Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction update-2016.

The first practice parameter on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was published in 2010. This updated practice parameter was prepared 5 years later. In the ensuing years, there has been increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EIB and improved diagnosis of this disorder by using objective testing. At the time of this publication, observations included the following: dry powder mannitol for inhalation as a bronchial provocation test is FDA approved however not currently available in the United States; if baseline pulmonary function test results are normal to near normal (before and after bronchodilator) in a person with suspected EIB, then further testing should be performed by using standardized exercise challenge or eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH); and the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (omega-3 fatty acids) has been challenged. The workgroup preparing this practice parameter updated contemporary practice guidelines based on a current systematic literature review. The group obtained supplementary literature and consensus expert opinions when the published literature was insufficient. A search of the medical literature on PubMed was conducted, and search terms included pathogenesis, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapy (both pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical) of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or exercise-induced asthma (which is no longer a preferred term); asthma; and exercise and asthma. References assessed as relevant to the topic were evaluated to search for additional relevant references. Published clinical studies were appraised by category of evidence and used to document the strength of the recommendation. The parameter was then evaluated by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent organizations, as well as the general membership. Based on this process, the parameter can be characterized as an evidence- and consensus-based document.

The impact of expired and empty quick-relief asthma inhalers: The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America's Asthma Inhaler Design Survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite the available treatments, asthma remains a serious illness, with a considerable socioeconomic burden associated with a high number of unscheduled visits to the emergency department (ED). Poor adherence and inadequate inhaler technique are contributing factors to poor asthma management and control. OBJECTIVE: The Asthma Inhaler Design Survey assessed the behaviors, attitudes, needs, and preferences of patients with asthma and their caregivers with regard to quick-relief inhaler usage and device design. METHODS: The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America invited 19,157 adult patients and parents of children with asthma to take part in an online survey that focused on previous asthma diagnosis, symptom severity, and quick-relief and controller medication use. Opinions were also collected. RESULTS: Data from 590 respondents (366 adults; 224 children) were included in the final analysis. Relief inhalers were needed and found to be past the expiration date by 284 of 561 (50.6%) and relief inhalers were found to be empty by 270 of 560 (48.2%). Of the empty inhaler group, 28 of 270 (10.4%) had to visit the ED for treatment, 18 of 270 (6.7%) missed work or school for an unscheduled physician office visit, and 54 of 270 (20%) went without treatment. Although 78.5% indicated that they had at least two quick-relief inhalers nearby, these were not always easily accessible. Few respondents (194/578 [33.6%]) indicated that they and/or their child were very confident that they were using their inhaler properly, even though the majority had received some instruction. When asked what they would do to improve satisfaction with their quick-relief inhalers, 173 of 558 (31%) responded that they would add a dose counter. CONCLUSION: Unnecessary health care utilization and avoidable loss of time at work or school were associated with the lack of full availability of properly functioning quick-relief inhalers when needed. Adding a dose counter was the most frequently cited response for improving satisfaction with quick-relief inhalers. Confidence about proper inhaler use was low, despite previous instruction.

An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) describes acute airway narrowing that occurs as a result of exercise. EIB occurs in a substantial proportion of patients with asthma, but may also occur in individuals without known asthma. METHODS: To provide clinicians with practical guidance, a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders was convened to review the pathogenesis of EIB and to develop evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of EIB. The evidence was appraised and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Recommendations for the treatment of EIB were developed. The quality of evidence supporting the recommendations was variable, ranging from low to high. A strong recommendation was made for using a short-acting ß(2)-agonist before exercise in all patients with EIB. For patients who continue to have symptoms of EIB despite the administration of a short-acting ß(2)-agonist before exercise, strong recommendations were made for a daily inhaled corticosteroid, a daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, or a mast cell stabilizing agent before exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations in this Guideline reflect the currently available evidence. New clinical research data will necessitate a revision and update in the future.

