The Role of ICS-Containing Rescue Therapy Versus SABA Alone in Asthma Management Today
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 3 publications
References 80 publications
Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma
ImportanceThe optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma.Data SourcesThe MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions.Study SelectionPairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers).Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAsthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], −10.3% [95% CI, −11.8% to −8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, −4.7% [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, −5.5% [95% CI, −8.4% to −2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, −0.6% [95% CI, −1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.
Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma
ImportanceThe optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma.Data SourcesThe MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions.Study SelectionPairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers).Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAsthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], −10.3% [95% CI, −11.8% to −8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, −4.7% [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, −5.5% [95% CI, −8.4% to −2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, −0.6% [95% CI, −1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.
Left ventricular systolic function after inhalation of beta-2 agonists in healthy athletes
Inhaled beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists (iβ2A) are routinely used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. However, their cardiac effects in athletes are scarcely examined. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of iβ2A on left ventricular (LV) systolic function (SF) by echocardiography in healthy, non-asthmatic female and male endurance athletes. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, balanced, 4-way complete block cross-over study was conducted. Twenty-four healthy athletes (12f/12m: 22.9 ± 2.7/24.4 ± 4.6 years) randomly completed 4 study arms (placebo; salbutamol; formoterol; formoterol + salbutamol). After inhalation of the study medication, the participants performed a 10-min time trial (TT) on a bicycle ergometer. After each TT an echocardiography was performed to determine LVSF. Blood samples were collected pre, post, 3 h and 24 h post TT. In females, total serum concentrations for salbutamol and formoterol were higher. LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV global longitudinal strain (LVendoGLS) showed a treatment effect for the whole study group (p < 0.0001) and a sex effect on LVEF (p = 0.0085). In women, there was a significant treatment effect for all medication arms (at least p ≤ 0.01) both on LVEF and LVendoGLS. In men only formoterol and formoterol + salbutamol displayed a treatment effect on LVEF (p = 0.0427, p = 0.0330; respectively), whereas on LVendoGLS only formoterol + salbutamol was significant (p = 0.0473). The iβ2A significantly influenced LVSF after an acute bout of exercise in healthy endurance athletes. These effects were even more pronounced when combining both iβ2A that supports a dose-dependent effect on cardiac function. Moreover, female athletes had higher serum concentrations of β2 agonists and stronger effects on LVSF compared to male athletes. This is mainly explained by differences in body weight and related plasma volume and may indicate a potential risk when increasing dose above the tested concentrations. Trial registration: At the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (Eudra CT) with the number 201,500,559,819 (registered prospectively on 09/12/2015) and at the German register for clinical studies (DRKS number 00010574 registered retrospectively on 16/11/2021).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
