Articles

Evidence summary

Mild persistent asthma is defined as forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁) ≥80% predicted, with daytime symptoms more than twice per week but less than once daily, and nighttime symptoms more often than twice monthly.¹

Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids

Two large randomized trials support using low-dose inhaled corticosteroids in these children. The Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) study, which included 1041 children, evaluated treatment with either budesonide or nedocromil vs placebo. Patients taking budesonide had a lower rate of urgent care visits (absolute risk reduction [ARR]=10%; number needed to treat [NNT]=10; P=.02) compared with children taking nedocromil (ARR=6%; NNT=17; P=.02). The urgent care visits were reported as number of visits per 100 person-years.

In practical terms, this means that in order to decrease 1 urgent care visit, 1 patient would need to take budesonide for 10 years. However, because rates are not necessarily homogenous over time, the number of visits decreased during the first year may be different than the number of events decreased throughout the tenth year.

Children taking budesonide experienced 21.5% more episode-free days than those taking placebo (P=.01). No change was observed in the nedocromil group.² In the inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy (START) in early asthma study, budesonide demonstrated a 44% relative reduction in time to first severe asthma related event, compared with placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.71; NNT=44; P=.0001).³

Theophylline

Theophylline is considered an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids. One study compared beclomethasone with theophylline in 195 children. This study found near-equivalent efficacy in doctor visits, hospitalizations, monthly peak expiratory flow rates, and FEV₁; however, beclomethasone was superior to theophylline in maintaining symptom control and decreasing the use of inhaled bronchodilators and systemic steroids.

When compared with beclomethasone, theophylline was linked to 14% more central nervous system adverse effects (P<.001) and 17% more gastrointestinal disturbances (P<.001). Although beclomethasone induced more oral candidiasis compared with theophylline (8.9% vs 2.4%; P<.001), the incidence of this infection can be reduced by using a spacer.

Long-term systemic effects

The potential long-term adverse systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids on growth, bone metabolism, and pituitary-adrenal function call for longer-term studies.⁴ A systematic review of 15 trials reported that the protective effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists is inferior to inhaled corticosteroids for adults (relative risk [RR]=1.71; 95% CI, 1.40–2.09); however, evidence is insufficient to extrapolate this to children.⁵

Beta-agonists

Evidence does not support use of long-acting beta-agonists as monotherapy or in combination with other medications for children with mild persistent asthma. Although 1 study showed an improvement in lung function for children taking budesonide plus formoterol compared with budesonide alone, the rate of severe exacerbations was lower for those taking budesonide alone (62% decrease vs 55.8% decrease; P=.001). Both groups had a 32% decrease in the number of rescue inhalations per day when compared with placebo (P=.0008).⁶

Recommendations from others

Recommendations are listed in the TABLE.^1,7,8 Unlike the NAEPP and GINA asthma guidelines, the BTS/SIGN asthma guidelines define no objective measurement or staging classification to diagnose asthma among children. Diagnosis is determined by a child’s response to medication.⁸ Independent of any daily controller medication use, all children should have a short acting bronchodilator on hand in case of an acute attack.^1,8

TABLE
Recommendations for treating mild persistent asthma

Evidence summary

Mild persistent asthma is defined as forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁) ≥80% predicted, with daytime symptoms more than twice per week but less than once daily, and nighttime symptoms more often than twice monthly.¹

Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids

Two large randomized trials support using low-dose inhaled corticosteroids in these children. The Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) study, which included 1041 children, evaluated treatment with either budesonide or nedocromil vs placebo. Patients taking budesonide had a lower rate of urgent care visits (absolute risk reduction [ARR]=10%; number needed to treat [NNT]=10; P=.02) compared with children taking nedocromil (ARR=6%; NNT=17; P=.02). The urgent care visits were reported as number of visits per 100 person-years.

In practical terms, this means that in order to decrease 1 urgent care visit, 1 patient would need to take budesonide for 10 years. However, because rates are not necessarily homogenous over time, the number of visits decreased during the first year may be different than the number of events decreased throughout the tenth year.

Children taking budesonide experienced 21.5% more episode-free days than those taking placebo (P=.01). No change was observed in the nedocromil group.² In the inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy (START) in early asthma study, budesonide demonstrated a 44% relative reduction in time to first severe asthma related event, compared with placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.71; NNT=44; P=.0001).³

Theophylline

Theophylline is considered an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids. One study compared beclomethasone with theophylline in 195 children. This study found near-equivalent efficacy in doctor visits, hospitalizations, monthly peak expiratory flow rates, and FEV₁; however, beclomethasone was superior to theophylline in maintaining symptom control and decreasing the use of inhaled bronchodilators and systemic steroids.

When compared with beclomethasone, theophylline was linked to 14% more central nervous system adverse effects (P<.001) and 17% more gastrointestinal disturbances (P<.001). Although beclomethasone induced more oral candidiasis compared with theophylline (8.9% vs 2.4%; P<.001), the incidence of this infection can be reduced by using a spacer.

Long-term systemic effects

The potential long-term adverse systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids on growth, bone metabolism, and pituitary-adrenal function call for longer-term studies.⁴ A systematic review of 15 trials reported that the protective effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists is inferior to inhaled corticosteroids for adults (relative risk [RR]=1.71; 95% CI, 1.40–2.09); however, evidence is insufficient to extrapolate this to children.⁵

Beta-agonists

Evidence does not support use of long-acting beta-agonists as monotherapy or in combination with other medications for children with mild persistent asthma. Although 1 study showed an improvement in lung function for children taking budesonide plus formoterol compared with budesonide alone, the rate of severe exacerbations was lower for those taking budesonide alone (62% decrease vs 55.8% decrease; P=.001). Both groups had a 32% decrease in the number of rescue inhalations per day when compared with placebo (P=.0008).⁶

Recommendations from others

Recommendations are listed in the TABLE.^1,7,8 Unlike the NAEPP and GINA asthma guidelines, the BTS/SIGN asthma guidelines define no objective measurement or staging classification to diagnose asthma among children. Diagnosis is determined by a child’s response to medication.⁸ Independent of any daily controller medication use, all children should have a short acting bronchodilator on hand in case of an acute attack.^1,8

TABLE
Recommendations for treating mild persistent asthma

Evidence summary

Mild persistent asthma is defined as forced expiratory volume over 1 second (FEV₁) ≥80% predicted, with daytime symptoms more than twice per week but less than once daily, and nighttime symptoms more often than twice monthly.¹

Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids

Two large randomized trials support using low-dose inhaled corticosteroids in these children. The Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) study, which included 1041 children, evaluated treatment with either budesonide or nedocromil vs placebo. Patients taking budesonide had a lower rate of urgent care visits (absolute risk reduction [ARR]=10%; number needed to treat [NNT]=10; P=.02) compared with children taking nedocromil (ARR=6%; NNT=17; P=.02). The urgent care visits were reported as number of visits per 100 person-years.

In practical terms, this means that in order to decrease 1 urgent care visit, 1 patient would need to take budesonide for 10 years. However, because rates are not necessarily homogenous over time, the number of visits decreased during the first year may be different than the number of events decreased throughout the tenth year.

Children taking budesonide experienced 21.5% more episode-free days than those taking placebo (P=.01). No change was observed in the nedocromil group.² In the inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy (START) in early asthma study, budesonide demonstrated a 44% relative reduction in time to first severe asthma related event, compared with placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.71; NNT=44; P=.0001).³

Theophylline

Theophylline is considered an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids. One study compared beclomethasone with theophylline in 195 children. This study found near-equivalent efficacy in doctor visits, hospitalizations, monthly peak expiratory flow rates, and FEV₁; however, beclomethasone was superior to theophylline in maintaining symptom control and decreasing the use of inhaled bronchodilators and systemic steroids.

When compared with beclomethasone, theophylline was linked to 14% more central nervous system adverse effects (P<.001) and 17% more gastrointestinal disturbances (P<.001). Although beclomethasone induced more oral candidiasis compared with theophylline (8.9% vs 2.4%; P<.001), the incidence of this infection can be reduced by using a spacer.

Long-term systemic effects

The potential long-term adverse systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids on growth, bone metabolism, and pituitary-adrenal function call for longer-term studies.⁴ A systematic review of 15 trials reported that the protective effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists is inferior to inhaled corticosteroids for adults (relative risk [RR]=1.71; 95% CI, 1.40–2.09); however, evidence is insufficient to extrapolate this to children.⁵

Beta-agonists

Evidence does not support use of long-acting beta-agonists as monotherapy or in combination with other medications for children with mild persistent asthma. Although 1 study showed an improvement in lung function for children taking budesonide plus formoterol compared with budesonide alone, the rate of severe exacerbations was lower for those taking budesonide alone (62% decrease vs 55.8% decrease; P=.001). Both groups had a 32% decrease in the number of rescue inhalations per day when compared with placebo (P=.0008).⁶

Recommendations from others

Recommendations are listed in the TABLE.^1,7,8 Unlike the NAEPP and GINA asthma guidelines, the BTS/SIGN asthma guidelines define no objective measurement or staging classification to diagnose asthma among children. Diagnosis is determined by a child’s response to medication.⁸ Independent of any daily controller medication use, all children should have a short acting bronchodilator on hand in case of an acute attack.^1,8

TABLE
Recommendations for treating mild persistent asthma

Evidence summary

It is difficult to interpret studies on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (the rather uncommon presence of exercise-induced bronchospasm in a nonasthmatic) and exercise-induced asthma (the more common situation of asthma worsened by exercise). Many studies include both types of patients.

A systematic review of 24 RCTs (of which 13 evaluated children) showed that SABAs, mast cell stabilizers, and anticholinergics provide a significant protective effect against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with few adverse effects (the child subgroup analyses did not differ significantly from pooled results). Mast cell stabilizers were found less effective at attenuating bronchoconstriction than SABAs, with an average maximum decrease in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 11.9% compared with 4.6% for beta-agonists (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9–10.7). Complete protection (defined in this study as maximum % decrease in FEV₁ <15% post-exercise) and clinical protection (50% improvement over placebo) measures were included. Fewer children had complete protection (pooled: 66% vs 85%, odds ratio [OR]=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2–0.5) or clinical protection (pooled: 55% vs 77%, OR=0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–0.8).

Mast cell stabilizers were more effective than anticholinergic agents, with average maximum FEV₁ decrease of 9.4% compared with 16.0% on anticholinergics (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=6.6%; 95% CI, 1.0–12.2). They also provided more individuals with complete protection (pooled: 73% vs 56%, OR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.3–3.7) and clinical protection (pooled: 73% vs 52%, OR=2.7; 95% CI, 1.1–6.4). Combining mast cell stabilizers with SABAs did not produce significant advantages in pulmonary function over SABAs alone. No significant subgroup differences were seen based on age, severity, or study quality.¹

Another systematic review of 20 RCTs (15 studying children and 5 studying adults) with patients aged >6 years showed that 4 mg of nedocromil (Tilade) inhaled 15 to 60 minutes before exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction compared with placebo. It had a greater effect on patients with severe exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (defined as an exercise-induced fall in lung function >30% from baseline).²

Eight RCTs (5 studying children) were included in a systematic review of patients aged >6 years that found no significant difference between nedocromil and cromoglycate with regards to decrease in FEV₁, complete protection, clinical protection, or side effects.³

Leukotriene antagonists have been recommended on a trial basis with follow-up to evaluate the treatment response.⁴ Although there are several long-term studies of leukotriene antagonists for adults, few have studied children. A recent study assessed the effects of montelukast (Singulair) on 64 children with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. After 8 weeks of treatment, the montelukast group showed significant improvements (compared with placebo) in asthma symptom scores (24.3±8.2 before vs 17.8±6.8 after 8 weeks of montelukast treatment, P<.05; vs 17.7±6.7 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.05), maximum percent fall in FEV₁ after exercise (36.5±10.2% before vs 27.6±14.4% after 8 wks of treatment, P<.01; vs 26.7±19.4% 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.01), and time to recovery (41.8±8.1 min before vs 25.3±23.3 min after 8 weeks of treatment, P<.01; vs 27.7±26.5 min 8 weeks after stopping, P<.05).⁵

Therapies awaiting further study include a combination of budesonide (Pulmicort) and formoterol (Foradil), which is similar to the currently available preparation of fluticasone and salmeterol (Advair Diskus) but contains a long-acting beta-agonist with quicker onset. The phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors roflumilast (Daxas) and cilomilast (Ariflo)—neither of which have been FDA-approved—and inhaled low-molecular-weight heparin have potential efficacy.⁶ Other options suggested for this problem—including inhaled furosemide, vitamin C, antihistamines, calcium channel blockers, and reduced dietary salt intake—need further study.⁷

Recommendations from others

Review articles on this topic suggest the following to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: controlling baseline asthma, avoiding known allergens, choosing appropriate sports with short bursts of activity, and selecting warm, humid environments for the activities.^6-8 Some authorities recommend warm-up before athletic events to take advantage of a 30- to 90-minute refractory period. This can help prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction; however, effects vary considerably from person to person.^7,8

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommends prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by optimally controlling underlying asthma. If a patient remains symptomatic during exercise, you should review medication usage, understanding of dosage instructions, and administration technique before any changes in the treatment regimen.⁹

Evidence summary

It is difficult to interpret studies on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (the rather uncommon presence of exercise-induced bronchospasm in a nonasthmatic) and exercise-induced asthma (the more common situation of asthma worsened by exercise). Many studies include both types of patients.

A systematic review of 24 RCTs (of which 13 evaluated children) showed that SABAs, mast cell stabilizers, and anticholinergics provide a significant protective effect against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with few adverse effects (the child subgroup analyses did not differ significantly from pooled results). Mast cell stabilizers were found less effective at attenuating bronchoconstriction than SABAs, with an average maximum decrease in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 11.9% compared with 4.6% for beta-agonists (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9–10.7). Complete protection (defined in this study as maximum % decrease in FEV₁ <15% post-exercise) and clinical protection (50% improvement over placebo) measures were included. Fewer children had complete protection (pooled: 66% vs 85%, odds ratio [OR]=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2–0.5) or clinical protection (pooled: 55% vs 77%, OR=0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–0.8).

Mast cell stabilizers were more effective than anticholinergic agents, with average maximum FEV₁ decrease of 9.4% compared with 16.0% on anticholinergics (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=6.6%; 95% CI, 1.0–12.2). They also provided more individuals with complete protection (pooled: 73% vs 56%, OR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.3–3.7) and clinical protection (pooled: 73% vs 52%, OR=2.7; 95% CI, 1.1–6.4). Combining mast cell stabilizers with SABAs did not produce significant advantages in pulmonary function over SABAs alone. No significant subgroup differences were seen based on age, severity, or study quality.¹

Another systematic review of 20 RCTs (15 studying children and 5 studying adults) with patients aged >6 years showed that 4 mg of nedocromil (Tilade) inhaled 15 to 60 minutes before exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction compared with placebo. It had a greater effect on patients with severe exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (defined as an exercise-induced fall in lung function >30% from baseline).²

Eight RCTs (5 studying children) were included in a systematic review of patients aged >6 years that found no significant difference between nedocromil and cromoglycate with regards to decrease in FEV₁, complete protection, clinical protection, or side effects.³

Leukotriene antagonists have been recommended on a trial basis with follow-up to evaluate the treatment response.⁴ Although there are several long-term studies of leukotriene antagonists for adults, few have studied children. A recent study assessed the effects of montelukast (Singulair) on 64 children with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. After 8 weeks of treatment, the montelukast group showed significant improvements (compared with placebo) in asthma symptom scores (24.3±8.2 before vs 17.8±6.8 after 8 weeks of montelukast treatment, P<.05; vs 17.7±6.7 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.05), maximum percent fall in FEV₁ after exercise (36.5±10.2% before vs 27.6±14.4% after 8 wks of treatment, P<.01; vs 26.7±19.4% 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.01), and time to recovery (41.8±8.1 min before vs 25.3±23.3 min after 8 weeks of treatment, P<.01; vs 27.7±26.5 min 8 weeks after stopping, P<.05).⁵

Therapies awaiting further study include a combination of budesonide (Pulmicort) and formoterol (Foradil), which is similar to the currently available preparation of fluticasone and salmeterol (Advair Diskus) but contains a long-acting beta-agonist with quicker onset. The phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors roflumilast (Daxas) and cilomilast (Ariflo)—neither of which have been FDA-approved—and inhaled low-molecular-weight heparin have potential efficacy.⁶ Other options suggested for this problem—including inhaled furosemide, vitamin C, antihistamines, calcium channel blockers, and reduced dietary salt intake—need further study.⁷

Recommendations from others

Review articles on this topic suggest the following to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: controlling baseline asthma, avoiding known allergens, choosing appropriate sports with short bursts of activity, and selecting warm, humid environments for the activities.^6-8 Some authorities recommend warm-up before athletic events to take advantage of a 30- to 90-minute refractory period. This can help prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction; however, effects vary considerably from person to person.^7,8

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommends prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by optimally controlling underlying asthma. If a patient remains symptomatic during exercise, you should review medication usage, understanding of dosage instructions, and administration technique before any changes in the treatment regimen.⁹

Evidence summary

It is difficult to interpret studies on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (the rather uncommon presence of exercise-induced bronchospasm in a nonasthmatic) and exercise-induced asthma (the more common situation of asthma worsened by exercise). Many studies include both types of patients.

A systematic review of 24 RCTs (of which 13 evaluated children) showed that SABAs, mast cell stabilizers, and anticholinergics provide a significant protective effect against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with few adverse effects (the child subgroup analyses did not differ significantly from pooled results). Mast cell stabilizers were found less effective at attenuating bronchoconstriction than SABAs, with an average maximum decrease in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 11.9% compared with 4.6% for beta-agonists (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9–10.7). Complete protection (defined in this study as maximum % decrease in FEV₁ <15% post-exercise) and clinical protection (50% improvement over placebo) measures were included. Fewer children had complete protection (pooled: 66% vs 85%, odds ratio [OR]=0.3; 95% CI, 0.2–0.5) or clinical protection (pooled: 55% vs 77%, OR=0.4; 95% CI, 0.2–0.8).

Mast cell stabilizers were more effective than anticholinergic agents, with average maximum FEV₁ decrease of 9.4% compared with 16.0% on anticholinergics (child subgroup: weighted mean difference=6.6%; 95% CI, 1.0–12.2). They also provided more individuals with complete protection (pooled: 73% vs 56%, OR=2.2; 95% CI, 1.3–3.7) and clinical protection (pooled: 73% vs 52%, OR=2.7; 95% CI, 1.1–6.4). Combining mast cell stabilizers with SABAs did not produce significant advantages in pulmonary function over SABAs alone. No significant subgroup differences were seen based on age, severity, or study quality.¹

Another systematic review of 20 RCTs (15 studying children and 5 studying adults) with patients aged >6 years showed that 4 mg of nedocromil (Tilade) inhaled 15 to 60 minutes before exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction compared with placebo. It had a greater effect on patients with severe exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (defined as an exercise-induced fall in lung function >30% from baseline).²

Eight RCTs (5 studying children) were included in a systematic review of patients aged >6 years that found no significant difference between nedocromil and cromoglycate with regards to decrease in FEV₁, complete protection, clinical protection, or side effects.³

Leukotriene antagonists have been recommended on a trial basis with follow-up to evaluate the treatment response.⁴ Although there are several long-term studies of leukotriene antagonists for adults, few have studied children. A recent study assessed the effects of montelukast (Singulair) on 64 children with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. After 8 weeks of treatment, the montelukast group showed significant improvements (compared with placebo) in asthma symptom scores (24.3±8.2 before vs 17.8±6.8 after 8 weeks of montelukast treatment, P<.05; vs 17.7±6.7 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.05), maximum percent fall in FEV₁ after exercise (36.5±10.2% before vs 27.6±14.4% after 8 wks of treatment, P<.01; vs 26.7±19.4% 8 weeks after stopping treatment, P<.01), and time to recovery (41.8±8.1 min before vs 25.3±23.3 min after 8 weeks of treatment, P<.01; vs 27.7±26.5 min 8 weeks after stopping, P<.05).⁵

Therapies awaiting further study include a combination of budesonide (Pulmicort) and formoterol (Foradil), which is similar to the currently available preparation of fluticasone and salmeterol (Advair Diskus) but contains a long-acting beta-agonist with quicker onset. The phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors roflumilast (Daxas) and cilomilast (Ariflo)—neither of which have been FDA-approved—and inhaled low-molecular-weight heparin have potential efficacy.⁶ Other options suggested for this problem—including inhaled furosemide, vitamin C, antihistamines, calcium channel blockers, and reduced dietary salt intake—need further study.⁷

Recommendations from others

Review articles on this topic suggest the following to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: controlling baseline asthma, avoiding known allergens, choosing appropriate sports with short bursts of activity, and selecting warm, humid environments for the activities.^6-8 Some authorities recommend warm-up before athletic events to take advantage of a 30- to 90-minute refractory period. This can help prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction; however, effects vary considerably from person to person.^7,8

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommends prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by optimally controlling underlying asthma. If a patient remains symptomatic during exercise, you should review medication usage, understanding of dosage instructions, and administration technique before any changes in the treatment regimen.⁹

Evidence summary

A systematic review encompassing 127 trial centers and 4723 patients concluded that inhaled nedocromil was effective for a variety of patients with asthma. Significant improvements were noted in FEV₁, PEFR, use of bronchodilators, symptom scores, and quality of life scores. The reviewers found nedocromil to be most effective for patients with moderate disease already taking bronchodilators,² corresponding to the “mild persistent asthma” category ( Table ).

A contemporaneous European RCT, not included in the review, compared 4 mg of inhaled nedocromil 4 times daily with inhaled placebo among 209 asthmatic children for 12 weeks.3 After 8 weeks, they found a statistically significant reduction in total daily asthma symptom scores (50% nedocromil vs 9% placebo; P<.01). The proportion of parents and children rating treatment as moderately or very effective was 78% in the treatment group and 59% in the placebo group (number needed to treat [NNT]=5.2; P<.01); clinicians’ ratings were 73% for nedocromil and 50% for placebo (NNT=4.3; P<.01). The frequency of side effects—including nausea, headache, and sleepiness—did not reach statistical significance; however, the nedocromil group reported up to a 20% incidence of sore throat. Most of the studies reported no dropouts due to side effects.

When patients are already using inhaled steroids, the evidence is less clear whether nedocromil confers additional benefits, such as fewer exacerbations or lower inhaled steroid doses. Two small studies of patients either already on inhaled steroids⁴ or considered to be steroid-resistant⁵ found nonsignificant trends towards reductions in bronchodilator use, increased PEFR, increased FEV₁, and improved quality of life. Although both studies were underpowered, the study on steroid-resistant asthma did find a statistically significant 20% improvement in PEFR and decreased bronchodilator use for 50% of patients at 8 and 12 weeks.

The inherent waxing and waning nature of asthma makes demonstrating benefits difficult. Furthermore, nedocromil tends to have an all-ornothing effect rather than a dose-response gradient. Unfortunately, none of these trials found useful predictors to help clinicians determine which patients respond.^1,5

In a Cochrane Review, 20 RCTs involving 280 participants showed that 4 mg (2 puffs) of nedocromil inhaled 15 to 60 minutes prior to exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced asthma for both adults and children. The maximum percentage fall in FEV₁ improved significantly compared with placebo, with a weighted mean difference of 15.5% (95% confidence interval, 13.2–18.1). In addition, the time to complete recovery was shortened from 30 minutes with placebo to 10 minutes with nedocromil.⁶

TABLE
Classification of asthma

Recommendations from others

The Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Expert Panel Report list nedocromil as an option for the treatment of exercise-induced asthma and mild persistent asthma for adults and children. However, it is listed as a second choice to the use of inhaled steroids in the case of mild persistent asthma. It is not recommended for moderate or severe persistent asthma, or for mild intermittent asthma.⁷

Evidence summary

A systematic review encompassing 127 trial centers and 4723 patients concluded that inhaled nedocromil was effective for a variety of patients with asthma. Significant improvements were noted in FEV₁, PEFR, use of bronchodilators, symptom scores, and quality of life scores. The reviewers found nedocromil to be most effective for patients with moderate disease already taking bronchodilators,² corresponding to the “mild persistent asthma” category ( Table ).

A contemporaneous European RCT, not included in the review, compared 4 mg of inhaled nedocromil 4 times daily with inhaled placebo among 209 asthmatic children for 12 weeks.3 After 8 weeks, they found a statistically significant reduction in total daily asthma symptom scores (50% nedocromil vs 9% placebo; P<.01). The proportion of parents and children rating treatment as moderately or very effective was 78% in the treatment group and 59% in the placebo group (number needed to treat [NNT]=5.2; P<.01); clinicians’ ratings were 73% for nedocromil and 50% for placebo (NNT=4.3; P<.01). The frequency of side effects—including nausea, headache, and sleepiness—did not reach statistical significance; however, the nedocromil group reported up to a 20% incidence of sore throat. Most of the studies reported no dropouts due to side effects.

When patients are already using inhaled steroids, the evidence is less clear whether nedocromil confers additional benefits, such as fewer exacerbations or lower inhaled steroid doses. Two small studies of patients either already on inhaled steroids⁴ or considered to be steroid-resistant⁵ found nonsignificant trends towards reductions in bronchodilator use, increased PEFR, increased FEV₁, and improved quality of life. Although both studies were underpowered, the study on steroid-resistant asthma did find a statistically significant 20% improvement in PEFR and decreased bronchodilator use for 50% of patients at 8 and 12 weeks.

The inherent waxing and waning nature of asthma makes demonstrating benefits difficult. Furthermore, nedocromil tends to have an all-ornothing effect rather than a dose-response gradient. Unfortunately, none of these trials found useful predictors to help clinicians determine which patients respond.^1,5

In a Cochrane Review, 20 RCTs involving 280 participants showed that 4 mg (2 puffs) of nedocromil inhaled 15 to 60 minutes prior to exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced asthma for both adults and children. The maximum percentage fall in FEV₁ improved significantly compared with placebo, with a weighted mean difference of 15.5% (95% confidence interval, 13.2–18.1). In addition, the time to complete recovery was shortened from 30 minutes with placebo to 10 minutes with nedocromil.⁶

TABLE
Classification of asthma

Recommendations from others

The Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Expert Panel Report list nedocromil as an option for the treatment of exercise-induced asthma and mild persistent asthma for adults and children. However, it is listed as a second choice to the use of inhaled steroids in the case of mild persistent asthma. It is not recommended for moderate or severe persistent asthma, or for mild intermittent asthma.⁷

Evidence summary

A systematic review encompassing 127 trial centers and 4723 patients concluded that inhaled nedocromil was effective for a variety of patients with asthma. Significant improvements were noted in FEV₁, PEFR, use of bronchodilators, symptom scores, and quality of life scores. The reviewers found nedocromil to be most effective for patients with moderate disease already taking bronchodilators,² corresponding to the “mild persistent asthma” category ( Table ).

A contemporaneous European RCT, not included in the review, compared 4 mg of inhaled nedocromil 4 times daily with inhaled placebo among 209 asthmatic children for 12 weeks.3 After 8 weeks, they found a statistically significant reduction in total daily asthma symptom scores (50% nedocromil vs 9% placebo; P<.01). The proportion of parents and children rating treatment as moderately or very effective was 78% in the treatment group and 59% in the placebo group (number needed to treat [NNT]=5.2; P<.01); clinicians’ ratings were 73% for nedocromil and 50% for placebo (NNT=4.3; P<.01). The frequency of side effects—including nausea, headache, and sleepiness—did not reach statistical significance; however, the nedocromil group reported up to a 20% incidence of sore throat. Most of the studies reported no dropouts due to side effects.

When patients are already using inhaled steroids, the evidence is less clear whether nedocromil confers additional benefits, such as fewer exacerbations or lower inhaled steroid doses. Two small studies of patients either already on inhaled steroids⁴ or considered to be steroid-resistant⁵ found nonsignificant trends towards reductions in bronchodilator use, increased PEFR, increased FEV₁, and improved quality of life. Although both studies were underpowered, the study on steroid-resistant asthma did find a statistically significant 20% improvement in PEFR and decreased bronchodilator use for 50% of patients at 8 and 12 weeks.

The inherent waxing and waning nature of asthma makes demonstrating benefits difficult. Furthermore, nedocromil tends to have an all-ornothing effect rather than a dose-response gradient. Unfortunately, none of these trials found useful predictors to help clinicians determine which patients respond.^1,5

In a Cochrane Review, 20 RCTs involving 280 participants showed that 4 mg (2 puffs) of nedocromil inhaled 15 to 60 minutes prior to exercise significantly reduced the severity and duration of exercise-induced asthma for both adults and children. The maximum percentage fall in FEV₁ improved significantly compared with placebo, with a weighted mean difference of 15.5% (95% confidence interval, 13.2–18.1). In addition, the time to complete recovery was shortened from 30 minutes with placebo to 10 minutes with nedocromil.⁶

TABLE
Classification of asthma

Recommendations from others

The Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Expert Panel Report list nedocromil as an option for the treatment of exercise-induced asthma and mild persistent asthma for adults and children. However, it is listed as a second choice to the use of inhaled steroids in the case of mild persistent asthma. It is not recommended for moderate or severe persistent asthma, or for mild intermittent asthma.⁷

Consider an adult with the following characteristics. To which disease severity would you assign this patient’s asthma?

• Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) or peak expiratory flow (PEF) ≥80%
• PEF variability 20%–30%
• Daytime symptoms less than once a day
• Nighttime symptoms more than 1 night a week.

This patient is said to have moderate persistent asthma based on nighttime symptoms. An accurate classification of a patient’s asthma is the foundation for selecting an appropriate treatment strategy.

In 2002 the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) updated select topics¹from its 1997 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma.² These evidence-based revisions to the stepwise approach to asthma management were made following a systematic review of the literature (see Search function).

This article reviews the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for the use of controller medications for asthma, including:

• Relative effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) versus other controller medications
• Safety of long-term ICS use in children
• Potential benefits of early ICS treatment.

We emphasize mild and moderate persistent asthma because the recommended treatments for these levels of severity have been most affected by the recent guideline changes. We also discuss a recent change by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its pregnancy category rating for an ICS.

2002 Stepwise approach to asthma management

New criteria for classifying asthma severity

The NAEPP classifies asthma severity according to symptoms and lung function in adults and children older than 5 years, and symptoms in children 5 years and younger.¹ Persistent asthma is classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to the feature of greatest severity.

Asthma severity should be assigned according to symptoms before treatment.¹ Because it is difficult to predict which infants and young children who wheeze with acute viral upper respiratory infection will go on to develop persistent asthma, new criteria have been detailed to help distinguish these children from those with transient wheeze (Table 1).^1,4

TABLE 1
Criteria for children with intermittent wheeze

Choosing pharmacologic treatment according to asthma classification

Quick-relief medications, which include the short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs), are taken as needed to promptly reverse acute airflow obstruction and relieve accompanying symptoms.²

Asthma controller medications (ie, ICSs, cromolyn sodium, long-acting β₂-adrenergic-agonists [LABAs], leukotriene modifiers, nedocromil, and theophylline) are used daily to achieve and maintain long-term control of persistent asthma. All patients with persistent asthma, regardless of disease severity, should use a daily controller. Criteria for determining asthma severity and updated recommendations for the use of controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma are presented in the Figure.^3,5 Levels of evidence justifying NAEPP treatment recommendations are shown in Table 2.

For use in children. Asthma controller medications approved for use in children younger than 5 years include the fluticasone dry-powder inhalers (Flovent, Rotadisk, and Flovent Diskus), which are approved for children as young as 4 years (Flovent Diskus is not yet commercially available), and nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules), which is approved for children as young as 12 months.

The LABAs formoterol (Foradil) and salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) are approved for children as young as 5 and 4 years, respectively. Cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution is approved for children as young as 2 years, and theophylline is available for use at any age.

Based on safety and extrapolation of efficacy data in older patients, the oral granule formulation of the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast (Singulair) is approved for children as young as 1 year, and the chewable tablets are approved for children 2 to 5 years of age. Zafirlukast (Accolate) is approved for use in children 5 years and older.

New recommendations for mild persistent asthma. Recommendations for the treatment of mild and moderate persistent asthma have changed considerably from the 1997 guidelines. ICSs are now the preferred controller medications, based on greater efficacy. The updated guidelines no longer recommend an initial trial of cromolyn or nedocromil for the treatment of mild persistent asthma; these agents, along with the leukotriene modifiers and slow-release theophylline, are now considered alternatives to low-dose ICSs for adults and children older than 5 years with mild persistent disease (Figure).

According to the NAEPP update, daily low-dose ICS treatment also is preferred for the control of mild persistent asthma in preschool children. As in older children, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer considered appropriate initial treatments for infants and children 5 years and younger. Cromolyn is considered an alternative controller, whereas nedocromil is no longer recommended for use.

New recommendations for moderate persistent asthma. For adults and children older than 5 years with moderate persistent asthma, revision to the guidelines involved recommendation of a low- to medium-dose ICS plus a LABA as the preferred controller treatment (Figure). Comparative low, medium, and high daily doses for ICSs are shown in Table 3 .¹

For preschool children, preferred controller treatments for moderate persistent asthma include low-dose ICSs plus a LABA, or increasing ICSs within the medium-dose range (Figure). Recommendations for the use of LABAs as add-on therapy in this age group are based on extrapolation of data from older patients, since therapy with an ICS/LABA combination has not been adequately studied in children younger than 5 years. Four studies included in the NAEPP evaluation showed clear benefit of medium-dose ICSs in this age group, supporting the use of medium-dose ICSs as a preferred option.^6-9 LABAs are not recommended for use without an ICS, and the only ICS/LABA combination product currently available has been FDA approved only for patients aged 12 years and older.

TABLE 2
Levels of evidence for NAEPP assessments*

TABLE 3
Estimated comparative daily doses for inhaled corticosteroids*

FIGURE
Updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommendations for long-term controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma

Topics in the management of asthma in children

Recognizing the need for continual appraisal of the benefits and risks of asthma medications in children, the NAEPP Expert Panel considered new studies comparing the effectiveness of ICS monotherapy with that of as-needed SABAs and other controllers used as monotherapy in children with mild or moderate persistent asthma. In addition, the safety of long-term ICS use in children was evaluated based on vertical growth, bone mineral density, ocular toxicity, and adrenal suppression.

Effectiveness of ICSs compared with other asthma medications

Short-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of ICSs versus as-needed SABAs.^6,10-16 Six studies (4 involving budesonide) in children 5 years and older showed that ICSs improve lung function and symptoms and reduce the need for emergency intervention compared with as-needed SABAs.¹ Among all studies included in the NAEPP update, the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) Research Group Study,⁹ a placebo-controlled study of inhaled budesonide and nedocromil, contributed the most evidence. Studies with children 5 years and younger are limited to 2 small studies enrolling a total of 69 children.^6,15 Consistent with studies of older children, these studies indicate that ICSs improve asthma control compared with as-needed SABAs.¹

Cromolyn and nedocromil. Despite well-established safety profiles, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer recommended as first-line therapy for children, even those with mild disease. New recommendations reflect the greater effectiveness of inhaled budesonide compared with nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study,¹⁰ and the lack of apparent benefit of cromolyn as maintenance treatment in childhood asthma reported by Tasche and colleagues in a systematic review of the literature.¹⁷

In the CAMP study, children 5 to 12 years of age receiving inhaled budesonide showed greater reductions in symptoms and albuterol use, lower rates of hospitalization and urgent care visits, and less need for additional asthma therapy and oral prednisone compared with placebo over 4 to 6 years of treatment.¹⁰ The marginal effectiveness of nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study mirrored that of cromolyn reported in the review of 24 randomized placebo-controlled studies by Tasche and colleagues.^1,17

For children 5 years and younger, the NAEPP Expert Panel took into account 1 randomized placebo-controlled study conducted with children 2 to 5 years of age; it showed improvements in lung function, symptoms, and bronchial hyperre-activity with inhaled budesonide.⁹ Support for the new NAEPP recommendations preferring ICSs for preschool children is found in a more recent open-label study¹⁸ that showed greater symptom improvement and significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbations, urgent care visits, and oral prednisone use with budesonide inhalation suspension, compared with cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution (Intal Nebulizer Solution) in children 2 to 6 years of age with persistent asthma.

Leukotriene modifiers. The LTRAs zafir-lukast and montelukast are approved for use in children. According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, studies have shown only modest improvements in lung function and other asthma control outcomes with LTRA monotherapy in children as young as 6 and 2 years, respectively.¹ Because studies comparing ICSs with LTRAs in children are lacking, findings of greater overall efficacy of ICSs in adults with persistent asthma have been extrapolated for use with children; clear superiority of ICSs versus LTRAs in most outcomes has resulted in the recommendation for ICSs as the preferred treatment for mild persistent asthma in children.

Long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. There is no role for LABAs as monotherapy in asthma. No studies have compared the effectiveness of ICS versus LABA monotherapy in children younger than 5 years, and studies in older children have shown greater effectiveness of inhaled beclomethasone versus salmeterol.^14,19 In the study by Verberne and colleagues, salmeterol monotherapy was associated with deterioration in FEV₁.¹⁹ In a more recent study that included patients as young as 16 years, a switch from ICS to LABA treatment was associated with a significant increase in treatment failures and exacerbations.²⁰

Theophylline. Only 1 study has compared outcomes with low-dose ICSs versus theophylline in adults and children.²¹ Although limited, the data support greater effectiveness of ICSs based on symptoms, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and the need for β₂-adrenergic agonists and oral corticosteroids.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in children

Systemic corticosteroids have the potential to suppress growth over the long term.² Short-term growth studies with ICSs show an average reduction in growth velocity of 1 cm per year during the first year of treatment, but the CAMP study showed that initial reductions in growth velocity with inhaled budesonide were not maintained over a 4- to 6-year treatment period.^1,10

Although catch-up growth was not observed in the CAMP study, Agertoft and Pedersen reported no effect of long-term treatment with inhaled budesonide (mean 9.2 years) on final adult height.²² Based on these long-term prospective studies of budesonide, showing only a transient reduction in growth velocity and attainment of expected final adult height, and retrospective studies including inhaled beclomethasone, the Expert Panel concluded that the ICS class is safe regarding growth effects.

According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, clinical study data for children monitored for up to 6 years strongly suggest that ICSs are safe when used at recommended doses (strength of recommendation: A).¹ The panel could not rule out a potential cumulative effect of ICS use on some conditions, (eg, osteoporosis, cataracts, glaucoma) in adulthood, as sufficient long-term data are not available.

The panel did conclude that low- to medium-dose ICSs (Table 3) appear to have no serious adverse effects on bone mineral density in children.

Likewise, low- to medium-dose ICS use was not associated with the development of cataracts or glaucoma in children, although the potential for high cumulative lifetime doses of ICSs to slightly increase the prevalence of cataracts in adults and elderly patients was noted.

Strong evidence also indicates that ICS effects on adrenal function are usually clinically insignificant at low to medium doses; however, certain individuals may be at higher risk for hypothalam-ic pituitary adrenal axis effects while using conventional ICS doses.¹

Although ICSs are safe when used within labeled dosing, it is still preferable to maintain doses at the lowest effective dose. In general, treatment should be reviewed every 1 to 6 months and doses reduced in a stepwise fashion when possible.¹ For children showing a favorable response to treatment, a step down in dose should be considered, but not more frequently than every 3 months. If children show no clear response to treatment within 4 to 6 weeks, consider an alternative treatment or diagnosis.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in pregnant women

Uncontrolled asthma during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of perinatal complications. ²³ Since the consequences of not using asthma controllers during pregnancy can be worse than those with using them, daily controller treatment is recommended for all pregnant women with persistent asthma. ²³

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology previously recommended cromolyn as the treatment of choice for pregnant women with mild persistent asthma. ICSs were recommended for patients whose asthma was inadequately controlled with cromolyn. ²⁴ Beclomethasone and budesonide were the ICSs of choice for pregnant women and those who might become pregnant, with a preference for budesonide when high-dose therapy was indicated.²⁴

These recommendations predate the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as preferred therapy in mild persistent asthma and the 2004 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as the first-choice controller therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy. ²⁵ Among ICSs, one (inhaled budesonide) has an FDA Pregnancy Category B rating based on studies showing no risk in pregnant women. ^26,27 All other ICSs are rated Pregnancy Category C.

Based on current evidence, it seems reasonable to consider whether budesonide should now be the preferred therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy.

Effects of early treatment on asthma progression

The potential for early ICS intervention to prevent progression of mild or moderate persistent asthma was evaluated solely with data from children enrolled in the CAMP study. ¹⁰ The NAEPP Expert Panel concluded that CAMP study data do not support a progressive decline in lung function in children aged 5 to 12 years with mild or moderate persistent asthma, but do suggest that lung function decline is influenced by age of asthma onset.

According to the panel, CAMP data suggest that most deficits in lung function growth due to childhood asthma occur during the first 3 years of life. Preliminary results of the recent START study (Inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy in Early Asthma), ²⁸ conducted with 7165 corticosteroidnaïve patients 5 to 66 years of age with recent onset mild persistent asthma, did show a decline in lung function in patients with mild persistent disease.

Although improvements in prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV₁ were significant after 3 years of treatment with inhaled budes-onide, differences from placebo in both outcomes were greatest after the first year. When patients with mild persistent disease inhaled budesonide once daily in addition to normal treatment within 2 years of asthma onset,²⁸ they enjoyed considerable protection from severe and life-threatening asthma exacerbations and overall greater asthma control.

Corresponding author
Gregory J. Redding, MD, Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, 4800 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98105-0371. E-mail: [email protected].

Consider an adult with the following characteristics. To which disease severity would you assign this patient’s asthma?

• Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) or peak expiratory flow (PEF) ≥80%
• PEF variability 20%–30%
• Daytime symptoms less than once a day
• Nighttime symptoms more than 1 night a week.

This patient is said to have moderate persistent asthma based on nighttime symptoms. An accurate classification of a patient’s asthma is the foundation for selecting an appropriate treatment strategy.

In 2002 the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) updated select topics¹from its 1997 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma.² These evidence-based revisions to the stepwise approach to asthma management were made following a systematic review of the literature (see Search function).

This article reviews the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for the use of controller medications for asthma, including:

• Relative effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) versus other controller medications
• Safety of long-term ICS use in children
• Potential benefits of early ICS treatment.

We emphasize mild and moderate persistent asthma because the recommended treatments for these levels of severity have been most affected by the recent guideline changes. We also discuss a recent change by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its pregnancy category rating for an ICS.

2002 Stepwise approach to asthma management

New criteria for classifying asthma severity

The NAEPP classifies asthma severity according to symptoms and lung function in adults and children older than 5 years, and symptoms in children 5 years and younger.¹ Persistent asthma is classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to the feature of greatest severity.

Asthma severity should be assigned according to symptoms before treatment.¹ Because it is difficult to predict which infants and young children who wheeze with acute viral upper respiratory infection will go on to develop persistent asthma, new criteria have been detailed to help distinguish these children from those with transient wheeze (Table 1).^1,4

TABLE 1
Criteria for children with intermittent wheeze

Choosing pharmacologic treatment according to asthma classification

Quick-relief medications, which include the short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs), are taken as needed to promptly reverse acute airflow obstruction and relieve accompanying symptoms.²

Asthma controller medications (ie, ICSs, cromolyn sodium, long-acting β₂-adrenergic-agonists [LABAs], leukotriene modifiers, nedocromil, and theophylline) are used daily to achieve and maintain long-term control of persistent asthma. All patients with persistent asthma, regardless of disease severity, should use a daily controller. Criteria for determining asthma severity and updated recommendations for the use of controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma are presented in the Figure.^3,5 Levels of evidence justifying NAEPP treatment recommendations are shown in Table 2.

For use in children. Asthma controller medications approved for use in children younger than 5 years include the fluticasone dry-powder inhalers (Flovent, Rotadisk, and Flovent Diskus), which are approved for children as young as 4 years (Flovent Diskus is not yet commercially available), and nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules), which is approved for children as young as 12 months.

The LABAs formoterol (Foradil) and salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) are approved for children as young as 5 and 4 years, respectively. Cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution is approved for children as young as 2 years, and theophylline is available for use at any age.

Based on safety and extrapolation of efficacy data in older patients, the oral granule formulation of the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast (Singulair) is approved for children as young as 1 year, and the chewable tablets are approved for children 2 to 5 years of age. Zafirlukast (Accolate) is approved for use in children 5 years and older.

New recommendations for mild persistent asthma. Recommendations for the treatment of mild and moderate persistent asthma have changed considerably from the 1997 guidelines. ICSs are now the preferred controller medications, based on greater efficacy. The updated guidelines no longer recommend an initial trial of cromolyn or nedocromil for the treatment of mild persistent asthma; these agents, along with the leukotriene modifiers and slow-release theophylline, are now considered alternatives to low-dose ICSs for adults and children older than 5 years with mild persistent disease (Figure).

According to the NAEPP update, daily low-dose ICS treatment also is preferred for the control of mild persistent asthma in preschool children. As in older children, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer considered appropriate initial treatments for infants and children 5 years and younger. Cromolyn is considered an alternative controller, whereas nedocromil is no longer recommended for use.

New recommendations for moderate persistent asthma. For adults and children older than 5 years with moderate persistent asthma, revision to the guidelines involved recommendation of a low- to medium-dose ICS plus a LABA as the preferred controller treatment (Figure). Comparative low, medium, and high daily doses for ICSs are shown in Table 3 .¹

For preschool children, preferred controller treatments for moderate persistent asthma include low-dose ICSs plus a LABA, or increasing ICSs within the medium-dose range (Figure). Recommendations for the use of LABAs as add-on therapy in this age group are based on extrapolation of data from older patients, since therapy with an ICS/LABA combination has not been adequately studied in children younger than 5 years. Four studies included in the NAEPP evaluation showed clear benefit of medium-dose ICSs in this age group, supporting the use of medium-dose ICSs as a preferred option.^6-9 LABAs are not recommended for use without an ICS, and the only ICS/LABA combination product currently available has been FDA approved only for patients aged 12 years and older.

TABLE 2
Levels of evidence for NAEPP assessments*

TABLE 3
Estimated comparative daily doses for inhaled corticosteroids*

FIGURE
Updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommendations for long-term controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma

Topics in the management of asthma in children

Recognizing the need for continual appraisal of the benefits and risks of asthma medications in children, the NAEPP Expert Panel considered new studies comparing the effectiveness of ICS monotherapy with that of as-needed SABAs and other controllers used as monotherapy in children with mild or moderate persistent asthma. In addition, the safety of long-term ICS use in children was evaluated based on vertical growth, bone mineral density, ocular toxicity, and adrenal suppression.

Effectiveness of ICSs compared with other asthma medications

Short-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of ICSs versus as-needed SABAs.^6,10-16 Six studies (4 involving budesonide) in children 5 years and older showed that ICSs improve lung function and symptoms and reduce the need for emergency intervention compared with as-needed SABAs.¹ Among all studies included in the NAEPP update, the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) Research Group Study,⁹ a placebo-controlled study of inhaled budesonide and nedocromil, contributed the most evidence. Studies with children 5 years and younger are limited to 2 small studies enrolling a total of 69 children.^6,15 Consistent with studies of older children, these studies indicate that ICSs improve asthma control compared with as-needed SABAs.¹

Cromolyn and nedocromil. Despite well-established safety profiles, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer recommended as first-line therapy for children, even those with mild disease. New recommendations reflect the greater effectiveness of inhaled budesonide compared with nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study,¹⁰ and the lack of apparent benefit of cromolyn as maintenance treatment in childhood asthma reported by Tasche and colleagues in a systematic review of the literature.¹⁷

In the CAMP study, children 5 to 12 years of age receiving inhaled budesonide showed greater reductions in symptoms and albuterol use, lower rates of hospitalization and urgent care visits, and less need for additional asthma therapy and oral prednisone compared with placebo over 4 to 6 years of treatment.¹⁰ The marginal effectiveness of nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study mirrored that of cromolyn reported in the review of 24 randomized placebo-controlled studies by Tasche and colleagues.^1,17

For children 5 years and younger, the NAEPP Expert Panel took into account 1 randomized placebo-controlled study conducted with children 2 to 5 years of age; it showed improvements in lung function, symptoms, and bronchial hyperre-activity with inhaled budesonide.⁹ Support for the new NAEPP recommendations preferring ICSs for preschool children is found in a more recent open-label study¹⁸ that showed greater symptom improvement and significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbations, urgent care visits, and oral prednisone use with budesonide inhalation suspension, compared with cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution (Intal Nebulizer Solution) in children 2 to 6 years of age with persistent asthma.

Leukotriene modifiers. The LTRAs zafir-lukast and montelukast are approved for use in children. According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, studies have shown only modest improvements in lung function and other asthma control outcomes with LTRA monotherapy in children as young as 6 and 2 years, respectively.¹ Because studies comparing ICSs with LTRAs in children are lacking, findings of greater overall efficacy of ICSs in adults with persistent asthma have been extrapolated for use with children; clear superiority of ICSs versus LTRAs in most outcomes has resulted in the recommendation for ICSs as the preferred treatment for mild persistent asthma in children.

Long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. There is no role for LABAs as monotherapy in asthma. No studies have compared the effectiveness of ICS versus LABA monotherapy in children younger than 5 years, and studies in older children have shown greater effectiveness of inhaled beclomethasone versus salmeterol.^14,19 In the study by Verberne and colleagues, salmeterol monotherapy was associated with deterioration in FEV₁.¹⁹ In a more recent study that included patients as young as 16 years, a switch from ICS to LABA treatment was associated with a significant increase in treatment failures and exacerbations.²⁰

Theophylline. Only 1 study has compared outcomes with low-dose ICSs versus theophylline in adults and children.²¹ Although limited, the data support greater effectiveness of ICSs based on symptoms, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and the need for β₂-adrenergic agonists and oral corticosteroids.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in children

Systemic corticosteroids have the potential to suppress growth over the long term.² Short-term growth studies with ICSs show an average reduction in growth velocity of 1 cm per year during the first year of treatment, but the CAMP study showed that initial reductions in growth velocity with inhaled budesonide were not maintained over a 4- to 6-year treatment period.^1,10

Although catch-up growth was not observed in the CAMP study, Agertoft and Pedersen reported no effect of long-term treatment with inhaled budesonide (mean 9.2 years) on final adult height.²² Based on these long-term prospective studies of budesonide, showing only a transient reduction in growth velocity and attainment of expected final adult height, and retrospective studies including inhaled beclomethasone, the Expert Panel concluded that the ICS class is safe regarding growth effects.

According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, clinical study data for children monitored for up to 6 years strongly suggest that ICSs are safe when used at recommended doses (strength of recommendation: A).¹ The panel could not rule out a potential cumulative effect of ICS use on some conditions, (eg, osteoporosis, cataracts, glaucoma) in adulthood, as sufficient long-term data are not available.

The panel did conclude that low- to medium-dose ICSs (Table 3) appear to have no serious adverse effects on bone mineral density in children.

Likewise, low- to medium-dose ICS use was not associated with the development of cataracts or glaucoma in children, although the potential for high cumulative lifetime doses of ICSs to slightly increase the prevalence of cataracts in adults and elderly patients was noted.

Strong evidence also indicates that ICS effects on adrenal function are usually clinically insignificant at low to medium doses; however, certain individuals may be at higher risk for hypothalam-ic pituitary adrenal axis effects while using conventional ICS doses.¹

Although ICSs are safe when used within labeled dosing, it is still preferable to maintain doses at the lowest effective dose. In general, treatment should be reviewed every 1 to 6 months and doses reduced in a stepwise fashion when possible.¹ For children showing a favorable response to treatment, a step down in dose should be considered, but not more frequently than every 3 months. If children show no clear response to treatment within 4 to 6 weeks, consider an alternative treatment or diagnosis.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in pregnant women

Uncontrolled asthma during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of perinatal complications. ²³ Since the consequences of not using asthma controllers during pregnancy can be worse than those with using them, daily controller treatment is recommended for all pregnant women with persistent asthma. ²³

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology previously recommended cromolyn as the treatment of choice for pregnant women with mild persistent asthma. ICSs were recommended for patients whose asthma was inadequately controlled with cromolyn. ²⁴ Beclomethasone and budesonide were the ICSs of choice for pregnant women and those who might become pregnant, with a preference for budesonide when high-dose therapy was indicated.²⁴

These recommendations predate the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as preferred therapy in mild persistent asthma and the 2004 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as the first-choice controller therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy. ²⁵ Among ICSs, one (inhaled budesonide) has an FDA Pregnancy Category B rating based on studies showing no risk in pregnant women. ^26,27 All other ICSs are rated Pregnancy Category C.

Based on current evidence, it seems reasonable to consider whether budesonide should now be the preferred therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy.

Effects of early treatment on asthma progression

The potential for early ICS intervention to prevent progression of mild or moderate persistent asthma was evaluated solely with data from children enrolled in the CAMP study. ¹⁰ The NAEPP Expert Panel concluded that CAMP study data do not support a progressive decline in lung function in children aged 5 to 12 years with mild or moderate persistent asthma, but do suggest that lung function decline is influenced by age of asthma onset.

According to the panel, CAMP data suggest that most deficits in lung function growth due to childhood asthma occur during the first 3 years of life. Preliminary results of the recent START study (Inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy in Early Asthma), ²⁸ conducted with 7165 corticosteroidnaïve patients 5 to 66 years of age with recent onset mild persistent asthma, did show a decline in lung function in patients with mild persistent disease.

Although improvements in prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV₁ were significant after 3 years of treatment with inhaled budes-onide, differences from placebo in both outcomes were greatest after the first year. When patients with mild persistent disease inhaled budesonide once daily in addition to normal treatment within 2 years of asthma onset,²⁸ they enjoyed considerable protection from severe and life-threatening asthma exacerbations and overall greater asthma control.

Corresponding author
Gregory J. Redding, MD, Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, 4800 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98105-0371. E-mail: [email protected].

Consider an adult with the following characteristics. To which disease severity would you assign this patient’s asthma?

• Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) or peak expiratory flow (PEF) ≥80%
• PEF variability 20%–30%
• Daytime symptoms less than once a day
• Nighttime symptoms more than 1 night a week.

This patient is said to have moderate persistent asthma based on nighttime symptoms. An accurate classification of a patient’s asthma is the foundation for selecting an appropriate treatment strategy.

In 2002 the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) updated select topics¹from its 1997 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma.² These evidence-based revisions to the stepwise approach to asthma management were made following a systematic review of the literature (see Search function).

This article reviews the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for the use of controller medications for asthma, including:

• Relative effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) versus other controller medications
• Safety of long-term ICS use in children
• Potential benefits of early ICS treatment.

We emphasize mild and moderate persistent asthma because the recommended treatments for these levels of severity have been most affected by the recent guideline changes. We also discuss a recent change by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its pregnancy category rating for an ICS.

2002 Stepwise approach to asthma management

New criteria for classifying asthma severity

The NAEPP classifies asthma severity according to symptoms and lung function in adults and children older than 5 years, and symptoms in children 5 years and younger.¹ Persistent asthma is classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to the feature of greatest severity.

Asthma severity should be assigned according to symptoms before treatment.¹ Because it is difficult to predict which infants and young children who wheeze with acute viral upper respiratory infection will go on to develop persistent asthma, new criteria have been detailed to help distinguish these children from those with transient wheeze (Table 1).^1,4

TABLE 1
Criteria for children with intermittent wheeze

Choosing pharmacologic treatment according to asthma classification

Quick-relief medications, which include the short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs), are taken as needed to promptly reverse acute airflow obstruction and relieve accompanying symptoms.²

Asthma controller medications (ie, ICSs, cromolyn sodium, long-acting β₂-adrenergic-agonists [LABAs], leukotriene modifiers, nedocromil, and theophylline) are used daily to achieve and maintain long-term control of persistent asthma. All patients with persistent asthma, regardless of disease severity, should use a daily controller. Criteria for determining asthma severity and updated recommendations for the use of controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma are presented in the Figure.^3,5 Levels of evidence justifying NAEPP treatment recommendations are shown in Table 2.

For use in children. Asthma controller medications approved for use in children younger than 5 years include the fluticasone dry-powder inhalers (Flovent, Rotadisk, and Flovent Diskus), which are approved for children as young as 4 years (Flovent Diskus is not yet commercially available), and nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules), which is approved for children as young as 12 months.

The LABAs formoterol (Foradil) and salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) are approved for children as young as 5 and 4 years, respectively. Cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution is approved for children as young as 2 years, and theophylline is available for use at any age.

Based on safety and extrapolation of efficacy data in older patients, the oral granule formulation of the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast (Singulair) is approved for children as young as 1 year, and the chewable tablets are approved for children 2 to 5 years of age. Zafirlukast (Accolate) is approved for use in children 5 years and older.

New recommendations for mild persistent asthma. Recommendations for the treatment of mild and moderate persistent asthma have changed considerably from the 1997 guidelines. ICSs are now the preferred controller medications, based on greater efficacy. The updated guidelines no longer recommend an initial trial of cromolyn or nedocromil for the treatment of mild persistent asthma; these agents, along with the leukotriene modifiers and slow-release theophylline, are now considered alternatives to low-dose ICSs for adults and children older than 5 years with mild persistent disease (Figure).

According to the NAEPP update, daily low-dose ICS treatment also is preferred for the control of mild persistent asthma in preschool children. As in older children, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer considered appropriate initial treatments for infants and children 5 years and younger. Cromolyn is considered an alternative controller, whereas nedocromil is no longer recommended for use.

New recommendations for moderate persistent asthma. For adults and children older than 5 years with moderate persistent asthma, revision to the guidelines involved recommendation of a low- to medium-dose ICS plus a LABA as the preferred controller treatment (Figure). Comparative low, medium, and high daily doses for ICSs are shown in Table 3 .¹

For preschool children, preferred controller treatments for moderate persistent asthma include low-dose ICSs plus a LABA, or increasing ICSs within the medium-dose range (Figure). Recommendations for the use of LABAs as add-on therapy in this age group are based on extrapolation of data from older patients, since therapy with an ICS/LABA combination has not been adequately studied in children younger than 5 years. Four studies included in the NAEPP evaluation showed clear benefit of medium-dose ICSs in this age group, supporting the use of medium-dose ICSs as a preferred option.^6-9 LABAs are not recommended for use without an ICS, and the only ICS/LABA combination product currently available has been FDA approved only for patients aged 12 years and older.

TABLE 2
Levels of evidence for NAEPP assessments*

TABLE 3
Estimated comparative daily doses for inhaled corticosteroids*

FIGURE
Updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommendations for long-term controller treatment in mild and moderate persistent asthma

Topics in the management of asthma in children

Recognizing the need for continual appraisal of the benefits and risks of asthma medications in children, the NAEPP Expert Panel considered new studies comparing the effectiveness of ICS monotherapy with that of as-needed SABAs and other controllers used as monotherapy in children with mild or moderate persistent asthma. In addition, the safety of long-term ICS use in children was evaluated based on vertical growth, bone mineral density, ocular toxicity, and adrenal suppression.

Effectiveness of ICSs compared with other asthma medications

Short-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of ICSs versus as-needed SABAs.^6,10-16 Six studies (4 involving budesonide) in children 5 years and older showed that ICSs improve lung function and symptoms and reduce the need for emergency intervention compared with as-needed SABAs.¹ Among all studies included in the NAEPP update, the Childhood Asthma Management Program (CAMP) Research Group Study,⁹ a placebo-controlled study of inhaled budesonide and nedocromil, contributed the most evidence. Studies with children 5 years and younger are limited to 2 small studies enrolling a total of 69 children.^6,15 Consistent with studies of older children, these studies indicate that ICSs improve asthma control compared with as-needed SABAs.¹

Cromolyn and nedocromil. Despite well-established safety profiles, cromolyn and nedocromil are no longer recommended as first-line therapy for children, even those with mild disease. New recommendations reflect the greater effectiveness of inhaled budesonide compared with nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study,¹⁰ and the lack of apparent benefit of cromolyn as maintenance treatment in childhood asthma reported by Tasche and colleagues in a systematic review of the literature.¹⁷

In the CAMP study, children 5 to 12 years of age receiving inhaled budesonide showed greater reductions in symptoms and albuterol use, lower rates of hospitalization and urgent care visits, and less need for additional asthma therapy and oral prednisone compared with placebo over 4 to 6 years of treatment.¹⁰ The marginal effectiveness of nedocromil demonstrated in the CAMP study mirrored that of cromolyn reported in the review of 24 randomized placebo-controlled studies by Tasche and colleagues.^1,17

For children 5 years and younger, the NAEPP Expert Panel took into account 1 randomized placebo-controlled study conducted with children 2 to 5 years of age; it showed improvements in lung function, symptoms, and bronchial hyperre-activity with inhaled budesonide.⁹ Support for the new NAEPP recommendations preferring ICSs for preschool children is found in a more recent open-label study¹⁸ that showed greater symptom improvement and significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbations, urgent care visits, and oral prednisone use with budesonide inhalation suspension, compared with cromolyn sodium nebulizer solution (Intal Nebulizer Solution) in children 2 to 6 years of age with persistent asthma.

Leukotriene modifiers. The LTRAs zafir-lukast and montelukast are approved for use in children. According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, studies have shown only modest improvements in lung function and other asthma control outcomes with LTRA monotherapy in children as young as 6 and 2 years, respectively.¹ Because studies comparing ICSs with LTRAs in children are lacking, findings of greater overall efficacy of ICSs in adults with persistent asthma have been extrapolated for use with children; clear superiority of ICSs versus LTRAs in most outcomes has resulted in the recommendation for ICSs as the preferred treatment for mild persistent asthma in children.

Long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists. There is no role for LABAs as monotherapy in asthma. No studies have compared the effectiveness of ICS versus LABA monotherapy in children younger than 5 years, and studies in older children have shown greater effectiveness of inhaled beclomethasone versus salmeterol.^14,19 In the study by Verberne and colleagues, salmeterol monotherapy was associated with deterioration in FEV₁.¹⁹ In a more recent study that included patients as young as 16 years, a switch from ICS to LABA treatment was associated with a significant increase in treatment failures and exacerbations.²⁰

Theophylline. Only 1 study has compared outcomes with low-dose ICSs versus theophylline in adults and children.²¹ Although limited, the data support greater effectiveness of ICSs based on symptoms, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and the need for β₂-adrenergic agonists and oral corticosteroids.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in children

Systemic corticosteroids have the potential to suppress growth over the long term.² Short-term growth studies with ICSs show an average reduction in growth velocity of 1 cm per year during the first year of treatment, but the CAMP study showed that initial reductions in growth velocity with inhaled budesonide were not maintained over a 4- to 6-year treatment period.^1,10

Although catch-up growth was not observed in the CAMP study, Agertoft and Pedersen reported no effect of long-term treatment with inhaled budesonide (mean 9.2 years) on final adult height.²² Based on these long-term prospective studies of budesonide, showing only a transient reduction in growth velocity and attainment of expected final adult height, and retrospective studies including inhaled beclomethasone, the Expert Panel concluded that the ICS class is safe regarding growth effects.

According to the NAEPP Expert Panel, clinical study data for children monitored for up to 6 years strongly suggest that ICSs are safe when used at recommended doses (strength of recommendation: A).¹ The panel could not rule out a potential cumulative effect of ICS use on some conditions, (eg, osteoporosis, cataracts, glaucoma) in adulthood, as sufficient long-term data are not available.

The panel did conclude that low- to medium-dose ICSs (Table 3) appear to have no serious adverse effects on bone mineral density in children.

Likewise, low- to medium-dose ICS use was not associated with the development of cataracts or glaucoma in children, although the potential for high cumulative lifetime doses of ICSs to slightly increase the prevalence of cataracts in adults and elderly patients was noted.

Strong evidence also indicates that ICS effects on adrenal function are usually clinically insignificant at low to medium doses; however, certain individuals may be at higher risk for hypothalam-ic pituitary adrenal axis effects while using conventional ICS doses.¹

Although ICSs are safe when used within labeled dosing, it is still preferable to maintain doses at the lowest effective dose. In general, treatment should be reviewed every 1 to 6 months and doses reduced in a stepwise fashion when possible.¹ For children showing a favorable response to treatment, a step down in dose should be considered, but not more frequently than every 3 months. If children show no clear response to treatment within 4 to 6 weeks, consider an alternative treatment or diagnosis.¹

Safety of long-term ICS use in pregnant women

Uncontrolled asthma during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of perinatal complications. ²³ Since the consequences of not using asthma controllers during pregnancy can be worse than those with using them, daily controller treatment is recommended for all pregnant women with persistent asthma. ²³

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology previously recommended cromolyn as the treatment of choice for pregnant women with mild persistent asthma. ICSs were recommended for patients whose asthma was inadequately controlled with cromolyn. ²⁴ Beclomethasone and budesonide were the ICSs of choice for pregnant women and those who might become pregnant, with a preference for budesonide when high-dose therapy was indicated.²⁴

These recommendations predate the 2002 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as preferred therapy in mild persistent asthma and the 2004 NAEPP recommendations for ICSs as the first-choice controller therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy. ²⁵ Among ICSs, one (inhaled budesonide) has an FDA Pregnancy Category B rating based on studies showing no risk in pregnant women. ^26,27 All other ICSs are rated Pregnancy Category C.

Based on current evidence, it seems reasonable to consider whether budesonide should now be the preferred therapy for mild persistent asthma during pregnancy.

Effects of early treatment on asthma progression

The potential for early ICS intervention to prevent progression of mild or moderate persistent asthma was evaluated solely with data from children enrolled in the CAMP study. ¹⁰ The NAEPP Expert Panel concluded that CAMP study data do not support a progressive decline in lung function in children aged 5 to 12 years with mild or moderate persistent asthma, but do suggest that lung function decline is influenced by age of asthma onset.

According to the panel, CAMP data suggest that most deficits in lung function growth due to childhood asthma occur during the first 3 years of life. Preliminary results of the recent START study (Inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy in Early Asthma), ²⁸ conducted with 7165 corticosteroidnaïve patients 5 to 66 years of age with recent onset mild persistent asthma, did show a decline in lung function in patients with mild persistent disease.

Although improvements in prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FEV₁ were significant after 3 years of treatment with inhaled budes-onide, differences from placebo in both outcomes were greatest after the first year. When patients with mild persistent disease inhaled budesonide once daily in addition to normal treatment within 2 years of asthma onset,²⁸ they enjoyed considerable protection from severe and life-threatening asthma exacerbations and overall greater asthma control.

Corresponding author
Gregory J. Redding, MD, Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, 4800 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98105-0371. E-mail: [email protected].