Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: People with asthma may experience exacerbations, or 'attacks', during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans sometimes advocate a short-term increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at the first sign of an exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of ICS as part of a patient-initiated action plan for the home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and handsearched abstracts to 20 December 2021. We also searched major trial registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated people with persistent asthma to take a blinded inhaler in the event of an exacerbation which either increased their daily dose of ICS or kept it stable (placebo). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We reassessed risk of bias for all studies at the result level using the revised risk of bias tool for RCTs (Risk of Bias 2), and employed the GRADE approach to assess our confidence in the synthesised effect estimates. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue oral steroids in the randomised population. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure in the subset who initiated the study inhaler (treated population), unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, serious and non-serious adverse events, and duration of exacerbation. MAIN RESULTS: This review update added a new study that increased the number of people in the primary analysis from 1520 to 1774, and incorporates the most up-to-date methods to assess the likely impact of bias within the meta-analyses. The updated review now includes nine RCTs (1923 participants; seven parallel and two cross-over) conducted in Europe, North America, and Australasia and published between 1998 and 2018. Five studies evaluated adult populations (n = 1247; ≥ 15 years), and four studies evaluated child or adolescent populations (n = 676; < 15 years). All study participants had mild to moderate asthma. Studies varied in the dose of maintenance ICS, age, fold increase of ICS in the event of an exacerbation, criteria for initiating the study inhaler, and allowed medications. Approximately 50% of randomised participants initiated the study inhaler (range 23% to 100%), and the included studies reported treatment failure in a variety of ways, meaning assumptions were required to permit the combining of data. Participants randomised to increase their ICS dose at the first signs of an exacerbation had similar odds of needing rescue oral corticosteroids to those randomised to a placebo inhaler (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25; 8 studies; 1774 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We could draw no firm conclusions from subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, baseline dose, smoking history, and fold increase of ICS on the primary outcome. Results for the same outcome in the subset of participants who initiated the study inhaler were unchanged from the previous version, which provides a different point estimate with very low confidence due to heterogeneity, imprecision, and risk of bias (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; 7 studies; 766 participants; I2 = 42%; random-effects model). Confidence was reduced due to risk of bias and assumptions that had to be made to include study data in the intention-to-treat and treated-population analyses. Sensitivity analyses that tested the impact of assumptions made for synthesis and to exclude cross-over studies, studies at overall high risk of bias, and those with commercial funding did not change our conclusions. Pooled effects for unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, and duration of exacerbation made it very difficult to determine where the true effect may lie, and confidence was reduced by risk of bias. Point estimates for both serious and non-serious adverse events favoured keeping ICS stable, but imprecision and risk of bias due to missing data and outcome measurement and reporting reduced our confidence in the effects (serious adverse events: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; 2 studies; 394 participants; I² = 0%; non-serious adverse events: OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; 2 studies; 142 participants; I² = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from double-blind trials of adults and children with mild to moderate asthma suggests there is unlikely to be an important reduction in the need for oral steroids from increasing a patient's ICS dose at the first sign of an exacerbation. Other clinically important benefits and potential harms of increased doses of ICS compared with keeping the dose stable cannot be ruled out due to wide confidence intervals, risk of bias in the trials, and assumptions that had to be made for synthesis. Included studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 reflect evolving clinical practice and study methods, and the data do not support thorough investigation of effect modifiers such as baseline dose, fold increase, asthma severity and timing. The review does not include recent evidence from pragmatic, unblinded studies showing benefits of larger dose increases in those with poorly controlled asthma. A systematic review is warranted to examine the differences between the blinded and unblinded trials using robust methods for assessing risk of bias to present the most complete view of the evidence for decision makers.

Asthma-COPD Overlap: What Are the Important Questions?

Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) is a heterogeneous condition that describes patients who show persistent airflow limitation with clinical features that support both asthma and COPD. Although no single consensus definition exists to diagnose this entity, common major criteria include a strong bronchodilator reversibility or bronchial hyperreactivity, a physician diagnosis of asthma, and a ≥ 10-pack-year cigarette smoking history. The prevalence of ACO ranges from 0.9% to 11.1% in the general population, depending on the diagnostic definition used. Notably, patients with ACO experience greater symptom burden, worse quality of life, and more frequent and severe respiratory exacerbations than those with asthma or COPD. The underlying pathophysiologic features of ACO have been debated. Although emerging evidence supports the role of environmental and inhalational exposures in its pathogenesis among patients with a pre-existing airway disease, biomarker profiling and genetic analyses suggest that ACO may be a heterogeneous condition, but with definable characteristics. Early-life factors including childhood-onset asthma and cigarette smoking may interact to increase the risk of airflow obstruction later in life. For treatment options, the population with ACO historically has been excluded from therapeutic trials; therefore strong, evidence-based recommendations are lacking beyond first-line inhaler therapies. Advanced therapies in patients with ACO are selected according to disease phenotypes and are based on extrapolated data from asthma and COPD. Research focused on defining biomarkers and evidence-based treatment options for ACO is needed urgently.

The Prevalence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and the Heterogeneity of Risk Factors in the Canadian Population: Results from the Canadian Obstructive Lung Disease (COLD) Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the spirometric-based prevalence of COPD across different regions in Canada and to evaluate the site heterogeneity of risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional, population-based study, random samples of non-institutionalized adults aged ≥40 years were generated by random digit dialling. Participants answered an interviewer-administered questionnaire and performed spirometry before and after bronchodilator administration. COPD was defined as post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC <0.70 (fixed ratio, FR) and as FEV1/FVC <5th percentile (lower limits of normal, LLN). Separate logistic regression models were used to compute the risk (adjusted odds ratio, aOR) for COPD. I2 and Tau2 analyses were used to evaluate heterogeneity. RESULTS: Out of 5176 (95%) participants, 4893 (47% male with mean age 56.6 years (95% confidence interval, 56.0-57.2)) had spirometry that satisfied ATS criteria. The population prevalence of COPD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.5-17.8) by FR and 11.2% (95% CI, 9.7-12.6) by LLN. Male predominance in prevalence was shown by FR but not by LLN criteria. Patient characteristics associated with an increased risk of COPD included: age (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.33-1.84); history of physician-diagnosed asthma (OR 3.30; 95% CI 2.42-4.49); and childhood hospitalization for respiratory illness (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.17-2.80). In terms of smoking-related risk factors, current smoking status had the highest odds ratio (OR 3.49; 95% CI 2.55-4.80). Variance in prevalence among sites was significantly reduced by adjusting for risk factors in Tau2 analyses. Higher odds of exposure for each risk factor was found in more severe COPD, suggesting that a higher risk could be linked to the development of severe disease. CONCLUSION: This study reports the population prevalence of COPD in nine urban cities which collectively represent the majority of the Canadian population and demonstrates that heterogeneity in prevalence among sites is substantially explained by variation in associated risk factors for COPD.

Structural and functional variations in human bronchial epithelial cells cultured in air-liquid interface using different growth media.

The human bronchial epithelium is an important barrier tissue that is damaged or pathologically altered in various acute and chronic respiratory conditions. To represent the epithelial component of respiratory disease, it is essential to use a physiologically relevant model of this tissue. The human bronchial epithelium is a highly organized tissue consisting of a number of specialized cell types. Primary human bronchial epithelial cells (HBEC) can be differentiated into a mucociliated tissue in air-liquid interface (ALI) cultures using appropriately supplemented media under optimized growth conditions. We compared the histology, ciliary length, and function, diffusion, and barrier properties of HBEC from donors with no respiratory disease grown in two different media, PneumaCult-ALI or Bronchial Epithelial Differentiation Medium (BEDM). In the former group, HBEC have a more physiological pseudostratified morphology and mucociliary differentiation, including increased epithelial thickness, intracellular expression of airway-specific mucin protein MUC5AC, and total expression of cilia basal-body protein compared with cells from the same donor grown in the other medium. Baseline expression levels of inflammatory mediators, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), soluble ST2, and eotaxin-3 were lower in PneumaCult-ALI. Additionally, the physiological cilia beat frequency and electrical barrier properties with transepithelial electrical resistance were significantly different between the two groups. Our study has shown that these primary cell cultures from the same donor grown in the two media possess variable structural and functional characteristics. Therefore, it is important to objectively validate primary epithelial cell cultures before experimentation to ensure they are appropriate to answer a specific scientific question.

Current Practice in the Management of Pulmonary Nodules Detected on Computed Tomography Chest Scans.

Lung cancer is associated with high mortality. It can present as one or more pulmonary nodules identified on computed tomography (CT) chest scans. The National Lung Screening Trial has shown that the use of low-dose CT chest screening can reduce deaths due to lung cancer. High adherence to appropriate follow-up of positive results, including imaging or interventional approaches, is an important aspect of pulmonary nodule management. Our study is one of the first to evaluate the current practice in managing pulmonary nodules and to explore potential causes for nonadherence to follow-up. This is a retrospective analysis at St. Paul's Hospital, a tertiary healthcare center in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. We first identified CT chest scans between January 1 to June 30, 2014, that demonstrated one or more pulmonary nodules equal to or greater than 6 mm in diameter. We then looked for evidence of interventional (surgical resection or biopsy, or bronchoscopy for transbronchial biopsy and cytology) and radiological follow-up of the pulmonary nodule by searching on the province-wide CareConnect eHealth Viewer patient database. A total of 1614 CT reports were analyzed and 139 (8.6%) had a positive finding. Out of the 97 patients who received follow-up, 54.6% (N = 53) was referred for a repeat CT chest scan and 36.1% (N = 35) and 9.3% (N = 9) were referred for interventional biopsy and surgical resection, respectively. In our study, 30.2% (N = 42) of the patients with pulmonary nodules were nonadherent to follow-up. Despite the radiologist's recommendation for follow-up within a certain time interval, only 36% had repeat imaging in a timely manner. Our findings reflect the current practice in the management of pulmonary nodules and suggest that there is a need for improvement at our academic center. Adherence to follow-up is important for the potentially near-future implementation of lung cancer screening.