Fluticasone propionate in children with moderate asthma. A pilot prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of bilevel positive airway pressure in acute asthmatic attack.
Inhaled corticosteroids are considered to be effective and safe to treat children with asthma. These drugs, often used as maintenance treatment, can, however, influence the HPA-axis, which might be reflected by the serum and urine cortisol concentration. The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 microg administered twice a day via a Diskhaler for 3 mo. FP was tested in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled parallel trial in a group of 34 children with moderate asthma who did not use inhaled steroids for at least 4 wk prior to the study. At home, symptoms and peak flow recordings (PEFR) were noted in a diary. At each visit lung function was measured, and serum and urinary cortisol were determined. During treatment, wheezing decreased and PEFR values increased in the FP group. FEV1 and PC20-histamine increased and the reversibility decreased in the FP group. All changes were significant, with the exception of the change in nocturnal PEFR. Four weeks after cessation of FP all parameters returned to pretreatment values. Serum cortisol did not change significantly in either treatment group. The decrease in urinary cortisol in the FP group was significant only if it was compared with the increase in urinary cortisol in the placebo group. We conclude that FP 100 microg given twice a day is effective in children with moderate stable asthma. Suppression of the HPA-axis by FP 100 microg given twice daily, although not likely, cannot be ruled out by this study since the absence of a significant decrease in urinary cortisol in the FP group could be due to an insufficient number of patients. Additional studies are required to solve this problem. Noninvasive ventilation has been shown to be effective in patients with acute respiratory failure due to pulmonary edema and exacerbations of COPD. Its role in an acute asthmatic attack, however, is uncertain. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare conventional asthma treatment with nasal bilevel pressure ventilation (BPV) [BiPAP; Respironics; Murrysville, PA] plus conventional treatment in patients with a severe asthmatic attack admitted to the emergency department.
                A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
                An emergency department at a university hospital.
                Thirty patients with a severe asthma attack were recruited from a larger group of 124 asthmatic patients seen in the emergency department. Fifteen patients were randomly assigned to BPV plus conventional therapy and 15 patients to conventional therapy alone. The two groups had similar clinical characteristics on hospital admission. Mean (+/- SD) FEV(1) on recruitment was 37.3 +/- 10.7% in the BPV group and 33.8 +/- 10.2% in the control group (p = not significant). Interventions and measurements: BPV with predetermined inspiratory and expiratory pressures was applied for 3 h in the BPV group; in the control group, a similar sham device with subtherapeutic pressures was applied for 3 h. Bedside lung function test results and vital signs were obtained at baseline, and during and at the completion of the study protocol.
                The use of BPV significantly improved lung function test results. Eighty percents of the patients in the BPV group reached the predetermined primary end points (an increase of at least 50% in FEV(1) as compared to baseline), vs 20% of control patients (p < 0.004). Mean rise in FEV(1) was 53.5 +/- 23.4% in the BPV group and 28.5 +/- 22.6% in the conventional treatment group (p = 0.006). The intention-to-treat analysis of the secondary end point rate of hospitalization included 33 patients. Hospitalization was required for 3 of 17 patients (17.6%) in the BPV group, as compared with 10 of 16 patients (62.5%) in the control group (p = 0.0134).
                In selected patients with a severe asthma attack, the addition of BPV to conventional treatment can improve lung function, alleviate the attack faster, and significantly reduce the need for hospitalization.
This review of studies has highlighted the paucity of data that exist to support the use of NPPV in patients in status asthmaticus. As such this course of treatment remains controversial despite its continued use in current clinical practice. Larger, prospective randomised controlled trials of rigorous methodological design are needed to determine the role of NPPV in patients with asthma.