Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma controller therapy

Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. METHODS: We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score =6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score =1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. RESULTS: Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group

Quantifying the real life risk profile of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD by record linkage analysis

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), especially when prescribed in combination with long-acting β(2) agonists have been shown to improve COPD outcomes. Although there is consistent evidence linking ICS with adverse effects such as pneumonia, the complete risk profile is unclear with conflicting evidence on any association between ICS and the incidence or worsening of existing diabetes, cataracts and fractures. We investigated this using record linkage in a Dundee COPD population. METHODS: A record linkage study linking COPD and diabetes datasets with prescription, hospitalisation and mortality data via a unique Community Health Index (CHI) number. A Cox regression model was used to determine the association between ICS use and new diabetes or worsening of existing diabetes and hospitalisations for pneumonia, fractures or cataracts after adjusting for potential confounders. A time dependent analysis of exposure comparing time on versus off ICS was used to take into account patients changing their exposure status during follow-up and to prevent immortal time bias. RESULTS: 4305 subjects (3243 exposed to ICS, total of 17,229 person-years of exposure and 1062 non exposed, with a follow-up of 4,508 patient-years) were eligible for the study. There were 239 cases of new diabetes (DM) and 265 cases of worsening DM, 550 admissions for pneumonia, 288 hospitalisations for fracture and 505 cataract related admissions. The hazard ratio for the association between cumulative ICS and outcomes were 0.70 (0.43-1.12), 0.57 (0.24-1.37), 1.38 (1.09-1.74), 1.08 (0.73-1.59) and 1.42 (1.07-1.88) after multivariate analysis respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of ICS in our cohort was not associated with new onset of diabetes, worsening of existing diabetes or fracture hospitalisation. There was however an association with increased cataracts and pneumonia hospitalisations

A randomized open-label trial on the use of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) as an alternative reliever medication for mild to moderate asthmatic attacks

BACKGROUND Conventionally, a nebulized short-acting β-2 agonist like salbutamol is often used as the reliever in acute exacerbations of asthma. However, recent worldwide respiratory outbreaks discourage routine use of nebulization. Previous studies have shown that combined budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®, AstraZeneca) is effective as both a maintenance and reliever anti-asthmatic medication. METHODS We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better. RESULTS Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse. CONCLUSION This study suggests that there is no statistical difference between using Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol as the reliever for the first 15 min post-intervention

Randomized Controlled Trial of Fish Oil and Montelukast and Their Combination on Airway Inflammation and Hyperpnea-Induced Bronchoconstriction

Both fish oil and montelukast have been shown to reduce the severity of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of fish oil and montelukast, alone and in combination, on airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction induced by eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) in asthmatics. In this model of EIB, twenty asthmatic subjects with documented hyperpnea-induced bronchoconstriction (HIB) entered a randomized double-blind trial. All subjects entered on their usual diet (pre-treatment, n = 20) and then were randomly assigned to receive either one active 10 mg montelukast tablet and 10 placebo fish oil capsules (n = 10) or one placebo montelukast tablet and 10 active fish oil capsules totaling 3.2 g EPA and 2.0 g DHA (n = 10) taken daily for 3-wk. Thereafter, all subjects (combination treatment; n = 20) underwent another 3-wk treatment period consisting of a 10 mg active montelukast tablet or 10 active fish oil capsules taken daily. While HIB was significantly inhibited (p0.017) between treatment groups; percent fall in forced expiratory volume in 1-sec was −18.4±2.1%, −9.3±2.8%, −11.6±2.8% and −10.8±1.7% on usual diet (pre-treatment), fish oil, montelukast and combination treatment respectively. All three treatments were associated with a significant reduction (p0.017) in these biomarkers between treatments. While fish oil and montelukast are both effective in attenuating airway inflammation and HIB, combining fish oil with montelukast did not confer a greater protective effect than either intervention alone. Fish oil supplementation should be considered as an alternative treatment for EIB

Association between reduced bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration and loss of alveolar attachments

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that the bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration is attenuated in individuals with COPD. This study was designed to investigate whether the impairment in this effect is associated with loss of alveolar attachments. METHODS: We measured deep inspiration (DI)-induced bronchodilation in 15 individuals with and without COPD (67 ± 2.2 yrs of age, mean ± SEM) undergoing lobar resection for peripheral pulmonary nodule. Prior to surgery, we measured TLCO and determined the bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration after constricting the airways with methacholine. The number of destroyed alveolar attachments, as well as airway wall area and airway smooth muscle area, were determined in tumor-free, peripheral lung tissue. RESULTS: The bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration correlated inversely with the % destroyed attachments (r = -0.51, p = 0.05) and directly with the airway smooth muscle area (r = 0.59, p = 0.03), but not with the total wall area (r = 0.39, p = 0.15). CONCLUSION: We postulate that attenuation of airway stretch due to loss of alveolar attachments contributes to the loss of the bronchodilatory effect of lung inflation in COPD

