governing the physicians' preference are unknown. We aimed to investigate the preference of physicians for the controller medication and the factors governing their choice. A self-administered questionnaire composed of 16 questions that aimed to determine the preference of the physicians for the first choice controller medication in mild persistent asthma and physician and patient related factors that may be associated with this selection was e-mailed to the members of the Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and distributed to participants in the 21st congress. Of the 670 questionnaires, there were 51% participants and 336 of them were complete enough to be included in the analysis. Low dose ICS was preferred as the first choice controller medication for mild persistent asthma by 84.5% of the physicians. The reasons for physicians' preference were different for ICS and LTRA. In the logistic regression analysis, use of asthma guidelines (OR:3.5, 95%CI:1.3-9.3, p=0.01), alignment in guidelines (OR:2.9, 95%CI:1.4-5.8, p=0.002) and the opinion that it is a more effective (OR:2.3, 95%CI:1.1-4.8, p=0.02) were independently associated with ICS preference. Being a pediatrician (OR:5.4, 95%CI: 2.7-10.5, p<0.001) and the opinion that it has better patient compliance (OR:4.4, 95%CI: 1.6-12.0, p=0.004) were independently associated with LTRA preference. Surveyed Turkish physicians, the majority of whom were specialists, preferred ICS over LTRA as controller medication in mild persistent asthma. Asthma guidelines, training background (pediatrician versus not) and perceived efficacy and patient compliance appeared to influence their preferences.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of traditional Chinese medicine as an add-on therapy to oral montelukast in the treatment of mild persistent asthma in children

ObjectivesTraditional Chinese medicine are commonly used for treatment of asthma. However, there are only very limited data about its efficacy in children. Therefore, we aimed to determine the efficacy of augmented Yu Ping Feng San (aYPFS) as an add-on to oral montelukast compared with montelukast alone for treatment of mild persistent asthma in children. DesignA single centre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized control trial was carried out. Participants with age 6–18 years who had mild persistent asthma were randomized according to random number list to receive either aYPFS plus montelukast for 24 weeks or placebo plus montelukast for 24 weeks. Primary outcome measure was lung function parameters. Secondary outcome measures were Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and Paediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ) scores, symptom-free days, short-acting β2-agonist use, use of rescue oral corticosteroids, days of hospitalization for asthma and number of emergency consultation with GPs or AED department. ResultsTwenty-eight participants were randomized to aYPFS group and twenty-nine to placebo group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. There was significant improvement in ACT™ score in aYPFS group (up to 6.9% change from baseline) (p=0.016) but not in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in other primary and secondary outcome parameters. Dropout because of adverse effects is comparable in both groups. ConclusionTraditional Chinese medicine aYPFS as an add-on to montelukast improved symptoms of asthma control. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in childhood asthma.

Daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroid treatment for mild persistent asthma

Guidelines recommend the use of daily inhaled corticosteroids as preferred treatment for preschoolers, children, adolescents, and adults with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma. However, intermittent or as-needed inhaled corticosteroids treatment in response to symptoms is an emerging strategy. This review is focused on the analysis (clinical efficacy and safety) of this approach in comparison with the current daily-based therapy. Recently, some authors favored the use of inhaled corticosteroids based on symptoms. It has been suggested that a symptom-based approach could reduce the amount of drug used, minimize the risk of adverse events, and reduce healthcare costs. In contrast, physicians prescribing intermittent inhaled corticosteroids would give the wrong message to their patients about the chronicity of the disease. Currently, there is a significant body of high-quality clinical studies and systematic reviews that have addressed this important controversy, and whose analysis allows us to extract some important conclusions. Present evidence does not support a change in the direction of an intermittent or symptom-based use approach for recurrent wheezing and mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. At this point, there is no convincing basis to alter the current strategy to inhaled corticosteroids dosing, and more studies are needed comparing these two approaches.

Asthma Treatment Decisions by Pediatric Residents Do Not Consistently Conform to Guidelines or Improve With Level of Training

ObjectiveTo compare asthma treatment decisions by pediatric residents to current asthma guidelines and to learn whether treatment decisions vary by postgraduate year in training. MethodsWe conducted a Web-based survey of residents from 10 training programs through the Continuity Research Network of the Academic Pediatric Association (CORNET). Surveys included 6 vignettes of patients receiving low-dose inhaled steroids with guideline- and non-guideline-based indicators of asthma status and 1 stable patient on high-intensity medication. ResultsThere were 369 resident respondents (65% response rate), 26% postgraduate year (PGY) 1, 38% PGY2, and 36% PGY3+. Seventy-five percent of each resident group reported seeing fewer than 1 asthma patient per continuity clinic session. A majority of residents made appropriate treatment recommendations in 2 of 4 vignettes of guideline-based indicators of asthma status: first, 97% overall stepping up treatment for mild persistent asthma; and second, 52% overall stepping down treatment for a patient with well-controlled asthma on high-intensity medications. Inconsistent with guideline recommendations, 82% of residents overall did not step down treatment for a patient with well-controlled asthma receiving low-intensity therapy; 75% of residents did not step up treatment for a patient with a recent hospitalization for asthma. Of the 3 vignettes evaluating non-guideline-based indicators of asthma status, a majority of residents (60%) stepped up treatment for parental reports of worse asthma, while a minority did so for a parental report of being bothered by their child's asthma (27%) or when wheezing was reported at physical examination (43%). There were no statistically significant differences for any of the comparisons by year in training. ConclusionsPediatric residents' management of asthma is consistent with national guidelines in some cases but not in others. There were no differences in the outpatient asthma management decisions between residents by years in training. Educational efforts should be focused on strategies to facilitate pediatric resident adherence to national asthma guideline recommendations for outpatient asthma management.

Montelukast versus Budesonide as a First Line Preventive Therapy in Mild Persistent Asthma in 2 to 18 y

To compare the efficacy of oral Montelukast and inhaled Budesonide as a first line preventive therapy in mild persistent asthma in age group 2-18 y. This prospective randomized controlled clinical study was conducted for 12 wk. Sixty patients of mild persistent asthma aged 2 to 18 y were randomly allocated to either oral Montelukast (n = 60) or inhaled Budesonide (n = 60) group. Outcomes measured were improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume 1s/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), day time and night time symptoms and frequency of exacerbations and need to change medications. There was significant improvement in PEFR, FEV1/FVC, day time and night time symptoms and frequency of exacerbations in both groups. However, more significant improvement in FEV1/FVC (CI 95%, p = 0.029) and day time symptoms (CI 95%, p = 0.002) was seen in Budesonide group compared to Montelukast group. The present study suggests that oral Montelukast is not inferior to Budesonide in treatment of mild persistent asthma in 2 to 18 y children in terms of control of symptoms and improvement in pulmonary function tests over a 12 wk period. However, there was more significant improvement in day time symptoms, more significant increase in FEV1/FVC ratio and less exacerbation in patients receiving Budesonide compared to those receiving Montelukast. However, side effects due to long term use of steroids such as growth stunting and bone osteopenia should also be considered before recommending. Trial registered at CTRI no. REF/2012/09/004035.

Asthma Therapy in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review of Treatment With Montelukast Versus Inhaled Corticosteroids

IntroductionInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a first-line treatment for mild persistent asthma, but montelukast (MON) monotherapy also has been beneficial. The aim of this review is to evaluate current evidence comparing MON versus ICS monotherapy in pediatric patients. MethodA systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of mild to moderate persistent asthma in which MON was compared with ICS monotherapy in children aged 2 to 18 years. PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Institute of Scientific Information's Web of Knowledge were searched using key words asthma, MON, and ICS. Studies that met inclusion criteria were appraised for quality. ResultsOf 214 identified studies, eight met inclusion criteria and seven were deemed high quality. Study sample sizes ranged from 62 to 994, 88% were multi-site, and the average length of follow-up was 8.2 months. Asthma symptoms improved with both therapies. Four studies reported superiority of ICS compared with MON; the remaining studies showed no differences between therapies. DiscussionThese results are consistent with the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (2007) recommendation that ICS therapy should be first-line treatment in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

Effects of Low-Dose Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Combination Therapy on Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Nitrite/Nitrate in Breath Condensates from Patients with Mild Persistent Asthma

Objective. The long-acting β2-agonist salmeterol in combination with the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate is used in clinical practice for the treatment of mild persistent asthma. Although the effect of fluticasone propionate alone in asthmatic patients is well documented, the effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) combination therapy on airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is not well characterized. Thus, we evaluated AHR, exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), and nitrite and nitrate in exhaled breath condensates (EBCs) from mild persistent asthmatic patients treated with a low-dose FSC (100/50). Methods. In this open label study, 18 mild persistent, steroid-naïve asthmatics (age, 22–62 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) > 70% predicted, provocative dose resulting in 20% reduction (PD20) < 10 mg/mL) were treated with FSC 100/50 for 4 weeks. PD20 to methacholine, FEV1, FENO, and EBC nitrite and nitrate was measured before and after treatment. Results. After 4 weeks of therapy with FSC 100/50, FENO decreased from 74 ppb (SD = 37) to 34 ppb (SD = 15) (p < .001). FEV1 (% predicted) increased from 89.4 (SD = 10.7) to 93.3 (SD = 9.5) (p < .01). The PD20 for methacholine increased from 3.0 (±3.2) to 10.3 (±8.4) mg/mL (p < .01) in 3 of 18 patients reaching the maximum allowable dose (25 mg/mL). FENO correlated with the log of the methacholine dose. There was no statistically significant change in EBC nitrite and nitrate before and after treatment. Conclusions. Treatment of mild persistent, steroid-naïve asthmatics with low-dose combination therapy is effective in rapidly reducing airway inflammation and AHR. Our results suggest different metabolic origins for nitrite, nitrate, and FENO in this group of patients.

Use of beclomethasone dipropionate as rescue treatment for children with mild persistent asthma (TREXA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Daily inhaled corticosteroids are an effective treatment for mild persistent asthma, but some children have exacerbations even with good day-to-day control, and many discontinue treatment after becoming asymptomatic. We assessed the effectiveness of an inhaled corticosteroid (beclomethasone dipropionate) used as rescue treatment. In this 44-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we enrolled children and adolescents with mild persistent asthma aged 5-18 years from five clinical centres in the USA. A computer-generated randomisation sequence, stratified by clinical centre and age group, was used to randomly assign participants to one of four treatment groups: twice daily beclomethasone with beclomethasone plus albuterol as rescue (combined group); twice daily beclomethasone with placebo plus albuterol as rescue (daily beclomethasone group); twice daily placebo with beclomethasone plus albuterol as rescue (rescue beclomethasone group); and twice daily placebo with placebo plus albuterol as rescue (placebo group). Twice daily beclomethasone treatment was one puff of beclomethasone (40 μg per puff) or placebo given in the morning and evening. Rescue beclomethasone treatment was two puffs of beclomethasone or placebo for each two puffs of albuterol (180 μg) needed for symptom relief. The primary outcome was time to first exacerbation that required oral corticosteroids. A secondary outcome measured linear growth. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00394329. 843 children and adolescents were enrolled into this trial, of whom 288 were assigned to one of four treatment groups; combined (n=71), daily beclomethasone (n=72), rescue beclomethasone (n=71), and placebo (n=74)-555 individuals were excluded during the run-in, according to predefined criteria. Compared with the placebo group (49%, 95% CI 37-61), the frequency of exacerbations was lower in the daily (28%, 18-40, p=0·03), combined (31%, 21-43, p=0·07), and rescue (35%, 24-47, p=0·07) groups. Frequency of treatment failure was 23% (95% CI 14-43) in the placebo group, compared with 5·6% (1·6-14) in the combined (p=0·012), 2·8% (0-10) in the daily (p=0·009), and 8·5% (2-15) in the rescue (p=0·024) groups. Compared with the placebo group, linear growth was 1·1 cm (SD 0·3) less in the combined and daily arms (p<0·0001), but not the rescue group (p=0·26). Only two individuals had severe adverse events; one in the daily beclomethasone group had viral meningitis and one in the combined group had bronchitis. Children with mild persistent asthma should not be treated with rescue albuterol alone and the most effective treatment to prevent exacerbations is daily inhaled corticosteroids. Inhaled corticosteroids as rescue medication with albuterol might be an effective step-down strategy for children with well controlled, mild asthma because it is more effective at reducing exacerbations than is use of rescue albuterol alone. Use of daily inhaled corticosteroid treatment and related side-effects such as growth impairment can therefore be avoided. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

Mometasone furoate vs fluticasone propionate with salmeterol: multivariate analysis of resource use and asthma-related charges

Objective:Although current National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines indicate low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy as the preferred treatment for patients with mild persistent asthma, many patients receive ICS and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. The objective of the current study was to evaluate asthma-related charges in patients with mild asthma who began treatment with mometasone furoate (MF) versus those who began treatment with a fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS) combination.Research design and methods:This retrospective administrative claims database analysis collected data from the 365-day periods before (preindex period) and after (postindex period) the study index date from patients with mild asthma aged 12 to 65 years who began treatment with MF or FPS. Asthma-related inpatient, outpatient, pharmaceutical, and total charges; exacerbations; short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) canister claims; and adherence to therapy were assessed. Matched cohorts of MF and FPS patients were compared using multivariate generalized linear regression models.Results:Among matched MF (n = 4094) and FPS (n = 4094) cohorts, MF patients had significantly lower postindex asthma-related total charges ($2136 vs $2315, respectively; P = 0.0003), lower pharmaceutical charges ($727 vs $925, respectively; P < 0.0001), fewer exacerbations (0.14 vs 0.16, respectively; P = 0.0306), fewer SABA canister claims (0.9 vs 1.0, respectively; P < 0.0001), and greater adherence measured by prescription fills (3.0 vs 2.8, respectively; P < 0.0001). Asthma-related inpatient charges, outpatient charges, and adherence measured by percent of days covered were not significantly different between treatment cohorts. Limitations included a lack of additional ICS and ICS/LABA therapies, a lack of pediatric patients, and the general limitations associated with retrospective database analyses (e.g., no patient records).Conclusions:These data suggest that MF may be more cost-effective than FPS for the treatment of mild asthma. To effectively and efficiently manage asthma, it is important for clinicians to follow current NAEPP guidelines, which indicate ICS monotherapy as preferred treatment for mild persistent asthma.

Treatment of mild persistent asthma by cutaneous electronic stimulation

To the Editors: The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has emphasised the importance of assessing control in response to treatment in grading asthma severity 1. However, many asthma patients are inadequately controlled despite conventional treatment. GINA also recognises a potential role for complementary medicine in asthma management 1. FenzianTM (Eumedic Ltd, Hungerford, UK) is a device that provides low current cutaneous electronic stimulation (CES) and is Food and Drug Administration licensed under the category of minimal risk (Device # 21 FR 882.5890) for biofeedback and treatment of pain. Biofeedback might influence bronchial smooth muscle constriction or perception of asthma control. We examined the hypothesis that CES, added to conventional treatment over 6 weeks, improves asthma control, pulmonary function, symptoms and reliance on rescue bronchodilator therapy in patients with persistent asthma. In total, 20 subjects were recruited (nine males and 11 females), aged 18–65 yrs with a clinical history of mild-to-moderate persistent asthma for ≥3 months 2 and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) between 50% of predicted and the lower limit of normal 3. They reported using short-acting bronchodilator therapy on ≥4 days in 2 weeks. Their treatment regimen …

Rates of asthma attacks in patients with previously inadequately controlled mild asthma treated in clinical practice with combination drug therapy: an exploratory post-hoc analysis

BackgroundDifferences could exist in the likelihood of asthma attacks in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), and montelukast (MON) (ICS/LABA/MON) and patients treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and montelukast (MON) (ICS/MON).MethodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of a pretest-posttest retrospective cohort study. Patients with mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, who were taking an ICS either alone or in combination with a LABA, started concomitant MON treatment as part of their routine care. Rates of asthma- and allergic rhinitis-related medical resource use in the 12-months after the initial (index) MON prescription were compared in the ICS/MON and ICS/LABA/MON groups. An asthma attack was defined as an asthma-related hospitalization, ER visit, or use of an oral corticosteroid.ResultsOf the total of 344 patients, 181 (53%) received ICS/MON and 163 (47%) received ICS/LABA/MON in the post-index period for means of 10.5 and 11.4 months, respectively, (P < 0.05). Short-acting beta-agonists were used by 74.6% in the ICS/MON and 71.8% in the ICS/LABA/MON groups (P > 0.05). An asthma attack occurred in 4.4% of the ICS/MON group and 6.8% of the ICS/LABA/MON group (P > 0.05). The adjusted odds of an asthma attack in the post-index period in the ICS/LABA/MON group relative to the ICS/MON group was 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.35–4.44.ConclusionIn this observational study of combination drug treatment of mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, no difference was observed between LABA/ICS/MON combination therapy and the ICS/MON combination without LABA use, for the rate of asthma attacks over one year.

Recommendations for treatment of intermittent mild persistent asthma in children and adolescents

Many parents and caretakers of children and adolescents with mild persistent asthma (MPA) do not follow proposed guidelines, namely the daily and continuous administration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Instead, parents and caretakers tend to use ICS and bronchodilators intermittently for short periods and restart such therapy only when symptoms reappear. It is our opinion that intermittent treatment of MPA in children and adolescents might achieve the same level of asthma control as has been achieved in adults. We propose, therefore, that after an initial period of stabilization with age-appropriate doses of oral glucocorticoids or high-dose ICS and short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABA), caretakers can stop treatment once there are no longer signs or symptoms of asthma. When asthmatic symptoms recur, treatment should be restarted with ICS and SABA, or oral corticosteroids if the exacerbation is severe. The perception of developing asthma symptoms remains an unsolved problem. Based on our clinical experience in children and adolescents with asthma, we list a number of signs and symptoms that precede an exacerbation of asthma, allowing for an early re-introduction of treatment to prevent an exacerbation.

