Predictors of response to tiotropium versus salmeterol in asthmatic adults.

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium has activity as an asthma controller. However, predictors of a positive response to tiotropium have not been described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe individual and differential responses of asthmatic patients to salmeterol and tiotropium when added to an inhaled corticosteroid, as well as predictors of a positive clinical response. METHODS: Data from the double-blind, 3-way, crossover National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Asthma Clinical Research Network's Tiotropium Bromide as an Alternative to Increased Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Patients Inadequately Controlled on a Lower Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroid (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565266) trial were analyzed for individual and differential treatment responses to salmeterol and tiotropium and predictors of a positive response to the end points FEV1, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), and asthma control days (ACDs). RESULTS: Although approximately equal numbers of patients showed a differential response to salmeterol and tiotropium in terms of morning PEF (n = 90 and 78, respectively) and ACDs (n = 49 and 53, respectively), more showed a differential response to tiotropium for FEV1 (n = 104) than salmeterol (n = 62). An acute response to a short-acting bronchodilator, especially albuterol, predicted a positive clinical response to tiotropium for FEV1 (odds ratio, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.00-8.31; P < .001) and morning PEF (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.12-4.01; P = 0.021), as did a decreased FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio (FEV1 response increased 0.39% of baseline for every 1% decrease in FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio). Higher cholinergic tone was also a predictor, whereas ethnicity, sex, atopy, IgE level, sputum eosinophil count, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, asthma duration, and body mass index were not. CONCLUSION: Although these results require confirmation, predictors of a positive clinical response to tiotropium include a positive response to albuterol and airway obstruction, factors that could help identify appropriate patients for this therapy.

Tiotropium bromide step-up therapy for adults with uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) therapy improves symptoms in patients whose asthma is poorly controlled by an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. Alternative treatments for adults with uncontrolled asthma are needed. METHODS: In a three-way, double-blind, triple-dummy crossover trial involving 210 patients with asthma, we evaluated the addition of tiotropium bromide (a long-acting anticholinergic agent approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but not asthma) to an inhaled glucocorticoid, as compared with a doubling of the dose of the inhaled glucocorticoid (primary superiority comparison) or the addition of the LABA salmeterol (secondary noninferiority comparison). RESULTS: The use of tiotropium resulted in a superior primary outcome, as compared with a doubling of the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid, as assessed by measuring the morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), with a mean difference of 25.8 liters per minute (P<0.001) and superiority in most secondary outcomes, including evening PEF, with a difference of 35.3 liters per minute (P<0.001); the proportion of asthma-control days, with a difference of 0.079 (P=0.01); the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) before bronchodilation, with a difference of 0.10 liters (P=0.004); and daily symptom scores, with a difference of -0.11 points (P<0.001). The addition of tiotropium was also noninferior to the addition of salmeterol for all assessed outcomes and increased the prebronchodilator FEV1 more than did salmeterol, with a difference of 0.11 liters (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: When added to an inhaled glucocorticoid, tiotropium improved symptoms and lung function in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Its effects appeared to be equivalent to those with the addition of salmeterol. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565266.).

Comparison of physician-, biomarker-, and symptom-based strategies for adjustment of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adults with asthma: the BASALT randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: No consensus exists for adjusting inhaled corticosteroid therapy in patients with asthma. Approaches include adjustment at outpatient visits guided by physician assessment of asthma control (symptoms, rescue therapy, pulmonary function), based on exhaled nitric oxide, or on a day-to-day basis guided by symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To determine if adjustment of inhaled corticosteroid therapy based on exhaled nitric oxide or day-to-day symptoms is superior to guideline-informed, physician assessment-based adjustment in preventing treatment failure in adults with mild to moderate asthma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, parallel, 3-group, placebo-controlled, multiply-blinded trial of 342 adults with mild to moderate asthma controlled by low-dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy (n = 114 assigned to physician assessment-based adjustment [101 completed], n = 115 to biomarker-based [exhaled nitric oxide] adjustment [92 completed], and n = 113 to symptom-based adjustment [97 completed]), the Best Adjustment Strategy for Asthma in the Long Term (BASALT) trial was conducted by the Asthma Clinical Research Network at 10 academic medical centers in the United States for 9 months between June 2007 and July 2010. INTERVENTIONS: For physician assessment-based adjustment and biomarker-based (exhaled nitric oxide) adjustment, the dose of inhaled corticosteroids was adjusted every 6 weeks; for symptom-based adjustment, inhaled corticosteroids were taken with each albuterol rescue use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was time to treatment failure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in time to treatment failure. The 9-month Kaplan-Meier failure rates were 22% (97.5% CI, 14%-33%; 24 events) for physician assessment-based adjustment, 20% (97.5% CI, 13%-30%; 21 events) for biomarker-based adjustment, and 15% (97.5% CI, 9%-25%; 16 events) for symptom-based adjustment. The hazard ratio for physician assessment-based adjustment vs biomarker-based adjustment was 1.2 (97.5% CI, 0.6-2.3). The hazard ratio for physician assessment-based adjustment vs symptom-based adjustment was 1.6 (97.5% CI, 0.8-3.3). CONCLUSION: Among adults with mild to moderate persistent asthma controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy, the use of either biomarker-based or symptom-based adjustment of inhaled corticosteroids was not superior to physician assessment-based adjustment of inhaled corticosteroids in time to treatment failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00495157.

Does acuity matter?--Optimal timing of tracheostomy stratified by injury severity.

BACKGROUND: A number of conflicting studies have been conducted to analyze the relationship between the timing of tracheostomy and mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and the incidence of pneumonia. In contrast to previous studies, this relationship was investigated in the context of expected survival based on probability of survival (Ps) greater than 25%. METHODS: Trauma patients were screened using a statewide registry during a 5-year period (January 2001 to December 2005). Burn patients, transfer patients, permanent tracheostomies, and patients who underwent multiple surgical airways were excluded from the study. Data were collected on patient demographics, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, days to tracheostomy, mortality, ICU LOS, total ventilator days, pneumonia, and hospital LOS. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: log-linear modeling, chi2, p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 125,533 trauma patients were analyzed. Out of these, 82,148 patients met inclusion criteria and had complete data for analysis. There were 6,880 patients intubated at the scene, during transport, or at admission to the emergency department, with 685 receiving a temporary tracheostomy. There was a significantly higher mortality rate (48.9%) associated with patients with low Ps (<0.25) receiving early tracheostomy (ET), <4 days. Among high-Ps patients, the ET group demonstrated reduced ICU LOS, total ventilator days, pneumonia, and hospital LOS (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ET in patients with low Ps may not be beneficial given the substantially high mortality rate before post injury day 4. However, ET in high-Ps patients reduces ICU and hospital LOS, total ventilator days, and the incidence of pneumonia. This suggests an increased benefit in ET to trauma patients with high Ps.