Kerstjens, H.A.

A new perspective on concepts of asthma severity and control (Article)

2008-09-01T00:00:00Z

Concepts of asthma severity and control are important in the evaluation of patients and their response to treatment but the terminology is not standardised and the terms are often used interchangeably. This review, arising from the work of an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Task Force, identifies the need for separate concepts of control and severity, describes their evolution in asthma guidelines and provides a framework for understanding the relationship between current concepts of asthma phenotype, severity and control. "Asthma control" refers to the extent to which the manifestations of asthma have been reduced or removed by treatment. Its assessment should incorporate the dual components of current clinical control (e.g. symptoms, reliever use and lung function) and future risk (e.g. exacerbations and lung function decline). The most clinically useful concept of asthma severity is based on the intensity of treatment required to achieve good asthma control, i.e. severity is assessed during treatment. Severe asthma is defined as the requirement for (not necessarily just prescription or use of) high-intensity treatment. Asthma severity may be influenced by the underlying disease activity and by the patient's phenotype, both of which may be further described using pathological and physiological markers. These markers can also act as surrogate measures for future risk. Copyright

Effects of inhaled fluticasone and oral prednisolone on clinical and inflammatory parameters in patients with asthma (Article)

1999-01-01T00:00:00Z

BACKGROUND: Guidelines state that oral and inhaled corticosteroids are the cornerstone of asthma treatment. The effect of both types of treatment can be assessed by measuring lung and systemic parameters. Treatment for two weeks with either oral prednisolone (30 mg/day), high dose fluticasone propionate (2000 microg/day, FP2000), or lower dose FP (500 microg/day, FP500), both given by a dry powder inhaler, were compared. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with asthma were treated for two weeks in a double blind parallel group design. Lung function, asthma symptoms, airway hyperresponsiveness (PC(20) methacholine and adenosine-5'-monophosphate), sputum eosinophil and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) levels were measured as lung parameters. In addition, morning serum blood cortisol, blood eosinophil, and serum ECP levels were measured as systemic parameters. RESULTS: PC(20) methacholine and adenosine-5'-monophosphate showed significantly greater improvement with FP2000 (1.99 and 4.04 doubling concentrations (DC), respectively) than prednisolone (0.90 DC, p = 0.02; 2.15 DC, p = 0. 05) and marginally more than with FP500 (1.69 and 3.54 DC). Changes in sputum eosinophil and ECP concentrations showed similar trends; the decrease in ECP was significantly greater with FP2000 than with FP500. In contrast, the systemic parameters of steroid activity (cortisol, peripheral blood eosinophils, and serum ECP) decreased to a similar extent with FP2000 and prednisolone but significantly less with FP500. CONCLUSIONS: Oral prednisolone (30 mg/day) was inferior to FP2000 in improving airway hyperresponsiveness to both methacholine and AMP, with similar trends in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), sputum eosinophil and ECP concentrations. Systemic effects were similar with prednisolone and FP2000 and less with FP500.

Is delayed introduction of inhaled corticosteroids harmful in patients with obstructive airways disease (asthma and COPD)? The Dutch CNSLD Study Group. The Dutch Chronic Nonspecific Lung Disease Study Groups (Article)

1996-01-01T00:00:00Z

BACKGROUND: The institution of inhaled corticosteroids is generally advocated for effective treatment of patients with asthma. It is yet unknown what is the best time to start inhaled corticosteroid therapy and especially whether delayed introduction is harmful. PHASE 1: In a previous study in patients with asthma and COPD, we found that 2.5 years of treatment with a beta 2-agonist plus inhaled corticosteroid (BA + CS) was more effective in improving the FEV1 and the provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 (PC20) than treatment with a beta 2-agonist plus anticholinergic (BA + AC) or placebo (BA + PL). PHASE 2: We extended this study with 6 months to investigate whether delayed introduction of inhaled CS therapy (800 micrograms beclomethasone dipropionate) in the groups previously not treated with inhaled CS (BA +/- AC) could also improve FEV1 and PC20 to the same degree. A distinction was made between patients with predominantly asthma (high baseline reversibility, delta FEV1 > or = 9% of predicted), and predominantly COPD (low baseline reversibility, delta FEV1 < 9% of predicted). RESULTS: Improvement of FEV1 percent predicted by inhaled CS was comparable both in the asthmatics between phase 1 (13.8% predicted) and phase 2 (8.5% predicted; p = 0.31) as well as in the patients with COPD (2.5% and 1.5% predicted, respectively). PC20, however, increased significantly more in the asthmatics in phase 1 (1.77 doubling concentration [DC]) than in phase 2 (0.79 DC; p = 0.03). Improvement of PC20 in the patients with COPD was not significantly higher in phase 1 (0.74 DC) than in phase 2 (0.00 DC; p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that although delayed introduction of inhaled CS in asthmatics leads to similar improvements in FEV1, improvements in PC20 are significantly less. These findings in patients with longer-existing asthma concur with other findings in newly detected asthma. We suggest that institution of inhaled CS therapy should not be postponed in asthmatics with documented airways obstruction and reversibility.