Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

Clinical Research Unit on Childhood Asthma, Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine, 3175, Cote Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Canada.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 02/2013; 2(2):CD009611. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009611.pub3
Source: PubMed


Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. However, often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.
The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the web site up to October 2012.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32; the large confidence interval translates into a risk of exacerbations in the intermittent ICS group varying between 17% and 25%, assuming a 19% risk with daily ICS). Age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.
In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, there was low quality evidence that intermittent and daily ICS strategies were similarly effective in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events. The strength of the evidence means that we cannot currently assume equivalence between the two options.. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. Clinicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

10 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The majority of children with asthma have mild or moderate disease and can obtain adequate control of symptoms through avoidance of triggering factors and/or with the help of medications. There is still a group of children with severe asthma in whom symptom control is poor depending either on identifiable aggravating factors or on true therapy resistance. These children have a poor quality of life and are limited by the severity of their disease. There is a need for a staged approach to the assessment and treatment of this small but vulnerable and resource-consuming group. The current review will provide an overview of a possible standardized approach to characterize this heterogeneous group of severely sick children including some newly developed ways of assessing asthma severity and potentialities of new asthma therapies. Furthermore, the umbrella term 'problematic severe asthma' is described. The term encompasses children whose severe asthma is due to identifiable exacerbating factors, as well as children who are resistant to any conventional therapeutic approach. Characteristics of these two groups of children are described, as are possible biomarkers and current and emerging diagnostic tools for allergy evaluation. Some recent advances and future possibilities for treatment of severe asthma are also presented in this review.
    Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 09/2013; 25(2). DOI:10.1111/pai.12112 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: No one ever died because they fell 1 cm short of their potential final height, but many families understandably worry about the side effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and may stop ICS treatment in consequence. It is important to state at the outset that reduced linear growth in a child with asthma should not uncritically be attributed to ICS, but should rather lead to a critical re-evaluation of the child. Atopy per se may lead to delay in puberty and a more prolonged prepubertal growth deceleration1; poorly controlled asthma, as with any chronic disease, may lead to growth failure2; and coincidental disease such as growth hormone deficiency should be considered. Indeed, it has been argued that accurate height measurement, with the results plotted on an appropriate centile chart is an essential part of the paediatric asthma clinic.3 Children still do die of asthma attacks, which may result from non-adherence to treatment.4 So it is essential that all professionals treating children with asthma understand the risks of side effects of ICS, and also their benefits, and are able to give balanced and credible reassurance to families. Among the more common family worries about ICS are their effects on final height. There have been numerous ultrashort-term studies measuring tibial length as a surrogate for change in height over time using knemometry, and short-term studies using direct measurement of height, usually using stadiometry.5 ,6 They all illustrate the dictum of the late Professor David Flenley that you cannot do a 5 year study in less than 5 years. However, at long last, and the nearest we are likely to get to a definitive answer, has come from the Children's Asthma Management Program (CAMP) study in the USA. The original question that the …
    Archives of Disease in Childhood 10/2013; 99(3). DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2012-303105 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glucocorticoids remain a cornerstone of guideline-based management of persistent asthma and allergic diseases. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) is the most common iatrogenic cause of secondary osteoporosis and an issue of concern for physicians treating patients with inhaled or oral glucocorticoids either continuously or intermittently. Patients with GIO experience fragility fractures at better dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry T-scores than those with postmenopausal or age-related osteoporosis. This might be explained, at least in part, by the effects of glucocorticoids not only on osteoclasts but also on osteoblasts and osteocytes. Effective options to detect and manage GIO exist, and a management algorithm has been published by the American College of Rheumatology to provide treatment guidance for clinicians. This review will summarize GIO epidemiology and pathophysiology and assess the role of inhaled and oral glucocorticoids in asthmatic adults and children, with particular emphasis on the effect of such therapies on bone health. Lastly, we will review the American College of Rheumatology GIO guidelines and discuss diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to mitigate the risk of GIO and fragility fractures.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 11/2013; 132(5):1019-30. DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.08.040 · 11.48 Impact Factor
Show more