Dataset Information

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists With Asthma Control in Patients With Uncontrolled, Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a potential adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of persistent asthma. Objective:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects associated with LAMA vs placebo or vs other controllers as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and the use of a LAMA as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs; hereafter referred to as triple therapy) vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma. Data Sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries (earliest date through November 28, 2017). Study Selection:Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating a LAMA vs placebo or vs another controller as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids or triple therapy vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma reporting on an outcome of interest. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Meta-analyses using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength-of-evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures:Asthma exacerbations. Results:Of 1326 records identified, 15 randomized clinical trials (N = 7122 patients) were included. Most trials assessed adding LAMA vs placebo or LAMA vs LABA to inhaled corticosteroids. Adding LAMA vs placebo to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced risk of exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92]; RD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.00]). Compared with adding LABA, adding LAMA to inhaled corticosteroids was not associated with significant improvements in exacerbation risk (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.42]; RD, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02]), or any other outcomes of interest. Triple therapy was not significantly associated with improved exacerbation risk vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.22]; RD, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.08 to 0.07]). Conclusions and Relevance:In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of LAMA compared with placebo as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations; however, the association of LAMA with benefit may not be greater than that with LABA. Triple therapy was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations.

SUBMITTER: Sobieraj DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5876909 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor children who have uncontrolled asthma despite the use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), evidence to guide step-up therapy is lacking.MethodsWe randomly assigned 182 children (6 to 17 years of age), who had uncontrolled asthma while receiving 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily, to receive each of three blinded step-up therapies in random order for 16 weeks: 250 microg of fluticasone twice daily (ICS step-up), 100 microg of fluticasone plus 50 microg of a long-acting beta-agonist twice daily (LABA step-up), or 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily plus 5 or 10 mg of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist daily (LTRA step-up). We used a triple-crossover design and a composite of three outcomes (exacerbations, asthma-control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second) to determine whether the frequency of a differential response to the step-up regimens was more than 25%.ResultsA differential response occurred in 161 of 165 patients who were evaluated (P<0.001). The response to LABA step-up therapy was most likely to be the best response, as compared with responses to LTRA step-up (relative probability, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.3; P=0.004) and ICS step-up (relative probability, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4; P=0.002). Higher scores on the Asthma Control Test before randomization (indicating better control at baseline) predicted a better response to LABA step-up (P=0.009). White race predicted a better response to LABA step-up, whereas black patients were least likely to have a best response to LTRA step-up (P=0.005).ConclusionsNearly all the children had a differential response to each step-up therapy. LABA step-up was significantly more likely to provide the best response than either ICS or LTRA step-up. However, many children had a best response to ICS or LTRA step-up therapy, highlighting the need to regularly monitor and appropriately adjust each child's asthma therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00395304.)

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, the incorporation of LAMAs into asthma therapy has been expected to enhance symptom control. However, a significant number of patients with asthma continue to experience poorly managed symptoms. There have been limited investigations on LAMA-induced airway alterations in asthma treatment employing IOS. In this study, we administered a LAMA to patients with poorly controlled asthma, evaluated clinical responses and respiratory function, and investigated airway changes facilitated by LAMA treatments using the IOS.MethodsOf a total of 1282 consecutive patients with asthma, 118 exhibited uncontrolled symptoms. Among them, 42 switched their treatment to high-dose fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) (ICS/LABA/LAMA). The patients were then assessed using AHQ-33 or LCQ and ACT. Spirometry parameters (such as FEV1 or MMEF) and IOS parameters (such as R20 or AX) were measured and compared before and after exacerbations and the addition of LAMA.ResultsOf the 42 patients, 17 who switched to FF/UMEC/VI caused by dyspnea exhibited decreased pulmonary function between period 1 and baseline, followed by an increase in pulmonary function between baseline and period 2. Significant differences were observed in IOS parameters such as R20, R5-R20, Fres, or AX between period 1 and baseline as well as between baseline and period 2. Among the patients who switched to inhaler due to cough, 25 were classified as responders (n = 17) and nonresponders (n = 8) based on treatment outcomes. Among nonresponders, there were no significant differences in spirometry parameters such as FEV1 or PEF and IOS parameters such as R20 or AX between period 1 and baseline. However, among responders, significant differences were observed in all IOS parameters, though not in most spirometry parameters, between period 1 and baseline. Furthermore, significant differences were noted between baseline and period 2 in terms of FEV1, %MMEF, %PEF, and all IOS parameters.ConclusionICS/LABA/LAMA demonstrates superiority over ICS/LABA in improving symptoms and lung function, which is primarily attributed to the addition of LAMA. Additionally, IOS revealed the effectiveness of LAMA across all airway segments, particularly in the periphery. Hence, LAMA can be effective against various asthma phenotypes characterized by airway inflammation, even in real-world cases.

Project description:BackgroundThe Risk of Bias (RoB) tool is used to assess internal validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objectives were to: 1) evaluate inter-rater agreement of the RoB tool; 2) determine the time to access supplemental study information; 3) compare the RoB tool with the Jadad scale and Schulz allocation concealment (AC); and 4) examine the relationship between RoB and effect estimates.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for adults with persistent asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed 107 trials using RoB, Jadad, and AC. One reviewer searched for study protocols. We assessed inter-rater agreement using weighted Kappa (?) and the correlation between tools using Kendall's Tau (?). Mean differences in effect sizes for RCTs with different RoB were calculated using inverse variance method and random effects model.ResultsTrials had good Jadad scores (median 4, IQR 3-4); however, 85% had unclear AC and 87% high RoB. The factor that most influenced RoB was the potential inappropriate influence of study sponsors (95% industry funded). Agreement on RoB domains was fair (??=?0.40) to almost perfect (??=?0.86), and moderate for overall RoB (??=?0.41). Median time to complete RoB assessments was 21 minutes (IQR 14-27) and 12 minutes (IQR 9-16) to search for protocols. Protocols were identified for 5/42 studies (12%); in 3 cases the assessment of selective outcome reporting changed. There was low correlation between overall RoB vs. Jadad (??=?0.04, p?=?0.3) and AC (??=?-0.02, p?=?0.7). Analyses comparing effect estimates and risk showed no important patterns.ConclusionsInter-rater agreement on RoB assessments was better than previously reported suggesting that review-specific guidelines are important. The correlation between RoB and Jadad was low suggesting measurement of different constructs (risk of bias vs. quality of reporting). The extensive involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in this LABA/ICS research should raise concerns about potential overestimates of treatment effects.

Dataset Information

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists With Asthma Control in Patients With Uncontrolled, Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets