Epinephrine (adrenaline) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: International asthma guidelines recommend against epinephrine (adrenaline) administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angio-oedema. However, administration of intramuscular epinephrine in addition to nebulised selective ß2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many prehospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of epinephrine in comparison to selective ß2-agonist in acute asthma. METHODS: We included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared epinephrine by any route to selective ß2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, including hospitalisation, need for intubation or death. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 1140 studies were included. Overall quality of evidence was low. Seventeen studies contributed data on 1299 participants to the meta-analysis. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled Peto's OR for treatment failure with epinephrine versus selective ß2-agonist was 0.99 (0.75 to 1.32), p=0.95. There was strong evidence that recruitment age group was associated with different estimates of the odds of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having lower odds of treatment failure with epinephrine. It was not possible to determine whether epinephrine in addition to selective ß2-agonist improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: The low-quality evidence available suggests that epinephrine and selective ß2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to determine whether addition of intramuscular epinephrine to inhaled or nebulised selective ß2-agonist improves outcome. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017079472.

Single dose of budesonide/formoterol turbuhaler compared to salbutamol pMDI for speed of bronchodilator onset in asthma: a randomised cross-over trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare bronchodilator response after to salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in adults with stable asthma. METHODS: A double-blind, cross-over, single-centre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Adults with stable asthma were randomised to different orders of two treatment regimens: two actuations of placebo via MDI and one actuation of budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg via turbuhaler; and one actuation of placebo turbuhaler and two actuations of salbutamol 100 µg via MDI. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 2 min. Secondary outcome measures included FEV1, mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score and visual analogue score for breathlessness over 30 min. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 50 potential participants were randomised. One participant withdrew following the first intervention visit and another could not be randomised due to COVID-19 restrictions. The mean (SD) change from baseline FEV1 2 min after treatment administration for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol was 0.08 (0.14) L, n=49, and 0.17 (0.18) L, n=48, respectively, mean (95% CI) paired difference of -0.097 L (-0.147 to -0.047), p=0.07, against a non-inferiority bound of -0.06 L. In the secondary analysis, FEV1 over 30 min was lower for budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol, difference (95% CI): -0.10 (-0.12 to -0.08) L, p<0.001. There were no differences in Visual Analogue Scale score or mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score between treatments. CONCLUSION: The results do not support the primary hypothesis of non-inferiority at the boundary of -0.06 L for the difference between budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg compared with salbutamol 200 µg for FEV1 at 2 min, and could be consistent with inferiority with a p value of 0.07. For the secondary analysis of FEV1 measurements over time, the FEV1 was higher with salbutamol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12619001387112).

Effects of inhaled JAK inhibitor GDC-4379 on exhaled nitric oxide and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Janus Kinases (JAKs) mediate activity of many asthma-relevant cytokines. GDC-0214, an inhaled small molecule JAK1 inhibitor, has previously been shown to reduce fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in patients with mild asthma, but required an excessive number of inhalations. AIM: To assess whether GDC-4379, a new inhaled JAK inhibitor, reduces FeNO and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. METHODS: This study assessed the activity of GDC-4379 in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study in patients with mild asthma. Participants included adults (18-65y) with a diagnosis of asthma for ≥6 months, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)> 70% predicted, FeNO >40 ppb, using as-needed short-acting beta-agonist medication only. Four sequential, 14-day, ascending-dose cohorts (10 mg QD, 30 mg QD, 40 mg BID, and 80 mg QD) of 12 participants each were randomized 2:1 to GDC-4379 or placebo. The primary activity outcome was percent change from baseline (CFB) in FeNO to Day 14 compared to the pooled placebo group. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers, including blood eosinophils, serum CCL17, and serum CCL18, were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 48 enrolled participants, the mean age was 25 years and 54% were female. Median (range) FeNO at baseline was 79 (41-222) ppb. GDC-4379 treatment led to dose-dependent reductions in FeNO. Compared to placebo, mean (95% CI) percent CFB in FeNO to Day 14 was: -6 (-43, 32) at 10 mg QD, -26 (-53, 2) at 30 mg QD, -55 (-78, -32) at 40 mg BID and -52 (-72, -32) at 80 mg QD. Dose-dependent reductions in blood eosinophils and serum CCL17 were also observed. Higher plasma drug concentrations corresponded with greater FeNO reductions. No serious AEs occurred. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate. The most common AEs were headache and oropharyngeal pain. Minor changes in neutrophils were noted at 80 mg QD, but were not considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, 14-day treatment with GDC-4379 reduced FeNO levels and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. Treatment was well tolerated without any major safety concerns. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12619000227190.

Budesonide-formoterol reliever therapy versus maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline reliever therapy in adults with mild to moderate asthma (PRACTICAL): a 52-week, open-label, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In adults with mild asthma, a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid with a fast-onset long-acting ß-agonist (LABA) used as reliever monotherapy reduces severe exacerbations compared with short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy. We investigated the efficacy of combination budesonide-formoterol reliever therapy compared with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. METHODS: We did a 52-week, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial at 15 primary care or hospital-based clinical trials units and primary care practices in New Zealand. Participants were adults aged 18-75 years with a self-reported doctor's diagnosis of asthma who were using SABA for symptom relief with or without maintenance low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids in the previous 12 weeks. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either reliever therapy with budesonide 200 µg-formoterol 6 µg Turbuhaler (one inhalation as needed for relief of symptoms) or maintenance budesonide 200 µg Turbuhaler (one inhalation twice daily) plus terbutaline 250 µg Turbuhaler (two inhalations as needed). Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment; the statistician was masked for analysis of the primary outcome. Six study visits were scheduled: randomisation, and weeks 4, 16, 28, 40, and 52. The primary outcome was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year analysed by intention to treat (severe exacerbations defined as use of systemic corticosteroids for at least 3 days because of asthma, or admission to hospital or an emergency department visit because of asthma requiring systemic corticosteroids). Safety analyses included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12616000377437. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2016, and Dec 22, 2017, we assigned 890 participants to treatment and included 885 eligible participants in the analysis: 437 assigned to budesonide-formoterol as needed and 448 to budesonide maintenance plus terbutaline as needed. Severe exacerbations per patient per year were lower with as-needed budesonide-formoterol than with maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed (absolute rate per patient per year 0·119 vs 0·172; relative rate 0·69, 95% CI 0·48-1·00; p=0·049). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in both groups, occurring in 154 (35%) of 440 patients receiving as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 144 (32%) of 448 receiving maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline as needed. INTERPRETATION: In adults with mild to moderate asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed for symptom relief was more effective at preventing severe exacerbations than maintenance low-dose budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline. The findings support the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendation that inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol reliever therapy is an alternative regimen to daily low-dose inhaled corticosteroid for patients with mild asthma. FUNDING: Health Research Council of New Zealand.

What matters most to patients when choosing treatment for mild-moderate asthma? Results from a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: An as-needed combination preventer and reliever regimen was recently introduced as an alternative to conventional daily preventer treatment for mild asthma. In a subgroup analysis of the PRACTICAL study, a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of budesonide-formoterol reliever therapy versus maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline reliever therapy in adults with mild asthma, we recently reported that about two-thirds preferred as-needed combination preventer and reliever therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the relative importance of attributes associated with these two asthma therapies in this subgroup of participants who indicated their preferred treatment in the PRACTICAL study. METHODS: At their final study visit, a subgroup of participants indicated their preferred treatment and completed a discrete choice experiment using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives method and 1000minds software. Treatment attributes and their levels were selected from measurable study outcomes, and included: treatment regimen, shortness of breath, steroid dose and likelihood of asthma flare-up. RESULTS: The final analysis dataset included 288 participants, 64% of whom preferred as-needed combination preventer and reliever. Of the attributes, no shortness of breath and lowest risk of asthma flare-up were ranked highest and second highest, respectively. However, the relative importance of the other two attributes varied by preferred therapy: treatment regimen was ranked higher by participants who preferred as-needed treatment than by participants who preferred maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of patient preferences for treatment attributes together with regimen characteristics can be used in shared decision-making regarding choice of treatment for patients with mild-moderate asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616000377437.

Self-titration of inhaled corticosteroid and ß2-agonist in response to symptoms in mild asthma: a pre-specified analysis from the PRACTICAL randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol is superior or noninferior to maintenance budesonide plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist in reducing severe exacerbations. In this pre-specified analysis, we investigated patterns of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and ß2-agonist use in PRACTICAL, a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to as-needed budesonide-formoterol (200/6 µg Turbuhaler, one actuation) or maintenance budesonide (200 µg Turbuhaler, one actuation twice a day) with as-needed terbutaline (250 µg, two actuations) for 52 weeks. 110 participants had electronic monitors attached to their study inhalers which captured the time and date of every actuation. Key outcome measures were patterns of ICS and ß2-agonist use. One actuation of budesonide-formoterol was considered to be an equivalent bronchodilator dose as two actuations of terbutaline. RESULTS: Participants randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol had more days with no ICS use compared with maintenance budesonide (median total days of no use 156 versus 22 days, respectively), lower median daily budesonide dose (164 versus 328 µg, respectively) and a greater median number of days of ≥4 budesonide actuations (4 versus 1 days, respectively). Participants randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol took higher equivalent doses of ß2-agonist both overall (median number of actuations 0.8 versus 0.3 per day, respectively) and in response to worsening asthma (total number of "overuse days" of >8 or >16 actuations of budesonide-formoterol or terbutaline 33 versus 10 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The timing of ICS dose when self-titrated to ß2-agonist use is more important than total ICS dose in reducing severe exacerbation risk in mild asthma, when associated with greater overall use of as-needed ß2-agonist.

Patient preferences for symptom-driven or regular preventer treatment in mild to moderate asthma: findings from the PRACTICAL study, a randomised clinical trial.

Symptom-driven low-dose inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol is safe and effective in mild asthma and has been recommended as one of the preferred treatment regimens at steps 1 and 2 in the 2019 update of the Global Initiative for Asthma. However, there are no data on patient preferences for this regimen.A subgroup of participants in the PRACTICAL study (ACTRN12616000377437), a randomised controlled trial comparing symptom-driven budesonide-formoterol with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline completed a survey on treatment preferences, satisfaction, beliefs and experience at their final study visit.306 (75%) out of 407 eligible participants completed the survey. Regimen preference was strongly associated with randomised treatment, as were preferences for and beliefs about preventer inhaler use. Combination preventer and reliever as-needed therapy was preferred by 135 (90%, 95% CI 85.2-94.8%) out of 150 who were randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol, and by 63 (40%, 95% CI 32.7-48.1%) out of 156 who were randomised to maintenance budesonide. By contrast, twice-daily preventer inhaler with a reliever inhaler as required was preferred by 15 (10%) out of 150 of those randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 93 (60%) out of 156 of those randomised to maintenance budesonide. Satisfaction with all study inhalers was high. Of patients randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol 92% (n=138) were confident using it as a reliever at the end of the study.Although most participants preferred the regimen to which they had been randomised, this association was much stronger for those randomised to budesonide-formoterol as needed, indicating that most patients preferred as-needed corticosteroid-formoterol therapy if they had experienced it.

START CARE: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever-based treatment in children.

Background: Asthma is the most common chronic childhood respiratory condition globally. Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever-based regimens reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations compared with conventional short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever-based regimens in adults and adolescents. The current limited evidence for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also applicable to children. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. Objective: The study aim is to determine the efficacy and safety of budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) compared with standard therapy: budesonide or budesonide-formoterol maintenance, both with terbutaline reliever, in children aged 5 to 11 years with mild, moderate and severe asthma. Methods: A 52-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel group, phase III, two-sided superiority RCT will recruit 400 children aged 5 to 11 years with asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol 100/6 µg Turbuhaler reliever alone or MART; or budesonide or budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler maintenance, with terbutaline Turbuhaler reliever. The primary outcome is moderate and severe asthma exacerbations as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes are asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. Assessment of Turbuhaler technique and cost-effectiveness analysis are also planned. Conclusion: This will be the first RCT to compare the efficacy and safety of a step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or MART regimen with conventional inhaled ICS or ICS-long-acting ß-agonist maintenance plus SABA reliever in children. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of asthma in children.

Potential Association Between Dietary Fibre and Humoral Response to the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine.

Influenza vaccination is an effective public health measure to reduce the risk of influenza illness, particularly when the vaccine is well matched to circulating strains. Notwithstanding, the efficacy of influenza vaccination varies greatly among vaccinees due to largely unknown immunological determinants, thereby dampening population-wide protection. Here, we report that dietary fibre may play a significant role in humoral vaccine responses. We found dietary fibre intake and the abundance of fibre-fermenting intestinal bacteria to be positively correlated with humoral influenza vaccine-specific immune responses in human vaccinees, albeit without reaching statistical significance. Importantly, this correlation was largely driven by first-time vaccinees; prior influenza vaccination negatively correlated with vaccine immunogenicity. In support of these observations, dietary fibre consumption significantly enhanced humoral influenza vaccine responses in mice, where the effect was mechanistically linked to short-chain fatty acids, the bacterial fermentation product of dietary fibre. Overall, these findings may bear significant importance for emerging infectious agents, such as COVID-19, and associated de novo vaccinations.

A feasibility study: association between gut microbiota enterotype and antibody response to seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine in adults.

Objective: We investigated the potential feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of a nutritional intervention that may alter human gut microbiota and support immune defence against respiratory tract infection in adults (Proposed Study). Methods: In total, 125 healthy adults aged 18-64 participated in a 6-month study that measured antibody response to the seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine. We assessed completion rates, procedure adherence rates and the influence of possible exclusion criteria on potential recruitment into the Proposed Study. We examined whether the gut microbiota could be categorised into enterotypes, and whether there was an association between enterotypes and the antibody response to the influenza vaccine. Results: The participant completion rate was 97.6% (95% CI 93.1-99.5%). The proportions (95% CI) of participants who may be excluded for antibiotic or corticosteroid use in the 30 days prior to the study, or due to receiving the influenza vaccine in the previous two years were 9.6% (5.1-16.2), 8.0% (3.9-14.2) and 61.6% (52.5-70.2), respectively. All participants were stratified into four gut microbiota enterotypes. There was no association between these enterotypes and the antibody response to the influenza vaccine, although the study was not powered for this outcome. Conclusion: This study design is suitable for the Proposed Study. The completion rate is likely to be high, although exclusion criteria should be selected with care. Further analyses of gut microbiota composition or function in association with antibody and immune responses are warranted to explore the role of host-microbiota interactions on protective immunity.