Errors in the Use of Inhalers by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Inefficient inhaler technique (IT) compromises the optimal delivery of medication. However, the IT knowledge of health care professionals (HCPs) has received scant attention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of published reports assessing the IT proficiency of HCPs in using pressurized metered dose (pMDI) and dry powder (DPI) inhalers. METHODS: Studies published between 1975 and 2014 that directly assessed the IT skills of HCPs were selected according to predefined selection criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 55 studies involving 6,304 HCPs who performed 9,996 tests to demonstrate their IT proficiency. Overall, the IT was considered correct in 15.5% of cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 12-19.3), decreasing over time from 20.5% (95% CI, 14.9-26.8) from the early period (defined as 1975-1995) to 10.8% (95% CI, 7.3-14.8) during the late period (1996-2014). The most common errors in the use of pMDIs were as follows: not breathing out completely before inhalation (75%; 95% CI, 56-90), lack of coordination (64%; 95% CI, 29-92), and postinhalation breath-hold (63%; 95% CI, 52-72). The most common errors using DPI were deficient preparation (89%; 95% CI, 82-95), not breathing out completely before inhalation (79%; 95% CI, 68-87), and no breath-hold (76%; 95% CI, 67-84). CONCLUSIONS: HCPs demonstrated inadequate knowledge of the proper use of inhalers. The poor understanding of the correct use of these devices may prevent these professionals from being able to adequately assess and teach proper inhalation techniques to their patients.

Anticholinergics for asthma: a long history.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a fast overview about the introduction and development of anticholinergic drugs in Western medicine to their current indications particularly in asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: Although short-acting muscarinic antagonists have been positioned in the last 15 years for the treatment of adults and children with moderate-to-severe acute asthma in the emergency setting (reducing the risk of hospital admissions and improving lung function), a growing body of evidence has recently emerged that positions the long-acting muscarinic anticholinergic tiotropium bromide as add-on therapy to at least inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) maintenance therapy in adults, adolescents, and children with symptomatic asthma. Thus, the addition of tiotropium bromide to ICS alone or ICS and another controller was associated with significant improvements in spirometric measures and asthma control, and a significantly decrease in the rate of asthma exacerbations. SUMMARY: Short-acting muscarinic antagonists and tiotropium bromide have a well established role in the treatment of different phases of asthma. Further data are needed to provide more evidence on other selective long-acting muscarinic antagonists in addition to tiotropium as potential treatment options.

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium in school-age children with moderate-to-severe symptomatic asthma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recently published data support the benefits and safety of the once-daily (OD) long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium bromide bronchodilator for the treatment of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma in adults and adolescents. However, its role for the treatment of school-age asthmatics has not yet been clearly defined. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of tiotropium Respimat® in children aged 6-11 years with moderate-to-severe symptomatic asthma. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included. Primary outcomes were peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s measured within 3 h post-dosing) [FEV1 (0-3 h) ] and trough FEV1 measured at the end of the dosing interval. RESULTS: Three studies (more than 900 patients) were selected. Tiotropium was associated with significant improvements in FEV1 peak (mean change from baseline) by 102 mL (P<.0001) and trough by 82 mL (P<.0001) compared with placebo. Tiotropium 5 µg dose presented a trend (statistically non-significant) toward a greater bronchodilation in comparison with 2.5 µg dose. Tiotropium significantly increased the rate of the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) responders compared with placebo (82.2% vs 75.4%, number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB]=15) and significantly decreased the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in comparison with placebo (29.1% vs. 39.8%, with a NNTB of 10). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use, withdrawals, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: OD tiotropium Respimat® is efficacious and well tolerated as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids plus one or more controller medications in school-age symptomatic asthmatics.

LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as ß2-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks' LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P<0.0001), with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in FEV1 of >100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]). CONCLUSION: The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.

A systematic review with meta-analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination for the treatment of stable COPD.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonists as first-line therapy for COPD patients at risk for acute exacerbations and/or severe airflow limitation. This systematic review assesses available evidence on the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination versus each alone, for the treatment of patients with severe to very severe stable COPD. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of >8 weeks of duration were included. Primary end points were pulmonary function, COPD exacerbations and serious adverse events. FF/VI was compared with its mono-components. RESULTS: Five reports with six trials (n = 15,515 patients) met the entry criteria. FF/VI was associated with significant increases in trough FEV1 compared with vilanterol (VI) and fluticasone furoate (FF) (45 mL and 90 mL respectively). FF/VI significantly reduced the number of subjects with at least one moderate to severe exacerbation compared with VI (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 21) and with FF (NNTB = 26). There were no statistical differences in the rates of serious adverse events, cardiac events and all-cause mortality. On the contrary, FF/VI showed a significant 52% increase in the rate of pneumonia compared with VI monotherapy (5.3% vs. 3.5%). However, there was no difference in the rate of pneumonia when FF/VI was compared with FF alone. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI combination was associated with a decrease of the rate of COPD exacerbations, without affecting mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD. Also, the use of FF was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome: a controversial concept.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To illustrate the scant evidence and the shortcomings of the concept of 'asthma-COPD overlap syndrome' (ACOS) in terms of clinical utility. RECENT FINDINGS: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are considered as two distinct and heterogeneous diseases. For many years, physicians have been aware that asthma and COPD can coexist in some patients. Recently, the term ACOS has been applied when a person has clinical features of both asthma and COPD. However, the lack of an accurate diagnosis has led to inconsistent data regarding reported prevalence, prognosis and therapeutics. Even today, it has not been possible to establish a phenotypic characterization of ACOS, although it is part of the overall complexity and heterogeneity of COPDs. No high quality data exist on which to base treatment recommendations for ACOS. Consequently, in clinical practice, treatment is extrapolated from the available evidence on asthma and COPD. SUMMARY: The current concept of ACOS seems clinically irrelevant because it has no influence on the prognosis and treatment of these patients. The authors concluded that the term ACOS should be avoided in the case of patients with features of both asthma and COPD.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate and vilanterol for adolescents and adults with symptomatic asthma: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol is a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combination developed for once-daily administration via a dry powder inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate-vilanterol in adolescents and adults with symptomatic asthma compared with ICS monotherapy or twice-daily ICS-LABA formulations. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials with longer than 8 weeks of treatment duration were included. Primary outcome was pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] or peak expiratory flow rate [PEF]). RESULTS: Seven published randomized clinical trials were included (5,668 patients). Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol was associated with significant increases in trough FEV1 and morning and evening PEF compared with fluticasone furoate, 100 µg, monotherapy (90 mL, 20.1 L/min, and 18.9 L/min respectively). Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol reduced significantly the rate of severe asthma exacerbations (number need to treat for benefit = 24). Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol also produced significant increases in weighted FEV1 and morning and evening PEF (140 mL, 32.6 L/min, and 25.7 L/min, respectively) compared with fluticasone propionate, 500 µg twice daily. Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol presented a nonsignificant increase in the frequency of cardiac events (6.4% vs 1.8%) compared with fluticasone propionate. No differences were found between both available doses of fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (200/25 µg and 100/25 µg) in terms of efficacy. However, patients receiving fluticasone furoate-vilanterol, 200/25 µg, had a trend toward an increased risk of cardiac events. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol combination was associated with an increase in trough FEV1 compared with fluticasone furoate-fluticasone propionate; however, observed differences may not be clinically significant. Studies comparing fluticasone furoate-vilanterol with fixed twice-daily ICS-LABA combinations are required.

Assessment of acute asthma severity in the ED: are heart and respiratory rates relevant?

BACKGROUND: Assessment of acute asthma severity in the emergency department (ED) determines the appropriate initial therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of heart and respiratory rates as determinants of severity of asthma exacerbations. METHODS: It was a pooled analysis of individual patient data from different controlled clinical trials performed over a 9-year period. The sample was characterized by patients with a diagnosis of asthma, age 18 to 50 years, and a forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) or a peak expiratory flow less than or equal to 50% of predicted at ED presentation. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred ninety-two severe acute asthmatics (age 33.9 ± 10.3 years and FEV1 = 27.4% ± 9.7%) were enrolled. Two-thirds of patients were categorized as having severe acute asthma (FEV1, 31%-50% of predicted) and the remaining third as life-threatening asthma (FEV1, ≤30% of predicted). There were no relationships between the intensity of airway obstruction as measured by the FEV1 and the degree of tachycardia (r = 0.05, P > .1) or tachypnea (r = 0.06, P > .1). Only 22% and 19% of the patients, respectively, met the heart rate and respiratory rate requirements for acute severe asthma (≥120/min and ≥25/min, respectively). In contrast to FEV1 and arterial oxygen saturation, baseline heart and respiratory rates did not predict admissions of patients at the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis suggests a poor performance of heart and respiratory rates as determinants of acute asthma severity in the ED.

Tiotropium for the treatment of adolescents with moderate to severe symptomatic asthma: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of tiotropium for the treatment of adolescents with asthma has not yet been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of inhaled tiotropium in adolescents with moderate to severe symptomatic asthma. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included in this systematic review. Primary outcomes were peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS: Three studies (approximately 1,000 patients) were included. Tiotropium was associated with significant improvements in FEV1 peak (mean change from baseline) by 120 mL (P < .001) and trough by 100 mL (P < .001) compared with placebo. Tiotropium significantly reduced the percentage of patients who experienced an Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 worsening episode defined as a change from trial baseline of 0.5 points or more compared with placebo (2.1% vs 4.8%, number needed to treat = 38) and also was associated with a significantly decreased in the number of patients with at least one exacerbation compared with placebo (17.6 vs 23.8%, number needed to treat = 16). Finally, no significant differences were found in rescue medication use, withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs), AEs (27.3% vs 27.1%), and serious AEs (6.5% vs 7.1%). Tiotropium in doses of 2.5 µg once daily or 5.0 µg once daily resulted in equivalent effects. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium was well tolerated and efficacious as an addition to maintenance treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid or an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting ß-agonist in adolescents with moderate to severe asthma. Available data do not suggest an advantage of the 5-µg once-daily dose (used in adults) compared with the 2.5-µg once-daily dose of tiotropium.

Systematic review on the use of omalizumab for the treatment of asthmatic children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: There are less data on omalizumab treatment in pediatric asthma than in adult population. Thus, to establish the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab as an add-on therapy, a systematic review of placebo-controlled studies was performed. METHODS: Primary outcome was the frequency of asthma exacerbations. Secondary outcomes included spirometric measures, rescue medication use, asthma symptoms, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials (1381 participants) fulfilled the selection criteria. During the stable phase, omalizumab decreased the number of patients with at least one significant asthma exacerbation (26.7% vs. 40.6%, NNTB = 7, 95% CI, 5, 11). The predefined post hoc subgroup analysis showed that duration of treatment did not influence this result. During the steroid reduction phase, omalizumab reduced the number of patients with at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.38, 0.61; NNTB = 6, 95% CI, 4, 8) and also the mean number of asthma exacerbations per patient (MD = -0.44, 95% CI, -0.72, -0.17) when compared to placebo. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar between omalizumab (5.2%) and placebo (5.6%), and there were no evidence of increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions, nor malignant neoplasms. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate that the efficacy of an add-on omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma uncontrolled with recommended inhaled steroid treatment is accompanied by an acceptable safety profile.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Umeclidinium and Vilanterol for the Treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD guidelines recommend the combined use of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) if symptoms are not improved by a single agent. This systematic review tested the hypothesis that the bronchodilator effect of the LABA/LAMA combination, umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VIL), would translate into better outcomes without incurring increased adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled or crossover trials (> 4 weeks) involving UMEC/VIL compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, or fluticasone/salmeterol. Primary outcomes were trough FEV1, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious cardiovascular events (SCVEs). RESULTS: Eleven trials from 10 studies (9,609 patients) showed that UMEV/VIL provided superior improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VIL, tiotropium, and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (mean trough FEV1, 60, 110, 90, and 90 mL, respectively; P < .0001). Also, UMEC/VIL had a greater likelihood of demonstrating a minimal clinically important difference on the Transition Dyspnea Index compared with UMEC and VIL (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 14 and 10, respectively). UMEC/VIL therapy significantly reduced the risk of COPD exacerbations compared with UMEC and VIL (NNTB = 42 and 41, respectively). On the contrary, we noted no significant differences between UMEC/VIL and tiotropium with respect to dyspnea, health status, or risk of COPD exacerbation. Regarding safety issues, the incidence of AEs, SAEs, SCVEs, and mortality on treatment was similar across treatments, suggesting reduced safety concerns with the use of the UMEC/VIL combination. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily inhaled UMEC/VIL showed superior efficacy compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, and fluticasone/combination in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Assessment of the internal structure of GOLD 2011 system.

BACKGROUND: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2011 introduced a new multidimensional system (symptom/risk) for assessment chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to explore the construct validity of the GOLD 2011 classification strategy; specifically, we evaluated its internal structure in terms of reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). METHODS: Reliability (Cronbach alpha coefficient), correlations between variables and two successive EFA were performed to assess the internal structure of GOLD 2011. Symptoms (mMRC dyspnea score) and risk (number of previous year exacerbations and forced expiratory volume in the first second % of predicted) were selected as variables. RESULTS: The analysis included 679 COPD patients from two Spanish cohorts (71.4 ± 11.7 years). Alpha coefficient of the 3 items was 0.52 for the whole sample. Variables presented statistically significant correlations, but of low to moderate magnitude. A first EFA extracted only one factor accounting 52% of the total variance. A second EFA including four items (the three GOLD 2011 variables plus comorbidities as Charlson index score), extracted two-factors accounting for 65% of the total variance. The first factor included the three items of GOLD 2011, and the second contained only one variable (comorbidities). This solution was stable in patients with different levels of COPD severity. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that GOLD 2011 strategy presented a low reliability, and its theorized multidimensionality was not confirm by EFA. Comorbidities appears as a separate and independent domain.

Principal findings of systematic reviews for chronic treatment in childhood asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the principal findings pertaining to most effective long-term pharmacologic treatment of childhood asthma. METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (SRCTs) on pharmacologic chronic treatment in children (1-18 years) with persistent asthma were retrieved through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and CDSR (up to January2014). RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three SRCTs were searched from databases. Among those, 39 SRCTs were included: two were related to step 1, 24 to step 2, nine to steps 3 and 4, and four to step 5 (according with NAEPP and GINA guidelines). The methodological quality of these SRCTs was determined by using the AMSTAR tool. RESULTS: For step 1: addition of ipatropium bromide to short-acting beta2-agonists does not show any benefit. For step 2: in preschoolers, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) reduce severe exacerbations and improve other clinical and lung function parameters. In children, ICSs are superior to leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), cromones, or xantines in reducing severe exacerbations, improving lung function and other clinical outcomes. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is better than beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) or budesonide only for lung function; but similar to hydrofluoroalkane-BDP or to ciclosenide. Compared to low ICSs doses, moderate doses result in only better lung function, but this is not true for FP. For steps 3 and 4: adding LTRA to ICS confers a small benefit; adding LABA improves lung function but does not reduce exacerbations more than double or higher ICS doses. For step 5: adding omalizumab decreases exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: SRCTs are useful for guiding decisions in chronic childhood asthma treatment.

What is the role of tiotropium in asthma?: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of tiotropium for the treatment of asthma has not yet been clearly defined. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in patients with asthma. METHODS: Randomized placebo-controlled trials were included. Primary outcomes were peak and trough FEV1 and morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF). RESULTS: Thirteen studies (4,966 patients) were included. Three different therapeutic protocols were identified. Tiotropium as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) showed statistically and clinically significant increases in PEF (22-24 L/min) and FEV1 (140-150 mL). Additionally, tiotropium decreased the rate of exacerbations (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB], 36) and improved asthma control. The use of tiotropium in patients poorly controlled despite the use of medium to high doses of ICS was not inferior to salmeterol. Finally, the use of tiotropium as an add-on to ICS/salmeterol combination increased pulmonary function to a clinically significant magnitude, reduced asthma exacerbations (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P < .02; I2 = 0%; NNTB, 17), and improved asthma control compared with ICS/salmeterol. Tiotropium was well tolerated, and no potential safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium resulted noninferiorly to salmeterol and superiorly to placebo in patients with moderate to severe asthma who were not adequately controlled by ICS or ICS/salmeterol. Major benefits were concentrated in the increase in lung function and in the case of patients with severe asthma, in the reduction of exacerbations.

Advances in acute asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study is to highlight some of the recent findings related with the management of acute exacerbations in the context of the emergency department setting. RECENT FINDINGS: ß2-agonist heliox-driven nebulization significantly increased by 17% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2-29.4] peak expiratory flow, and decreased the rate of hospital admissions (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), compared with oxygen-driven nebulization. Other findings indicate that there is no robust evidence to support the use of intravenous or nebulized magnesium sulphate in adults with severe acute asthma, and that levalbuterol was not superior to albuterol regarding efficacy and safety in individuals with acute asthma. Finally, hyperlactatemia developed during the first hours of acute asthma treatment has a high prevalence, is related with the use of ß2-agonists and had no clinical consequences. SUMMARY: After a comprehensive review of the best quality pieces of literature published in the last year, it is possible to conclude that the goals of acute asthma management remain almost unchanged.

Asthma in the elderly: what we know and what we have yet to know.

In the past, asthma was considered mainly as a childhood disease. However, asthma is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly nowadays. In addition, the burden of asthma is more significant in the elderly than in their younger counterparts, particularly with regard to mortality, hospitalization, medical costs or health-related quality of life. Nevertheless, asthma in the elderly is still been underdiagnosed and undertreated. Therefore, it is an imperative task to recognize our current challenges and to set future directions. This project aims to review the current literature and identify unmet needs in the fields of research and practice for asthma in the elderly. This will enable us to find new research directions, propose new therapeutic strategies, and ultimately improve outcomes for elderly people with asthma. There are data to suggest that asthma in older adults is phenotypically different from young patients, with potential impact on the diagnosis, assessment and management in this population. The diagnosis of AIE in older populations relies on the same clinical findings and diagnostic tests used in younger populations, but the interpretation of the clinical data is more difficult. The challenge today is to encourage new research in AIE but to use the existing knowledge we have to make the diagnosis of AIE, educate the patient, develop a therapeutic approach to control the disease, and ultimately provide a better quality of life to our elderly patients.

Daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroid treatment for mild persistent asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Guidelines recommend the use of daily inhaled corticosteroids as preferred treatment for preschoolers, children, adolescents, and adults with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma. However, intermittent or as-needed inhaled corticosteroids treatment in response to symptoms is an emerging strategy. This review is focused on the analysis (clinical efficacy and safety) of this approach in comparison with the current daily-based therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, some authors favored the use of inhaled corticosteroids based on symptoms. It has been suggested that a symptom-based approach could reduce the amount of drug used, minimize the risk of adverse events, and reduce healthcare costs. In contrast, physicians prescribing intermittent inhaled corticosteroids would give the wrong message to their patients about the chronicity of the disease. Currently, there is a significant body of high-quality clinical studies and systematic reviews that have addressed this important controversy, and whose analysis allows us to extract some important conclusions. SUMMARY: Present evidence does not support a change in the direction of an intermittent or symptom-based use approach for recurrent wheezing and mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. At this point, there is no convincing basis to alter the current strategy to inhaled corticosteroids dosing, and more studies are needed comparing these two approaches.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of indacaterol and Glycopyrronium for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: COPD guidelines recommend the combined use of inhaled, long-acting ß2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists if symptoms are not improved by a single agent. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination of the long-acting ß2-agonist indacaterol and long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (QVA149) compared with its monocomponents (glycopyrronium and indacaterol) and tiotropium for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled or crossover trials (3-64 weeks). Primary outcomes were trough FEV1, severe adverse events, and serious cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Five trials (4,842 patients) were included. Compared with tiotropium, QVA149 showed a significant increase in trough FEV1 (70 mL; P < .0001) and a decreased use of rescue medication (-0.63 puffs/d; P < .0001). Patients receiving QVA149 had a 19% greater likelihood of experiencing a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) in the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) (NNTB = 11) and a 16% greater likelihood of achieving an MCID in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (NNTB = 11). Similarly, QVA149 vs glycopyrronium showed a significant increase in trough FEV1 (70 mL; P < .0001), a significant reduction in rescue medication use (-0.59; P < .0001), and a significant increase in the rate of patients achieving an MCID in the SGRQ (NNTB = 12). QVA149 showed similar levels of safety and tolerability to both comparators. It was not possible to perform a pooled analysis of data comparing QVA149 vs indacaterol. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily, inhaled QVA149 showed superior efficacy compared with glycopyrronium and the current standard of care, tiotropium, in patients with moderate to severe COPD.