A systematic review and meta-analysis: tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils).

Asthma severity and control can be measured both subjectively and objectively. Traditionally asthma treatments have been individualised using symptoms and spirometry/peak flow. Increasingly treatment tailored in accordance with inflammatory markers (sputum eosinophil counts or fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) data) is advocated as an alternative strategy. The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on inflammatory markers (sputum analysis and FeNO) in comparison with clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma-related outcomes in children and adults. Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles were searched. The last searches were in February 2009. All randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma treatment based on sputum analysis or FeNO compared with traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow) were selected. Results of searches were reviewed against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Relevant studies were selected, assessed and data extracted independently by at least two people. The trial authors were contacted for further information. Data were analysed as 'intervention received' and sensitivity analyses performed. Six (2 adults and 4 children/adolescent) studies utilising FeNO and three adult studies utilising sputum eosinophils were included. These studies had a degree of clinical heterogeneity including definition of asthma exacerbations, duration of study and variations in cut-off levels for percentage of sputum eosinophils and FeNO to alter management in each study. Adults who had treatment adjusted according to sputum eosinophils had a reduced number of exacerbations compared with the control group (52 vs. 77 patients with ≥1 exacerbation in the study period; p=0.0006). There was no significant difference in exacerbations between groups for FeNO compared with controls. The daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids at the end of the study was decreased in adults whose treatment was based on FeNO in comparison with the control group (mean difference -450.03 µg, 95% CI -676.73 to -223.34; p<0.0001). However, children who had treatment adjusted according to FeNO had an increase in their mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference 140.18 µg, 95% CI 28.94 to 251.42; p=0.014). It was concluded that tailoring of asthma treatment based on sputum eosinophils is effective in decreasing asthma exacerbations. However, tailoring of asthma treatment based on FeNO levels has not been shown to be effective in improving asthma outcomes in children and adults. At present, there is insufficient justification to advocate the routine use of either sputum analysis (due to technical expertise required) or FeNO in everyday clinical practice.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations, but influenza vaccination itself has the potential to adversely affect pulmonary function. A recent overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma but this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature. OBJECTIVES: Whilst influenza may cause asthma exacerbations, there is controversy about the use of influenza vaccinations, since they may precipitate an asthma attack in some people. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and checked reference lists of articles. The last search was carried out in September 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. Studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials were initially included. Four of these trials were of high quality. Six further articles have been included in three updates (Bueving 2003; Castro 2001; Fleming 2006; Redding 2002; Reid 1998). The included studies covered a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, but data from the more recent studies that used similar vaccines have been pooled. BENEFITS: Bueving 2003 studied 696 children with asthma and did not demonstrate a significant reduction in influenza related asthma exacerbations (Risk Difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04). HARMS: The pooled results of two trials involving 2306 people with asthma did not demonstrate a significant increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (Risk Difference 0.00; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from recently published trials indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination (at least with inactivated influenza vaccination). There is concern regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

Tailored interventions based on exhaled nitric oxide versus clinical symptoms for asthma in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of severity and control of asthma in both children and adults can be based on subjective or objective measures. It has been advocated that fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) can be used to monitor airway inflammation as it correlates with some markers of asthma. Interventions for asthma therapies have been traditionally based on symptoms and/or spirometry. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on exhaled nitric oxide in comparison to clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma related outcomes in children and adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles. The last search was completed in December 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma therapy based on exhaled nitric oxide compared to traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results of searches were reviewed against pre-determined criteria for inclusion. Relevant studies were independently selected in duplicate. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Authors were contacted for further information but none were received. Data was analysed as "intervention received" and sensitivity analyses performed. MAIN RESULTS: Four (2 adult and 2 paediatric) studies were included; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cut off levels and duration of study. Of 356 participants randomised, 324 completed the trials. In the meta-analysis, there was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of asthma exacerbations or for other outcomes (clinical symptoms, FeNO level and spirometry). In post-hoc analysis, a significant reduction in mean final daily dose inhaled corticosteroid per adult was found in the group where treatment was based on FeNO in comparison to clinical symptoms; WMD -282.46 (95% CI -422.08 to -142.84). There was no difference in ICS dose between the groups in the overall daily dose in the adult studies or in the paediatric studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring the dose of inhaled corticosteroids based on exhaled nitric oxide in comparison to clinical symptoms was carried out in different ways in the four studies that were found, and the results show only modest differences. The role of utilising exhaled nitric oxide to tailor the dose of inhaled corticosteroids is currently uncertain.

