|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Research Institute (Drs. Koh, Sun, and Lim), Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul; Department of Pediatrics (Dr. Kim), Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul; and Department of Pediatrics (Dr. Hong), Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Correspondence to: Young Yull Koh, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Hospital, 28 yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110744, Korea; e-mail: kohyy{at}plaza.snu.ac.kr
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study.
Patients: Thirty-seven adolescents with BHR and long-term remission of their asthma (neither symptoms nor any medication use during the previous 2 years).
Intervention: Subjects received inhaled budesonide (two 200-µg puffs bid; budesonide group, n = 19) or identical placebo (placebo group, n = 18) for 9 months. A separate group of patients with symptomatic asthma (symptomatic group, n = 19), using the same regimen of budesonide, was also studied.
Measurements and results: The provocative concentration of methacholine producing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) was measured before and every 3 months during treatment. There was no significant difference among the three groups for the baseline PC20. In neither the placebo nor the budesonide group did the geometric mean of PC20 change significantly over the 9-month period. In contrast, a significant increase in PC20 was noted in the symptomatic group as a result of the budesonide treatment.
Conclusion: Our data have shown that budesonide inhaled regularly for 9 months did not cause a significant improvement in the BHR of adolescents with long-term asthma remission. This suggests that the mechanism underlying BHR in this clinical setting may be different from that in symptomatic asthma.
Key Words: adolescence asthma bronchial hyperresponsiveness budesonide clinical remission
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Corticosteroids are currently the most effective anti-inflammatory drugs available for the treatment of asthma.7 When inhaled corticosteroids are administered to symptomatic asthmatic subjects, bronchial responsiveness continues to improve for several months.8 9 This reduction in BHR by corticosteroid treatment has been proposed10 to be a consequence of the ability of the drug to control multiple components of airway inflammation. Little is known about the mechanism underlying BHR in adolescents with asthma in remission, and the effects of corticosteroid treatment on BHR in this clinical setting have received little attention.
The aim of this study was to determine whether BHR in patients with asthma remission during adolescence is reduced by prolonged treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The results of this study may contribute to answering the question as to whether asymptomatic adolescents with persistent BHR would benefit from the use of inhaled corticosteroids, but also may help in the understanding of the mechanism underlying BHR in this setting. In this investigation, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the effects of a 9-month course of budesonide treatment on bronchial responsiveness.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
70% of the predicted value12
and a provocative
concentration of methacholine producing a 20% fall in
FEV1 (PC20) < 8 mg/mL in
both measurements. Subjects with an upper or lower respiratory tract
infection within 6 weeks of the start of the study were excluded.
Subjects were randomly allocated into two treatment groups to receive
either budesonide (two 200-µg puffs bid; total dosage, 800 µg/d;
budesonide group) or placebo (two 500-µg puffs bid of micronized
lactose; placebo group), inhaled using a dry-powder inhaler
(Turbuhaler; Astra; Sodertalje, Sweden). Drugs were supplied in
identical devices so that patients and doctors were blinded to a
particular subjects treatment allocation. A separate group of symptomatic adolescents with atopic asthma (symptomatic group) was also recruited. The patients were selected on the basis of a history of episodic dyspnea or wheezing within the previous year, and a positive skin test result. All patients had mild symptoms, which were controlled by an inhaled bronchodilator on an as-needed basis with or without prophylactic medications (inhaled nedocromil sodium or inhaled corticosteroid). Patients who had received oral corticosteroids during the previous year were excluded. Subjects had a run-in period of 6 weeks, during which time any patients using prophylactic medication had it tapered off and discontinued for 4 weeks. Patients who had upper or lower respiratory tract infections or an asthma exacerbation during the run-in period were excluded. At the end of the run-in period, they underwent the two baseline measurements, 1 week apart, and the eligible criteria were the same as those used for subjects with long-term remission. The patients then received inhaled budesonide at the same dosage as the budesonide group, and were allowed to use inhaled ß2-agonist on an as-needed basis to control their possible symptoms during the course of the study. Theophylline, which may reduce BHR,13 was not allowed.
Subjects in the three groups were instructed to continue taking their assigned medications for 9 months, and follow-up visits were scheduled every 3 months; spirometry and a methacholine challenge test were performed at every visit. Subjects attended the laboratory at the same time of day on each occasion, having refrained from all the medications for 8 h and caffeine-containing beverages for 4 h. Measurements were made only during periods when the subjects were in clinically stable condition, and not within 4 weeks of viral respiratory illness. For respiratory tract infection with purulent sputum, antibiotics were administered. The Turbuhaler inhalation technique was checked before the start of the study and at every visit. Subjects were advised to rinse their mouth and throat after drug inhalation. Budesonide compliance was checked by examining a red mark in the indicator window of the Turbuhaler. In view of the fact that most of our patients were highly atopic to house dust mites, we decided to perform the study during the months of November to August in order to avoid the autumn season during which symptoms of house dust mite atopy are most prominent.14
FEV1 was recorded from the best of three attempts using a computerized spirometer (Microspiro HI 298; Chest; Tokyo, Japan), with measurements not varying by > 5% being acceptable. Methacholine bronchial challenges were carried out using a modification of the method described by Chai et al.15 Methacholine (Sigma Chemical; St. Louis, MO) solutions were prepared at concentrations of 0.075, 0.15, 0.3, 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 25 mg/mL in buffered saline solution (pH 7.4). A Rosenthal-French dosimeter (Laboratory for Applied Immunology; Baltimore, MD), triggered by a solenoid valve set to remain open for 0.6 s, was used to deliver the aerosol generated from a nebulizer (model 646; DeVilbiss; Somerset, PA) with pressurized air at 20 pounds per square inch. Each subject inhaled five inspiratory capacity breaths of buffered saline solution, and the study was continued only if the post-saline solution FEV1 was at least 70% of the predicted value. Increasing concentrations of methacholine were then inhaled until the FEV1 fell by > 20% of its post-saline solution value or the highest concentration was reached. The largest value of triplicate FEV1s at 1.5 min after each inhalation was used for analysis. The percentage fall of FEV1 from the post-saline solution value was plotted against the log of the concentration of inhaled methacholine. PC20 was then calculated by interpolation between two adjacent data points if the FEV1 fell by > 20%.
Parents gave written informed consent for their children to participate in the study. The study protocol was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee.
Statistical Analysis
For those subjects who did not achieve a 20% fall in
FEV1 with the highest concentration of
methacholine (25 mg/mL) at follow-up, a PC20
value of 25 mg/mL was assigned. Values for PC20
were logarithmically transformed before analysis and were expressed as
a geometric mean (range of 1 SD). Other values were presented as
mean ± 1 SD. The mean of the two pretreatment
FEV1s or PC20s was adopted
as the baseline value. Changes in PC20 after the
treatment with respect to the pretreatment value were expressed as dose
shift (in doubling doses) as defined by the following formula:
log10PC20[log10(PC20
after the
treatment) - log10(PC20
before the treatment)]/log102.16
Students t test for the paired data was used to analyze
changes in FEV1 or PC20
with respect to the baseline value. Students t test for
the unpaired data was used for comparisons between the two groups.
Prevalences between the two groups were compared with the
2 test. In each case, statistical significance
was accepted when two-sided p values were < 0.05.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To our knowledge, this is the first study on the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on the BHR of adolescent patients with asthma in a long-term clinical remission. A randomized placebo-controlled study design enabled us to examine the longitudinal changes in BHR during adolescence. Although some fluctuations occurred in individual subjects, a small but nonsignificant improvement in PC20 was observed in the placebo group. This is in agreement with the results of a previous study,18 showing that former asthmatic patients had persistence of BHR over time. A similar trend in PC20 was observed in the budesonide group, and there was no significant difference in the PC20 changes between the budesonide and placebo groups. It is unlikely that the potential for improvement in BHR has been limited by confounding factors such as exposure to allergen,19 or viral respiratory tract infections,20 since the methacholine challenge tests were timed to avoid the peak house dust mite season and were not performed within 4 weeks of viral respiratory tract infection. Furthermore, no significant changes in PC20 were found in the placebo group that was studied in parallel. The lack of an effect of the corticosteroid treatment might be attributable to inadequate budesonide dosing or duration. However, this is also unlikely, since BHR in patients with symptomatic asthma was reduced significantly by the same treatment regimen. Other studies have demonstrated a marked effect with a dose of inhaled budesonide of 600 µg/d8 and over a treatment period as short as 2 months.21 It should be mentioned that due to inadequate sample size, we may have failed to detect a small treatment effect. However, our sample size gave sufficient statistical power (> 80%) to detect such a degree of improvement in BHR as observed in previous studies, ie, on the order of one or two doubling doses,22 if it is. From clinical practice, we expected relatively strongly hyperresponsive patients to show a greater response to inhaled corticosteroids than less hyperresponsive patients. To circumvent this potential problem, we selected subjects with mild asthma for the symptomatic group so that the baseline PC20 in this group was comparable to that in the remitted groups. Therefore, the budesonide response discrepancy between the budesonide and symptomatic groups could not be accounted for by the baseline effect.
