Inhaled corticosteroids monotherapy in childhood asthma: Any differential response rate between activated and prodrugs?

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY
Journal of Asthma Pub Date : 2026-11-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-17 DOI:10.1080/02770903.2026.2686931
Poly Majumder, Anna Smyrnova, Francine M Ducharme
{"title":"Inhaled corticosteroids monotherapy in childhood asthma: Any differential response rate between activated and prodrugs?","authors":"Poly Majumder, Anna Smyrnova, Francine M Ducharme","doi":"10.1080/02770903.2026.2686931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as prodrugs (inactive at delivery) has been compared to activated ICS, in mean changes in lung function and symptoms, with limited evidence on achieving control. We aimed to compare the real-life success rate of two broad ICS types (prodrug and activated) to prevent poor asthma control and exacerbations in children with asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children aged 1-17 years, initiating a new maintenance ICS monotherapy at low or medium doses. Initiation referred to a new ICS (after ≥2-month washout) or a switch to another ICS type (prodrug or activated). Co-primary outcomes included: unsatisfactory asthma control, measured by the Pharmacoepidemiologic Pediatric Asthma Control Index, and occurrence of ≥1 severe exacerbation, in following 6 months. A propensity score (PS) weight-adjusted binary logistic regression compared outcomes between ICS types, reporting odds ratios [95% confidence intervals].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 213 participants (56% male, median age: 6.9 years), 194 were incident users and 19, switchers. Most (<i>N</i> = 148) children were prescribed an activated ICS (97.3% fluticasone propionate, 2.7% budesonide) and 65, an ICS prodrug (100% ciclesonide), 61% using low-dose ICS. The PS-adjusted odds of unsatisfactory asthma control were significantly higher in the prodrug than activated ICS groups (adjOR: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.46-3.81]), with no significant group difference in severe exacerbations (adjOR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.49-1.72]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to activated ICS, children initiating a prodrug were two-fold more likely to display unsatisfactory control, with no significant difference nor equivalence in likelihood of severe exacerbations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma","volume":" ","pages":"1479-1487"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2026.2686931","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as prodrugs (inactive at delivery) has been compared to activated ICS, in mean changes in lung function and symptoms, with limited evidence on achieving control. We aimed to compare the real-life success rate of two broad ICS types (prodrug and activated) to prevent poor asthma control and exacerbations in children with asthma.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children aged 1-17 years, initiating a new maintenance ICS monotherapy at low or medium doses. Initiation referred to a new ICS (after ≥2-month washout) or a switch to another ICS type (prodrug or activated). Co-primary outcomes included: unsatisfactory asthma control, measured by the Pharmacoepidemiologic Pediatric Asthma Control Index, and occurrence of ≥1 severe exacerbation, in following 6 months. A propensity score (PS) weight-adjusted binary logistic regression compared outcomes between ICS types, reporting odds ratios [95% confidence intervals].

Results: Of 213 participants (56% male, median age: 6.9 years), 194 were incident users and 19, switchers. Most (N = 148) children were prescribed an activated ICS (97.3% fluticasone propionate, 2.7% budesonide) and 65, an ICS prodrug (100% ciclesonide), 61% using low-dose ICS. The PS-adjusted odds of unsatisfactory asthma control were significantly higher in the prodrug than activated ICS groups (adjOR: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.46-3.81]), with no significant group difference in severe exacerbations (adjOR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.49-1.72]).

Conclusions: Compared to activated ICS, children initiating a prodrug were two-fold more likely to display unsatisfactory control, with no significant difference nor equivalence in likelihood of severe exacerbations.

吸入皮质类固醇单药治疗儿童哮喘:激活药和前药之间的反应率有何差异?
目的:将吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)作为前药(分娩时无活性)的疗效与激活的ICS进行比较,在肺功能和症状的平均变化方面,实现控制的证据有限。我们的目的是比较两种广泛的ICS类型(前药和激活)在预防哮喘儿童哮喘控制不良和恶化方面的现实成功率。方法:我们对1-17岁的儿童进行了一项回顾性队列研究,开始了一种新的低或中剂量维持ICS单药治疗。起始是指新的ICS(≥2个月洗脱期后)或切换到另一种ICS类型(前药或激活)。共同主要结局包括:哮喘控制不理想(以药物流行病学儿童哮喘控制指数衡量),以及在随访6个月内发生≥1次严重恶化。倾向评分(PS)加权二元逻辑回归比较不同类型ICS的结果,报告优势比[95%置信区间]。结果:在213名参与者中(56%为男性,中位年龄:6.9岁),194人是临时使用者,19人是转换者。大多数(N = 148)儿童使用活性ICS(97.3%丙酸氟替卡松,2.7%布地奈德),65名儿童使用ICS前药(100%环来奈德),61%使用低剂量ICS。前用药组经ps调整的哮喘控制不满意的几率明显高于激活ICS组(adjOR: 2.35 [95% CI: 1.46-3.81]),严重恶化的组间差异无统计学意义(adjOR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.49-1.72])。结论:与激活的ICS相比,开始使用前药的儿童表现出不满意控制的可能性高出两倍,在严重恶化的可能性方面没有显着差异或等效。
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
Journal of Asthma
Journal of Asthma 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Providing an authoritative open forum on asthma and related conditions, Journal of Asthma publishes clinical research around such topics as asthma management, critical and long-term care, preventative measures, environmental counselling, and patient education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书