The Role of Long-Acting Antimuscarinic Agents in the Treatment of Asthma.

The journey of using anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma started with anticholinergic-containing plants such as Datura stramonium and Atropa belladonna, followed by ipratropium bromide and continued with tiotropium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium. Although antimuscarinics were used in the maintenance treatment of asthma over a century ago, after a long time (since 2014), it has been recommended to be used as an add-on long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) therapy in the maintenance treatment of asthma. The airway tone controlled by the vagus nerve is increased in asthma. Allergens, toxins, or viruses cause airway inflammation and inflammation-related epithelial damage, increased sensory nerve stimulation, ganglionic and postganglionic acetylcholine (ACh) release by inflammatory mediators, intensification of ACh signaling at M1 and M3 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs), and dysfunction of M2 mAChR. Optimal anticholinergic drug for asthma should effectively block M3 and M1 receptors, but have minimal effect on M2 receptors. Tiotropium, umeclidinium, and glycopyrronium are anticholinergic agents with this feature. Tiotropium has been used in a separate inhaler as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium and umeclidinium have been used in a single inhaler as a combination of ICS/LABA/LAMA in asthma in recent years. Guidelines recommend this regimen as an optimization step for patients with severe asthma before initiating any biologic or systemic corticosteroid therapy. In this review, the history of antimuscarinic agents, their effectiveness and safety in line with randomized controlled trials, and real-life studies in asthma treatment will be discussed according to the current data.

Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma.

The aim of this review is to elaborate the management of biologic therapy from initial selection to switching biologics in severe asthma. A nonsystematic review was performed for biological therapy management in severe asthma. Depending on clinical characteristics and biomarkers, selecting the preferred biologic based on super-responder criteria from previous studies may result in adequate clinical efficacy in most patients. On the other hand, no matter how carefully the choice is made, in some patients, it may be necessary to discontinue the drug due to suboptimal clinical response or even no response. This may result in the need to switch to a different biological therapy. How long the biological treatment of patients whose asthma is controlled with biologics will be continued and according to which criteria they will be terminated remains unclear. It has been shown that in patients with a long history of good response to biologics, asthma control may be impaired when biologics are discontinued, while it may persist in others. Therefore, discontinuation of biologics may be a viable strategy in a particular patient group. Clinicians should make the best use of all predictive factors to identify patients who will most benefit from each biologic. Patients who do not meet a predefined response criterion after sufficient time for response evaluation and who are eligible for one or more alternative biological agents should be offered the opportunity to switch to another biologic. There is no consensus on when the biologics used in severe asthma that produce favorable results should be discontinued. In our opinion, treatment should continue for at least five years, as premature termination may potentially deteriorate asthma control.

Self-reported knowledge and approaches toward complementary and alternative medicine among physicians dealing with allergic diseases.

Considering the popularity of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in allergic patients, physicians involved in allergic patients' care need to be aware of CAM. To assess self-reported knowledge, attitude and approach to CAM of physicians who deal with allergic patients, a total of 500 structured questionnaires were distributed to physicians who participated in "Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Congress-2009". For the questionnaires handed out, 242 (48.4%) physicians (median age 36.0 years, range 25-64 years) responded; 22.4% were fellows in training and 48.5% were residents. The main specialties were pediatrics (49.3%), and pulmonology (36.8%); half were either specialists or training in allergy and one-quarter (25.6%) referred patients to CAM. Asthma (42.1%) and chronic urticaria (28.9%) were the most common CAM referral diseases. Referred therapies were herbal (10.3%) and diet-based medicine (7.4%). The differences between physicians in terms of age, gender, experience in medicine, and specialty/allergy subspecialty were not statistically significant (p = 0.01). Affiliation to a university hospital was significantly associated with no CAM referral vs. affiliation in a state/private hospital or private practice. Academic degree and reported level of knowledge negatively/positively affected attitudes toward CAM, respectively. More than half of the respondents (68.8%) reported lack of or insufficient information about CAM, while 58.7% of physicians desired CAM education. This first report on physicians involved in allergic patients' care shows that they are reluctant to refer for CAM therapies. A minority believes that they have enough knowledge, and most are interested in continuing medical education on CAM. Considering physicians' interest and tendency to communicate significantly with their patients about CAM when they feel that they have sufficient knowledge and popularity of CAM among patients, training possibilities should be created to improve physicians' education in this field.