The Experts below are selected from a list of 393 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Phillippa Poole - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
combined corticosteroid and long acting beta agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled steroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Luis Javier Nannini, Phillippa Poole, Stephen J Milan, Rebecca Holmes, Rebecca NormansellAbstract:Background Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA Plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone. Objectives To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group. Main results Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA Plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone Plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing Budesonide Plus Formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality. Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I2 = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate. There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid. Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent. Authors' conclusions Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV1 improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations. More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.
-
combined corticosteroid and long acting beta2 agonist in one inhaler versus long acting beta2 agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012Co-Authors: Luis Javier Nannini, Toby J Lasserson, Phillippa PooleAbstract:Background Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA Plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone. Objectives To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group. Main results Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA Plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone Plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing Budesonide Plus Formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality. Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I2 = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate. There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid. Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent. Authors' conclusions Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV1 improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations. More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.
T Ekström - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
improved asthma control with Budesonide Formoterol in a single inhaler compared with Budesonide alone
European Respiratory Journal, 2001Co-Authors: Olle Zetterström, R. Buhl, H. Mellem, M Perpina, J Hedman, S Oneill, T EkströmAbstract:Budesonide/Formoterol in a single inhaler was compared with Budesonide alone, and with concurrent administration of Budesonide and Formoterol from separate inhalers, in patients with asthma, not controlled with inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone. In this 12-week, double-blind, randomized, double-dummy study, 362 adult asthmatics (forced expiratory volume in one second 73.8% of predicted, inhaled glucocorticosteroid dose 960 microg x day(-1)) received single inhaler Budesonide/Formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) 160/4.5 microg, two inhalations b.i.d., or corresponding treatment with Budesonide, or Budesonide Plus Formoterol via separate inhalers. There was a greater increase in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) with single-inhaler (35.7 L x min(-1)) and separate-inhaler (32.0 L x min(-1)) Budesonide and Formoterol, compared with Budesonide alone (0.2 L x min(-1); p<0.001, both comparisons); the effect was apparent after 1 day (p<0.001 versus Budesonide, both comparisons). Similarly, evening PEF, use of rescue medication, total asthma symptom scores and percentage of symptom-free days improved more with both single inhaler and separate inhaler therapy than with Budesonide alone, as did asthma control days (approximately 15% more, p<0.001 versus Budesonide, both comparisons, with a marked increase in the first week). All treatments were well tolerated and the adverse event profile was similar in all three treatment groups. It is concluded that single inhaler therapy with Budesonide and Formoterol is a clinically effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with asthma that is not fully controlled by inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone.
Wolfram Windisch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes with Budesonide Plus Formoterol spiromax for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease a real world observational trial
Respiration, 2019Co-Authors: Adrian Gillissen, C Gessner, Klaus Hechenbichler, Felix J F Herth, Ralf Juenemann, Frank Kanniess, P Kardos, Marek Lommatzsch, Regina Schneidereit, Wolfram WindischAbstract:Background The fixed-dose combination of Budesonide/Formoterol (B/F) has been available in the Spiromax® dry powder inhaler since 2014. Objectives To assess patient satisfaction, inhaler use errors, and disease control in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with B/F Spiromax. Methods This non-interventional, prospective, 12-week study enrolled consecutive asthma or COPD patients who had recently begun treatment with B/F Spiromax or were switched from another inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination to B/F Spiromax in routine clinical practice. Patients recruited from 243 specialist respiratory clinics or general practices in Germany were assessed for patient satisfaction (Satisfaction with Inhalers and Preference questionnaire), inhaler application errors (modified Easy Low Instruction over Time checklist), disease control, and safety. Results The population included 3,943 patients: asthma n = 2,707 (68.7%); COPD n = 1,236 (31.3%). At baseline, 60.1% of patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their previous inhaler, and this increased to 88.8% at week 12 of B/F Spiromax use. Overall, 62.1% of pre-treated patients preferred B/F Spiromax to their old inhaler. The frequency of any handling error observed with B/F Spiromax at week 12 was lower than at baseline (11.9 vs. 25.5% of patients, respectively). After 12 weeks, 77.4% were assessed as having improved (minimally, much, or very much) overall health status versus baseline. Guideline-defined disease severity (as rated by physicians) and patient-reported symptom severity improved during the study in both asthma and COPD patients. B/F Spiromax was well tolerated. Conclusion B/F Spiromax was associated with high patient satisfaction, low device handling error rate, and improvements in clinical outcomes in real-world clinical practice.
Luis Javier Nannini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
combined corticosteroid and long acting beta agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled steroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013Co-Authors: Luis Javier Nannini, Phillippa Poole, Stephen J Milan, Rebecca Holmes, Rebecca NormansellAbstract:Background Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA Plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone. Objectives To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group. Main results Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA Plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone Plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing Budesonide Plus Formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality. Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I2 = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate. There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid. Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent. Authors' conclusions Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV1 improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations. More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.
-
combined corticosteroid and long acting beta2 agonist in one inhaler versus long acting beta2 agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012Co-Authors: Luis Javier Nannini, Toby J Lasserson, Phillippa PooleAbstract:Background Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA Plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone. Objectives To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group. Main results Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA Plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone Plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing Budesonide Plus Formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality. Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I2 = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate. There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid. Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent. Authors' conclusions Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV1 improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations. More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.
Farhad Jalali - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the effects of vitamin d supplementation on airway functions in mild to moderate persistent asthma
Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, 2014Co-Authors: Saba Arshi, Morteza Fallahpour, Mohammad Nabavi, Mohammad Hasan Bemanian, Seyed Ali Javadmousavi, Marzieh Nojomi, Hossein Esmaeilzadeh, Rasool Molatefi, Mahsa Rekabi, Farhad JalaliAbstract:Abstract Background Vitamin D is hypothesized to have some roles in innate and adaptive immunity, inflammation reduction, and remodeling; therefore, it is supposed to affect the asthma phenotype, severity, and response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Objective To explore the synergistic effects of vitamin D supplementation in addition to asthma controllers (ICS or ICS Plus long-acting β-agonist) on airway functions. Methods A randomized clinical trial was conducted in 130 individuals aged 10 to 50 years who lived in Tehran during a 24-week period. Data on age, sex, body mass index, stage of asthma, serum total IgE, history of allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and urticaria were collected. Spirometric parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV 1 ] and ratio of FEV 1 to forced vital capacity) and serum vitamin D measurement were obtained before and 8 and 24 weeks after the intervention. Patients were divided in 2 groups randomly. Both groups received asthma controllers (Budesonide or Budesonide Plus Formoterol) according to their stage, but the intervention group received vitamin D supplementation (100,000-U bolus intramuscularly Plus 50,000 U orally weekly) in addition to asthma controllers. Results FEV 1 improved significantly in both groups after 8 weeks, but no significant difference was found between the 2 groups at baseline ( P = .20) or after 8 weeks ( P = .99); however, a significant improvement was seen in the intervention group in the last 16 weeks, and FEV 1 was significantly better in the intervention group than the other group after 24 weeks ( P Conclusion Vitamin D supplementation associated with asthma controllers could significantly improve FEV 1 in mild to moderate persistent asthma after 24 weeks. Trial Registration irct.ir Identifier: IRCT201302079608N1.
