The severity of asthma symptoms is well known to be
attenuated by inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) due to their anti-inflammatory
effect. Long-acting β-agonists (LABA)
and long acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are current treatment options for
patients that do not respond well to low dose ICSs. Using data from the double-blind, 3-way,
crossover National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Asthma Clinical Research
Network’s Tiotropium Bromide as an Alternative to Increased Inhaled
Glucocorticoid in Patients Inadequately Controlled on a Lower Dose of Inhaled
Corticosteroid, Peters et al sought to determine individual and differential
responses of asthmatic patients to salmeterol (LABA) and tiotropium (LAMA) when
added to an inhaled corticosteroid, as well as predictors of a positive
clinical response to the end points FEV₁, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF),
and asthma control days (ACDs) (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132(5):1068-1074).
In the attempt to personalize the best treatment options for
patients, investigators have used a variety of strategies, including the use of
biomarkers, patient-specific and physiologic “predictors” and genetic/genomic
approaches. Predictors of response that
have been investigated by researchers include short-acting bronchodilators and
leukotriene modifiers, but more recently, predicting the response to
glucocorticoids, namely ICSs have contributed valuable insight into this
framework. The author’s interest in
long-acting bronchodilators, such as LABAs and LAMAs stems from the lack of
information that has been published concerning these predictors of response,
including intra-subject response of asthmatic patients treated with both a LABA
and a LAMA.
Utilizing information from 210 asthmatic adults, the authors
discovered that the use of tiotropium with a low dose of ICS resulted in a
superior primary outcome compared to doubling the ICS alone, as assessed by
improvement of morning PEF, evening PEF, a decrease in ACDs, and an increase in
FEV₁. Salmeterol had a similar but less
robust response, and subjects showed a differential response to tiotropium for
FEV₁, but not for salmeterol.
Furthermore, younger patients responded better to tiotropium in terms of
ACDs. Peters also reports that large
numbers of patients responded to either salmeterol or tiotropium, but not to
both agents. This suggests that at the
time of administration, different mechanisms were operating to produce airway
constriction and symptoms in these 2 groups of patients. Finally, although the use of a short-acting
bronchodilator did predict a positive response to a long-acting bronchodilator
controller of the same class, albuterol response better predicted a response to
tiotropium than did ipratropium.
While these findings need to be
replicated in an independent study, the data suggest that asthmatics that have
suboptimal asthma control using ICSs alone, with airway obstruction as
demonstrated by a reduced FEV₁/FVC ratio, a positive response to albuterol, or
both, should be good candidates for treatment with tiotropium as an add-on
therapy. This could be used for patients
where combination ICS-LABA therapy fails or when ICS monotherapy in inadequate
for symptom control.