No abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the inflammatory marker eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) with peak expiratory flow (PEF) in determining the therapeutic needs of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma patients assessed as asthma symptoms. A randomized, single-blind study over 6 months was performed at six specialist centres in Europe. In total, 164 adult patients with moderate to severe symptomatic asthma and regular use of inhaled corticosteroids were included. After a run-in period of 2 weeks patients were randomly allocated to the ECP or the PEF monitoring group. The dose of inhaled cort costeroids was adjusted every fourth week based on the current serum ECP value or pre-bronchodilator morning PEF values as surrogate markers of therapeutic needs. At the end of the study there were no statistically significant differences in the mean daily symptom score or the percentage of symptom-free days between the two groups. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids was similar in the two groups at the start of the study but the algorithms used to adjust the dose of inhaled corticosteroids resulted in an increased use of inhaled corticosteroids in both groups. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids over the whole study period was significantly lower in the ECP group compared withthe PEF group (1246 vs. 1667 microg, P = 0.026). In the ECP group, forced expiratory volume in I sec (FEV)% predicted was lower at the end ofthe study compared with the begining (92% vs. 87%, P = 0 .0009), although there was no significant difference between the two groups. None of the used algorithms for ECP and PEF led to improvement in symptom scores, in spite of increased doses of inhaled corticosteroids. In this respect, both methods were equivalent and insufficient. Recommendations suggesting lung function tests in current guidelines may be difficult to translate into clinical practice, however, a combination of inflammatory markers, lung function and symptoms may still improve asthma control.

From this observational study it is concluded that adjusting steroid therapy guided by serum ECP-level may be helpful in tailoring asthma treatment.

Long-term treatment with salmeterol produces tolerance for its protective effects against bronchoconstrictor stimuli in patients with asthma. There is human in vitro evidence that theophylline may prevent beta2-adrenoceptor downregulation. Therefore, we investigated the effect of theophylline on the tolerance to the protective effect of salmeterol against histamine challenge in asthma in vivo. In a parallel 6-wk study, 25 asthmatics were treated with theophylline (mean serum level +/- SEM: 9.9 +/- 1.1 mg/L, Days 1 to 40) or placebo, combined with inhaled salmeterol (50 microgram twice daily, Days 8 to 36). Histamine challenges were carried out by tidal breathing method at entry, and at Days 4, 8, 22, 36, and 40. The response was measured by PC20. There was no significant change in PC20 after 4 d monotherapy with theophylline or placebo (mean difference +/- SEM: 0.54 +/- 0.39 and -0.02 +/- 0.41 doubling dose [DD], respectively; p > 0.15). One hour after the first dose, salmeterol afforded significant protection against histamine, as shown by an increase in PC20 in both the theophylline and placebo group (by 3.49 +/- 0.28 and 3.36 +/- 0.32 DD, respectively; p < 0. 001). However, after 2 and 4 wk salmeterol treatment, the improvements in PC20 by salmeterol were significantly reduced to 1. 80 +/- 0.35 and 1.69 +/- 0.36 DD, respectively, in the theophylline group (p < 0.001), and to 1.55 +/- 0.47 and 1.52 +/- 0.56 DD, respectively, in the placebo group (p < 0.002). These changes were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.80). After cessation of salmeterol treatment, PC20 was not significantly different from the values at entry in either group (p > 0.90). We conclude that regular theophylline treatment neither prevents, nor worsens, the development of tolerance to the bronchoprotective effect of salmeterol in asthmatics in vivo.

No abstract