Stepping down inhaled corticosteroids from scheduled to as needed in stable asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Background:
Many patients with asthma are potentially overtreated, which results in unnecessary cost and unnecessary exposure to drugs that may result in adverse events. Step down helps reduce overtreatment, may mitigate these harms, and is advocated by major guidelines. Unfortunately, data that support step down are sparse.
Objectives:
This systematic review aimed to examine the effect of stepping down from scheduled inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to as-needed ICS in patients with stable asthma.
Methods:
Several electronic databases were systematically searched in April 2014. Articles were screened independently in duplicate. Studies were required to have at least a 12-week follow-up duration and to have compared stepping down from scheduled ICS to as-needed ICS and maintenance of scheduled ICS. Patients were required to have stable asthma as evidenced by at least 4 weeks without asthma exacerbation before intervention.
Results:
A total of 3025 abstracts were retrieved initially, 77 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. Of these, only two articles were found to be eligible for inclusion, both were randomized controlled trials. By using random effects meta-analysis, it was determined that, after a follow-up of 6‐10 months, the relative risk of exacerbation of stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS was 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81‐2.16; p = 0.27, I2 = 0%). Those who did not step down had more symptom-free days (standard mean difference 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02‐0.49; p = 0.03; I2 = 22%]).
Conclusion:
There is currently insufficient evidence to associate stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS with a change in exacerbations, although it may lead to fewer symptom-free days.
Many patients with asthma are potentially overtreated, which results in unnecessary cost and unnecessary exposure to drugs that may result in adverse events. Step down helps reduce overtreatment, may mitigate these harms, and is advocated by major guidelines. Unfortunately, data that support step down are sparse.
Objectives:
This systematic review aimed to examine the effect of stepping down from scheduled inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to as-needed ICS in patients with stable asthma.
Methods:
Several electronic databases were systematically searched in April 2014. Articles were screened independently in duplicate. Studies were required to have at least a 12-week follow-up duration and to have compared stepping down from scheduled ICS to as-needed ICS and maintenance of scheduled ICS. Patients were required to have stable asthma as evidenced by at least 4 weeks without asthma exacerbation before intervention.
Results:
A total of 3025 abstracts were retrieved initially, 77 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. Of these, only two articles were found to be eligible for inclusion, both were randomized controlled trials. By using random effects meta-analysis, it was determined that, after a follow-up of 6‐10 months, the relative risk of exacerbation of stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS was 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81‐2.16; p = 0.27, I2 = 0%). Those who did not step down had more symptom-free days (standard mean difference 0.26 [95% CI, 0.02‐0.49; p = 0.03; I2 = 22%]).
Conclusion:
There is currently insufficient evidence to associate stepping down from scheduled to as-needed ICS with a change in exacerbations, although it may lead to fewer symptom-free days.
Keywords: Asthma; asthma medication; inhaled corticosteroids; meta-analysis; overtreatment; step-down; systematic review
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Publication date: 01 July 2015
- Allergy and Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists.
The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma and by having the potential to directly impact the quality of patient care. AAP welcomes the submission of original works including peer-reviewed original research and clinical trial results. Additionally, as the official journal of the Eastern Allergy Conference (EAC), AAP will publish content from EAC poster sessions as well as review articles derived from EAC lectures.
Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.
Articles marked "F" offer free full text for personal noncommercial use only.
The journal is indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science and Science Citation Index Expanded, plus the National Library of Medicine's PubMed service. - Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Information for Advertisers
- Reprint Requests
- Commercial level: Permission to use content
- www.JFoodAllergy.com
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
- Access Key
- Free content
- Partial Free content
- New content
- Open access content
- Partial Open access content
- Subscribed content
- Partial Subscribed content
- Free trial content