 |
|
Inhaled Budesonide in Addition to Oral Corticosteroids to Prevent Asthma Relapse Following Discharge From the Emergency Department
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Brian H. Rowe, MD, MSc;
Gary W. Bota, MD, FRCP;
Lucio Fabris, BScPharm;
Sandra A. Therrien, MA;
Ruth A. Milner, MA;
John Jacono, PhD
JAMA. 1999;281:2119-2126.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Relapses of acute asthma following emergency department (ED) discharge can be reduced with systemic corticosteroid treatment. However, whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) provide additional benefit is not known.
Objective To determine whether the addition of ICSs to oral corticosteroid treatment would reduce relapses in patients with acute asthma discharged from the ED.
Design and Setting Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in a community teaching hospital ED in Canada between November 1995 and September 1997, with a 21-day follow-up.
Participants A total of 1006 consecutive patients aged 16 to 60 years presented to the ED with acute asthma; after excluding those using oral and/or inhaled corticosteroids as well as those meeting other exclusion criteria, 188 were included in the study.
Interventions Patients were discharged with a nontapering course of oral prednisone (50 mg/d) for 7 days. In a double-blind fashion, patients were randomly assigned to 1600 µg/d of inhaled budesonide (n=94) or identical placebo (n=94) for 21 days.
Main Outcome Measures Incidence of relapse, defined as an unscheduled visit for worsening asthma symptoms, in budesonide vs placebo groups. Secondary outcomes included response to the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire,  2-agonist use, symptom score, global asthma improvement assessment, and pulmonary function.
Results Five patients in the budesonide group and 3 in the placebo group either dropped out or were lost to follow-up but were included in primary analyses. After 21 days, 12 (12.8%) of 94 patients in the budesonide group experienced a relapse compared with 23 (24.5%) of 94 in the placebo group, a 48% relapse reduction (P=.049). Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were higher (better quality) in the budesonide group (P=.001), as well as for all domain scores (P=.001 to .01). Fewer 2-agonist activations were used at the end of the trial by patients receiving budesonide (2.4/d vs 4.2/d; P=.01). Symptom scores (P=.001 to .004) and self-assessed asthma improvement scores (based on a 7-point Likert scale) (6.2 vs 5.2; P<.001) were higher (indicating fewer symptoms) for budesonide vs placebo. There were no differences in pulmonary function between the groups (peak expiratory flow rate: budesonide, 437 vs placebo, 453 L/min; P=.39) at 21 days. Using this approach, as few as 9 patients would require budesonide to prevent 1 relapse.
Conclusions Patients discharged from the ED following treatment for acute asthma benefit from added treatment with high-dose inhaled budesonide for 21 days compared with oral corticosteroids alone.
INTRODUCTION
Asthma affects approximately 7% of adults in North America,1-4 and patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with acute asthma. They often exhibit features that place them at increased risk for complications and even death.5-6 Improved strategies to treat acute asthma and reduce relapses after ED visits are needed to improve patient quality of life6 and reduce societal costs associated with this disease.3, 7
Our understanding of asthma has improved over the past decade8-10 and there is now general agreement on the primary role of inflammation in the pathophysiology of asthma. Control of inflammation has become the cornerstone of treatment during acute asthma.11-13 For patients with acute asthma discharged from the ED, the anti-inflammatory agents used most frequently are systemic corticosteroids (CS). There are 7 randomized, placebo-controlled trials14-20 examining outpatient treatment of asthma with CS that have been summarized in systematic reviews.21-22 These reviews indicate that CS reduce relapses by 65%; as few as 5 patients require treatment to prevent 1 relapse to additional care.
The role of inhaled CS (ICS) in acute asthma is less well-defined. Research suggests that while more than 70% of patients are discharged from North American EDs taking oral CS,23 only 10% of patients are discharged taking ICS. This proportion is lower for those patients who were not receiving them before presentation.23 This practice is consistent with the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program11-12 and other consensus guidelines,13 which do not make firm recommendations regarding starting ICS in the ED. To date, no randomized controlled trials have been published that examine the use of ICS in addition to oral CS for patients discharged from the ED after an exacerbation of asthma.
This study examined the effect of adding an ICS (budesonide) to a fixed dose of oral prednisone for patients discharged from the ED with acute asthma. The main objective of this study was to determine if adding ICS would reduce relapses requiring additional care. The secondary outcomes included monitoring changes in quality of life, pulmonary function, and the use of 2-agonists over the follow-up period.
METHODS
Study Population
The study was conducted at the Sudbury General Hospital in Sudbury, Ontario. This community teaching ED provides 24-hour coverage in a community of 164,000 (1996 Canadian Census Statistics). Between November 15, 1995, and September 15, 1997, patients treated in the ED for acute asthma were eligible for enrollment.
Physicians in the ED referred patients whom they believed were likely to be discharged home after completion of treatment for acute asthma. The diagnosis of asthma was made on clinical grounds (a previous history of asthma, response to 2-agonist therapy, and worsening symptoms necessitating treatment in the ED). Patients aged 16 to 60 years with peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of less than 80% predicted for sex, age, and height before treatment were eligible.
Those receiving oral or inhaled CS during the week before ED presentation were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they presented for prescription renewals, had complicated comorbid medical illnesses (renal or cardiovascular diseases, human immunodeficiency virus), were pregnant or breast-feeding, were geographically inaccessible for follow-up, had cognitive impairment, or were unable to communicate in French or English.
Recruitment and Randomization
The study was approved by the hospital's research ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients were assessed for eligibility in the ED by a trained, on-call research assistant. For patients' safety, all participants were provided with a pocket card describing how to access research assistants and a patient information sheet outlining their involvement in the study.
Patients were assigned to treatment, using a computer-generated randomization method, in blocks of 10 to ensure equal numbers and elimination of seasonal biases (Figure 1). Study personnel and physicians remained blinded to the allocation of treatment until completion of data analysis. The randomization code was generated by the nonsite statistician (R.A.M.) and the drug packages were prepared by the hospital pharmacy. Study drugs were kept in packages of similar appearance in a research office. The treatment code was revealed on 2 occasions at the request of physicians treating study patients (1 acute deterioration; 1 nonasthma hospitalization).
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Profile of Patient Recruitment and Enrollment Into the Study
The most common reasons for exclusion were that patients were already receiving inhaled corticosteroids, oral corticosteroids or because they presented with medical comorbidity, or they were not prescribed prednisone.
|
|
|
ED Treatment Protocol
The dosage, method of administration, and frequency of medication in the ED was determined by referring ED physicians. However, a recommended treatment protocol was made available to all physicians and consisted of nebulized 2-agonist (salbutamol) every 20 minutes for the first hour,24 a dose of oral prednisone (50 mg),21-22 supplemental oxygen, and, when indicated, nebulized ipratropium bromide.25 The decision to discharge patients after ED therapy was made at the discretion of the treating physician. All physicians were provided with pulmonary function results (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], PEFR, and forced vital capacity); spirometry was performed by the research assistant using a hand-held spirometer.
Outpatient Treatment
All enrolled patients were discharged taking a nontapering course of oral prednisone (50 mg/d) for 7 days.26-28 The prednisone was provided in a blister pack dispensing format with clear written instructions. Patients were assigned in a double-blind fashion to inhaled budesonide (Pulmicort, Astra Pharma Inc, Mississauga, Ontario) or placebo Turbuhaler (Astra Pharma Inc) for 3 weeks. Budesonide is a potent ICS,29 and Turbuhaler is a breath-activated dry powder inhaler that does not require a coordinated technique. Patients were given instructions for the use of Turbuhaler and asked to inhale forcefully and deeply through the mouth.30
Turbuhaler devices were identical in appearance, and the drug delivery was indistinguishable by taste or smell. The dose of budesonide administered was 2 inhalations twice per day (400 µg per activation), for a total daily dose of 1600 µg. In addition, patients used short-acting inhaled 2-agonists regularly and were provided with instruction on their use. If 2-agonist supplies were insufficient, patients were supplied with metered-dose inhalers designed to provide 100 µg of salbutamol per inhalation. Other agents such as theophylline, long-acting 2-agonists, ipratropium bromide, and antibiotics were prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician or continued if the patient had already been using them. Patients were asked to stop taking nedocromil sodium and sodium cromoglycate for the duration of the study. In addition, all patients were asked to refrain from using other ICS in conjunction with the study drugs, unless prescribed after a relapse.
Follow-up Assessments
All patients were asked to report relapses to the on-call research assistant via telephone contact or presentation to the ED. Patients were contacted by telephone 3 days following the ED visit to determine their respiratory status and to encourage compliance with the in-person reassessments at 7 and 21 days; they were recontacted by telephone at 14 days. Patients were followed up until the primary study end point (relapse) or for 21 days, whichever occurred first. Computerized hospital records were searched for the study period at the only 2 acute care hospitals within the region to validate ED visits and hospitalizations. Others have used relapse in outpatient asthma trials14-20; it was defined as an "unscheduled visit for worsening asthma symptoms" for this trial. This outcome was assessed by the study investigators after study completion, but before study unblinding.
Quality of life was measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ).31 This questionnaire has been used previously in acute32-33 and chronic31, 34-35 asthma and has been shown to be reliable, valid, sensible to patients, and responsive to clinically important changes in patient function. The 32-item questionnaire examines 4 domains (physical, symptom, environment, and emotion) of asthma using a 7-point Likert response scale for each question. It provides standardized overall and domain-specific AQLQ values between 1 and 7, with 1 indicating severe disease and 7 indicating minimal perturbation in total or domain scores.
Additional secondary outcomes also included 2-agonist inhalations in the previous 24 hours. Three symptoms related to the severity of asthma (wheezing, breathlessness, and cough) and a global assessment of asthma, both using a 7-point Likert scale, were also determined at 7, 14, and 21 days. An adverse effect profile was determined for each patient from a list of symptoms at all follow-up sessions. Compliance was measured by self-report for both pills and the use of Turbuhaler. Compliance with Turbuhaler was also measured by counting the remaining activations from returned devices.36 Most secondary outcomes were measured using in-person (at entry, day 7, and day 21) or telephone interviews (day 14). Pulmonary function results were recorded at entry, ED discharge, day 7, and day 21 by the research assistants.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables are reported as means and SDs for normally distributed data, median and interquartile ranges (25%-75%) for skewed results. Primary analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. Time to relapse was analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve for time free of relapse and the log-rank test. An adjusted analysis controlling for imbalance on important baseline covariates was performed using logistic regression. All results were considered to indicate significance at P<.05. The AQLQ results were reported as separate domain scores and as a total score; all are continuous variables. A mean difference of 0.5 per domain or total score was used as the a priori significance level for all of the AQLQ analyses.32, 35 The secondary analyses used t tests for continuous, normally distributed results, and  2 for categorical variables.
The sample size was calculated a priori using the following assumptions:  =.05; relapse rate at 21 days equaled 25% to 30%. We estimated a reduction to 10% to 12% would be sufficient to warrant ED treatment with this agent, and thus a sample size of 180 patients (85-90 per group) provided an 80% to 90% power to identify this difference. We enrolled patients until 180 follow-up sessions were successfully completed.
RESULTS
Participants
Over the study period, 1006 patients aged 16 to 60 years were seen in the ED with acute asthma; 743 patients (74%) were excluded from the trial. The most common reasons for exclusion were the following: 278 patients (37%) were receiving ICS and 59 (8%) were receiving oral CS at the time of presentation, 116 (16%) presented with medical comorbidity, and 83 (11%) were not prescribed prednisone. Other reasons for the remaining 207 patients were: 46 (6%) were hospitalized, 40 (5%) were geographically inaccessible, 47 (6%) had been enrolled before, 29 (4%) received his/her first diagnosis of asthma, 18 (2%) left before treatment, 10 (1%) had pretreatment PEFR of more than 80% predicted, and 17 (2%) presented to the ED for prescription refills only. Of the remaining 263 patients, 51 (19%) refused enrollment, 21 (8%) were missed by treating physicians, and 191 (73%) agreed to participate in the trial (Figure 1).
Dropouts and Withdrawals
Of the 191 participants originally randomized, 3 were subsequently excluded; 2 patients required hospitalization prior to ED discharge and 1 was inappropriately enrolled and removed from the study in stable condition after 1 day. Of the remaining 188 patients, 94 received budesonide and 94 received placebo. Three patients taking budesonide dropped out of the study for nontreatment reasons and 5 were lost to follow-up (2 taking budesonide; 3 placebo); however, these patients were kept in the database.
Patient Characteristics
The overall study results are based on the 188 appropriately enrolled patients. The baseline characteristics of the patients in both groups were similar for most outcomes (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). However, there were clinically important differences between the groups based on sex, age, and severity (percent of predicted PEFR).
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Study Patients*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Asthma History and Prior Treatment of Patients*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Baseline Characteristics in the Emergency Department for 188 Asthma Patients Enrolled in the Outpatient Study*
|
|
|
The medications used regularly at the time of presentation did not differ between the groups. The number of treatments of salbutamol in 24 hours prior to presentation was high in both groups. Few patients in this study were using asthma aids (eg, spacer devices, action plans, peak flowmeters, daily diaries) to treat their asthma (Table 3). Quality of life was rated as severely impaired in both groups; however, based on percent predicted PEFR, the asthma was more severe in the budesonide group (45% vs 54%).
The medications administered in the ED were similar in both groups. All received nebulized 2-agonists, while many received nebulized ipratropium bromide and 50 mg of oral prednisone prior to discharge. By discharge, PEFR had increased over baseline values by 121 L/min or 22% predicted in the budesonide group compared with 117 L/min or 21% predicted in the placebo group (P=.73).
Primary Outcomes
Follow-up. Overall, 14 patients (7.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4%-12%) relapsed within the first day after discharge. By 7 to 10 days, 26 patients (13.8%; 95% CI, 9%-20%) had experienced a relapse and 3 patients (2%) had dropped out of the study. In-person follow-up was obtained for 138 of the remaining patients (87%); 2 others (1%) provided information via the telephone.
By 14 days, 30 patients (16.0%; 95% CI, 11%-22%) had experienced a relapse, and telephone follow-up was obtained for 132 (85%) of the remaining patients. At 21 days, 35 patients (18.6%; 95% CI, 13%-25%) had experienced a relapse. In-person follow-up was obtained for 117 (78%) of the remaining patients; 33 patients (22%) completed telephone follow-up. Computerized hospital record review at 21 days did not identify any study patients who had presented to the ED or were admitted to the hospital who were not already known. In summary, dropouts and losses to follow-up were uncommon (8 patients [4%]). All other 180 patients (96%) provided relapse data at 21 days.
Relapse Rates. The budesonide group experienced fewer relapses (12 patients [12.8%]; 95% CI, 7%-21%) than the placebo group (23 patients [24.5%]; 95% CI, 16%-34%) by 21 days (P=.049; Table 4). This represents a 48% relapse reduction and suggests as few as 9 patients would require treatment with budesonide to prevent 1 relapse.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Outcomes for Asthma Patients*
|
|
|
The trends in relapse favored the budesonide group, and the difference between groups was statistically significant at 21 days (Figure 2). A consistent positive effect for the budesonide treatment (P=.04) was demonstrated using logistic regression when controlling for sex, age, and severity. No relapses resulted in death; 2 patients (2%) taking budesonide and 1 patient (1%) taking placebo required admission to a hospital at relapse.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier Relapse Curve of Patients Treated With Budesonide or Placebo
It appears that the full benefit of inhaled corticosteroids is reached by day 10. Relapses are rare after that period has elapsed.
|
|
|
Secondary Outcomes
Quality of Life. Table 4 shows that the AQLQ score in the budesonide group was higher (better quality) than that for the placebo group (P=.001). In addition, improvements in all domains of the AQLQ were greater in the budesonide group; activities (P=.002), symptom (P=.002), emotional (P=.001), and environmental (P=.01) improvements were all more than 0.5 better in the budesonide group. The trends mirror the results of the relapse data with budesonide patients separating from the placebo patients by the first follow-up (data not shown).
2-Agonist Inhaler Use. Patients were asked to report the total number of 2-agonist inhalations used in the 24-hour period prior to follow-up contact. The budesonide patients were using fewer salbutamol inhalations in 24 hours compared with placebo patients (P=.01) at 21 days. While the values were similar at 7 days, by 14 days budesonide patients were using 1.4 (95% CI,-0.8 to 2.9) fewer inhalations and by 21 days, 1.7 (95% CI, 0.4-3.1) fewer inhalations in the 24-hour period.
Pulmonary Function Data. Mean and percent of predicted PEFR spirometry findings revealed no differences between the groups at the time of the final visit (P=.39 and .11, respectively). The improvement in pulmonary functions over time was not different between the groups (Table 4).
Symptoms. By the study's conclusion, the budesonide group had fewer symptoms of cough (P=.004), breathlessness (P=.001), wheezing (P=.001), and nighttime wakening (P=.001) compared with placebo (Table 4).
Global Assessment. Patients in the budesonide group assessed their asthma as more improved than those in the placebo group at 21-day follow-up (6.2 vs 5.2; P=.001).
Adverse Effects. In general, the study drugs were well tolerated (Table 4). Adverse effects were greater in the placebo group for both hoarseness and sore throat (P=.02). However, the incidence of adverse effects thought to be associated with ICS use (eg, insomnia, acne, fluid retention) were equal between the treatment groups.
Compliance. Compliance with therapy was measured throughout the study; 80% or more of the patients' behavior was designated compliant. Self-reported compliance with the use of oral prednisone was high within the first week of care in both groups (94% for budesonide vs 96% for placebo; P=.73). Self-reported compliance with Turbuhaler was similar between the groups at 7 (100% for both budesonide and placebo) and 21 (92% for budesonide vs 93% for placebo; P=.95) days.
COMMENT
To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine whether adding an ICS enhances the effectiveness of oral CS in patients with acute asthma discharged from the ED. Our results demonstrate that the addition of high-dose budesonide (1600 µg/d) reduces the rate of relapse, improves quality of life, and reduces 2-agonist use after 21 days. The benefit of the ICS begins to emerge early, as outcomes diverge (Figure 2) before the completion of the oral prednisone regimen. It appears that the full benefit of ICS is reached by 10 days, after which relapses are rare.
However, previous reports from trials of ICS in the treatment of unstable asthma and asthma treated in the ED have yielded conflicting results. Salmeron and colleagues37 reported on a double-blind, randomized trial of high-dose beclomethasone dipropionate (1500 µg/d) vs placebo in patients with unstable chronic asthma. They found that ICS maintained optimal pulmonary function induced by a 2-week course of oral CS and led to fewer asthma attacks than those experienced in the placebo group. Their results corroborate the combined approach we used in this study.
Another trial examined patients discharged from the ED and found no benefit in pulmonary function for the addition of flunisolide to prednisone therapy.38 Since the complete findings of this study are yet to be published, comparisons are difficult at this point. However, these results may indicate that the effect of therapy is variable and dependent on either drug or other patient factors.
Three other studies have examined the use of high-dose ICS compared with oral CS in outpatient asthma. Investigators in primary care compared high-dose fluticasone propionate (2 mg/d) with a short course of prednisone in patients with acute asthma whom physicians felt required oral CS.39 There were no differences in PEFR or presence of persistent symptoms. A second trial examined the effect of high-dose budesonide (1600 µg/d) vs prednisone in patients following ED discharge and found no difference in FEV1.40 Finally, another trial compared high-dose budesonide (2400 µg/d) vs prednisone in patients following ED discharge, and found no difference in subsequent relapse.41 However, 2 of these studies enrolled patients with mild asthma,39, 41 and none followed up patients to 3 weeks as was done in our study.39-41 Furthermore, several studies concentrated on pulmonary function as outcomes.39-40 Finally, 1 study is published only as an abstract41 and 2 are limited by small sample sizes.40-41
While these trials conclude treatment equivalence, and make no mention of the combined approach, the available evidence is insufficient to support this strategy. While some patients may benefit from receiving ICS alone, physicians should remain cautious about adopting this policy. Furthermore, our results suggest the combination of oral and inhaled CS provides the safest and most effective outpatient treatment regimen.
Several aspects of the current study deserve further comment. First, this was the first acute asthma trial to collect disease-specific quality-of-life outcomes. Previously, the AQLQ instrument has been shown to be valid, reliable, sensible, and relevant31-35; moreover, it is more responsive than other measures, thereby allowing efficiencies in research design.32, 42 The AQLQ provides a comprehensive evaluation of outcomes using a total score or 4 domain scores; all AQLQ domains demonstrated clinically (0.5 per domain or total score) and statistically significant changes in favor of the budesonide group.
Second, there was uniform acceptance of the protocol by physicians and few refusals by patients. The follow-up was comprehensive and complete, and the sample of patients should be generalizable to other ED settings. Finally, the broad range of secondary outcomes corroborated the findings of the primary analysis and add strength to the results.
There are several potential weaknesses of the study that require discussion. First, relapse was used as the primary study end point. While it could be argued that this outcome is subject to interpatient variability, it has been used extensively in the past and is clinically important.14-21 In addition, due to psychometric properties, the use of relapse may reduce the chance of identifying a difference between groups, thus resulting in a conservative estimation of effect.32 Second, despite randomization, there were some small differences between the groups at the start of the study. These differences resulted in somewhat more severely ill patients in the budesonide group. However, we adjusted the analyses to account for these differences and the results did not change significantly.
Finally, while treatment for 3 weeks is sensible to patients and physicians, we have not investigated the benefits of extending treatment beyond this period. Relapses may occur long after ED discharge,6, 14, 43 and this period warrants more attention in future research. However, our follow-up period is one of the longest reported in the acute asthma ED literature,21 and certainly was sufficient to ensure patient safety and return to a stable state.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the results of this trial have several implications. First, we believe the study design and methods produce results that are valid and relevant to the ED physician. While use of a clinical diagnosis of asthma may have included some nonasthma patients, we feel this mirrors clinical practice and makes these results more generalizable. In addition, we used outcomes that are clinically important to both patients and physicians.
Second, these results suggest that physicians should change their approach to asthma treatment and consider adding inhaled to oral CS at discharge from the ED. This is an effective method of reducing relapses because for every 9 patients treated with this regimen, 1 potential relapse can be prevented. Adoption of combined CS prescribing by ED physicians has the potential to improve both short- and long-term outcomes.44 Based on historical features, many patients in this study could be considered moderate-to-severe asthma sufferers. By prescribing ICS, ED physicians are providing patients with evidence-based therapy that they had not been receiving. Moreover, other evidence indicates patients who are not prescribed ICS at ED discharge are unlikely to have them started when contacted at follow-up.23 By adopting a policy of initiating ICS therapy at the time of discharge, ED physicians have the opportunity to affect long-term outcomes of patients with asthma.
The results of this research indicate budesonide delivered by Turbuhaler is effective in this setting. However, further research is needed to define the optimal ICS regimen following ED discharge. Furthermore, a dose of 1600 µg/d is higher than many ED physicians may be comfortable prescribing. While this dose is supported by some empirical evidence,39-40,45-48 it is associated with few adverse effects, and is well-tolerated by patients, additional studies are required to determine the dose, duration, and delivery method for ICS, which will optimize outcomes in the discharge period. Finally, studies are required to determine whether oral CS can be safely reduced or eliminated in certain populations with the use of ICS.39-41
AUTHOR INFORMATION
| |
Funding/Support: Funding for this project was provided by the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation (PSI 95-44) and the Sudbury General Hospital Emergency Trauma Fund. The inhalers used in the study were supplied by Astra Pharma, Inc (Mississauga, Ontario).
Acknowledgment: We are indebted to the following Sudbury Regional Hospital Emergency physicians who supported the research initiative: Dave Allen, MD, Chris Bourdon, MD, David Falconi, MD, Christine Kupsh, MD, Rob LePage, MD, Miriam Mann, MD, Greg Mosdossy, MD, Sam Oommen, MD, Gene Pommier, MD, Joey Rampton, MD, Larry Thorsteinson, MD, Brian Tissot, MD, and Mark Troughton, MD. We also acknowledge the support of Mike Franklyn, MD, Tom Urban, MD, Miguel Bonin, MD, and Robert Clendenning, MD. We also thank the research nurses: Jennifer Bretzlaff-Michaud, Patricia Irvine, and Lisa Turpin. We acknowledge the input of Andy Oxman, MD, in earlier versions of this protocol and anonymous reviewers at the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation (Toronto, Ontario). We are grateful for the support provided by Barb Jennings, PhD, and Jennifer Haddon, MSc (Astra Pharma, Respiratory) and for the supply of the drugs used in the trial. We also thank Peter Rowe, MD, for his helpful insights in reviewing the manuscript and to Marlene Lagore for typing the manuscript.
Previous Presentation: Portions of this work were presented at the 7th International Conference of Emergency Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, March 25-29, 1998; and at the annual meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Chicago, Ill, May 17-20, 1998.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Brian H. Rowe, MD, MSc, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Room 1G1.63 WMC, 8440-112 St, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2B7 (e-mail: brian.rowe{at}ualberta.ca).
Author Affiliations: Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton (Dr Rowe); Department of Emergency Medicine (Dr Bota) and Acute Care Research Group (Drs Rowe and Bota, Mr Fabris, and Ms Therrien), Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sudbury, Ontario; University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Ms Milner); and Institute of Health Care, University of Malta, G'Mangia, Malta (Dr Jacono).
REFERENCES
1. Mao Y, Semenciw R, Morrison H, et al. Increased rates of illness and asthma death from asthma in Canada. CMAJ. 1988;137:620-624.
2. Britton J. Asthma's changing prevalence [editorial]. BMJ. 1992;304:857-858.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Weiss KB, Gergen PJ, Hodgson TA. An economic evaluation of asthma in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:862-866.
ABSTRACT
4. Wilkins K, Mao Y. Trends in rate of admission to hospital and death from asthma among children and young adults in Canada during the 1980s. CMAJ. 1993;148:185-190.
ABSTRACT
5. Stableforth D. Death from asthma. Thorax. 1983;38:801-805.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Fitzgerald JM, Hargreaves FE. Acute asthma: emergency department management and prospective evaluation of outcome. CMAJ. 1990;142:591-595.
ABSTRACT
7. Krahn MD, Berka C, Langlois P, Detsky AS. Direct and indirect costs of asthma in Canada. CMAJ. 1996;154:821-831.
ABSTRACT
8. O'Byrne PM. Airway inflammation and the pathogenesis of asthma. Can Respir J. 1994;1:189-195.
9. Chung KF. Inflammatory mediators in asthma. In: O'Byrne PM, ed. Asthma as an Inflammatory Disease. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1990:159-184.
10. McFadden ER Jr, Gilbert IA. Asthma. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1928-1937.
ABSTRACT
11. National Asthma Education Program. Expert Panel Report: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1991. Publication 91-3642.
12. National Asthma Education Program. Expert Panel Report II: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1997.
13. Beveridge RC, Grunfeld AF, Hodder RV, Verbeek PR, for the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and the Canadian Thoracic Society (CAEP/CTS Asthma Advisory Committee). Guidelines for the emergency management of asthma in adults. CMAJ. 1996;155:25-37.
ABSTRACT
14. Chapman KR, Verbeek PR, White JG, Rebuck AS. Effect of a short course of prednisone in the prevention of early relapse after the emergency room treatment of acute asthma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:788-794.
ABSTRACT
15. Deshpande A, McKenzie SA. Short course of steroids in home treatment of children with acute asthma. BMJ. 1986;293:169-171.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Feil SB, Swartz MA, Glanz KG, Francis ME. Efficacy of short-term corticosteroid therapy in outpatient treatment of acute bronchial asthma. Am J Med. 1983;75:259-262.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Hoffman IB, Feil SB. Oral versus repository corticosteroid therapy in acute asthma. Chest. 1988;1:11-13.
18. Lee CH, Lee CJ, Lan RS, et al. Repository dexamethasone in the treatment of acute bronchial asthma. Chang Keng I Hsueh. 1993;16:25-29.
19. McNamara RM, Rubin JM. Intramuscular methylprednisolone acetate for the prevention of relapse in acute asthma. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:1829-1835.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Sharpiro GG, Furukawa CT, Pierson WE, Gardinier R, Bierman CW. Double-blind evaluation of methylprednisolone versus placebo for acute asthma episodes. Pediatrics. 1983;71:510-514.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Rowe BH, Spooner CH, Ducharme FM, Bretzlaff JA, Bota GW. The effectiveness of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma: a meta-analysis of their effect on relapse following acute assessment (Cochrane Review on CD-Rom). Oxford, England: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 1998; issue 3.
22. Rowe BH, Keller JL, Oxman AD. Steroid use in the emergency department treatment of asthma exacerbations: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 1992;10:301-310.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Camargo CA Jr, Woodruff PG, for the Multicenter Asthma Research Collaboration. Management of acute asthma in US emergency departments [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157:A623.
24. Cates C. Cochrane Review: comparison of holding chambers and nebulisers for beta-agonists in acute asthma (Cochrane Review on CD-Rom). Oxford, England: Cochrane Library Update Software; 1998; issue 3.
25. Fitzgerald JM, Grunfeld A, Pare PD, et al, for the Canadian Combivent Study Group. The clinical efficacy of combination nebulized anticholinergic and adrenergic bronchodilators vs. nebulized adrenergic bronchodilators alone in acute asthma. Chest. 1997;111:311-315.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. O'Driscoll BR, Karla S, Wilson M, Pickering CAC, Carrol KB, Woodcock AA. Double-blind trial of steroid tapering in acute asthma. Lancet. 1993;341:324-327.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Lederle FA, Pluhar RE, Joseph AM, Niewoehner DE. Tapering of corticosteroid therapy following exacerbation of asthma: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:2201-2203.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Verbeek PR, Gerts WH. Nontapering versus tapering prednisone in acute exacerbations of asthma: a pilot study. J Emerg Med. 1995;13:15-19.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
29. Juniper L. Budesonide: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in asthma and rhinitis. Drugs. 1992;44:375-407.
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Boulet LP. Perception of the role and potential side effects of inhaled corticosteroids among asthmatic patients. Chest. 1998;113:587-592.
FREE FULL TEXT
31. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Epstein RS, Ferrie PJ, Jaeschke R, Hiller TK. Evaluation of impairment of health-related quality of life in asthma: development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials. Thorax. 1992;47:76-83.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Rowe BH, Oxman AD. Performance of an asthma quality of life instrument in an outpatient setting. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148:675-681.
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Rowe BH, Oxman AD. An assessment of the sensibility of a quality of life instrument. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:374-380.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
34. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE. Measuring quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;147:832-838.
ISI
| PUBMED
35. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81-87.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Stevenson BJ, Rowe BH, Haynes RB, Macharia WM, Leon G. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed? JAMA. 1993;269:2779-2781.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Salmeron S, Guerin J, Godard P, et al. High dose inhaled corticosteroids in unstable asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;140:167-171.
ISI
| PUBMED
38. Brenner BE, Guishard KA, Chavda KK, Wray A, Camargo CA Jr. Randomized trial of high dose inhaled flunisolide versus placebo in asthmatics discharged from the emergency department [abstract]. Chest. 1998;114(suppl):298S-299S.
39. Levy ML, Stevenson C, Maslen T. Comparison of short courses of oral prednisolone and fluticasone proprionate in the treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of asthma in primary care. Thorax. 1996;51:1087-1092.
FREE FULL TEXT
40. Nana A, Youngchaiyud P, Charoenratanakul S, et al. High-dose inhaled budesonide may substitute for oral therapy after an acute attack of asthma. J Asthma. 1998;35:647-655.
ISI
| PUBMED
41. Grunfeld A, Bai A, Shragg DL, et al. High dose inhaled budenoside versus prednisone in patients with acute asthma discharged from the emergency department (ED). Clin Invest Med. 1997;20(suppl):S14-S15.
42. Ward MJ. Clinical trials in acute severe asthma: are type II errors important? Thorax. 1986;41:824-829.
FREE FULL TEXT
43. Emmerman CL, Woodruff PG, Cydulka RK, Gibbs MA, Pollack CV Jr, Camargo CA Jr. Prospective multicenter study of relapse following treatment for acute asthma among adults presenting to the emergency department. Chest. 1999;115:919-927.
FREE FULL TEXT
44. Singh AK, Woodruff PG, Ritz RH, Mitchell D, Camargo CA Jr. Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: are ED visits a missed opportunity for prevention? Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17:144-147.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Wilson NM, Silverman M. Treatment of acute, episodic asthma in preschool children using intermittent high dose inhaled steroids at home. Arch Dis Child. 1990;65:407-410.
FREE FULL TEXT
46. Smith MJ. The place of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids in asthma therapy. Drugs. 1987;33:423-429.
ISI
| PUBMED
47. Woolcock AJ. Use of corticosteroids in treatment of patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989;84:975-978.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
48. Ayres JG, Bateman ED, Lundback B, Harris TA, for the International Study Group. High dose fluticasone proprionate, 1 mg daily, versus fluticasone proprionate, 2 mg daily, or budesonide, 1.6 mg daily, in patients with chronic severe asthma. Eur Respir J. 1995;8:579-586.
ABSTRACT
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Section Editor: Deborah J. Cook, MD, Consulting Editor, JAMA. Advisory Board: David Bihari, MD; Christian Brun-Buisson, MD; Timothy Evans, MD; John Heffner, MD; Norman Paradis, MD.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
June 9, 1999
JAMA. 1999;281(22):2157-2158.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Living with asthma
JAMA. 1999;281(22):2160.
PDF
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Anti-inflammatory Treatment after Discharge Home from the Emergency Department in Adults with Acute Asthma
Krishnan et al.
Proc Am Thorac Soc 2009;6:380-385.
FULL TEXT
Impact of Asthma Controller Medications on Clinical, Economic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes
Tan et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:675-684.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary
Bateman et al.
Eur Respir J 2008;31:143-178.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The role of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of acute asthma
Rowe and Vethanayagam
Eur Respir J 2007;30:1035-1037.
FULL TEXT
Emergency Physicians' Prescribing of Asthma Controller Medications
Scarfone et al.
Pediatrics 2006;117:821-827.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Corticosteroid Use after Hospital Discharge among High-risk Adults with Asthma
Krishnan et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2004;170:1281-1285.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Zafirlukast Treatment for Acute Asthma: Evaluation in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial
Silverman et al.
Chest 2004;126:1480-1489.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of inhaled corticosteroids following discharge from an emergency department for an acute exacerbation of asthma
Blais and Beauchesne
Thorax 2004;59:943-947.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Doubling the dose of budesonide versus maintenance treatment in asthma exacerbations
FitzGerald et al.
Thorax 2004;59:550-556.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Treatment With Inhaled Flunisolide
Edmonds et al.
Chest 2004;125:1961-1963.
FULL TEXT
Current and Future Pharmacologic Therapy of Exacerbations in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma
Buhl and Farmer
Proc Am Thorac Soc 2004;1:136-142.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of High-Dose Inhaled Flunisolide to Systemic Corticosteroids in Severe Adult Asthma
Lee-Wong et al.
Chest 2002;122:1208-1213.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Oral vs Inhaled Corticosteroids Following Emergency Department Discharge of Patients With Acute Asthma
Marik and Varon
Chest 2002;121:1735-1736.
FULL TEXT
Replacement of Oral Corticosteroids With Inhaled Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Acute Asthma Following Emergency Department Discharge* : A Meta-analysis
Edmonds et al.
Chest 2002;121:1798-1805.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Comparison of Albuterol Administered by Metered-Dose Inhaler and Spacer With Albuterol by Nebulizer in Adults Presenting to an Urban Emergency Department With Acute Asthma*
Newman et al.
Chest 2002;121:1036-1041.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Review of the Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Acute Asthma
Chipps and Chipps
CLIN PEDIATR 2001;40:185-189.
ABSTRACT
Inhaled budesonide plus oral prednisone reduced relapse after discharge from the emergency department for acute asthma
Pilotto and Smith
Evid. Based Med. 2000;5:17-17.
FULL TEXT
Adding Inhaled Budesonide to Oral Corticosteroids Decreases Asthma Relapse
JWatch Emergency Med. 1999;1999:1-1.
FULL TEXT
|