New intranasal formulations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) have been effectively used for >40 years for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR). Following the Montreal Protocol, the initial aerosol formulations using chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants were phased out. For the past 20 years, aqueous solutions have been the only available option for INS treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved two new nonaqueous aerosol AR treatments that use a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. In 2012, the first intranasal aqueous combination product was also approved. This article reviews the clinical profiles of HFA beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and HFA ciclesonide (CIC) and the aqueous combination intranasal antihistamine (INA)/INS formulation of azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (AZE/FP). The medical literature was searched for clinical trials investigating the use of BDP, CIC, and AZE/FP in SAR and PAR. Clinical trials involving aqueous solutions and CFC propellant or HFA propellant delivery were included. Data from prescribing information and published efficacy and safety data were presented as part of the clinical profile for the reviewed agents. AZE/FP has shown efficacy and safety comparable or greater with the current AR treatment options. Although efficacy comparisons of new HFA formulations have not been investigated in head-to-head clinical trials with aqueous formulations, HFA formulations have shown similar efficacy rates. Furthermore, HFA formulations may have some additional benefits, including a preferable sensory profile for some patients. These new formulations will provide additional options for clinicians and patients to better individualize therapy for control of AR.

Recommendations for the pharmacologic management of allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects at least 60 million people in the United States each year, resulting in a major impact on patient quality of life, productivity, and direct and indirect costs. As new therapies, data, and literature emerge in the management of AR, there is a need to communicate and disseminate important information to health care professionals to advance the practice of medicine and lessen the disease burden from AR. Treatment recommendations for AR have not been updated since the 2012 Food and Drug Administration approval of nonaqueous intranasal aerosol agents using hydrofluoroalkane propellants and the first aqueous intranasal combination product. Here, we present an updated algorithm for the pharmacologic treatment of AR that includes these new treatment options. Treatment recommendations are categorized by disease severity (mild versus moderate/severe) and duration of symptoms (episodic versus nonepisodic, with episodic defined as <3 days/wk or for <3 weeks). Preferred treatments are suggested, as well as alternative options for consideration by clinicians in the context of individual patient needs. This recommendation article also outlines the importance of treatment monitoring, which can be conducted using the recently developed Rhinitis Control Assessment Test. Successful therapeutic outcomes depend on multiple factors, including use of the most effective pharmacologic agents as well as patient adherence to therapy. Therefore, it is imperative that rhinitis patients not only receive the most effective therapeutic options, but that they also understand and are able to adhere to the comprehensive treatment regimen. Successful treatment, with all of these considerations in mind, results in better disease outcomes, improved quality of life for patients, and greater economic productivity in the home and workplace.

Efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol in pediatric patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Aerosolized intranasal corticosteroid formulations are desirable for many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), especially children, who wish to avoid the "wet feeling" and "drip down the throat" associated with aqueous formulations. Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol has been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults with AR. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BDP nasal aerosol in pediatric patients with moderate to severe seasonal AR. METHODS: In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, children (6-11 years of age) with seasonal AR were randomized to once-daily treatment with BDP nasal aerosol 80 µg (n = 239) or 160 µg (n = 242) or placebo (n = 234). The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score over the 2-week treatment period. RESULTS: Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol showed significantly greater improvements in average morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score vs placebo (80 µg, -0.71; 160 µg, -0.76; P < .001 for the 2 comparisons). Similarly, significantly greater improvements in average morning and evening instantaneous total nasal symptom score were seen with BDP nasal aerosol vs placebo (80 µg, -0.63; 160 µg, -0.73; P < .001 for the 2 comparisons). The incidence of adverse events from BDP nasal aerosol was comparable to that from placebo. CONCLUSION: BDP nasal aerosol (80 or 160 µg/d) provided significant and clinically meaningful nasal symptom relief and an established overall safety profile similar to that of placebo, suggesting that it is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for pediatric patients with moderate to severe seasonal AR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT012073190.

Omalizumab and asthma control in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a 6-year pragmatic data review.

Controlled clinical trials have shown the recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody omalizumab to improve asthma control and reduce symptom exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma who remain clinically unstable despite optimal medical therapy. An objective retrospective review compared clinical experience with the data reported in the controlled studies. Data tracking for 167 patients progressively enrolled between 2003 and 2010 treated with omalizumab included symptoms, forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV(1)), systemic steroid bursts, and need for short-acting bronchodilator rescue measured at the start of therapy; 3, 6, and 12 months after starting treatment, and yearly thereafter. Exacerbations were compared for the 12 months before and the 12 months after starting treatment in a subgroup of patients. Asthma control improved with omalizumab over time (up to 6 years) as indicated by fewer symptoms and less need for rescue medication (p < 0.001 for both). FEV(1) remained stable. The number of patients reporting asthma exacerbations requiring urgent care decreased by 49% during the first 12 months of treatment (p ≤ 0.01), and significant reductions in exacerbations were also evident when measured by hospitalizations or systemic corticosteroid bursts (p < 0.001 for both). This is the first long-term pragmatic review of omalizumab. Our clinical experience (up to 6 years in some patients) supports the results of earlier controlled studies, confirming the usefulness of adding omalizumab to the long-term management of patients with difficult-to-treat disease who suffer from persistent symptoms despite optimal therapy with medications.

Evaluation of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray, 0.6%, used in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The combination of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids results in superior relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms compared with monotherapy. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray, 0.6% (OLO), administered in combination with fluticasone nasal spray, 50 micrograms (FNS), relative to azelastine nasal spray, 0.1% (AZE), administered in combination with FNS in the treatment of SAR. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison of OLO + FNS versus AZE + FNS administered for 14 days to patients > or =12 years of age with histories of SAR. Efficacy assessments recorded by patients in a daily diary included nasal symptom scores. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs). Pretreatment values for reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) were similar for both treatment groups. The mean (SD) 2-week average rTNSS was 4.28 (2.63) for OLO + FNS and 4.15 (2.63) for AZE + FNS; these scores were not statistically different between treatment groups. No significant differences (p > 0.05) between OLO + FNS and AZE + FNS were observed for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline in rTNSS or in the individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, itchy nose, and sneezing). Compared with baseline, both groups had statistically significant improvement in rTNSS (p < 0.05). No serious AEs were reported in either group during the study period. Overall, 19 AEs were reported in the OLO + FNS group and 29 AEs were reported in the AZE + FNS group. OLO, when administered adjunctively with FNS, is effective, safe, and well-tolerated in patients with SAR.

Guaifenesin in rhinitis.

Mucus in the airways is a complex mixture of water, lipids, glycoproteins, sugars, and electrolytes that serves as a lubricant for the epithelium. The efficient flow of respiratory mucus is a first level of immune defense that requires an appropriate viscosity and elasticity for optimal barrier and ciliary functions. Thickening and drying of airway mucus by respiratory tract infections, allergies, and drugs can impair evacuation. Tenacious, bothersome mucus is an annoying and frequent symptom of rhinitis that is difficult to manage. Common remedies include adequate hydration through fluid intake and nasal washes. The use of mucoactive agents is controversial due to limited data and equivocal efficacy in available studies. Nonetheless, some patients benefit. This review examines the use of guaifenesin (glyceryl guaiacolate) on bothersome nasal mucus associated with rhinitis, including the available published data and clinical experience.

Exercise-induced bronchospasm.

Exercise-induced bronchospasm (EIB) is a relatively common condition that affects both recreational and elite athletes. The latest data suggest that it is an inflammatory process, especially in elite athletes. Proper diagnosis is important to differentiate EIB from other respiratory conditions. Effective treatment usually controls this condition.

Improved lung function and quality of life following guaifenesin treatment in a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A case report.

We report improved lung function and quality of life following daily use of guaifenesin/dextromethorphan (Mucinex DM®, Reckitt Benckiser) for the treatment of mucus-related symptoms in a patient with COPD, who presented with increasing dyspnea, progressive cough and chest congestion.

Daily use of guaifenesin (Mucinex) in a patient with chronic bronchitis and pathologic mucus hypersecretion: A case report.

We report an improvement in symptoms and quality of life with long-term use of guaifenesin for the treatment of mucus-related symptoms in a patient with chronic bronchitis, who presented with mucus hypersecretion, cough and dyspnea.

Asthma associated with exercise.

Exercise is a potent stimulus to asthma. The diagnosis is not always straightforward, and health care providers should have a high index of suspicion. Treatment usually controls exercise-induced asthma but usually requires therapy tailored for each individual patient.

Effectiveness of azelastine nasal spray compared with oral cetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray and oral cetirizine are selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists that are approved in the United States for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray administered at the recommended dosage of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily with those of cetirizine in the treatment of moderate to severe SAR. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 2-week comparative study was conducted during the 2004 fall allergy season in patients with moderate to severe SAR. After a 1-week placebo lead-in period, patients were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril twice daily plus placebo tablets or cetirizine 10-mg tablets once daily plus a placebo saline nasal spray for the 2-week double-blind treatment period. The primary efficacy variables were (1) change from baseline to day 14 in the 12-hour reflective total nasal symptom score (TNSS), which combines scores for rhinorrhea, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion, and (2) onset of action, based on the instantaneous TNSS over 4 hours after the first dose of study drug. During the double-blind treatment period, patients recorded their symptom scores on diary cards twice daily (morning and evening). Patients aged > or =18 years also completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at baseline and on day 14. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to treatment, and 299 completed 2 weeks of study treatment. The age of the population ranged from 12 to 74 years (mean, 35 years), 62.9% were female, and 69.6% were white. Over 2 weeks of treatment, both groups had significant improvements in the TNSS compared with baseline (P < 0.001). The overall change in TNSS was significantly greater with azelastine nasal spray compared with cetirizine (29.3% vs 23.0% improvement, respectively; P = 0.015). In terms of onset of action, azelastine nasal spray significantly improved the instantaneous TNSS compared with cetirizine at 60 and 240 minutes after the initial dose (both, P = 0.040). Scores on each domain of the RQLQ were significantly improved in both groups compared with baseline (P < 0.001); the overall RQLQ score was significantly improved with azelastine nasal spray compared with cetirizine (P = 0.049). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this 2-week study in patients with moderate to severe SAR, azelastine nasal spray was well tolerated and produced significantly greater improvements in TNSS and total RQLQ score compared with cetirizine.

A comparison of the effects of oral montelukast and inhaled salmeterol on response to rescue bronchodilation after challenge.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of addition of montelukast or salmeterol to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on the response to rescue beta2-agonist use after exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed at 16 centers in the United States. Patients with asthma (n = 122, ages 15-58) whose symptoms were uncontrolled on Low-dose inhaled fluticasone and who had a history of exercise-induced worsening of asthma were randomized to receive either montelukast (10 mg once daily), salmeterol (50microg twice daily), or placebo for 4 weeks. Standardized spirometry after exercise challenge and beta2-agonist rescue was performed at baseline, week 1 and 4. RESULTS: Maximum achievable forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted after rescue beta2-agonist improved in the montelukast (+1.5%) and placebo (+1.2%) groups at 4 weeks, but diminished in the salmeterol (-3.9%) group (P < 0.001). Although pre-exercise FEV1 was greatest with salmeterol (P = 0.10), patients taking montelukast had significantly greater protection from an exercise-induced decrease in FEV1 than those taking salmeterol (P < 0.001). Both the magnitude and rate of rescue bronchodilation were greater with montelukast compared with salmeterol (P < 0.001). Five minutes after rescue beta2-agonist, 92% of patients taking montelukast and 68% of those taking placebo had recovered to pre-exercise levels, whereas only 50% of those taking salmeterol had recovered to pre-exercise levels. CONCLUSION: In patients whose asthma symptoms remain uncontrolled using ICS, addition of montelukast permits a greater and more rapid rescue bronchodilation with a short-acting beta2-agonist than addition of salmeterol and provides consistent and clinically meaningful protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Review of exercise-induced asthma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this manuscript is to review the recent literature on exercise-induced asthma (EIA) and summarize the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of this condition. METHOD: A review of the English language medical literature was performed to obtain articles on EIA. RESULTS: The pathophysiology of EIA is not fully understood, but there are two theories: 1) the hyperosmolar theory and 2) the airway rewarming theory. In addition, there have been data to show that airway inflammation is present in some elite athletes, especially in cold weather sports. The diagnosis of EIA is usually straightforward in most patients, but a number of patients may have atypical symptoms and may be more difficult to diagnose. They may well need exercise testing or eucapnic voluntary ventilation testing. Most people respond to treatment with an inhaled beta agonist and or cromolyn before exercise, but some patients will also need other medications, including daily medications such as inhaled steroids. When treatment does not control the problem, then further diagnostic evaluation should be done to rule out conditions other than EIA, such as vocal cord dysfunction or cardiac or pulmonary problems. CONCLUSIONS: EIA is a condition that may occur in schoolchildren in gym class and also in Olympic athletes. The diagnosis and treatment is usually fairly straightforward, but at times it may be challenging. However, all patients should be followed to make sure that the correct diagnosis is made and to make sure that treatment is effective.

Unmet needs in the treatment of allergic asthma: potential role of novel biologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of the current status of the treatment of asthma and introduce new and developing forms of therapy by means of a review of published literature on asthma and publications on new and emerging therapies. Increased public awareness of asthma, improved patient and provider education, implementation of national treatment guidelines, and availability of safe and effective therapies have combined to provide an effective response to the increase in asthma prevalence. However, the number of persons with poorly controlled asthma and asthma-related complications remains unacceptably high. This is particularly true for the relatively small cohort of patients with moderateto- severe asthma that is poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and other standard-of-care medications. Consequently, these patients often experience frequent exacerbations, leading to a disproportionate consumption of asthma health care resources and a poor quality of life. The National Committee on Quality Assurance suggests that the negative impact of asthma can be minimized if health care providers implement aggressive asthma management programs that include patient education and appropriate medications. Newer therapies such as injectable anti-IgE may provide a benefit for many patients. SUMMARY: Currently available asthma medications have been proven to be generally safe and effective for most asthma patients. However, the subset of patients with difficult-to-treat asthma who experience frequent exacerbations requiring emergency department visits or hospitalizations may benefit from novel therapies designed to target specific mechanisms underlying airway inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: New therapies may help in the treatment of patients whose asthma is not controlled. These include anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies, cytokine modulators, and DNA vaccinations. Future research will determine if these targeted biologic therapies are a cost-effective means to improve the clinical and economic outcomes of asthma management.

A World Allergy Organization international survey on physical activity as a treatment option for asthma and allergies.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise has been shown to improve asthma symptoms, QoL, exercise capacity, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and lung function and is recommended as a supplementary treatment to pharmacotherapy for asthma. Clinicians are well placed to promote physically active lifestyles, but their role and practice towards promoting physically active lifestyles among patients has not been fully investigated. This study was designed to investigate the knowledge, propensity, attitude and practices of clinicians towards the promotion of physical activity among patients with asthma and allergies. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty clinicians (mean age; 46 ± 13 years; with a clinical experience of practice for 15 ± 7 years) participated in a global survey. The survey comprised a 29-item questionnaire, which gathered information on attitudes of the clinicians towards promoting physical activity, their knowledge and their beliefs regarding evidence for benefits of physical activity as a supplementary treatment in patients with asthma and allergies. RESULTS: Almost all respondents were aware of the strong evidence in favor of physical activity for the psychological well-being, weight control, decreased risk of diabetes, ischemic heart disease and arterial hypertension. Evidence for reduction in the risk for developing asthma and for better asthma control were reported by 60.0% and 85.4% of participants, respectively. The majority (85.0%) of clinicians strongly agreed that promoting physical activity is important to health care, although 95.5% considered they required more educational training. Although two thirds of them usually recommended exercise to their asthmatic/allergic patients, only 24.0% reported having previous training on the subject of such counseling. Almost all believed that effective counseling about a healthy diet, exercise and weight management would be easier if the clinician himself/herself was physically fit and healthy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this global survey indicate that clinicians working in the field of allergy and respiratory diseases are well aware of the evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity for asthma and allergic diseases although they need more training in such counseling. Therefore, concerted efforts are needed towards educating clinicians towards promoting physical activity and weight management, as a supplementary treatment for asthma and allergies.