Treatment strategies in mild asthma

More than 10 years ago the category of mild asthma was split into mild intermittent and mild persistent asthma and maintenance therapy with low dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was recommended for mild persistent asthma. The threshold for instituting regular ICS therapy was arbitrarily chosen, in the absence of clinical studies specifically addressing this issue. The results of recent trials have questioned the assumption that all patients at the mild end of the asthma severity spectrum should be committed to regular anti-inflammatory treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. As a consequence, the identification of the relevant outcomes for the treatment of mild persistent asthma has become a matter of discussion, which has provided the rationale to test the efficacy and well tolerance of new strategies, other than guidelines-recommended regular low-dose ICS, for the treatment of mild persistent asthma. Several approaches have been evaluated with some promising results, to include the combination of ICS and long-acting b2-agonists, oral leukotriene antagonists, and the intermittent or as-needed use of ICS in the absence of regular treatment. Conversely, little effort has been made to evaluate therapeutic options other than as-needed bronchodilation in mild intermittent asthma.

A retrospective study of the use of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination as initial asthma controller therapy in a commercially insured population

Background: Asthma management guidelines state that a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is the preferred treatment for mild persistent asthma and that coadministration of a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) should be reserved for patients whose asthma is uncontrolled by single-entity ICS. However, it appears that many patients in the United States with mild persistent asthma are initially treated with combinations of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS).Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether use of FPS was consistent with asthma management guidelines.Methods: A commercial insurance database was analyzed retrospectively to identify patients aged 12 to 62 years who had ≥1 pharmacy claim for FPS between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2006. An index date corresponding to the date of the first FPS pharmacy claim was assigned to each patient. Medical and pharmacy claims data were analyzed for the 365-day period before the index date (preindex period). The severity of patients' asthma was inferred from their history of claims. Patients were identified as having more severe asthma if, during the preindex period, they either received >365 doses of short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs), an oral corticosteroid (OCS), or an emergency department (ED) asthma visit with an OCS prescription, or were hospitalized for their asthma.Results: Among 87,459 patients with new FPS claims, 60.8% were female, and the mean age was 37.3 years. Of these patients, 60,453 (69.1%) had no preindex ICS pharmacy claim or claims that would indicate moderate or severe asthma. In the preindex period, only 6.3% had received an ICS, 7.4% had >365 SABA doses, 22.7% had used an OCS, 1.1% had an ED visit with an OCS prescription, and 1.5% had been hospitalized.Conclusion: More than two thirds of the patients who initiated FPS treatment had neither received an ICS prescription before their first FPS pharmacy claim nor had evidence of asthma severity that would appear to warrant the use of an ICS/LABA combination.

Treatment of mild persistent asthma

There are several treatment options available for patients who have mild persistent asthma. After being shown a typical case study and three possible treatment options, three respiratory specialists each selected a different option. The options were: using a combination beclometasone/albuterol inhaler on an as-needed basis; daily treatment with an oral leukotriene receptor antagonist together with asneeded use of a short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) inhaler; and using a combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist inhaler once-daily together with as-needed SABA. The evidence for each option is reviewed in the light of recent research.

Inhaled corticosteroids or montelukast as the preferred primary long-term treatment for pediatric asthma?

According to current guidelines, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred primary long-term treatment for asthmatic children of all age groups, but leukotriene receptor antagonists can be considered to be an alternative treatment for mild persistent asthma. In this article, all randomized double-blind efficacy studies comparing the long-term (>4-week) treatment using a leukotriene receptor antagonist with an inhaled corticosteroid in asthmatic children were critically reviewed. In school-aged children, five reports with an adequate study design were available. All of these studies compared montelukast with inhaled fluticasone. The meta-analysis of the two main outcome measures, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (weighted mean difference, 4.6% predicted, 95% confidence interval: 3.5-5.5) and asthma control days (respectively, 5.6%, 4.3-6.9) demonstrated the superiority of fluticasone over montelukast. Many other clinical and pulmonary outcomes also consistently showed that low-dose inhaled fluticasone was more effective than montelukast in the long-term management of mild to moderate persistent asthma. A more favorable response to fluticasone over montelukast was associated with more severe disease or markers of allergic inflammation. About a quarter of patients benefited more from montelukast than fluticasone. In children under school age, no comparative studies were available. However, long-term montelukast treatment was found to be effective in placebo-controlled studies in asthmatic children aged >2 years. These findings support the present international recommendations for ICS as the preferred first-line controller therapy for mild to moderate persistent childhood asthma. If montelukast is selected as a monotherapy and asthma is not adequately controlled within 4-6 weeks, the treatment should be discontinued and the preferred medication initiated.