Culture-specific programs for children and adults from minority groups who have asthma.

BACKGROUND: People with asthma who come from minority groups have poorer asthma outcomes and more asthma related visits to Emergency Departments (ED). Various programmes are used to educate and empower people with asthma and these have previously been shown to improve certain asthma outcomes. Models of care for chronic diseases in minority groups usually include a focus of the cultural context of the individual and not just the symptoms of the disease. Therefore, questions about whether culturally specific asthma education programmes for people from minority groups are effective at improving asthma outcomes, are feasible and are cost-effective need to be answered. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether culture-specific asthma programmes, in comparison to generic asthma education programmes or usual care, improve asthma related outcomes in children and adults with asthma who belong to minority groups. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search was performed in March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of culture-specific asthma education programmes with generic asthma education programmes, or usual care, in adults or children from minority groups who suffer from asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected, extracted and assessed the data for inclusion. We contacted authors for further information if required. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 396 patients, aged from 7 to 59 years were included in the meta-analysis of data. Use of a culture-specific programme was superior to generic programmes or usual care, in improving asthma quality of life scores in adults, pooled WMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.41) and asthma knowledge scores in children, WMD 3.30 (95% CI 1.07 to 5.53). There was no significant difference between groups in occurrence of asthma exacerbations, but the width of the confidence interval means that effects on exacerbation rates cannot be ruled out, rate ratio 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Culture-specific programmes for adults and children from minority groups with asthma, have been found to be more effective than generic programmes in improving some (Quality of Life and asthma knowledge) but not all asthma outcomes. This evidence is limited by the small number of included studies and the lack of reported outcomes. Further trials are required to answer this question conclusively.

Fluticasone versus beclomethasone or budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2007) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-one studies (14,602 participants) representing 74 randomised comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was fair. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater end of treatment FEV1 (0.04 litres (95% CI 0 to 0.07 litres), end of treatment and change in morning PEF, but not change in FEV1 or evening PEF. This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. FP led to fewer symptoms and less rescue medication use. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in morning PEF, evening PEF, and FEV1 over BDP or BUD. The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There were no significant differences incidence of hoarseness, pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing sore throat and when given at the same daily dose leads to increased hoarseness. There are concerns about adrenal suppression with Fluticasone given to children at doses greater than 400 mcg/day, but the randomised trials included in this review did not provide sufficient data to address this issue.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have both been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Their co-administration in a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens, and improve efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of combined inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist preparations, compared to placebo, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search is April 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Studies could compare any combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist preparation with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. One author entered the data. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria (6427 participants randomised). Two different combination preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol) were used. Study quality was good. Fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol both reduced the rate of exacerbations. Pooled analysis of both combination therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo, Rate Ratio: 0.74 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.8). The clinical impact of this effect depends on the frequency of exacerbations experienced by patients. The patients included in these trials had on average 1-2 exacerbations per year which means that treatment with combination therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. There is an overall reduction in mortality, but this outcome is dominated by the results of TORCH and further studies on budesonide/formoterol are required. The three year number needed to treat to prevent one extra death is 36 (95% CI 21 to 258), using a baseline risk of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH. Both treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the clinical importance of the differences observed is open to interpretation. Symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combination treatments. There was an increase in the risk of pneumonia with combined inhalers. The three year number needed to treat for one extra case of pneumonia is 13 (95% CI 9 to 20), using a baseline risk of 12.3% from the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from studies assessing combined inhalers due to adverse events and lack of efficacy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, combination therapy led to a significant reduction of a quarter in exacerbation rates. There was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with the addition of data from the TORCH trial. The increased risk of pneumonia is a concern, and better reporting of this outcome in future studies would be helpful. In order to draw firmer conclusions about the effects of combination therapy in a single inhaler more data are necessary, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different doses of inhaled corticosteroids.