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

Psycho-educational interventions for adults with severe or difficult asthma: a systematic review.

types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; ReviewThis is the author's version of the work that was accepted for publication in the Journal of Asthma. The final version can be accessed via the DOI in this record.Research highlights psychosocial factors associated with adverse asthma events. This systematic review therefore examined whether psycho-educational interventions improve health and self-management outcomes in adults with severe or difficult asthma. Seventeen controlled studies were included. Characteristics and content of interventions varied even within broad types. Study quality was generally poor and several studies were small. Any positive effects observed from qualitative and quantitative syntheses were mainly short term and, in planned subgroup analyses (involving < 5 trials), effects on hospitalizations, quality of life, and psychological morbidity in patients with severe asthma did not extend to those in whom multiple factors complicate management.UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programm

Can asthma control be improved by understanding the patient's perspective?

Clinical trials show that asthma can be controlled in the majority of patients, but poorly controlled asthma still imposes a considerable burden. The level of asthma control achieved reflects the behaviour of both healthcare professionals and patients. A key challenge for healthcare professionals is to help patients to engage in self-management behaviours with optimal adherence to appropriate treatment. These issues are particularly relevant in primary care, where most asthma is managed. An international panel of experts invited by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group considered the evidence and discussed the implications for primary care practice

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. 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 six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma