Bone mineral density and fracture risk with long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: We aimed to assess the association between long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and bone adverse effects in patients with asthma. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of fracture risk and changes in bone mineral density with long-term ICS use in asthma. Methods: We initially searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in July 2013, and performed an updated PubMed search in December 2014. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies of any ICS (duration at least 12 months) compared to non-ICS use in patients with asthma. We conducted meta-analysis of ORs for fractures, and mean differences in bone mineral density. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: We included 18 studies (7 RCTs and 11 observational studies) in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of observational studies did not demonstrate any significant association between ICS and fractures in children (pooled OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.10, two studies), or adults (pooled OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62, four studies). Three RCTs and three observational studies in children reported on bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, and our meta-analysis did not show significant reductions with ICS use. Three RCTs and four observational studies in adults reported on ICS use and bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and femur, with no significant reductions found in the meta-analysis compared to control. Conclusions ICS use for ≥12 months in adults or children with asthma was not significantly associated with harmful effects on fractures or bone mineral density

Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial

Background: Our professional development plan aimed to improve the primary care management of acute asthma, which is known to be suboptimal. Methods: We invited 59 general practices in Grampian, Scotland to participate. Consenting practices were randomised to early and delayed intervention groups. Practices undertook audits of their management of all acute attacks (excluding children under 5 years) occurring in the 3 months preceding baseline, 6-months and 12-months study time-points. The educational programme [including feedback of audit results, attendance at a multidisciplinary interactive workshop, and formulation of development plan by practice teams] was delivered to the early group at baseline and to the delayed group at 6 months. Primary outcome measure was recording of peak flow compared to best/predicted at 6 months. Analyses are presented both with, and without adjustment for clustering. Results: 23 consenting practices were randomised: 11 to early intervention. Baseline practice demography was similar. Six early intervention practices withdraw before completing the baseline audit. There was no significant improvement in our primary outcome measure (the proportion with peak flow compared to best/predicted) at either the 6 or 12 month time points after adjustment for baseline and practice effects. However, the between group difference in the adjusted combined assessment score, whilst non-significant at 6 months (Early: 2.48 (SE 0.43) vs. Delayed 2.26 (SE 0.33) p = 0.69) reached significance at 12 m (Early:3.60 (SE 0.35) vs. Delayed 2.30 (SE 0.28) p = 0.02). Conclusion: We demonstrated no significant benefit at the a priori 6-month assessment point, though improvement in the objective assessment of attacks was shown after 12 months. Our practice development programme, incorporating audit, feedback and a workshop, successfully engaged the healthcare team of participating practices, though future randomised trials of educational interventions need to recognise that effecting change in primary care practices takes time. Monitoring of the assessment of acute attacks proved to be a feasible and responsive indicator of quality care

Asthma-susceptibility variants identified using probands in case-control and family-based analyses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease whose genetic basis has been explored for over two decades, most recently via genome-wide association studies. We sought to find asthma-susceptibility variants by using probands from a single population in both family-based and case-control association designs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used probands from the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) in two primary genome-wide association study designs: (1) probands were combined with publicly available population controls in a case-control design, and (2) probands and their parents were used in a family-based design. We followed a two-stage replication process utilizing three independent populations to validate our primary findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that single nucleotide polymorphisms with similar case-control and family-based association results were more likely to replicate in the independent populations, than those with the smallest p-values in either the case-control or family-based design alone. The single nucleotide polymorphism that showed the strongest evidence for association to asthma was rs17572584, which replicated in 2/3 independent populations with an overall p-value among replication populations of 3.5E-05. This variant is near a gene that encodes an enzyme that has been implicated to act coordinately with modulators of Th2 cell differentiation and is expressed in human lung.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that using probands from family-based studies in case-control designs, and combining results of both family-based and case-control approaches, may be a way to augment our ability to find SNPs associated with asthma and other complex diseases.</p