Although the mechanisms by which the regular use of inhaled corticosteroids reduces BHR in symptomatic asthma are not completely understood, corticosteroid-induced improvement in various measures of airway inflammation may be important.10 23 The reason why BHR in clinical remission during adolescence fails to improve is not clear. It might be due to a distinctive type of airway inflammation that is not affected by current inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Because of the lack of data available on inflammatory changes in BHR in this clinical setting, we cannot answer the question. Although many studies24 have found evidence of inflammation in the airways of asthmatic patients, several studies25 have indicated that BHR and inflammatory cell infiltration are not necessarily linked. It has been shown that BHR may be the result of a chronic inflammatory process, with increased airway wall thickness and hypertrophy of the airway smooth muscle.26 27 BHR caused by such an airway remodeling would not be influenced by corticosteroids. Genetic factors could offer another possible explanation. The importance of a familial predisposition and therefore a possible genetic transmission of BHR has been shown by several studies.28 29 Inasmuch as this genetic factor exists in patients, it might be difficult for them to reach a normal level of bronchial responsiveness, even after the resolution of airway inflammation. It may be hypothesized that persistent BHR in clinical remission around adolescence may be related to hereditary factors, and is thus insensitive to the effects of corticosteroids.
Although bronchial responsiveness did not change in adolescents with clinical remission as a group, it should be noted that two subjects in the budesonide group showed an improvement up to normal levels of bronchial responsiveness and then appeared to reach a plateau. These patients had a relatively higher level of IgE (2,557 IU/mL and 809 IU/mL, respectively). This is in line with a previous study30 that showed that a higher initial IgE level predicts a more favorable course of BHR in subjects with asthma who are treated with an inhaled corticosteroid. Another interesting finding was that two patients in the placebo group redeveloped asthmatic symptoms during the study period. Their levels of PC20 seemed to be relatively lower at both initial and follow-up visits. Whether the degree of BHR has a prognostic significance in these patients remains to be determined by future studies.
What do our findings imply for clinical practice? Some studies1 31 have asserted that the normalization of bronchial responsiveness should be an aim of treatment, as this is one of the known risk factors for symptomatic asthma in adulthood. Our findings suggest that this strategy does not apply to BHR in clinical remission during adolescence; we propose that treatment should be aimed at a symptomatic remission, ie, the normalization of symptoms, without need of additional bronchodilator. This is in agreement with a consensus report32 on the treatment of asthma, in which a normalization of bronchial responsiveness was not stated as an aim to achieve.
In conclusion, BHR in clinical remission during adolescence was not improved significantly by inhaled corticosteroid therapy. This distinct pattern of response to corticosteroids compared to that of BHR in symptomatic asthma suggests that the mechanisms underlying BHR in the two clinical settings are not identical.
| Footnotes |
|---|
This study was supported in part by grant No. 0498-029 from the Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund, and by year 1999 BK 21 Project For Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy.
Received for publication November 6, 2000. Accepted for publication March 21, 2001.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Y. Y. Koh, E. K. Kang, H. Kang, Y. Yoo, Y. Park, and C. K. Kim Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Adolescents With Long-term Asthma Remission: Importance of a Family History of Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness Chest, September 1, 2003; 124(3): 819 - 825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Y. Koh, Y. Park, and C. K. Kim Maximal Airway Response in Adolescents With Long-term Asthma Remission and Persisting Airway Hypersensitivity: Its Profile and the Effect of Inhaled Corticosteroids Chest, October 1, 2002; 122(4): 1214 - 1221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |