A randomized controlled trial of inhaled flunisolide in the management of acute asthma in children. Daily versus as-needed inhaled corticosteroid for mild persistent asthma (The Helsinki early intervention childhood asthma study). Response profiles to fluticasone and montelukast in mild-to-moderate persistent childhood asthma. Inhaled budesonide in addition to oral corticosteroids to prevent asthma relapse following discharge from the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized open-label comparative study of montelukast versus theophylline added to inhaled corticosteroid in asthmatic children. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus reliever therapy: a new strategy in pediatric asthma. Efficacy of nebulized fluticasone propionate in adult patients admitted to the emergency department due to bronchial asthma attack.
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may provide benefit in the therapy of acute asthma. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that ICS are as effective as oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the management of acute childhood asthma.
                A randomized, masked, placebo-controlled study was conducted in children aged 6 to 16 years seeking emergent care for an acute exacerbation of asthma. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: group 1 (OCS), oral prednisone, 2 mg/kg (maximum of 60 mg/d) for 7 days, and placebo pressurized metered-dose inhaler with valved holding chamber, four inhalations bid; and group 2 (ICS), flunisolide, four inhalations (1 mg) bid for 7 days, and daily placebo tablets. Spirometry (FEV(1)) was performed at baseline, day 3, and day 7 of the study. A symptom diary and twice-daily peak expiratory flow were recorded.
                A total of 58 subjects receiving ICS (n = 27) or OCS (n = 28) were enrolled. Baseline asthma severity, race, gender, and age were balanced between the two groups. chi(2) showed no significant difference in symptom severity between the two groups at any time during the study. FEV(1) percentage of predicted was lower in the ICS group on day 3 (65% vs 78%, p = 0.03) and on day 7 (77% vs 95%, p = 0.002).
                ICS were found to be useful in the management of acute asthma in children; however, spirometry data suggested a more rapid resolution of asthma with OCS. To compare the effect of inhaled budesonide given daily or as-needed on mild persistent childhood asthma. Patients, design and
                176 children aged 5-10 years with newly detected asthma were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: (1) continuous budesonide (400 microg twice daily for 1 month, 200 microg twice daily for months 2-6, 100 microg twice daily for months 7-18); (2) budesonide, identical treatment to group 1 during months 1-6, then budesonide for exacerbations as needed for months 7-18; and (3) disodium cromoglycate (DSCG) 10 mg three times daily for months 1-18. Exacerbations were treated with budesonide 400 microg twice daily for 2 weeks.
                Lung function, the number of exacerbations and growth.
                Compared with DSCG the initial regular budesonide treatment resulted in a significantly improved lung function, fewer exacerbations and a small but significant decline in growth velocity. After 18 months, however, the lung function improvements did not differ between the groups. During months 7-18, patients receiving continuous budesonide treatment had significantly fewer exacerbations (mean 0.97), compared with 1.69 in group 2 and 1.58 in group 3. The number of asthma-free days did not differ between regular and intermittent budesonide treatment. Growth velocity was normalised during continuous low-dose budesonide and budesonide therapy given as needed. The latter was associated with catch-up growth.
                Regular use of budesonide afforded better asthma control but had a more systemic effect than did use of budesonide as needed. The dose of ICS could be reduced as soon as asthma is controlled. Some children do not seem to need continuous ICS treatment. Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children.
                We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).
                An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated.
                Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast.
                The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA. Relapses of acute asthma following emergency department (ED) discharge can be reduced with systemic corticosteroid treatment. However, whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) provide additional benefit is not known. Objective To determine whether the addition of ICSs to oral corticosteroid treatment would reduce relapses in patients with acute asthma discharged from the ED.
                Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in a community teaching hospital ED in Canada between November 1995 and September 1997, with a 21-day follow-up.
                A total of 1006 consecutive patients aged 16 to 60 years presented to the ED with acute asthma; after excluding those using oral and/or inhaled corticosteroids as well as those meeting other exclusion criteria, 188 were included in the study.
                Patients were discharged with a nontapering course of oral prednisone (50 mg/d) for 7 days. In a double-blind fashion, patients were randomly assigned to 1600 microg/d of inhaled budesonide (n = 94) or identical placebo (n = 94) for 21 days.
                Incidence of relapse, defined as an unscheduled visit for worsening asthma symptoms, in budesonide vs placebo groups. Secondary outcomes included response to the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, beta2-agonist use, symptom score, global asthma improvement assessment, and pulmonary function.
                Five patients in the budesonide group and 3 in the placebo group either dropped out or were lost to follow-up but were included in primary analyses. After 21 days, 12 (12.8%) of 94 patients in the budesonide group experienced a relapse compared with 23 (24.5%) of 94 in the placebo group, a 48% relapse reduction (P=.049). Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were higher (better quality) in the budesonide group (P=.001), as well as for all domain scores (P=.001 to .01). Fewer beta2-agonist activations were used at the end of the trial by patients receiving budesonide (2.4/d vs 4.2/d; P=.01). Symptom scores (P=.001 to .004) and self-assessed asthma improvement scores (based on a 7-point Likert scale) (6.2 vs 5.2; P<.001) were higher (indicating fewer symptoms) for budesonide vs placebo. There were no differences in pulmonary function between the groups (peak expiratory flow rate: budesonide, 437 vs placebo, 453 L/min; P= .39) at 21 days. Using this approach, as few as 9 patients would require budesonide to prevent 1 relapse.
                Patients discharged from the ED following treatment for acute asthma benefit from added treatment with high-dose inhaled budesonide for 21 days compared with oral corticosteroids alone. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are widely used in combination with other classes of drugs for treatment of childhood asthma. The efficacy and the safety of montelukast added to low-dose ICS therapy were compared with those of sustained-release theophylline added to low-dose ICS therapy in asthmatic children in the present study.
                Following the 2-week run-in period, 6-to 14-year old patients receiving treatment with ICSs were randomized to treatment for 4 weeks with either montelukast 5 mg once daily or sustained release theophylline 5-8 mg/kg (dry syrup) or 100-200 mg (tablet) twice daily. Patients also received a fixed dose of ICS throughout the run-in and treatment periods. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in peak expiratory flow (PEF) at Week 2.
                A significant increase in morning PEF was observed in the add-on montelukast group as compared with the add-on theophylline group at Week 2 (change from baseline of 22.8 L/minvs. 8.7 L/min; p = 0.041 for between-group difference) and at Week 4 (31.0 L/minvs. 9.8 L/min; p = 0.012). A significant increase in evening PEF was observed in the add-on montelukast group as compared with the add-on theophylline group at Week 4 (24.7 L/minvs. 8.7 L/min; p = 0.027). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences.
                The results indicate that montelukast added to low-dose ICS is an effective and safe option for the treatment of asthma in children. A fixed combination of long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has never been proven to reduce asthma exacerbations vs ICS alone in children. This 12-month, double-blind, randomized study in 341 children (age range, 4 to 11 years) with asthma uncontrolled on ICS investigated whether a novel regimen using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort maintenance and relief therapy [SMART]) [Symbicort; AstraZeneca R&D, Lund, Sweden] could reduce exacerbations.
                Patients received SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 microg qd maintenance plus additional inhalations for symptom relief), budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 microg qd for maintenance (fixed combination), or higher-dose budesonide 320 microg qd (fixed-dose budesonide). Blinded as-needed medication (terbutaline 0.4 microg) was provided in both fixed-dose groups.
                SMART prolonged the time to first exacerbation vs fixed-dose budesonide (p = 0.02) and fixed-dose combination (p < 0.001). Rates of exacerbation requiring medical intervention were reduced by 70 to 79% with SMART vs fixed-dose budesonide and fixed-dose combination (0.08/patient vs 0.28/patient and 0.40/patient, respectively; both p < 0.001). Mild exacerbation days and awakenings were significantly lower with SMART; yearly growth improved by 1.0 cm vs fixed-dose budesonide (p < 0.01).
                The SMART regimen using budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and as-needed symptom relief reduces the exacerbation rate compared with both fixed-dose combination and higher fixed-dose ICS alone in children with asthma. Locally delivered steroids by inhalers or nebulizers have been shown in small trials to be effective in acute asthma attack, but evidence-based data are insufficient to establish their place as routine management of adult asthma attacks.
                To determine the efficacy of nebulized compared to systemic steroids in adult asthmatics admitted to the emergency department following an acute attack.
                Adult asthmatics admitted to the ED were assigned in random consecutive case fashion to one of three protocol groups: group 1--nebulized steroid fluticasone (Flixotide Nebules), group 2--intravenous methylprednisolone, group 3--combined treatment by both routes. Objective and subjective parameters, such as peak expiratory flow, oxygen saturation, heart rate and dyspnea score, were registered before and 2 hours after ED treatment was initiated. Steroids were continued for 1 week following the ED visit according to the protocol arm. Data on hospital admission/discharge rate, ED readmissions in the week after enrollment and other major events related to asthma were registered.
                Altogether, 73 adult asthmatics were assigned to receive treatment: 24 patients in group 1, 23 in group 2 and 26 in group 3. Mean age was 44.4 +/- 16.8 years (range 17-75 years). Peak expiratory flow and dyspnea score significantly improved in group 1 patients compared with patients in the other groups after 2 hours of ED treatment (P = 0.021 and 0.009, respectively). The discharge rate after ED treatment was significantly higher in groups 1 and 3 than in group 2 (P = 0.05). All 73 patients were alive a week after enrollment. Five patients (20.8%) in the Flixotide treatment arm were hospitalized and required additional systemic steroids. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting hospitalization rate demonstrated that severity of asthma (odds ratio 8.11) and group 2 (OD 4.17) had a negative effect, whereas adherence to chronic anti-asthma therapy (OD 0.49) reduced the hospitalization rate.
                Our study cohort showed the advantage of nebulized steroid fluticasone versus systemic corticosteroids in adult asthmatics managed in the ED following an acute attack. Both these and previous results suggest that nebulized steroids should be used, either alone or in combination with systemic steroids, to treat adults suffering acute asthma attack.
There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed.