Search

Objectives: The study aimed at prospectively evaluating the evolution of asthma control in Italy, to evaluate the reasons for lack of asthma control, perceived quality of life (QoL) and association with level of asthma control, the impact of pharmacological treatment, the number of exacerbations and the healthcare resource consumption., Methods: PRISMA (PRospectIve Study on asthMA control) was an observational study performed in asthmatic patients including a cross-sectional phase and a 12-month prospective phase. Asthma control was assessed with the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) and QoL was evaluated with EuroQoL-5D questionnaire filled in and collected during 5 clinic visits together with all the other data., Results: The prospective phase included 1017 patients with uncontrolled (55.7%) or partly controlled asthma (44.3%). Out of the 739 patients evaluable after 12 months, 22.2% achieved full asthma control (ACT score = 25) and 58.7% reached a good control (ACT score: 20-24). The improvement in asthma control was associated with improved QoL and reduced hospital visits. The main reasons for lack of asthma control were comorbidities, continued exposure to irritants/triggers and poor adherence to therapy. The frequency of exacerbations was lower in patients with controlled asthma.A fixed combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting β2 agonist was reported by 77.0% of patients. A better asthma control and improved QoL were achieved with extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol compared to either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol., Conclusions: An improvement in asthma control and QoL can be achieved during a 1-year monitoring in a real life setting. Extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol was associated with significant benefit in terms of asthma control and QoL compared to large-particles combinations.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01110460.

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of partly controlled and uncontrolled asthmatic patients, to evaluate quality of life and healthcare resource consumption., Methods: Cross-sectional phase followed by a 12-month prospective phase. Asthma Control Test and the EQ-5D were used., Results: 2853 adult patients recruited in 56 Hospital Respiratory Units in Italy were evaluated: 64.4% had controlled asthma, 15.8% partly controlled asthma and 19.8% were uncontrolled. The mean (SD) EQ-5D score was 0.86 (0.17) in controlled, 0.75 (0.20) in partly controlled and 0.69 (0.23) in uncontrolled patients (p<0.001 between groups). The number of patients requiring hospitalization or emergency room visits was lower in controlled (1.8% and 1.6%, respectively) than in partly controlled (5.1% and 11.5%) and uncontrolled (6.4% and 18.6%). A combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-2 agonist was the reported therapy by 56.0% of patients, with the rate of controlled asthma and improved quality of life being higher in patients on extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol compared to budesonide/formoterol (p<0.05) and fluticasone/salmeterol (p<0.05 for quality of life)., Conclusions: Asthma control is achieved in a good proportion of Italian patients. Differences may be detected in a real-life setting in favor of extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol combination., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory agents for the management of chronic persistent asthma and are therefore recommended as first-line antiasthmatic therapy in children and adults. In various settings, the administration of ICS via nebulizer rather than hand-held inhaler (HHI) may have certain advantages, as many patients with HHI fail to use these devices properly or efficiently. In particular, young children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and those with restricted dexterity may be unable to coordinate inhalation with actuation of the device or to generate sufficient inspiratory flow to operate breath-actuated devices effectively. Compliance with nebulized therapy may also be better than that with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) plus spacer. Systematic reviews conclude that there is no significant difference in clinical effects between nebulizers and HHI. Performance and clinical effect of nebulization are influenced by several technical aspects such as the nebulizer-drug combination, nebulizer type, output and lung deposition. Among the currently available ICS, nebulized beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) has been in clinical use for more than 35 years, and has demonstrated marked clinical efficacy and a favorable tolerability profile in children and adults with chronic persistent asthma. The clinical efficacy of nebulized beclometasone is discussed in the present review using data from 13 published studies, which included a total of 1250 patients. Three multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies showed that nebulized BDP is as effective as BDP via pMDI plus spacer in a 2:1 dose ratio. Controlled trials involving 497 adults and children demonstrated similar clinical efficacy between nebulized BDP and either nebulized fluticasone propionate or nebulized budesonide. In all these trials, treatment-related adverse effects were generally uncommon, most were mild-to-moderate in severity, and most were associated with the respiratory system. Meta-analyses show that BDP, like other inhaled corticosteroids, has no major influence on patient height, urinary cortisol concentration, or bone metabolism, thus suggesting the absence of growth retardation or any marked effect on adrenal function or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis when used in the approved dose range. Overall, nebulized BDP appears to have a particularly important place in asthma therapy: as a general alternative to HHIs (e.g. in patients with poor HHI compliance); when patients such as children or the elderly are unable to operate HHIs because of poor hand-lung coordination, lack of cooperation, or low inspiratory flow rate; and when high dosages of ICS are required, such as in adults with severe, corticosteroid-dependent asthma., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended for long-term control of asthma in children, and nebulization simplifies administration to patients who lack hand-to-lung coordination. Information on the efficacy and safety of nebulized corticosteroids in children with mild to moderate asthma is limited, however, and comparison between corticosteroids is lacking. One hundred thirty-three patients 6 to 14 years of age with bronchial asthma were randomly assigned to receive flunisolide 500 microg or budesonide 500 microg, both administered twice daily by nebulizer for 4 weeks. Morning peak expiratory flow rate (primary efficacy endpoint) increased significantly from baseline (P<.001) with both medications (P = NS between treatments). Use of salbutamol as rescue medication decreased by 82.6% with flunisolide and by 82.7% with budesonide; respective decreases in asthma score were 78.8% and 82.3% (P<.001 vs baseline, P = NS between treatments). Only flunisolide reduced the number of nocturnal awakenings (P<.001). Ten patients in the flunisolide group and 12 in the budesonide group reported adverse events, none of which required discontinuation of treatment. In children with asthma, nebulized corticosteroids are effective and have good safety and tolerability profiles. Flunisolide and budesonide seem to produce equivalent clinical responses.

Inhaled steroids are the most effective long-term treatment of persistent asthma but many children are unable to use correctly the available inhalers. Administration of nebulized corticosteroids has some advantages over the administration with pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDls). The objective of this multicenter randomised study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of nebulized corticosteroids in paediatric patients with asthma. 127 patients aged > or = 6 and < or = 14 years with a diagnosis of mild to moderate persistent asthma (PEFR % predicted > 50% and < 85%) and positive response to the reversibility test were randomized. The patients were assigned by randomisation to one of the two treatment groups (4 weeks): beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 800 microg/daily b.i.d. (n = 66) or budesonide (BUD) 1000 microg/daily b.i.d. (n = 61) both administered by nebulizer. The primary efficacy end point was the final mean of PEFR measured at clinical visit (clinic PEFR). In the BDP group clinic PEFR increased from 177.5 +/- 80 L/min to 246.6 +/- 84.2 L/min (p < 0.001 vs baseline), while in the BUD group the increase was from 180.4 +/- 77.8/min to 260.9 +/- 84.1 L/min (p < 0.001 vs baseline) (NS between treatments). FEV1 (% predicted) increased from 77.8% to 92.7% (p < 0.001 vs baseline) and from 74.1% to 95.9% (p < 0.001 vs baseline) in BDP and BUD group respectively (NS between treatments). Patients reduced the use of salbutamol rescue medication by 76% and 81% in BDP and BUD group respectively (p < 0.001 vs baseline, NS between treatments). 4 patients in the BDP group and 2 in the BUD group reported adverse events (AEs). AEs were mild to moderate and never there was the need to discontinue the treatments. In conclusion the results of this study demonstrate that both BDP (800 microg/daily) and BUD (1000 microg/daily) administered by nebulization are effective and with a acceptable safety and tolerability profile.