It has proven efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, but the effect size of montelukast (a leukotriene receptor antagonist) for varied severity of asthma exacerbations is not systematically assessed. This study was designed to systematically explore the evidence for montelukast, as first-line or add-on therapy, in preventing and treating asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID up to March 2013, where montelukast prevented or treated asthma exacerbations in adults. Primary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing exacerbations in chronic asthma and hospitalizations in acute asthma. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), risk difference, and number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated and pooled. Adverse events were also assessed in chronic asthma. Twenty trials for chronic asthma and six for acute asthma were identified. In comparison with placebo, adults with chronic asthma receiving montelukast had significantly reduced number of exacerbations (OR = 0.60 and 95% CI, 0.49, 0.74; NNT = 17 and 95% CI, 12, 29). However, montelukast was inferior to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29, 2.0) and ICS plus long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA; OR = 3.94; 95% CI, 1.64, 9.48) as the first-line therapies and LABA (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05, 1.42) as the add-on therapies in reducing asthma exacerbations. In acute asthma, montelukast could statistically improve peak expiratory flow percent predicted (p = 0.008) and reduce systemic corticosteroid intake (p = 0.005). Montelukast had low risk in hoarseness and insomnia. Our meta-analysis suggests that montelukast significantly reduces mild, moderate, and part of severe exacerbations in chronic mild to moderate asthma, but it has inferior efficacy to ICS or ICS plus LABA.
BACKGROUND: Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.
The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS—from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.
The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.
The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid–treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.
Ondanks het wijdverbreide gebruik van inhalatiecorticosteroïden, veel astmapatiënten gebukt onder hardnekkige symptomen. In dergelijke individuen, het toevoegen van een langwerkende beta2-agonist (LABA) is vaak effectiever dan een verdubbeling van de dosis van het inhalatiecorticosteroïd. Echter, de rol van aanvullende behandeling met een leukotrieenreceptorantagonist (LTRA) als alternatief voor een LABA was de focus van de aandacht in recente studies. Om vast te stellen van de algemene effectiviteit van de farmacologische instrumentarium gebruikt bij astma, is het noodzakelijk dat een combinatie van eindpunten, met inbegrip van de longfunctie, luchtweg hyperreactiviteit, effecten op de onderliggende ontsteking, symptomen, en nog veel meer complicaties op lange termijn, zoals exacerbaties, zijn beoordeeld. Deze evidence-based systematische review een overzicht van de farmacologische eigenschappen van LABA en LTRA en het belang van de evaluatie van eindpunten in aanvulling op longfunctie bij de beoordeling van deze geneesmiddelen. We belichten ook de resultaten van alle gepubliceerde studies die directe vergelijkingen van zowel LABA en LTRA hebben gepresteerd als add-on therapie bij inhalatiecorticosteroïden.
It has proven efficacy in reducing asthma exacerbations, but the effect size of montelukast (a leukotriene receptor antagonist) for varied severity of asthma exacerbations is not systematically assessed. This study was designed to systematically explore the evidence for montelukast, as first-line or add-on therapy, in preventing and treating asthma exacerbations in adult patients with asthma. Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID up to March 2013, where montelukast prevented or treated asthma exacerbations in adults. Primary outcomes were the number of patients experiencing exacerbations in chronic asthma and hospitalizations in acute asthma. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), risk difference, and number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated and pooled. Adverse events were also assessed in chronic asthma. Twenty trials for chronic asthma and six for acute asthma were identified. In comparison with placebo, adults with chronic asthma receiving montelukast had significantly reduced number of exacerbations (OR = 0.60 and 95% CI, 0.49, 0.74; NNT = 17 and 95% CI, 12, 29). However, montelukast was inferior to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29, 2.0) and ICS plus long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA; OR = 3.94; 95% CI, 1.64, 9.48) as the first-line therapies and LABA (OR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05, 1.42) as the add-on therapies in reducing asthma exacerbations. In acute asthma, montelukast could statistically improve peak expiratory flow percent predicted (p = 0.008) and reduce systemic corticosteroid intake (p = 0.005). Montelukast had low risk in hoarseness and insomnia. Our meta-analysis suggests that montelukast significantly reduces mild, moderate, and part of severe exacerbations in chronic mild to moderate asthma, but it has inferior efficacy to ICS or ICS plus LABA.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