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled steroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have both been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens, and to improve efficacy. Two preparations are currently available, fluticasone/salmeterol (FPS) and budesonide/formoterol (BDF). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of combined inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist preparations, compared to inhaled corticosteroids, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search is April 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Studies compared combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist preparations with the inhaled corticosteroid component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia. Health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function and side-effects were secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed effect odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria randomising 5708 participants with predominantly poorly reversible, severe COPD. Exacerbation rates were significantly reduced with combination therapies (Rate ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.0008). Data from two FPS studies indicated that exacerbations requiring oral steroids were reduced with combination therapy. Data from one large study suggest that there is no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations. Mortality was also lower with combined treatment (odds ratio 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.94). Quality of life, lung function and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy favoured combination treatment. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatments. No significant differences were found between FPS and BDP in the primary outcomes, but the confidence intervals for the BDP results were wide as smaller numbers of patients have been studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination ICS and LABA significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in COPD when compared with mono component steroid. Adverse events were not significantly different between treatments, although evidence from other sources indicates that inhaled corticosteroids are associated with increased risk of pneumonia. Assessment of BDF in larger, long-term trials is required. Dose response data would provide valuable evidence on whether efficacy and safety outcomes are affected by different steroid loads.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The co-administration of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens, and to improve efficacy in COPD. In this review they are compared with mono component long-acting beta-agonists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists preparations with mono component long-acting beta-agonists in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search is April 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Studies could compare a combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist preparation with component long-acting beta-agonist preparation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, with health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function and side-effects as secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed effect odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sensitivity analysis was performed by combining data with a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria, randomising 7598 participants with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eight studies assessed fluticasone/salmeterol, and two studies budesonide/formoterol. The exacerbation rates with combined inhalers were reduced in comparison to long-acting beta-agonists alone (Rate Ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88). There was no significant difference in mortality between combined inhalers and long-acting beta-agonists alone. Pneumonia occurred more commonly with combined inhalers (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.94). There was no significant difference in terms of hospitalisations, although the two studies contributing data to this outcome may have been drawn from differing populations. Combination was more effective than LABA in improving quality of life measured by the St George Respiratory Questionnaire, and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, and predose and post dose FEV1. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was more effective than long-acting beta-agonists in reducing exacerbation rates, although the evidence for the effects on hospitalisations was mixed, and requires further exploration. No significant impact on mortality was found even with additional information from the TORCH trial. The superiority of combination inhalers should be viewed against the increased risk of side-effects, particularly pneumonia. Additional studies on BDF are required and more information would be useful of the relative benefits and adverse event rates with different doses of inhaled corticosteroids.

Tailored interventions based on sputum eosinophils versus clinical symptoms for asthma in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma severity and control can be measured both subjectively and objectively. Sputum analysis for evaluation of percentage of sputum eosinophilia directly measures airway inflammation, and is one method of objectively monitoring asthma. Interventions for asthma therapies have been traditionally based on symptoms and spirometry. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum analysis in comparison to clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma related outcomes in children and adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles. The last search was on 31 October 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma therapy based on sputum eosinophils compared to traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results of searches were reviewed against pre-determined criteria for inclusion. Three sets of reviewers selected relevant studies. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality extracted data. Authors were contacted for further information but none were received. Data was analysed as "treatment received" and sensitivity analyses performed. MAIN RESULTS: Three adult studies were included; these studies were clinically and methodologically heterogenous (use of medications, cut off for percentage of sputum eosinophils and definition of asthma exacerbation). There were no eligible paediatric studies. Of 246 participants randomised, 221 completed the trials. In the meta-analysis, a significant reduction in number of participants who had one or more asthma exacerbations occurred when treatment was based on sputum eosinophils in comparison to clinical symptoms; pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.49 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.87); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) was 6 (95% CI 4 to 32). There were also differences between groups in the rate of exacerbation (any exacerbation per year) and severity of exacerbations defined by requirement for use of oral corticosteroids but the reduction in hospitalisations was not statistically significant. Data for clinical symptoms, quality of life and spirometry were not significantly different between groups. The mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per day was similar in both groups and no adverse events were reported. However sputum induction was not always possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tailored asthma interventions based on sputum eosinophils is beneficial in reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations in adults with asthma. This review supports the use of sputum eosinophils to tailor asthma therapy for adults with frequent exacerbations and severe asthma. Further studies need to be undertaken to strengthen these results and no conclusion can be drawn for children with asthma.

Injectable vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: As chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) progresses, exacerbations can occur with increasing frequency. One goal of therapy in COPD is to try and prevent these exacerbations, thereby reducing disease morbidity and associated healthcare costs. Pneumococcal vaccinations are considered to be one strategy for reducing the risk of infective exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in COPD. The primary outcome assessed was acute exacerbations. Secondary outcomes of interest included episodes of pneumonia, hospital admissions, adverse events related to treatment, disability, change in lung function, mortality, and cost effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group COPD trials register using pre-specified terms. We also conducted additional handsearches of conference abstracts. The last round of searches were performed in April 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of injectable pneumococcal vaccine in people with COPD were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and three review authors independently assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Although 10 studies cited in 11 publications were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review, only four of these provided data on participants with COPD. The studies which did provide data for this review consisted of two trials using a 14-valent vaccine, and two using a 23-valent injectable vaccine. Data for the primary outcome, acute exacerbation of COPD, was available from only one of the four studies. The odds ratio of 1.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 6.69) between interventions was not statistically significant. Of the secondary outcomes for which data were available and could be extracted, none reached statistical significance. Three studies provided dichotomous data for persons who developed pneumonia (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.37, n = 748). Rates of hospital admissions and emergency department visits came from a single study. There was no significant reduction in the odds of all-cause mortality 1 to 48 months post-vaccination (Peto odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33, n = 888), or for death from cardiorespiratory causes (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.66). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that injectable pneumococcal vaccination in persons with COPD has a significant impact on morbidity or mortality. Further large randomised controlled trials would be needed to ascertain if the small benefits suggested by individual studies are real.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) agents may both be considered as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in asthmatic patients who remained symptomatic on ICS. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was searched for randomised controlled trials up to and including March 2006. Reference lists of all included studies and reviews were screened to identify potentially relevant citations. Inquiries regarding other published or unpublished studies supported by the authors of the included studies or pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these agents were made. Conference proceedings of major respiratory meetings were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma where a LABA (for example, salmeterol or formoterol) or LTRA (for example, montelukast, pranlukast, zafirlukast) was added to ICS for a minimum of 28 days were considered for inclusion. Inhaled short-acting beta(2)-agonists and short courses of oral steroids were permitted as rescue medications. Other daily asthma treatments were permitted, providing the dose remained constant during the intervention period. Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature searches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and trial quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Whenever possible, primary study authors were requested to confirm methodology and data extraction and to provide additional information and clarification when needed. Where necessary, expansion of graphic reproductions and estimation from other data presented in the paper was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria; eleven trials including 6,030 participants provided data in sufficient detail to permit aggregation. All eleven trials pertained to adults with moderate airway obstruction (% predicted FEV(1) 66-76%) at baseline. Montelukast (n=9) or Zafirlukast (n=2) was compared to Salmeterol (n=9) or Formoterol (n=2) as add-on therapy to 400-565 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent. Risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was significantly lower with LABA+ICS when compared to LTRA+ICS (RR= 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 0.71, 0.97): the number needed to treat with LABA compared to LTRA, to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks, was 38 (95% CI: 23 to 247). The following outcomes also improved significantly with the addition of LABA compared to LTRA to inhaled steroids (Weighted Mean Difference; 95%CI): morning PEFR (16 L/min; 13 to 18), evening PEFR (12 L/min; 9 to 15), FEV(1) (80 mL; 60 to 100), rescue-free days (9%; 5% to 13%), symptom-free days (6%; 2 to 11), rescue beta(2)-agonists (-0.5 puffs/day; -0.2 to -1), quality of life (0.1; 0.05 to 0.2), symptom score (Standard Mean Difference -0.2; -0.1 to -0.3), night awakenings (-0.1/week; -0.06 to -0.2) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.12; 1.07 to 1.16). Risk of withdrawals due to any reason was significantly lower with LABA+ICS compared to LTRA+ICS (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95). Withdrawals due to adverse events or due to poor asthma control, hospitalisation, osteopenia, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, headache or cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two study groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic adults inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids, the addition of LABA is superior to LTRA for preventing exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, and for improving lung function, symptoms, and the use of rescue beta(2)-agonists.

Continuous positive airways pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea in adults.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The main symptom is daytime sleepiness and it has been suggested it is linked to premature death, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and road traffic accidents. OBJECTIVES: The main treatment for sleep apnoea is with the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), which requires a flow generator and mask. These are used at night to prevent apnoea, hypoxia and sleep disturbance. The objective was to assess the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. Searches were current to July 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with an inactive control or oral appliances in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (an apnoea and hypopnoea index greater than five per hour). Trials had a minimum intervention period of two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and two review authors extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Parallel and crossover group trials were analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six trials involving 1718 people met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed. Compared with control, CPAP showed significant improvements in certain objective and subjective sleepiness, measures of quality of life and cognitive function (parallel-group studies: Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) -3.83 units, 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09; crossover studies: ESS -1.84 units, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.11). Twenty-four hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with CPAP compared with control (parallel-group trials). Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly reduced the apnoea and hypopnoea index (crossover studies: -7.97 events/hr, 95% CI -9.56 to -6.38) and improved sleep efficiency (crossover studies: 2.31%, 95% CI 0.02 to 4.6) and minimum oxygen saturation (4.14%, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.03). Responders to both treatments expressed a strong preference for the oral appliance. However, participants were more likely to withdraw on OA than on CPAP therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than control. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.

Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: In acute asthma inhaled beta2-agonists are often administered to relieve bronchospasm by wet nebulisation, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of beta2-agonists for acute asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in January 2006 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer beta2-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied study inclusion criteria (one reviewer for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: This review has been updated in January 2006 and four new trials have been added. 2066 children and 614 adults are now included in 25 trials from emergency room and community settings. In addition, six trials on in-patients with acute asthma (213 children and 28 adults) have been reviewed. Method of delivery of beta2-agonist did not appear to affect hospital admission rates. In adults, the relative risk of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49). The relative risk for children was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.4 to 1.06). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used, with a mean difference of -0.47 hours (95% CI: -0.58 to -0.37). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -7.6% baseline (95% CI: -9.9 to -5.3% baseline). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Metered-dose inhalers with spacer produced outcomes that were at least equivalent to nebuliser delivery. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma.

Continuous positive airways pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea in adults.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The main symptom is daytime sleepiness and it has been suggested it is linked to premature death, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and road traffic accidents. OBJECTIVES: The main treatment for sleep apnoea is with the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), which requires a flow generator and mask. These are used at night to prevent apnoea, hypoxia and sleep disturbance. The objective was to assess the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. Searches were current to July 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with an inactive control or oral appliances in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (an apnoea and hypopnoea index greater than five per hour). Trials had a minimum intervention period of two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and two review authors extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Parallel and crossover group trials were analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six trials involving 1718 people met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed. Compared with control, CPAP showed significant improvements in objective and subjective sleepiness and several quality of life, cognitive function and depression measures (parallel-group studies: Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) -3.83 units, 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09; crossover studies: ESS -1.84 units, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.11). Twenty-four hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with CPAP compared with control (parallel-group trials). Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly reduced the apnoea and hypopnoea index (crossover studies: -7.97 events/hr, 95% CI -9.56 to -6.38) and improved sleep efficiency (crossover studies: 2.31%, 95% CI 0.02 to 4.6) and minimum oxygen saturation (4.14%, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.03). Responders to both treatments expressed a strong preference for the oral appliance. However, participants were more likely to withdraw on OA than on CPAP therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than in controls. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.

Holding chambers versus nebulisers for inhaled steroids in chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are available in the form of a suspension for nebulisation, although the role of this mode of therapy in the treatment of chronic asthma is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids delivered via nebuliser versus holding chamber for the treatment of chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register (1999) and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and hand-searched the British Journal of Clinical Research, European Journal of Clinical Research and major respiratory society meeting abstracts (1997-1999). Date of last search August 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing nebuliser to holding chamber in the delivery of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of chronic asthma. All age groups of patients were considered. Two reviewers assessed articles for inclusion; two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data; authors were contacted to clarify missing information. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using Review Manager 4.1 with MetaView 3.1. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were selected for inclusion (63 subjects), both concerned adults. An additional small study including 14 children was identified for the 2005 update. Methodological quality was variable. Due to design differences it was not appropriate to pool the studies. The single high quality study compared budesonide 2000-8000 mcg delivered via Pari Inhalier Boy jet nebuliser with inspiration-only inhalation to budesonide 1600 mcg via large volume spacer. The nebuliser delivery led to higher morning peak expiratory flow values (25 L/min p<0.01), higher evening values (30L/min, p<0.01), lower rescue beta2 agonist use and symptom scores compared to the holding chamber delivery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide in high dose delivered by the particular nebuliser used in the only double-blinded study that could be included in this review was more effective than budesonide 1600 mcg via a large volume spacer. However, it is not clear whether this was an effect of nominal dose delivered or delivery system. Cost, compliance and patient preference are important determinants of clinical effectiveness that still require further assessment. Future studies are needed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids delivered by different combinations of nebuliser/compressor compared to holding chamber. Moreover, further studies assessing these delivery methods are needed in infants and pre-school children, as these are groups that are likely to be considered for treatment with nebulised corticosteroids.

Influenza vaccine for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in COPD patients but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects or not to be cost effective. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence from RCTs for a treatment effect of influenza vaccination in COPD subjects. Outcomes of interest were exacerbation rates, hospitalisations, mortality, lung function and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, and reference lists of articles. References were also provided by a number of drug companies we contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine in persons with COPD. Studies of people with asthma were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. All entries were double checked. Study authors and drug companies were contacted for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were included but only six of these were specifically performed in COPD patients. The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Inactivated vaccine in COPD patients resulted in a significant reduction in the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated subject compared with those who received placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.11, P = 0.006). This was due to the reduction in "late" exacerbations occurring after three or four weeks (WMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.18, P = 0.0004). In Howells 1961, the number of patients experiencing late exacerbations was also significantly less (odds ratio 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45, P = 0.002). Both Howells 1961 and Wongsurakiat 2004 found that inactivated influenza vaccination reduced influenza -related respiratory infections (WMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.48, P = 0.0005). In both COPD patient and in elderly patients (only a minority of whom had COPD), there was a significant increase in the occurrence of local adverse reactions in vaccinees, but the effects were generally mild and transient. There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination. The studies are too small to have detected any effect on mortality. An updated search conducted in September 2001 did not yield any further studies. A search in 2003 yielded two further reports of the same eligible study Gorse 2003. A search in 2004 yielded two reports of the another eligible study Wongsurakiat 2004. The author informed us of another report of the same study Wongsurakiat 2004/2. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appears, from the limited number of studies performed, that inactivated vaccine reduces exacerbations in COPD patients. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There is a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations.