The role of γδ T cells in airway epithelial injury and bronchial responsiveness after chlorine gas exposure in mice

BACKGROUND: Acute exposure to chlorine (Cl(2)) gas causes epithelial injury and airway dysfunction. γδ T cells are present in the mucosal surface of the airways and may contribute to the injury/repair response of the epithelium. METHODS: C57Bl/6J (wild type) and TCR-δ(-/- )mice exposed to Cl(2 )(400 ppm) for 5 minutes underwent measurements of airway responses to i.v. methacholine (MCh) at 1, 3, and 5 days after exposure. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed to determine epithelial and leukocyte counts, and protein content. Tissue repair was assessed by proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) immunoreactivity and by expression of keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) mRNA by real-time PCR. RESULTS: Wild type mice developed a greater degree of airway hyperresponsiveness to MCh at 1 day post exposure to Cl(2 )compared with TCR-δ(-/- )mice. Epithelial cell counts in BAL after Cl(2 )exposure were greater in TCR-δ(-/- )mice, but macrophages showed a later peak and granulocyte numbers were lower in TCR-δ(-/- )than in wild type mice. Both groups had increased levels of total protein content in BAL after Cl(2 )exposure that resolved after 3 and 5 days, respectively. Epithelial proliferating cell nuclear antigen staining was increased at 1 and 3 days post exposure and was similar in the two groups. KGF mRNA was constitutively expressed in both groups and did not increase significantly after Cl(2 )but expression was lower in TCR-δ(-/- )mice. CONCLUSION: The severity of airway epithelial injury after Cl(2 )is greater in TCR-δ(-/- )mice but the inflammatory response and the change in airway responsiveness to methacholine are reduced. The rates of epithelial regeneration are comparable in both groups

Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provide similar rapid relief in patients with acute asthma showing refractoriness to salbutamol

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort(®)) with formoterol (Oxis(®)) in the treatment of patients with acute asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to short-acting β(2)-agonist therapy. METHODS: In a 3 hour, randomized, double-blind study, a total of 115 patients with acute asthma (mean FEV(1 )40% of predicted normal) and a refractory response to salbutamol (mean reversibility 2% of predicted normal after inhalation of 400 μg), were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 1280/36 μg]) or formoterol (9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 36 μg]). The primary efficacy variable was the average FEV(1 )from the first intake of study medication to the measurement at 90 minutes. Secondary endpoints included changes in FEV(1 )at other timepoints and change in respiratory rate at 180 minutes. Treatment success, treatment failure and patient assessment of the effectiveness of the study medication were also measured. RESULTS: FEV(1 )increased after administration of the study medication in both treatment groups. No statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was apparent for the primary outcome variable, or for any of the other efficacy endpoints. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for treatment success, treatment failure or patient assessment of medication effectiveness. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provided similarly rapid relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to a short-acting β(2)-agonist

Onset of relief of dyspnoea with budesonide/formoterol or salbutamol following methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction in adults with asthma: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: The long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) formoterol has an onset of effect comparable to that of salbutamol. Consequently, the combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler, approved for maintenance use, can potentially be used for reliever therapy. This study compared the onset of relief from induced bronchospasm with a single dose of budesonide/formoterol versus standard salbutamol therapy in patients with asthma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 32 patients with asthma underwent a methacholine provocation test leading to a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of ≥30% at enrolment (Visit 1) and three subsequent study visits (Visits 2–4). Immediately after each provocation at Visits 2–4, patients received one of three test treatments: one inhalation of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg (via Turbuhaler(®)), two inhalations of salbutamol 100 μg (via a pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI]) or placebo. All patients received each of the test treatments in a randomised order, after separate methacholine provocations. The effect of treatment on FEV(1 )and breathlessness (using the Borg scale) was measured at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after test treatment. RESULTS: Following methacholine provocation, Borg score increased from a baseline value of below 0.5 to 3.03, 3.31 and 3.50 before treatment with budesonide/formoterol, salbutamol and placebo, respectively. Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol reversed methacholine-induced dyspnoea (breathlessness) rapidly. At 1 minute after inhalation, statistically significant decreases in Borg score were observed for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol (p = 0.0233 and p < 0.0001, respectively, versus placebo), with similar rapid increases in FEV(1 )(both active treatments p < 0.0001 versus placebo). The median time to 50% recovery in Borg score after methacholine provocation was 3 minutes with budesonide/formoterol, 2 minutes with salbutamol and 10 minutes with placebo. All treatments and procedures were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Single doses of budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol both provided rapid relief of dyspnoea and reversal of severe airway obstruction in patients with asthma with experimentally induced bronchoconstriction. The perception of relief, as confirmed by objective lung function assessment, provides evidence that budesonide/formoterol can be used as reliever medication in asthma