Review: Safety of long-acting β2 -agonists in the treatment of asthma

M. Cazzola, M. Matera
{"title":"Review: Safety of long-acting β2 -agonists in the treatment of asthma","authors":"M. Cazzola, M. Matera","doi":"10.1177/1753465807081747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several studies suggested an association between the regular use of β2-agonists and asthma deaths. Whether this association represents adverse effects of β -agonist use or is entirely due to disease severity is a matter of ongoing debate. Previous literature indicates that confounding by poor asthma control may explain the apparent deleterious effects of inhaled β2-agonists. Tolerance to nonbronchodilator effects of β2-agonists may account for the increase in reactivity to indirect bronchoconstrictor challenges and explain why some studies have demonstrated enhanced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma after regular β 2-agonist therapy. Nonetheless, the salmeterol multi-centre asthma research trial (SMART) found more asthma deaths (13 vs 3) and life-threatening asthma events (37 vs 22) in the salmeterol-treated asthmatic patients, although it was documented that among African-Americans, 5 times as many deaths and near-deaths from asthma occurred in those given salmeterol than in those given placebo, and among patients with asthma not using an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a preventive (controller) medication, again more deaths and near-deaths from asthma occurred in those given salmeterol than in those given placebo. Only 38% of the African-Americans who participated in the study used an ICS. As a result of the findings from the SMART, FDA issued a public health advisory to highlight that long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) should not be the first medicine used to treat asthma. LABAs should be added to the asthma treatment plan only if other medicines, including the use of low-or-medium dose ICSs, do not control asthma. However, despite all of the concerns raised by the SMART, inhaled β2-agonists remain the most effective bronchodilators available for the immediate relief of asthma symptoms and, as such, remain an important component of asthma management. Obviously, there are concerns about LABA treatment as monotherapy for asthma. Patients with asthma should be initiated and maintained on sufficiently high doses of ICSs and only patients whose asthma cannot be controlled should receive additional LABAs on a regular basis.","PeriodicalId":364194,"journal":{"name":"Theraputic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theraputic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1753465807081747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Several studies suggested an association between the regular use of β2-agonists and asthma deaths. Whether this association represents adverse effects of β -agonist use or is entirely due to disease severity is a matter of ongoing debate. Previous literature indicates that confounding by poor asthma control may explain the apparent deleterious effects of inhaled β2-agonists. Tolerance to nonbronchodilator effects of β2-agonists may account for the increase in reactivity to indirect bronchoconstrictor challenges and explain why some studies have demonstrated enhanced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma after regular β 2-agonist therapy. Nonetheless, the salmeterol multi-centre asthma research trial (SMART) found more asthma deaths (13 vs 3) and life-threatening asthma events (37 vs 22) in the salmeterol-treated asthmatic patients, although it was documented that among African-Americans, 5 times as many deaths and near-deaths from asthma occurred in those given salmeterol than in those given placebo, and among patients with asthma not using an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a preventive (controller) medication, again more deaths and near-deaths from asthma occurred in those given salmeterol than in those given placebo. Only 38% of the African-Americans who participated in the study used an ICS. As a result of the findings from the SMART, FDA issued a public health advisory to highlight that long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) should not be the first medicine used to treat asthma. LABAs should be added to the asthma treatment plan only if other medicines, including the use of low-or-medium dose ICSs, do not control asthma. However, despite all of the concerns raised by the SMART, inhaled β2-agonists remain the most effective bronchodilators available for the immediate relief of asthma symptoms and, as such, remain an important component of asthma management. Obviously, there are concerns about LABA treatment as monotherapy for asthma. Patients with asthma should be initiated and maintained on sufficiently high doses of ICSs and only patients whose asthma cannot be controlled should receive additional LABAs on a regular basis.
综述:长效β2激动剂治疗哮喘的安全性
几项研究表明,经常使用β2激动剂与哮喘死亡之间存在关联。这种关联是否代表β -激动剂使用的不良影响,或者完全是由于疾病的严重程度,这是一个正在争论的问题。先前的文献表明,哮喘控制不良可能解释了吸入β2激动剂的明显有害作用。β2激动剂对非支气管扩张剂作用的耐受性可能解释了间接支气管收缩剂刺激的反应性增加,并解释了为什么一些研究表明哮喘患者在常规β2激动剂治疗后支气管收缩增强。尽管如此,沙美特罗多中心哮喘研究试验(SMART)发现,在沙美特罗治疗的哮喘患者中,哮喘死亡人数(13比3)和危及生命的哮喘事件(37比22)更多,尽管有文献记载,在非裔美国人中,服用沙美特罗的哮喘患者死亡和濒临死亡的人数是服用安慰剂的患者的5倍,并且在未使用吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)作为预防(控制)药物的哮喘患者中,同样,服用沙美特罗的患者比服用安慰剂的患者死于哮喘的人数更多。参与研究的非裔美国人中只有38%使用了ICS。作为SMART研究结果的结果,FDA发布了一项公共卫生咨询,强调长效β2激动剂(LABAs)不应作为治疗哮喘的首选药物。只有当其他药物(包括使用低剂量或中剂量的吸入性药物)不能控制哮喘时,才应将LABAs添加到哮喘治疗计划中。然而,尽管SMART提出了所有的担忧,吸入β2激动剂仍然是最有效的支气管扩张剂,可立即缓解哮喘症状,因此,仍然是哮喘管理的重要组成部分。显然,人们对LABA治疗作为哮喘的单一疗法存在担忧。哮喘患者应开始并维持足够高剂量的吸收体,只有哮喘无法控制的患者才应定期接受额外的吸收体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信