Fluticasone versus HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of fluticasone (FP) and beclomethasone (BDP) propelled with CFCs has been well established. The potency of HFA-BDP is thought to have been improved with new propellant and some studies suggest that it may equipotent at half the dose of CFC propelled-BDP. There is a need to revisit this question in the light of a potentially more potent new non-CFC propellant. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative efficacy of FP and HFA-propelled BDP in chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was searched using pre-specified terms. Searches were current as of March 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. We compared either CFC or HFA-propelled FP with HFA-propelled BDP. We made a distinction between HFA-BDP and HFA-BDP extra fine, which dispenses smaller particles of drug, leading to different, usually more peripheral distribution in the airways. Any inhaler device was considered, and there was no restriction on studies with or without spacers. We included studies which assessed HFA-BDP given via either pMDI, breath-actuated MDI, or DPI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Data were extracted and entered in to RevMan 4.2 using standard meta-analytical techniques with predefined criteria for exploring statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (1230 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. One study was conducted in children. Study reporting quality was fair, but all studies were of short duration (three to twelve weeks). Only studies assessing HFA-BDP extra fine in comparison with FP were identified. Lung function was not significantly different between extra fine BDP and FP when compared at the same dose in parallel studies, change in FEV1: 0.04 litres (95% CI -0.03 to 0.11 litres; three studies, 659 adults); change in am PEF: -0.69 litres (95% CI -11.21 to 9.83 litres; two studies, 364 adults). Individual studies reported non-significant findings in symptom scores and quality of life questionnaires. There was no significant difference between FP and HFA-BDP in the risk of study withdrawal, dysphonia or when data were reported as any adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between FP and extra fine HFA-BDP on FEV(1) or peak flow at a dose ratio of 1:1. However, the number of studies and width of the confidence intervals in the analyses do not exclude a clinically meaningful difference between these two drugs. Difficulty in the successful manipulation of the devices studied may be a barrier to the widespread use of MDIs. One paediatric study was included in the review, so extrapolation of the findings of this review to children is limited. Further longer term studies in adults and children with moderate and severe asthma are required.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) agents may both be considered as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). OBJECTIVES: We compare the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in asthmatic patients with asthma who remained symptomatic on ICS. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL databases were searched for randomised controlled trials up to and including January 2004. Reference lists of all included studies and reviews were screened to identify potentially relevant citations. Inquiries regarding other published or unpublished studies supported by the authors of the included studies or pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these agents were made. Conference proceedings of major respiratory meetings were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma where a LABA (for example, salmeterol or formoterol) or LTRA (for example, montelukast, pranlukast, zafirlukast) was added to ICS for a minimum of 28 days were considered for inclusion. Inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists and short courses of oral steroids were permitted as rescue medications. Other daily asthma treatments were permitted, providing the dose remained constant during the intervention period. Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature searches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and trial quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Whenever possible, primary study authors were requested to confirm methodology and data extraction and to provide additional information and clarification when needed. Where necessary, expansion of graphic reproductions and estimation from other data presented in the paper was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria; only eight trials including 5,895 patients, provided data in sufficient details to allow aggregation. All eight trials pertained to adults with moderate airway obstruction (% predicted FEV1 66-76%) at baseline. Montelukast (n=6) or Zafirlukast (n=2) was compared to Salmeterol (n=7) or Formoterol (n=1) as add-on therapy to 400-565 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent. Risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was significantly lower with LABA+ICS when compared to LTRA+ICS (RR= 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI): 0.71, 0.97): the number needed to treat with LABA compared to LTRA, to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks, was 38 (95% CI: 23 to 247). The following outcomes also improved significantly with the addition of LABA compared to LTRA to inhaled steroids (Weighted Mean Difference; 95%CI): morning PEFR (16 L/min; 13 to 18), evening PEFR (12 L/min; 9 to 15), FEV(1) (80 mL; 60 to 100), rescue-free days (9%; 4 to 14), symptom-free days (6%; 2 to 11), rescue beta2-agonists (-0.4 puffs/day; -0.2 to -0.5), quality of life (0.1; 0.05 to 0.2), symptom score (Standard Mean Difference -0.2; -0.1 to -0.3), night awakenings (-0.1/week; -0.06 to -0.2) and patient satisfaction (RR 1.12; 1.07 to 1.16). Risk of withdrawals due to any reason was significantly lower with LABA+ICS compared to LTRA+ICS (Relative Risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96). Withdrawals due to adverse events or due to poor asthma control, hospitalisation, osteopenia, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, headache or cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two study groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic adults inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids, the addition of LABA is superior to LTRA for preventing exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, and for improving lung function, symptoms, and use of rescue beta2-agonists.

Combined corticosteroid and long acting beta-agonist in one inhaler for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have both been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens, and to improve efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of combined inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist preparations, compared to placebo or the individual components, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials register. Date of last search April 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Studies could compare a combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist preparation with either component preparation or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was exacerbations. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised trials with 4118 participants were included. Two different combination preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol) were used. Combination treatment was more effective than placebo for mean exacerbation rates, quality of life and lung function. No trials were found comparing the combination of drugs in a single inhaler with the same drugs both given in separate inhalers. Exacerbations: Fluticasone/salmeterol did not significantly reduce exacerbations compared with either of its component treatments in one large study. There was no significant difference when budesonide/formoterol was compared with budesonide. Budesonide/formoterol was more effective than formoterol in reducing exacerbations (Rate ratio: 0.78 [0.68 to 0.90], two studies). A pooled analysis of both combination therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with either placebo or long-acting beta-agonist (versus placebo Rate ratio: 0.76 [0.68, 0.84], three studies, versus beta-agonist, Rate ratio: 0.85 [0.77, 0.95], three studies), but not when compared with steroid. The clinical impact of this effect depends on the frequency of exacerbations experienced by patients. One full exacerbation was prevented for every two to four years of treatment in the type of patients included in the trials. Quality of Life: There were conflicting findings in quality of life and symptoms when fluticasone/salmeterol was compared with inhaled steroids alone (three studies). There was no significant difference between fluticasone/salmeterol and long-acting beta-agonist in quality of life scores (three studies). Budesonide/formoterol improved symptoms when compared with budesonide but not with formoterol. There were conflicting findings in quality of life scores when budesonide/formoterol was compared with component inhaled corticosteroid or beta-agonist. These may be accounted for by different study design. Lung Function: Treatment with either combination led to small, significant differences in lung function compared with component steroid medication. Fluticasone/salmeterol led to small improvements in FEV1 compared with salmeterol, but budesonide/formoterol treatment did not increase FEV1 significantly when compared with formoterol. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, combination therapy led to clinically meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms and exacerbations. However, there were conflicting results when the different combination therapies were compared with the mono-components alone. In order to draw firmer conclusions about the effects of combination therapy in a single inhaler more data are necessary, including the assessment of the comparative effects with separate administration of the two drugs in double-dummy trials.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations, but influenza vaccination itself has the potential to adversely affect pulmonary function. A recent overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma but this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature. OBJECTIVES: Whilst influenza may cause asthma exacerbations, there is controversy about the use of influenza vaccinations, since they may precipitate an asthma attack in some people. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and checked reference lists of articles. The last search was carried out in February 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. Studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials were initially included. Four of these trials were of high quality. Five further articles have been included in two updates (Bueving 2002; Castro 2001; Redding 2002; Reid 1998). The included studies covered a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, but data from the more recent studies that used similar vaccines have been pooled. The pooled results of two trials involving 2306 people with asthma did not demonstrate a significant increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (Risk Difference 0.00; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). A recent study on 696 children with asthma did not demonstrate a significant reduction in influenza related asthma exacerbations (Risk Difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from recently published trials indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination (at least with inactivated influenza vaccination); however, uncertainty remains about the degree of protection vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection.