Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Combination Rescue Inhaler for Asthma.

BACKGROUND: As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 80 µg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 80 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 40 µg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 µg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.).

Prevalence, Diagnostic Utility and Associated Characteristics of Bronchodilator Responsiveness.

Rationale: The prevalence and diagnostic utility of bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in a real-life setting is unclear. Objective: To explore this uncertainty in patients aged ⩾12 years with physician-assigned diagnoses of asthma, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD in NOVELTY, a prospective cohort study in primary and secondary care in 18 countries. Methods: The proportion of patients with a positive BDR test in each diagnostic category was calculated using 2005 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC ⩾12% and ⩾200 ml) and 2021 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC >10% predicted) European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria. Measurements and Main Results: We studied 3,519 patients with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, 833 with a diagnosis of asthma + COPD, and 2,436 with a diagnosis of COPD. The prevalence of BDR was 19.7% (asthma), 29.6% (asthma + COPD), and 24.7% (COPD) using 2005 criteria and 18.1%, 23.3%, and 18.0%, respectively, using 2021 criteria. Using 2021 criteria in patients diagnosed with asthma, BDR was associated with higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide; lower lung function; higher symptom burden; more frequent hospital admissions; and greater use of triple therapy, oral corticosteroids, or biologics. In patients diagnosed with COPD, BDR (2021) was associated with lower lung function and higher symptom burden. Conclusions: BDR prevalence in patients with chronic airway diseases receiving treatment ranges from 18% to 30%, being modestly lower with the 2021 than with the 2005 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria, and it is associated with lower lung function and greater symptom burden. These observations question the validity of BDR as a key diagnostic tool for asthma managed in clinical practice or as a standard inclusion criterion for clinical trials of asthma and instead suggest that BDR be considered a treatable trait for chronic airway disease.

Assessing meaningful change in the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a 10-item, yes/no, equally weighted control tool. Lower scores indicate better control. Moreover, 7 impairment items reflect previous 2-week symptoms, and 3 risk items assess previous 12-month exacerbations. The Follow-up AIRQ for use between annual assessments has a 3-month recall period for exacerbation items. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the AIRQ over time and identify a minimal important difference (MID). METHODS: The AIRQ longitudinal study data were analyzed from patients with asthma aged 12 years and older. Anchor-based methods assessed differences in AIRQ scores relative to Patient Global Impression of Change, the accepted MIDs for St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test, and exacerbation occurrence over 12 months. Baseline and 12-month data reflected 12-month recall AIRQ scores; Follow-up AIRQ scores were used for 3-, 6-, and 9-month analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1070 patients were included. The Patient Global Impression of Change rating of "much improved" was associated with AIRQ mean score changes from baseline to months 3, 6, 9, and 12 of -2.0, -1.9, -1.9, and -1.8, respectively. The mean AIRQ score change among patients who met the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire MID (≥4-point decrease) was -1.8 at 6 and 12 months. The AIRQ mean scores decreased from baseline by -2.2 to -2.5 points at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 for patients who met the Asthma Control Test MID (≥ 3-point increase). A 2-point higher baseline AIRQ score was associated with a 1.7 odds ratio of 12-month exacerbation occurrence (95% CI, 1.53-1.89). CONCLUSION: A change score of 2 is recommended as the AIRQ MID.

Advancing assessment of asthma control with a composite tool: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: National and international asthma guidelines and reports do not include control tools that combine impairment assessment with exacerbation history in one instrument. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of the composite Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) in assessing both domains of control and predicting exacerbation risk compared with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 4-question symptom control tool (GINA SCT), Asthma Control Test (ACT), and physician expert opinion (EO) informed by GINA SCT responses and appraisal of GINA-identified risk factors for poor asthma outcomes. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated AIRQ and GINA SCT as predictors of ACT. McNemar's test compared the proportion of patients categorized at baseline as completely or well-controlled by each assessment but with current impairment or previous-year and subsequent-year exacerbations. RESULTS: The analysis included 1064 patients aged 12 years or older; mean (SD) age 43.8 years (19.3); 70% female; 79% White; and 6% Hispanic or Latino. AIRQ and GINA SCT were highly predictive of ACT well-controlled vs not well-controlled and very poorly controlled (receiver operator characteristic area under curve AIRQ = 0.90, GINA SCT = 0.86, P = .03 AIRQ vs GINA SCT) and ACT very poorly controlled vs well-controlled and not well-controlled asthma (receiver operator characteristic area under curve AIRQ = 0.91, GINA SCT = 0.87, P = .01 AIRQ vs GINA SCT). AIRQ rated fewer patients as having completely or well-controlled asthma who had current impairment (P < .01) or with previous-year and subsequent-year exacerbations (P < .001) than did GINA SCT, ACT, and EO. CONCLUSION: AIRQ performs better in assessing both domains of current control and predicting exacerbation risk than do control tools and EO informed by GINA SCT and risk factors for poor asthma outcomes.

Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective: To compare short-acting ß agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting ß agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results: A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.

Number of patient-reported asthma triggers predicts uncontrolled disease among specialist-treated patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma (SA) experience a high disease burden, often precipitated by exposure to disease triggers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and effects of patient-reported triggers on asthma disease burden in a cohort of subspecialist-treated patients with SA in the United States. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an observational study of adults with SA receiving biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or whose disease is uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers. Data were analyzed for patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021. This analysis evaluated patient-reported triggers from a 17-category survey and associations with multiple measures of disease burden. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 1434 (51%) completed the trigger questionnaire. The median trigger number per patient was 8 (interquartile range, 5-10). The most frequent triggers were weather or air changes, viral infections, seasonal allergies, perennial allergies, and exercise. Patients reporting more triggers experienced more poorly controlled disease, worse quality of life, and reduced work productivity. The annualized rates of exacerbations and asthma hospitalizations increased by 7% and 17%, respectively, for each additional trigger (both P < .001). For all measures, trigger number was a stronger predictor of disease burden than blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSION: Among US specialist-treated patients with SA, asthma trigger number was positively and significantly associated with greater uncontrolled disease burden across multiple measures, which highlights the importance of understanding patient-reported triggers in SA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire enhances the assessment of asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is often overestimated in routine practice, and despite advances in the understanding of immunopathology and the availability of new precision therapies, the burden of disease remains unacceptably high. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) with patient and physician assessments and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) in identifying asthma control. METHODS: Baseline data from a longitudinal study of the AIRQ were analyzed. Patients with asthma in the United States aged 12 years and older followed in 24 specialty practices and 1 specialty-affiliated primary care clinic were enrolled between May and November 2019. At entry, participants completed AIRQ and ACT, and participants and physicians completed 5-point Likert scale assessments of control. RESULTS: A total of 1112 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age = 43.9 [19.3] years, 70% of the female sex, 78% White). Overall, 62% of participants rated themselves as well- or completely controlled, and 54% were rated comparably by physicians. The ACT classified 49% of participants as well-controlled, with 35% similarly categorized by AIRQ. Previous-year exacerbations were experienced by 32% of participants who self-rated as well- or completely controlled, 30% who were rated as well- or completely controlled by physicians, and 29% assessed as well-controlled by ACT, but only 15% of those classified as well-controlled by AIRQ. CONCLUSION: The burden of asthma is substantial in patients cared for by asthma specialists, and asthma control is overestimated by patients, physicians, and the symptom-based ACT. The AIRQ assesses risk in addition to symptom control and may serve to improve asthma control determination by assessing previous exacerbations.

Albuterol/budesonide for the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma: The TYREE study.

BACKGROUND: PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist). FEV1 was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge. RESULTS: Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV1 post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04234464.

Biologic use and outcomes among adults with severe asthma treated by US subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are now available for severe asthma (SA) treatment and can improve outcomes for patients. However, few available data describe the real-world use and effectiveness of multiple approved biologics, including biologic switching, among subspecialists in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biologic use and associated exacerbation outcomes in a large cohort of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For enrolled patients, sites report asthma exacerbations and medication use starting 12 months before enrollment. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021, biologic use and exacerbation outcomes before and after biologic initiation are described. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 66% (n = 1832) were receiving biologics. The most used biologic (> 1 biologic use per patient allowed) was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), dupilumab (18%), and reslizumab (3%). Overall, 16% of patients had biologic switches, 13% had stops, and 89% had ongoing biologic use. Patients starting and switching biologics experienced a 58% (1.80 vs 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs 0.75 per patient-year) reduction in exacerbations, respectively (both P < .001), with a numerically greater reduction observed among those starting non-anti-immunoglobulin E biologics compared with anti-immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: Real-world starting and switching of biologic therapies for SA were associated with meaningful reductions in exacerbations. With increasing biologic options available, individualized approaches to therapy may improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045.

Evaluating construct validity of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire using a 3-month exacerbation recall.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent assessment of asthma control is essential to evaluating disease stability and intervention impacts. An assessment that can be administered between annual clinic visits is needed. The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a cross-sectionally validated, 10-item, yes or no, composite control tool evaluating previous 2-week symptoms and previous 12-month exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the construct validity of the AIRQ using a 3-month recall period for exacerbation-based risk questions and retaining the 2-week recall for symptom-based impairment items. METHODS: At baseline, patients completed the AIRQ with 12-month recall exacerbation items, Asthma Control Test (ACT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and global self-assessments of asthma risk, control, and symptom severity. Patient-reported exacerbations were captured monthly. The AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items, ACT, and global self-assessments was administered at months 3, 6, and 9, and SGRQ at month 6. RESULTS: A total of 1112 patients aged 12 years or older were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 43.9 [19.5] years). The AIRQ and each administration of the AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items classified asthma control similarly to an ACT plus exacerbation validation standard. For both AIRQ versions, SGRQ scores were higher with worsening asthma control (P < .001). At months 3, 6, and 9, worse AIRQ control levels were associated with higher proportions of patients with 1 or more and 2 or more exacerbations in the previous 3 months and patient global self-assessments indicating greater asthma morbidity (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: The AIRQ using exacerbation risk items with a 3-month recall period exhibits construct validity for classifying current asthma control and can be administered between annual AIRQ assessments.

Severe asthma exacerbation rates are increased among female, Black, Hispanic, and younger adult patients: results from the US CHRONICLE study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical outcomes in patients with severe asthma (SA) by common sociodemographic determinants of health: sex, race, ethnicity, and age. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an observational study of subspecialist-treated, United States adults with SA receiving biologic therapy, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or uncontrolled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2020, clinical characteristics and asthma outcomes were assessed by sex, race, ethnicity, age at enrollment, and age at diagnosis. Treating subspecialists reported exacerbations, exacerbation-related emergency department visits, and asthma hospitalizations from 12 months before enrollment through the latest data collection. Patients completed the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Test at enrollment. RESULTS: Among 1884 enrolled patients, the majority were female (69%), reported White race (75%), non-Hispanic ethnicity (69%), and were diagnosed with asthma as adults (60%). Female, Black, Hispanic, and younger patients experienced higher annualized rates of exacerbations that were statistically significant compared with male, White, non-Hispanic, and older patients, respectively. Black, Hispanic, and younger patients also experienced higher rates of asthma hospitalizations. Female and Black patients exhibited poorer symptom control and poorer health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary, real-world cohort of subspecialist-treated adults with SA, female sex, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and younger age were important determinants of health, potentially attributable to physiologic and social factors. Knowledge of these disparities in SA disease burden among subspecialist-treated patients may help optimize care for all patients.Supplemental data for this article is available online at at www.tandfonline.com/ijas .

Differing perceptions of asthma control and treatment effectiveness by patients with severe asthma and treating subspecialists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with severe asthma (SA), overestimation of asthma control may lead to poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess concurrent patient and specialist assessments of asthma control and treatment effectiveness among a large US cohort of SA patients. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Asthma control was assessed using the patient-completed Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and specialist clinical assessment of control. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) completed by patients and specialists. RESULTS: 1109 patients who completed online surveys at enrollment were included. 14%, 28%, 25%, and 33% of patients had ACT™ scores of 5-9, 10-15, 16-19, and 20-25, respectively. Compared with 67% of patients with uncontrolled asthma by ACT™, 44% were uncontrolled by specialist assessment. 54% of patients who were uncontrolled according to the ACT™ were rated as controlled by specialists, demonstrating overestimation of asthma control. Based on ACT™ score, asthma control was more frequent among patients treated with biologics compared to other treatments. Using the GETE, 90% of patients reported treatment effectiveness compared with 71% of specialists. Patient and specialist treatment effectiveness categorizations agreed 73% of the time. CONCLUSION: Specialists commonly overestimated asthma control relative to ACT™ scores. Patients reported treatment effectiveness more frequently than specialists. These findings emphasize the importance of validated instruments to assess asthma control and reduce potential treatment gaps associated with patient-specialist discordance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Benefit of switching to mepolizumab from omalizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma based on patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The OSMO study assessed the efficacy of switching to mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma that was uncontrolled whilst receiving omalizumab. The objective of this analysis was to assess the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined improvements in up to four efficacy outcomes and the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and treatment response. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of OSMO study data (GSK ID:204471; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02654145). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, other controller(s) and omalizumab subcutaneously (≥ 4 months) were switched to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously. Endpoints included the proportion of responders-i.e. patients achieving a pre-defined clinical improvement in ≥ 1 of the following outcomes: (1) Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score (≥ 0.5-points), (2) St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥ 4-points), (3) pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1; ≥ 100 mL), all at Week 32, and (4) annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (≥ 50% reduction). RESULTS: Of the 145 patients included, 94%, 83%, 63% and 31% were responders for ≥ 1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3 and 4 outcomes, respectively; 75% and 78% were ACQ-5 and SGRQ score responders, and 50% and 69% were FEV1 and exacerbation responders. Subgroup analyses demonstrated improvements irrespective of baseline blood eosinophil count, prior omalizumab treatment regimen/duration, comorbidities, prior exacerbation history, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, ACQ-5 and SGRQ scores, and body weight/body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: After switching to mepolizumab, almost all patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma on omalizumab achieved a beneficial response in ≥ 1 clinical outcome. Improvements were observed regardless of baseline characteristics. Trial registration This manuscript is a post hoc analysis of data from the OSMO study. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654145. Registered January 13, 2016.

Review of efficacy of ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma in children.

Background: Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in patients ages ≥ 12 years. The prodrug aspect of CIC is associated with a safety profile that may make it ideal for children. Objective: The objective was to summarize efficacy results from the eight phase III, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials in children with asthma conducted during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four trials compared CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo. Two trials compared CIC 160 µg/day with fluticasone propionate 200 µg/day, one trial compared CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with fluticasone 200 µg/day, and one trial compared CIC 160 µg/day with budesonide 400 µg/day. Results: The primary end point was met by at least two CIC doses versus placebo in the trials in which the primary end point was the change from baseline in lung function outcome (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted or morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). A trial that compared CIC with placebo did not meet the primary end point of superiority in time-to-first severe wheeze exacerbation or lack of improvement. The primary end point of noninferiority to the active control (fluticasone or budesonide) in the change from baseline in a lung function outcome (FEV1, morning PEF, evening PEF) was met with the CIC 160-µg dose in all active control trials. CIC generally demonstrated statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and asthma control when compared with placebo and noninferiority for these outcomes compared with fluticasone or budesonide. Conclusion: In children with asthma, once-daily CIC significantly improved large and small airway function, asthma symptoms, and asthma control, and reduced rescue medication use compared with placebo. CIC was comparable with other ICS used to treat asthma in children, which demonstrated its worth for the pediatric population.

Safety of ciclesonide in children with asthma: A review of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective: To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results: In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion: Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.

Tiotropium in children and adolescents with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a major cause of morbidity in children, despite the availability of various treatments. In adults, tiotropium-a long-acting muscarinic antagonist-as add-on therapy to an inhaled corticosteroid with or without a long-acting ß2-agonist provides clinical benefit with a safety profile similar to placebo. OBJECTIVE: To review published evidence on the efficacy and safety of tiotropium as add-on a long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy in children and adolescents with asthma that is uncontrolled despite use of an inhaled corticosteroid with or without additional controller medication(s). METHODS: We searched PubMed from inception until June 12, 2018, for randomized controlled trials of children and adolescents aged 1 to 17 years treated with tiotropium and reporting a primary outcome of any pulmonary function test and a secondary outcome of adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 7 randomized controlled trials of 1902 preschool children (aged 1-5 years; n = 102), school-age children (aged 6-11 years; n = 905), and adolescents (aged 12-17 years; n = 895) with moderate to severe asthma were included in the analysis. Once-daily tiotropium (5, 2.5, or 1.25 µg) improved lung function parameters, including peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, vs placebo. Commonly reported adverse events across treatment groups included asthma worsening or exacerbations, decreased peak expiratory flow rate, nasopharyngitis, viral respiratory tract infection, and respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSION: Once-daily tiotropium as add-on therapy is efficacious and safe in adolescents and children with moderate to severe asthma. These results support the expanded indication by regulatory authorities for add-on tiotropium in patients 6 years or older.

Benralizumab efficacy for patients with fixed airflow obstruction and severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Fixed airflow obstruction (FAO) is associated with severe eosinophilic asthma. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated FAO influence on benralizumab treatment response. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled phase III SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) data for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with baseline blood eosinophil counts of 300 or more cells/µL who received benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks or placebo. Demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, and treatment responses were evaluated by FAO status. FAO+ and FAO- were defined as ratios of postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity of less than 70% and 70% or more, respectively, at baseline. RESULTS: FAO+ prevalence was 63% (935/1493). With benralizumab, similar annual asthma exacerbation rate (AER) reductions vs placebo were achieved for FAO+ and FAO- patients (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.56 [0.44-0.71] and 0.58 [0.41-0.83], respectively), whereas annual AER reductions associated with emergency department visits or hospitalizations were greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients (rate ratio [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.33-0.91] and 0.70 [0.33-1.48], respectively). Prebronchodilator FEV1 (95% CI) increase from baseline to end of treatment was greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients receiving benralizumab compared with placebo (0.159 L [0.082-0.236] vs 0.103 L [-0.008 to 0.215]). Other lung function measures, patient-reported outcomes, and symptom improvements were also numerically greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab improved asthma control across several measures for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma and FAO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SIROCCO trial: NCT01928771 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01928771) CALIMA trial: NCT01914757 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01914757).

From the pages of AllergyWatch®: November 2020.

For this month's edition of "From the Pages of AllergyWatch," I have chosen reviews of articles of interest to the clinical allergist. The first study found that wheezing infants with atopic sensitization at the time of the first wheezing episode was strongly associated with bronchial reactivity in childhood. The next review, of an article published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, investigated the complexity of atopic sensitization to foods in children with atopic dermatitis (AD). The final study confirms the determination of the US Environmental Protection Agency to the likely causal link between exposures to particulate matter and ozone and respiratory illness.

Relative efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended as first-line controller medications for persistent asthma. However, guidelines on the initial ICS doses, step-up and step-down algorithms, and when to switch to combination therapy vary. OBJECTIVE: To understand the ideal starting doses of ICS therapy based on current evidence and to systematically compare low, moderate, and high starting doses of ICSs as monotherapy and in combination with long-acting ß-agonists with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant English-language articles published from 1980 to November 17, 2018. Randomized controlled trials with adult, steroid-naive, ICS-free (for ≥4 weeks) patients with asthma and a duration of 4 weeks or longer with an ICS treatment arm (monotherapy or combination therapy) were included. Separate fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted on the extracted data for peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 31 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. All starting doses of ICSs were comparable with respect to nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. Significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed with high-dose ICSs and with low- and moderate-dose ICSs and long-acting ß-agonists than with low-dose ICSs. CONCLUSION: Overall, a high starting dose of ICSs had no additional clinical benefit in 3 of the 4 efficacy parameters compared with low or moderate ICS doses for controlling moderate to severe asthma but might have potential safety concerns.