Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 7.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2012 Jan;18(1):70–75. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0b013e32834db017

Stepping Down Asthma Treatment: How and When

Linda Rogers, Joan Reibman
PMCID: PMC4083849  NIHMSID: NIHMS532940  PMID: 22081088

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Guidelines suggest that asthma medication should be reduced once asthma control is sustained. Moderate dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can typically be reduced, but questions remain about the lowest effective ICS dose and the role of non-ICS controllers in treatment reduction. Long acting beta agonist (LABA) safety concerns have created controversy about how to step down patients on ICS/LABA therapy. This review will focus on the current status of these issues.

Recent findings

Intermittent ICS treatment, often in fixed combination with short-acting beta agonist, is an emerging strategy for control of mild asthma. Addition of leukotriene modifiers, LABAs, and omalizumab to ICS can allow for reduced ICS dosing. Doses of ICS that control symptoms may be inadequate to control exacerbations. Reducing ICS dose before discontinuing LABAs may be the more effective approach for patients on combination therapy.

Summary

Use of non-ICS controllers allow for ICS dose reduction with superior outcomes. Tapering of ICS prior to LABA discontinuation may be the favored approach for patients on ICS/LABA therapy, but an understanding of long-term outcomes and further safety data are required. The lowest ICS dose that adequately controls both asthma impairment and risk remains to be determined.

Keywords: asthma, step-down, inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta agonists

Introduction: why consider reducing asthma treatment?

Asthma guidelines focus on achieving and maintaining asthma control and balancing the risk of medications with control of disease (1, 2). They suggest that once symptoms are controlled for at least 3 months, therapy can be reduced to the lowest dose that maintains control. Despite these recommendations, questions remain about when and how to reduce asthma therapy. Benefits of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are well established, and adverse effects are uncommon at low and moderate doses (3). However, concerns about adverse effects remain, particularly with sustained high doses, and include osteoporosis, adrenal axis suppression, cataracts, hoarseness, dysphonia, oral candidiasis, and dermal thinning and bruising. Recent links of ICS to diabetes and pneumonia are cause for concern and require further investigation (**4–6). HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy and ICS can have significant systemic absorption and adverse effects (7). Ongoing concerns in children include continued evidence of reduced growth velocity without an ultimate impact on adult height (8, **9). Apart from concerns about adverse effects of higher doses of ICS, safety concerns about long acting beta agonists (LABAs) create questions about the optimal way to reduce combination ICS/LABA therapy (10). Carefully monitored therapy reduction trials can clarify disease severity and reduce over-treatment. This review will discuss the current state of knowledge of how one should reduce therapy when asthma control is sustained.

Can daily low dose ICS be reduced or stopped in mild to moderate persistent asthma?

Once on low dose therapy, the risk of adverse effects of ICS is low (3, 4, 11, 12). However, patients and some providers still have doubts about ICS safety, leading to the desire to reduce or stop these medications (13, 14). When mild asthma is controlled, ICS can often be reduced by 50%, but reducing therapy is less successful with rapid medication tapering and in moderate to severe disease (1518). Roughly 50% of children and adults will redevelop symptoms within 1–12 months if ICS is stopped. (1619). Seasonal effects are noted, with greater success weaning in spring and summer, and more failure in the fall (20). In adults with persistent asthma, the ability to achieve sustained discontinuation of ICS with good control is rare. (21).

More recently, the utility of biomarkers such as sputum eosinophilia (22, 23), exhaled nitric oxide (24, 25) and suppression of bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) (26, 27) have been considered as tools to guide step-down of asthma therapy. Results are inconclusive, and even the best studied of these approaches, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), cannot consistently predict which patients tolerate reduced therapy (**28). Sputum eosinophilia has fared the best as a biomarker of loss of control, but access to biomarker monitoring is not widely available in primary care settings where most mild to moderate asthmatics receive their care (28).

The use of ICS on an “as needed” basis either alone or paired in the same inhaler with a short acting beta agonist may minimize ICS exposure. Step-down from daily ICS to symptom-driven use of fixed dose combination ICS (beclomethasone) and short-acting beta agonist (SABA) was as effective with a lower ICS dose over 6 months compared to daily ICS (29). Questions remain: will this strategy remain effective over time? In the TREXA study, 288 children ages 5–18 stabilized on 80 mcg beclomethasone daily, were stepped down to either daily ICS + additional rescue ICS as needed, daily ICS alone, rescue ICS alone, or placebo in a 44 week study. Exacerbations were lower in the daily ICS (28%, 18–40, p=0.03), combined (31%, 21–43, p=0.07), and rescue (35%, 24–47, p=0.07) groups compared to placebo (49%)(9). Treatment failure occurred in 23% (95% CI 14–43) of the placebo group, compared with 5.6% (1.6–14) in the combined (p=0.012), 2.8% (0–10) daily (p=0.009), and 8.5% (215) in the rescue (p=0.024) groups. Overall daily therapy had the best outcomes but rescue therapy was better than placebo and may reflect real world patient behavior (30).

In summary, reduction of ICS dose is often successful in well-controlled mild asthma. Long-term cessation of ICS can be achieved at times in children, but is rarely successful in adults. Few biomarkers accurately determine which patients can have therapy reduced and these techniques are often not available in many practice settings. Approaches using low dose ICS plus additional as-needed ICS, or as-needed ICS/SABA combination require further study.

Stepping down ICS with use of non ICS anti-inflammatory controllers

When escalating therapy in uncontrolled asthma, addition of non-steroid agents is favored over increasing to high dose ICS for most patients (1, 2). Less data is available to suggest that this approach “works in reverse”-that lowering ICS prior to removing non-steroid drugs is effective at sustaining asthma control. Recent systematic reviews reinforce that LABAs are effective at controlling asthma with lower ICS doses (31). Leukotriene modifiers (LTM) are effective as add-on therapy in asthma not controlled on low-dose ICS, but not as effective as LABAs in adults and possibly children (32, 33). LTM may allow treatment reduction, but complete cessation of ICS with step-down to LTM or LABA alone is associated with a significant loss of asthma control compared to maintenance of ICS (3436).

There is ample data documenting that omalizumab (anti-IgE) allows reduced ICS dosing. A 2011 systematic review including eight trials and 3429 patients found that omalizumab treated patients were able to reduce their ICS by 50% or discontinue it entirely (*37). In the ICATA study, inner city children with moderate to severe asthma treated with omalizumab plus guidelines-based treatment experienced a 30–48% reduction in exacerbations, including elimination of seasonal peaks, and better control on less ICS and LABA use (*38). While perhaps justified in moderate to severe disease, enthusiasm for this approach must by tempered by the fact that omalizumab has an average wholesale price of $4000-$20000 per year (39). Given that risk of clinically significant long term side effects of low to moderate dose ICS are low, and the modest median ICS dose reduction observed in pooled omalizumab data (median reduced ICS=141 ug budesonide), use of an expensive, resource intensive medication to taper ICS beyond low to moderate dose may not be warranted.

Stepping down fixed dose combination therapy: reduce ICS or stop LABA?

One of the most common dilemmas currently faced by practicing physicians is how to reduce ICS/LABA once asthma is controlled. Guidelines recommend a two-step approach: reducing the ICS by 50% and maintaining the LABA, and stopping the LABA if control is sustained with low dose ICS (2). In February 2010, in the context of ongoing debates about LABA safety, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended that LABAs be used for the shortest duration of time required to control asthma and that LABA therapy should be discontinued if possible once asthma control is achieved (40). Regulatory agencies worldwide have not issued a similar recommendation (41). This recommendation has been interpreted to suggest that LABA should preferentially be discontinued prior to lowering ICS, which is in conflict with at least some guidelines (2). To date, some limited data is available comparing these two methods of reducing fixed dose combination therapy, and published studies on this issue are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Step-down from fixed dose combination ICS/LABA

Study/Reference Design N Duration Population Intervention Primary outcome Results Comment
Koenig 2008 (36) RDBPG 647 16 weeks Uncontrolled on low-moderate ICS but controlled on FSC 100/50 Step-down to FP100, SAL 50 or Montelukast PEF Control deteriorated in all step-down groups
Fowler 2002 (42) RDBPG 39 12 weeks Mod-severe asthma 1000 BDP BID X 4 weeks then BDP 200 2 x daily or FSC 100/50 2x daily PC20 Doubling dose improvement in MCT with FSC greater than either BDP dose Lung function and QOL better on FSC vs BDP step-down
Bateman 2006 (43) RDBPG 484 24 weeks Moderate asthma, well-controlled FSC 250/50 stepped down to FSC 100/50 vs FP 250 PEF PEF lower in FP vs FSC Symptoms, rescue albuterol and control better on FSC than FP
Godard 2008 (44) RDBPG 473 6 months Well controlled on FSC 250/50 Decrease to FSC 100/50 vs FP 250 PEF FSC 100/50 similar to 250/50 but better than FP 250
Reddel 2010 (45) RDBPG 82 13 months FSC 500/50 500/50 vs FP 500 and down titrated every 8 weeks Mean daily FP dose No difference in mean daily dose FP but final dose lower in FSC Question if patients were over treated

RDBPG=randomized, double blinded, parallel group; BDP=beclomethasone dipropionate; ICS=inhaled corticosteroid; BHR=bronchial hyperreactivity; CS=corticosteroids

Reducing ICS dose prior to discontinuing LABAs is supported by several early studies where the addition of LABA to ICS allowed a reduction in ICS dose without loss of asthma control (18, 35, 42). Steroid naïve patients with moderate persistent asthma controlled on Fluticasone/ Salmeterol (FSC) 250/50 2x daily were randomized to a 12-week step-down comparing Fluticasone (FP) 250 2x daily vs. FSC 100/50 2 x daily (43). Peak expiratory flow (PEF), the primary endpoint, was maintained in the FSC100/50 group but decreased slightly in FP group. The proportion of patients with well-controlled asthma, a secondary endpoint, was reduced in both groups compared to 250/50, but remained higher in FSC vs. FP. More recently, patients uncontrolled on low dose ICS but controlled on FSC 100/50 for 4 weeks, were either continued on FSC, or stepped down to either same dose FP alone (100 mcg), salmeterol alone (50 mcg), or montelukast alone. FSC was superior for all endpoints (morning PEF, FEV1, symptom scores, and likelihood of remaining in the study) (36). Similarly, in a 6 month trial of patients well-controlled on FSC 250/50 2x daily who were stepped down to FSC 100/50 or FP 250 2x daily, FSC 100/50 was better than FP at maintaining lung function and symptom control (44). FSC 100/50 was non-inferior to continuing FSC 250. The withdrawal rate in the FP group (20%) was double that of either FSC 250 (11%) or FSC 100 (9%). Recently, Reddel et al stepped down patients from FSC 500 2x daily to either FP 500 2x daily or progressively lower dose FSC at 8-week intervals. No difference was found in the primary endpoint (mean FP dose), but the FSC group achieved a lower final ICS dose than the FP group (*45). Finally, in a complex retrospective study of a large managed care claims database, patients stepped down from higher to lower dose FSC compared to FP alone had less SABA use (30%, 1.72 vs. 2.48, p=0.001), 26% lower risk of systemic corticosteroid use (24% vs. 32%, p=0.006), 48% lower risk of an asthma-related hospitalization or ED visit (3.8% vs. 7.4%, p=0.01), and higher refill persistence rates compared with FP (*46). Although data so far suggest improved outcomes maintaining LABA during step-down, given the short step-down phases in most studies (12–24 weeks) and use of primary outcomes such as PEF rather than composite measures of control or exacerbation rates, a definitive answer awaits further study. Efficacy studies such as these are always underpowered to address the issue of LABA safety, a critical issue in weighing risks vs. benefits of asthma therapies. A best estimate of the risk of adverse effects of LABA is important, is an area of significant controversy that may or may not be clarified with upcoming U.S. FDA mandated LABA safety mega-trial (47).

More recent trials of adjustable and maintenance dosing of combination Budesonide and Formoterol (Bud/Form) suggest that adjustable vs. fixed therapy may be associated with equal symptom control at lower ICS doses (48). In a complex study that simultaneously compared the effects of lowering ICS, removing LABA, and once vs. twice daily ICS dosing, twice-daily Bud/Form generally fared better than once daily ICS or ICS/LABA. Combination therapy once or twice daily fared better than ICS alone (49). Enthusiasm for this approach has been somewhat hampered by LABA safety concerns, although a recent meta-analysis did not show an increased risk of adverse events compared with fixed dosing of ICS/LABA (50). Further studies of adjustable and maintenance dosing of Bud/Form as a means of reducing medication once asthma is controlled seem warranted.

Is stepping down beyond moderate dose ICS in adults and low dose ICS in children necessary?

Once asthma control is achieved and sustained, how low should the ICS dose be reduced? Low and moderate dose ICS do not differ in terms of symptom control, but moderate dose ICS may have a slight advantage in terms of lung function (FEV1 in adults but not children) and at reducing exacerbations (51). Good data suggests that the long-term safety profile of low to moderate dose ICS is favorable (3, 12, 52). In adults with persistent asthma, continuation of moderate dose (FSC 250) ICS/LABA resulted in marginally better symptom control and lung function compared to adjustable and maintenance Bud/Fom, but a striking 50% lower exacerbation rate (53). At the end of one year, both groups ended up on just under 500ug daily of either FP or Bud, respectively. This study suggests that patient-dictated adjustment of medication according to symptoms slightly lowers ICS exposure, but possibly at the cost of a higher exacerbation rate. It also suggests that there is a minimum daily ICS dose needed to prevent exacerbations, at least in adults. The suggestion has been made to use low dose ICS and then increase ICS at the first signs of an exacerbation. Data evaluating this approach show that doubling ICS does not prevent exacerbations (54). It seems that once control is lost, it may not be easily regained. These findings highlight the critical need for long-term step-down studies in both children and adults. If the tradeoff of reduced ICS results in additional exacerbations per year, any benefit gained by ICS reduction may be offset by greater exposure to systemic steroids. In adults, where asthma remission is uncommon, and co-morbid conditions abound, the addition of even one extra course of oral steroids per year over many years may carry more risk of adverse events than maintenance of moderate-dose ICS. In terms of risk of accelerated decline of lung function, prevention by ICS is currently not supported by data and further study is needed (11, 55). A key study would be a long term study along the lines of the Childhood Asthma Management Program study, including both children and adults and comparing reducing ICS vs. maintaining stable dosing and evaluating long term outcomes and adverse effects (11).

Conclusion

Although step-down of controller medication to the lowest dose which controls asthma is an appropriate goal, many unanswered questions remain regarding how to best accomplish this, and what the ultimate “lowest” dose should be. Current recommendations for step-down of therapy do not account for the heterogeneity of asthma, do not make clear distinctions based on disease severity, and do not sufficiently incorporate consideration of disease risk. Current data is overrepresented with short-term studies that may underestimate risk of exacerbations on lower medication dosing and may overstate the benefits of lower dosing compared to risks. More data is needed regarding the ideal duration of control prior to tapering, and the best approach to stepping down patients with severe asthma, particularly those on moderate to high dose ICS/LABA. It is unclear if the outcomes of clinical trials, where patients undergo careful monitoring, is representative of outcomes that can be achieved in general practice settings. Pragmatic clinical trials that recreate typical practice may be needed for better answers.

Abbreviations

BHR

bronchial hyperreactivity

Bud/Form

Budesonide/Formoterol combination inhaler

FeNO

fraction of exhaled nitric oxide

FEV1

forced exhaled volume in 1 second

FP

Fluticasone propionate inhaler

FSC

Fluticasone/Salmeterol combination inhaler

ICATA

Inner City Anti-IgE Therapy for Treating Asthma Mechanistic Study

ICS

inhaled corticosteroids

LABA

long acting beta-agonist

LTM

leukotriene modifier

PEF

peak expiratory flow rate

SABA

short-acting beta-agonist

TREXA

Treating Children to Prevent Exacerbations Study

References

* of special interest

** of outstanding interest

  • 1.Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-Summary Report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007 Nov;120(5 Suppl):S94–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.09.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bateman ED, Hurd SS, Barnes PJ, Bousquet J, Drazen JM, FitzGerald M, et al. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary. Eur Respir J. 2008 Jan;31(1):143–78. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00138707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Peters SP. Safety of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of persistent asthma. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006 Jun;98(6):851–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4**.O’Byrne PM, Pedersen S, Carlsson LG, Radner F, Thoren A, Peterson S, et al. Risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking inhaled corticosteroids. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar 1;183(5):589–95. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201005-0694OC. A retrospective analysis of all trials of at least 3 months using inhaled Budesonide supports that there was no increased of pneumonia with use of inhaled Budesonide, and suggesting that concerns raised regarding risks of pneumonia in COPD trials may not be similar in asthma. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Calverley PM, Anderson JA, Celli B, Ferguson GT, Jenkins C, Jones PW, et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 22;356(8):775–89. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Suissa S, Kezouh A, Ernst P. Inhaled corticosteroids and the risks of diabetes onset and progression. Am J Med. 2010 Nov;123(11):1001–6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dupont C, Giraud V, Leporrier J, Greffe S, Rouveix E, Chinet T. Cushing’s syndrome induced by combined treatment with inhaled fluticasone and oral ritonavir. Rev Mal Respir. 2009 Sep;26(7):779–82. doi: 10.1016/s0761-8425(09)72430-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gulliver T, Morton R, Eid N. Inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma: pharmacologic determinants of safety and efficacy and other clinical considerations. Paediatr Drugs. 2007;9(3):185–94. doi: 10.2165/00148581-200709030-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9**.Martinez FD, Chinchilli VM, Morgan WJ, Boehmer SJ, Lemanske RF, Jr, Mauger DT, et al. Use of beclomethasone dipropionate as rescue treatment for children with mild persistent asthma (TREXA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2011 Feb 19;377(9766):650–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62145-9. A 44-week study in children ages 5–18 provides added support to other possible use of intermittent inhaled corticosteroids in children with mild persistent asthma. Children on daily therapy still faired best, but low treatment failure rate in the as needed ICS group and comparable exacerbation rates are notable. This study also reaffirms that high exacerbation rates (49%) and treatment failure rates (23%) in children with persistent asthma treated with SABA alone. Impaired growth velocity was observed in children on low dose ICS. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nelson HS, Weiss ST, Bleecker ER, Yancey SW, Dorinsky PM. The Salmeterol Multicenter Asthma Research Trial: a comparison of usual pharmacotherapy for asthma or usual pharmacotherapy plus salmeterol. Chest. 2006 Jan;129(1):15–26. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.1.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Long-term effects of budesonide or nedocromil in children with asthma. The Childhood Asthma Management Program Research Group. N Engl J Med. 2000 Oct 12;343(15):1054–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200010123431501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raissy HH, Sternberg AL, Williams P, Jacobs A, Kelly HW. Risk of cataracts in the Childhood Asthma Management Program Cohort. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 Aug;126(2):389–92. 92 e1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.05.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Horne R. Compliance, adherence, and concordance: implications for asthma treatment. Chest. 2006 Jul;130(1 Suppl):65S–72S. doi: 10.1378/chest.130.1_suppl.65S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Irwin RS, Richardson ND. Side effects with inhaled corticosteroids: the physician’s perception. Chest. 2006 Jul;130(1 Suppl):41S–53S. doi: 10.1378/chest.130.1_suppl.41S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Juniper EF, Daniel EE, Roberts RS, Kline PA, Hargreave FE, Newhouse MT. Effect of pregnancy on airway responsiveness and asthma severity. Relationship to serum progesterone. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991 Mar;143(3 Pt 2):S78. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/143.3_Pt_2.S78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Haahtela T, Jarvinen M, Kava T, Kiviranta K, Koskinen S, Lehtonen K, et al. Effects of reducing or discontinuing inhaled budesonide in patients with mild asthma. N Engl J Med. 1994 Sep 15;331(11):700–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199409153311103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hawkins G, McMahon AD, Twaddle S, Wood SF, Ford I, Thomson NC. Stepping down inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1115. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lemanske RF, Jr, Sorkness CA, Mauger EA, Lazarus SC, Boushey HA, Fahy JV, et al. Inhaled corticosteroid reduction and elimination in patients with persistent asthma receiving salmeterol: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001 May 23–30;285(20):2594–603. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.20.2594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Waalkens HJ, Van Essen-Zandvliet EE, Hughes MD, Gerritsen J, Duiverman EJ, Knol K, et al. Cessation of long-term treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) in children with asthma results in deterioration. The Dutch CNSLD Study Group. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993 Nov;148(5):1252–7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/148.5.1252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kwong KY, Morphew T, Scott L, Guterman J, Jones CA. Asthma control and future asthma-related morbidity in inner-city asthmatic children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008 Aug;101(2):144–52. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60202-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tsurikisawa N, Tsuburai T, Oshikata C, Ono E, Saito H, Mitomi H, et al. Prognosis of adult asthma after normalization of bronchial hyperresponsiveness by inhaled corticosteroid therapy. J Asthma. 2008 Aug;45(6):445–51. doi: 10.1080/02770900802032958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Green RH, Brightling CE, McKenna S, Hargadon B, Parker D, Bradding P, et al. Asthma exacerbations and sputum eosinophil counts: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1715–21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11679-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jayaram L, Pizzichini MM, Cook RJ, Boulet LP, Lemiere C, Pizzichini E, et al. Determining asthma treatment by monitoring sputum cell counts: effect on exacerbations. Eur Respir J. 2006 Mar;27(3):483–94. doi: 10.1183/09031936.06.00137704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Smith AD, Cowan JO, Brassett KP, Herbison GP, Taylor DR. Use of exhaled nitric oxide measurements to guide treatment in chronic asthma. N Engl J Med. 2005 May 26;352(21):2163–73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shaw DE, Berry MA, Thomas M, Green RH, Brightling CE, Wardlaw AJ, et al. The use of exhaled nitric oxide to guide asthma management: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 Aug 1;176(3):231–7. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200610-1427OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Leuppi JD, Salome CM, Jenkins CR, Koskela H, Brannan JD, Anderson SD, et al. Markers of airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with well-controlled asthma. Eur Respir J. 2001 Sep;18(3):444–50. doi: 10.1183/09031936.01.00058601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Koenig SM, Murray JJ, Wolfe J, Andersen L, Yancey S, Prillaman B, et al. Does measuring BHR add to guideline derived clinical measures in determining treatment for patients with persistent asthma? Respir Med. 2008 May;102(5):665–73. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.12.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28**.Petsky HL, Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ, Li AM, Turner C, Kynaston JA, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis: tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils) Thorax. 2010 Oct 11; doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.135574. A systematic review of both FeNO and sputum eosinophilia supports the role of tailoring asthma therapy to sputum eosinophilia monitoring in decreasing asthma exacerbations. Conversely, monitoring of FeNO levels was not effective in improving asthma outcomes in children and adults. The authors conclude that neither technique can be recommended in practice at this time due to lack of technical expertise in the case of sputum eosinophilia, and lack of data in the case of FeNO. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Papi A, Canonica GW, Maestrelli P, Paggiaro P, Olivieri D, Pozzi E, et al. Rescue use of beclomethasone and albuterol in a single inhaler for mild asthma. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 17;356(20):2040–52. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stempel DA, Stoloff SW, Carranza Rosenzweig JR, Stanford RH, Ryskina KL, Legorreta AP. Adherence to asthma controller medication regimens. Respir Med. 2005 Oct;99(10):1263–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ducharme FM, Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ. Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD005535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005535.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ducharme FM, Lasserson TJ, Cates CJ. Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;5:CD003137. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003137.pub4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lemanske RF, Jr, Mauger DT, Sorkness CA, Jackson DJ, Boehmer SJ, Martinez FD, et al. Step-up therapy for children with uncontrolled asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids. N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 18;362(11):975–85. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Deykin A, Wechsler ME, Boushey HA, Chinchilli VM, Kunselman SJ, Craig TJ, et al. Combination therapy with a long-acting beta-agonist and a leukotriene antagonist in moderate asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb 1;175(3):228–34. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200601-112OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Peters SP, Anthonisen N, Castro M, Holbrook JT, Irvin CG, Smith LJ, et al. Randomized comparison of strategies for reducing treatment in mild persistent asthma. N Engl J Med. 2007 May 17;356(20):2027–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Koenig SM, Ostrom N, Pearlman D, Waitkus-Edwards K, Yancey S, Prillaman BA, et al. Deterioration in asthma control when subjects receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 100/50 mcg Diskus are “stepped-down”. J Asthma. 2008 Oct;45(8):681–7. doi: 10.1080/02770900802168695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37*.Rodrigo GJ, Neffen H, Castro-Rodriguez JA. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous omalizumab vs placebo as add-on therapy to corticosteroids for children and adults with asthma: a systematic review. Chest. 2011 Jan;139(1):28–35. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1194. A systematic review of anti-IgE therapy supports its described benefits of exacerbation reduction and improved control on lower ICS dose. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38**.Busse WW, Morgan WJ, Gergen PJ, Mitchell HE, Gern JE, Liu AH, et al. Randomized trial of omalizumab (anti-IgE) for asthma in inner-city children. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 17;364(11):1005–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009705. More data supporting the benefits of anti-IgE in terms of reducing exacerbations and ICS dosing, but importantly in the high risk group of urban children with moderate to severe asthma. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Strunk RC, Bloomberg GR. Omalizumab for asthma. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 22;354(25):2689–95. doi: 10.1056/NEJMct055184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Long-Acting Beta-Agonists (LABAs) United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Feb 18, 2010. Drug Safety Communication: New safety requirements for long-acting inhaled asthma medications called. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Summary Assessment Report of the Pharmacovigilance Working Party: European Medicines Agency. Oct 28, 2010. Long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist bronchodilators formoterol and salmeterol-Review of safety in the management of asthma. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fowler SJ, Currie GP, Lipworth BJ. Step-down therapy with low-dose fluticasone-salmeterol combination or medium-dose hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone alone. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Jun;109(6):929–35. doi: 10.1067/mai.2002.123869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bateman ED, Jacques L, Goldfrad C, Atienza T, Mihaescu T, Duggan M. Asthma control can be maintained when fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in a single inhaler is stepped down. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Mar;117(3):563–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.11.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Godard P, Greillier P, Pigearias B, Nachbaur G, Desfougeres JL, Attali V. Maintaining asthma control in persistent asthma: comparison of three strategies in a 6-month double-blind randomised study. Respir Med. 2008 Aug;102(8):1124–31. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.03.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45*.Reddel HK, Gibson PG, Peters MJ, Wark PA, Sand IB, Hoyos CM, et al. Down-titration from high-dose combination therapy in asthma: Removal of long-acting beta(2)-agonist. Respir Med. 2010 Aug;104(8):1110–20. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.04.003. An addition to several published studies suggesting that when reducing therapy for patient on combination ICS/LABA, reducing ICS is superior to initial discontinuation of LABA. Combination patients were able to achieve lower ICS doses, and the author proposed that many patients in the trial were being over-treated on FSC 500/50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46*.Hagiwara M, Delea TE, Stanford RH, Stempel DA. Stepping down to fluticasone propionate or a lower dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination in asthma patients recently initiating combination therapy. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2010 May-Jun;31(3):203–10. doi: 10.2500/aap.2010.31.3359. A claims data base study finding fewer hospitalizations, ED visits, fewer courses of oral corticosteroids, and lower short acting beta agonists use when ICS is tapered prior to LABA discontinuation compared to continuation of same dose ICS with discontinuation of LABA. Greater refill persistence with FSC vs. FP was observed. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Drug Safety Communication: FDA requires post-market safety trials for Long-Acting Beta-Agonists (LABAs) United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Apr 15, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(2):CD007313. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007313.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49*.Berger WE, Bleecker ER, O’Dowd L, Miller CJ, Mezzanotte W. Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler: randomized controlled trial comparing once- and twice-daily dosing in patients with asthma. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2010 Jan;31(1):49–59. doi: 10.2500/aap.2010.31.3309. A study of stepping down therapy for patients on twice daily Bud/Fom again suggesting that lowering dose of ICS and continuing LABA resulted in better outcomes than continuing same dose ICS and stopping LABA. Twice daily strategies were generally better than once daily strategies. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD007694. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007694.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Powell H, Gibson PG. Initial starting dose of inhaled corticosteroids in adults with asthma: a systematic review. Thorax. 2004 Dec;59(12):1041–5. doi: 10.1136/thx.2004.023754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang L, Axelsson I, Chung M, Lau J. Dose response of inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011 Jan;127(1):129–38. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.FitzGerald JM, Boulet LP, Follows RM. The CONCEPT trial: a 1-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of a stable dosing regimen of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with an adjustable maintenance dosing regimen of formoterol/budesonide in adults with persistent asthma. Clin Ther. 2005 Apr;27(4):393–406. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kelly HW. Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: Double for nothing? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011. May 27, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pauwels RA, Pedersen S, Busse WW, Tan WC, Chen YZ, Ohlsson SV, et al. Early intervention with budesonide in mild persistent asthma: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet. 2003 Mar 29;361(9363):1071–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12891-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES