The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 123, Issue 1 , Pages 116-121.e10, January 2009

High-dose inhaled corticosteroids versus add-on long-acting β-agonists in asthma: An observational study

  • Mike Thomas, FRCP

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Mike Thomas, FRCP, Asthma UK Senior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Westburn Road, Aberdeen AB25 2AY, United Kingdom.
  • ,
  • Julie von Ziegenweidt

      Affiliations

    • Respiratory Research Limited, Norfolk, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Amanda J. Lee, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • David Price, FRCGP

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
    • Respiratory Research Limited, Norfolk, United Kingdom

Received 1 October 2007; received in revised form 15 September 2008; accepted 16 September 2008. published online 05 November 2008.

Background

Guidelines recommend that for patients uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), step-up options include an increase in ICS dosage or addition of a long-acting β-agonist (LABA). Controversy persists about the best option in routine practice.

Objective

To compare asthma outcomes in patients whose first step-up from ICS monotherapy was by addition of LABA (LABA cohort) or increase in ICS dosage or formulation (ICS cohort).

Methods

Observational study using the General Practice Research Database, comparing outcomes in the following 12 months with regression modeling allowing for baseline cohort differences: age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index, comorbidity (rhinitis, heart disease), smoking status, short-acting β-agonist (SABA) use, oral corticosteroid use, and use of asthma complicating medication.

Results

We found 46,930 patients in the ICS and 17,418 in the LABA cohort. In adjusted analysis, the odds ratio (95% CI) of successful treatment (no hospitalization, no oral corticosteroid use, average daily SABA use <1 dose/d) was lower in the ICS cohort (0.75; 0.72-0.79). The adjusted odds ratio of needing rescue SABA prescriptions was higher in the ICS cohort (1.67; 1.59-1.76). However, the adjusted odds of using any oral corticosteroids were lower (0.75; 0.71-0.78), particularly of using 3 or more courses (0.50, 0.46-0.55), and the adjusted odds of respiratory hospitalization were lower (0.69; 0.59-0.81).

Conclusion

Although symptomatic control and rescue bronchodilator use may be improved by the addition of a LABA to ICS, there may be a lower risk of severe exacerbations and hospitalizations from ICS dose increase.

Key words: Asthma, long-acting β-agonist, inhaled corticosteroid, safety, inflammation, observational study

Abbreviations used: BMI, Body mass index, GINA, Global Initiative for Asthma, GPRD, General Practice Research Database, ICS, Inhaled corticosteroid, IQR, Interquartile range, LABA, Long-acting β-agonist, OR, Odds ratio, SABA, Short-acting β-agonist, UK, United Kingdom

 

 Costs for accessing the General Practice Research Database were met by Schering-Plough.

 Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: M. Thomas has received research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc., and AstraZeneca and has served on the speakers' bureau for Merck & Co., Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline. A. J. Lee has received funding from Altana Pharma for trial committee work and from Respiratory Research Limited for statistical consulting. D. Price has consultant arrangements with Aerocrine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dey Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Schering-Plough, and Teva; has received grants and research support from the UK National Health Service, Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Schering-Plough, and Teva; and is on the speakers' bureau for Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, and Pfizer. J. von Ziegenweidt has declared that she has no conflict of interest.

PII: S0091-6749(08)01732-6

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.035

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 123, Issue 1 , Pages 116-121.e10, January 2009