Skip to main content
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
. 2021 Sep 29;15:17534666211042534. doi: 10.1177/17534666211042534

Manifesto on the overuse of SABA in the management of asthma: new approaches and new strategies

Giorgio Walter Canonica 1,2,, Pierluigi Paggiaro 3, Francesco Blasi 4,5, Antonino Musarra 6, Luca Richeldi 7, Andrea Rossi 8, Alberto Papi 9
PMCID: PMC8488406  PMID: 34587829

Abstract

The risks of overusing short-acting β2-agonists (SABA), including an increase in asthma-related deaths, are many and well known. The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) 2019 and 2020 updates recommend as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol as the preferred rescue medication in mild asthma as monotherapy and also in moderate to severe asthma when the maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) strategy is used. Using SABA for symptom relief, however, was the standard of treatment for many years, and consequently this practice persists, particularly in patients not taking ICS regularly. Here, we examine the rationale for this shift from a long-standing recommendation for as-needed SABA treatment to the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol and consider clinical evidence on strategies for asthma treatment and patient management.

Keywords: asthma, control, GINA, ICS/formoterol, SABA

Background

As-needed treatment with short-acting β2-agonists (SABA) has traditionally been used for symptom relief across all severities of asthma, and as monotherapy in patients with mild asthma.1,2 During the 1980s and 1990s, there was an accumulation of evidence regarding the risks associated with SABA overuse, including an increased risk of asthma-related death.3 By the late 1990s, while most guidelines still advised SABA monotherapy as initial treatment, it was recommended only on an as-needed (symptomatic relief), rather than regular, basis in patients with mild asthma.3 Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) controller therapy was recommended for patients with more frequent symptoms.3 Although this led to a reduction in asthma-related deaths, asthma control remained inadequate in a large proportion of patients, and the scientific community identified several paradoxes in this treatment approach.2,4 These included, first, that although asthma is a disease of chronic airway inflammation, SABA bronchodilator monotherapy was recommended in patients with mild disease; that is, the symptoms rather than the underlying disease mechanism were treated, which reinforced to patients that this was an acceptable approach.2 Prescribing SABA alone as initial therapy also delayed the prescribing of ICS therapy, and evidence suggests this may reduce the long-term effects of ICS.4 In addition, there is evidence that using ICS plus fast-onset long-acting β-agonist (LABA) as reliever therapy reduces the overuse of β-agonist therapy, the number of days of overuse without medical review, and the number of days without self-administration of maintenance ICS.5 Notably, SABA overuse was one of the factors associated with an increased risk of asthma mortality in the United Kingdom.6

The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) 2019 and 2020 updates acknowledged the risks associated with SABA overuse and the tendency of patients to underuse ICS and overuse SABA.3,7,8 Therefore, GINA recommended a significant shift in the management of asthma, recommending as-needed ICS/formoterol as the preferred rescue medications in mild asthma as monotherapy (steps 1 and 2) and also in moderate to severe asthma (steps 3–5) when the maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) strategy is used.3,7,8

Here, we examine the rationale for this shift from a long-standing recommendation for as-needed SABA treatment to the use of ICS/formoterol as-needed, and consider clinical evidence on strategies for patient and asthma management. We conducted an EMBASE literature search for publications between 2000 and 2019 that included β2-agonists, the key word ‘overuse’ and asthma disease terms. Studies with fewer than 50 patients, case reports, conference abstracts, narrative reviews and non-English language articles were excluded. Results of hand searching and literature already known to the authors were also included.

We know

Despite the availability of effective controller treatments,8 SABA overuse remains a problem;9 definitions, and the extent, of overuse, however, vary between studies.1018 Compared with appropriate use, inappropriate use of SABA (excessive SABA plus underuse of ICS) has been shown to be associated with increased risk of exacerbations and mortality,19 lower self-perception of overall and mental health and an increased risk of limitations in cognitive function and walking.10 GINA guideline identifies the use of as-needed SABA more than twice a week as one of the indicators of poorly controlled asthma.8

The role of patient behaviour and self-management in SABA overuse and concomitant underuse of ICS has been recognised.2,4,20 Patients learn from clinicians to use a reliever to alleviate their symptoms, making it difficult to transition to daily maintenance therapy with ICS, especially in the absence of symptoms.21 In a study assessing predictors of future adverse asthma outcomes, higher reliever use was found to be a strong predictor of future extreme SABA overuse.22

It has been observed that the most common reason for an SABA refill request was that it was needed to treat current symptoms.15Patient perceptions play a role in their management of asthma.10,18 In one study, SABA overuse was associated with patient-perceived severity of symptoms, although it has been shown that there is a poor correlation between lung function and patient-perceived symptoms.18 Another study showed that among patients who discontinued ICS after a short time, the main reasons patients gave for discontinuation were ‘not effective’ and ‘contains steroids’.13

The risk of severe asthma outcomes and increased mortality with SABA overuse are well known.7,2325 The 2019 GINA update states that regardless of asthma severity, receiving three or more canisters of SABA/year (which correspond to an average of ⩾1.5 puffs/day) is associated with an increased risk of visiting the emergency department or being hospitalised. In the UK National Review of Asthma Deaths (published May 2014), for 165 patients who died from asthma, the median number of prescribed SABA inhalers in the year before death was 10 (range = 0–112).6 In the year before they died, only three of the 165 patients received no SABA prescriptions; 92 (56%) received six or more, 65 (39%) received 12 or more and six patients (4%) had received 50 or more SABA inhalers; these data may be explained by the lack of an adequate regular maintenance treatment. In addition to an increase in asthma-related death, adverse outcomes associated with SABA overuse include increased airway hyperresponsiveness, reduced bronchoprotection and reduced bronchodilator response.3

Although ICS treats the underlying inflammation of the airways, they are frequently underused, and this underuse is associated with increased asthma burden.20 The Swedish SABINA study showed that approximately 85% of asthma patients overusing SABA at baseline had continuous overuse during the observation period, whereas the proportion of patients not collecting any ICS had more than doubled by the end of observation.19 In a 2008–2010 US medical expenditure study, of patients who had a recent exacerbation (n = 5005), 53.7% had never used long-term control medication, compared with 29.2% who were using daily preventive medication.26 In addition, patients who overuse SABA may be more likely to underuse regular ICS.20

We intend

Here, we examine recent evidence supporting the change in approach to asthma treatment as advocated in the 2019 GINA update.7

Adults and adolescents should no longer receive SABA alone but should be prescribed a symptom-driven ICS in association with the rapid-acting bronchodilator in mild asthma27 or ICS-containing daily7 treatment. Evidence for mild asthma treatment with as-needed low-dose ICS/formoterol was provided by real-world data from the randomised Novel START trial in patients with mild asthma who had been treated with SABA alone.28 In this trial, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was significantly better at preventing asthma exacerbations than as-needed albuterol in adults with mild asthma.

The preferred controller therapy in GINA step 2 is now as-needed low-dose ICS/formoterol or daily low-dose ICS.3,7 Key evidence for step 2 treatment with as-needed low-dose ICS/formoterol was provided by the results of two 52-week randomised controlled trials, designed in parallel, in patients with mild asthma requiring GINA step 2 treatment.21,29 The real-world PRACTICAL study, a 52-week open-label randomised controlled trial, confirms the efficacy of low-dose ICS/formoterol in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.30 In this study (N = 885), the rate of severe exacerbations was significantly lower with as-needed budesonide/formoterol than with low-dose budesonide maintenance plus as-needed SABA (terbutaline), and symptom control was similar in the two treatment groups.

For adolescents and adults in steps 3–4, GINA 2020 recommends ICS/formoterol reliever therapy as the preferred option in patients prescribed maintenance ICS/formoterol, with an alternative option of regular ICS/LABA plus rescue SABA.8 The efficacy and safety of the ICS/formoterol approach have been demonstrated in several clinical trials in GINA steps 3–5 patients, in which patients receiving ICS/formoterol as both MART had a reduced risk of exacerbations and similar asthma control compared with the standard of care at the time (usually ICS/LABA plus as-needed SABA).3138 These results have been confirmed by real-world studies of the ‘Maintenance and Reliever’ approach of using ICS/formoterol as regular and rescue therapy.5,39,40 Furthermore, a meta-analysis showed the superiority, in terms of reducing the risk of asthma exacerbations, of using ICS/formoterol as MART versus using ICS (with or without LABA) as maintenance therapy plus SABA as reliever therapy, at both equal and higher dosages of ICS, in patients with persistent asthma.41

For step 5 patients, the new GINA 2019 difficult-to-treat and severe asthma guide recommends optimising treatment, including switching to ICS/formoterol MART where possible, and to consider adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or, when indicated, biological treatments.42

Through using ICS/formoterol reliever therapy at every asthma step, the aim is to provide a simple, patient-centric approach that can be adapted to asthma action plans to achieve better control of their pathology.43

We know that individual patients’ needs and specific conditions have to be considered when choosing the right treatment approach. Physicians should take all steps to minimise any potential side effects of the abovementioned strategies by collecting a thorough clinical history and undertaking a detailed patient evaluation.

We advocate for

  1. Widespread education on the revised GINA guidelines for all health professionals involved in asthma management, including primary care physicians, nurses and pharmacists.

  2. Treatment of asthma across all severities to address the underlying inflammation, as recommended by the latest GINA guidelines.

  3. Taking steps to prevent overuse of SABA, and therefore prevent the related risks, including

    • (a) Appropriate patient education, especially to stop self-medication with SABA without proper medical advice;

    • (b) Transitioning patients from as-needed SABA monotherapy to as-needed ICS/formoterol to reduce the risk of exacerbations, mortality and hospitalization; and

    • (c) Initiating newly diagnosed patients on GINA-recommended Step 1 therapy, not on SABA monotherapy.

  4. A call to action for all stakeholders:

    • (a) Institutions and payers need to be aware of the risk of SABA overuse and to monitor the effective switch of approach through all available channels;

    • (b) Health care providers need to encourage all colleagues to learn the GINA recommendations and apply them in clinical practice;

    • (c) Patients’ associations need to inform patients of all risks linked to SABA overuse and to encourage a change of behaviour; and

    • (d) Scientific societies need to be a reliable partner of the abovementioned stakeholders, being the pivot of this change based on a patient-centric philosophy.

  5. And finally, further research in real-world clinical studies where patients are treated according to the evidence-based recommendations.

Acknowledgments

Editorial support was provided by Georgii Filatov and Toni Dando of Springer Healthcare Communications and funded by AstraZeneca. Development of this article has been endorsed by the Italian Association of Hospital and Territorial Allergists and Immunologists (AAIITO), the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC), the Italian Respiratory Society (SIP) and LIBRA, an educational project on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Rhinitis and Bronchial Asthma.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: GWC reports having received research grants and being lecturer or having received advisory board fees from A. Menarini, ALK-Abelló, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GSK, Hal Allergy, Mylan, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes Greer, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Valeas and Vibor-Pharma. PP reports having received grants from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis and Sanofi/Regeneron and personal fees and non-financial support from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Guidotti, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis and Sanofi/Regeneron. FB reports having received research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, GSK, Menarini and Pfizer and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Guidotti, Insmed, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Vertex and Zambon. AM reports having received personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK. LR reports having received personal fee from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, FibroGen, Promedior, Roche and Veracyte. AR has no conflicts of interest to declare. AP reports having received grants, personal fees, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Sanofi/Regeneron and TEVA; personal fees and non-financial support from Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche and Zambon; grants from Fondazione Chiesi and Fondazione Maugeri and grants and personal fees from Edmond Pharma, all outside the submitted work.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: AstraZeneca supported the medical writing assistance provided by Springer Healthcare Italy.

ORCID iD: Giorgio Walter Canonica Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-2557

Pierluigi Paggiaro Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1213-2989

Contributor Information

Giorgio Walter Canonica, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy; IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy.

Pierluigi Paggiaro, Department of Surgery, Medicine, Molecular Biology and Critical Care, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Francesco Blasi, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Respiratory Unit and Cystic Fibrosis Adult Center, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Antonino Musarra, Allergy Unit, National Health Service, Scilla, Italy.

Luca Richeldi, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.

Andrea Rossi, Pulmonary Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata and University of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Alberto Papi, Research Center on Asthma and COPD, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

References

  • 1.Cabrera CS, Nan C, Lindarck N, et al. SABINA: global programme to evaluate prescriptions and clinical outcomes related to short-acting beta2-agonist use in asthma. Eur Respir J 2019; 55: 1901858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.O’Byrne PM, Jenkins C, Bateman ED. The paradoxes of asthma management: time for a new approach? Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1701103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reddel HK, FitzGerald JM, Bateman ED, et al. GINA 2019: a fundamental change in asthma management: treatment of asthma with short-acting bronchodilators alone is no longer recommended for adults and adolescents. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1901046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beasley R, Bird G, Harper J, et al. The further paradoxes of asthma management: time for a new approach across the spectrum of asthma severity. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patel M, Pilcher J, Pritchard A, et al. Efficacy and safety of maintenance and reliever combination budesonide-formoterol inhaler in patients with asthma at risk of severe exacerbations: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 32–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Royal College of Physicians. Why asthma still kills: the National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) Confidential Enquiry report, https://www.asthma.org.uk/293597ee/globalassets/campaigns/nrad-full-report.pdf (2014, accessed 18 March 2020).
  • 7.Global Initiative for Asthma. 2019GINA report, global strategy for asthma management and prevention, https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/ (2019, accessed 9 July 2019).
  • 8.Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention, https://ginasthma.org (2020, accessed 12 May 2020).
  • 9.Janson C, Menzies-Gow A, Nan C, et al. SABINA: an overview of short-acting beta2-agonist use in asthma in European countries. Adv Ther 2020; 37: 1124–1135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hong SH, Sanders BH, West D. Inappropriate use of inhaled short acting beta-agonists and its association with patient health status. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22: 33–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wolfenden LL, Diette GB, Skinner EA, et al. Gaps in asthma care of the oldest adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 877–883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bonner S, Matte T, Rubin M, et al. Oral beta2-agonist use by preschool children with asthma in East and Central Harlem, New York. J Asthma 2006; 43: 31–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Barthwal MS, Deoskar RB, Rajan KE. Status of inhalation therapy in bronchial asthma in adults above twelve years of age in armed forces. J Assoc Physicians India 2005; 53: 681–684. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Belhassen M, Nibber A, Van Ganse E, et al. Inappropriate asthma therapy-a tale of two countries: a parallel population-based cohort study. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2016; 26: 16076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gildon BL, John B, Condren M, et al. Pharmacist-managed short-acting beta agonist refill service in a general pediatric clinic. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2018; 58: 296–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sa-Sousa A, Almeida R, Vicente R, et al. High oral corticosteroid exposure and overuse of short-acting beta-2-agonists were associated with insufficient prescribing of controller medication: a nationwide electronic prescribing and dispensing database analysis. Clin Transl Allergy 2019; 9: 47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Azzi EA, Kritikos V, Peters MJ, et al. Understanding reliever overuse in patients purchasing over-the-counter short-acting beta2 agonists: an Australian community pharmacy-based survey. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e028995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Janson SL, Earnest G, Wong KP, et al. Predictors of asthma medication nonadherence. Heart Lung 2008; 37: 211–218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nwaru BI, Ekstrom M, Hasvold P, et al. Overuse of short-acting beta2-agonists in asthma is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and mortality: a nationwide cohort study of the global SABINA programme. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vervloet M, van Dijk L, Spreeuwenberg P, et al. The relationship between real-world inhaled corticosteroid adherence and asthma outcomes: a multilevel approach. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019; 8: 626–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.O’Byrne P, FitzGerald J, Bateman E, et al. Inhaled combined budesonide–formoterol as needed in mild asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1865–1876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Patel M, Pilcher J, Reddel HK, et al. Predictors of severe exacerbations, poor asthma control, and beta-agonist overuse for patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2014; 2: 751–758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Patel M, Pilcher J, Reddel HK, et al. Metrics of salbutamol use as predictors of future adverse outcomes in asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 2013; 43: 1144–1151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Perry TT, Rettiganti M, Brown RH, et al. Uncontrolled asthma and factors related to morbidity in an impoverished, rural environment. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2012; 108: 254–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Suissa S, Ernst P, Boivin JF, et al. A cohort analysis of excess mortality in asthma and the use of inhaled beta-agonists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149: 604–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Slejko JF, Ghushchyan VH, Sucher B, et al. Asthma control in the United States, 2008-2010: indicators of poor asthma control. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133: 1579–1587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Papi A, Canonica GW, Maestrelli P, et al. Rescue use of beclomethasone and albuterol in a single inhaler for mild asthma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2040–2052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Beasley R, Holliday M, Reddel HK, et al. Controlled trial of budesonide-formoterol as needed for mild asthma. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 2020–2030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bateman ED, Reddel HK, O’Byrne P, et al. As-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide in mild asthma. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1877–1887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hardy J, Baggott C, Fingleton J, et al. Budesonide-formoterol reliever therapy versus maintenance budesonide plus terbutaline reliever therapy in adults with mild to moderate asthma (PRACTICAL): a 52-week, open-label, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 394: 919–928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rabe KF, Pizzichini E, Stallberg B, et al. Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief in mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomized, double-blind trial. Chest 2006; 129: 246–256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Scicchitano R, Aalbers R, Ukena D, et al. Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy versus a higher dose of budesonide in moderate to severe asthma. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20: 1403–1418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.O’Byrne PM, Bisgaard H, Godard PP, et al. Budesonide/formoterol combination therapy as both maintenance and reliever medication in asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171: 129–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rabe KF, Atienza T, Magyar P, et al. Effect of budesonide in combination with formoterol for reliever therapy in asthma exacerbations: a randomised controlled, double-blind study. Lancet 2006; 368: 744–753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kuna P, Peters MJ, Manjra AI, et al. Effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on asthma exacerbations. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 725–736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bousquet J, Boulet LP, Peters MJ, et al. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in uncontrolled asthma vs. high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone. Respir Med 2007; 101: 2437–2446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bateman ED, Reddel HK, Eriksson G, et al. Overall asthma control: the relationship between current control and future risk. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125: 600–8608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Papi A, Corradi M, Pigeon-Francisco C, et al. Beclometasone-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment in patients with asthma: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 23–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Boonsawat W, Thinkhamrop B. Role of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy: a pragmatic study. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol 2014; 32: 160–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kim SH, Kim TB, Kim SH, et al. Real-life clinical use of Symbicort® maintenance and reliever therapy for asthmatic patients in Korea. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2018; 10: 88–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sobieraj DM, Weeda ER, Nguyen E, et al. Association of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists as controller and quick relief therapy with exacerbations and symptom control in persistent asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2018; 319: 1485–1496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Global Initiative for Asthma. Difficult-to-treat and severe asthma in adolescent and adult patients: diagnosis and management, https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GINA-Severe-asthma-Pocket-Guide-v2.0-wms-1.pdf (2019, accessed 23 March 2020).
  • 43.Beasley R, Braithwaite I, Semprini A, et al. ICS-formoterol reliever therapy stepwise treatment algorithm for adult asthma. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES