Efficacy of a home-made spacer with acute exacerbation of bronchial asthma: a randomized controlled trial. Response profiles to fluticasone and montelukast in mild-to-moderate persistent childhood asthma. Enhancing ventilation in homes of children with asthma: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Home-made spacers for bronchodilator therapy in children with acute asthma: a randomised trial. Treatment of acute, episodic asthma in preschool children using intermittent high dose inhaled steroids at home. A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. Comparative efficiency of commercial and improvised spacer device in acute bronchial asthma. Randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of a metered dose inhaler with bottle spacer for bronchodilator treatment in acute lower airway obstruction. Predicting short term response to anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma.
Metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer is the preferred method for administration of aerosolized medications in pediatric asthma. The expense of commercial spacers limits their use and indigenous alternatives have therefore been developed. Information on the clinical efficacy of home-made spacers is limited. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of a valve-less home-made spacer with a commercial spacer in delivering salbutamol via MDI in acute asthma. Asthmatic children aged 5-15 years who presented with an acute exacerbation to the pediatric chest clinic of a tertiary care hospital were enrolled in a single blinded randomized parallel group study. The study patients received 10 puffs of salbutamol (100 microg/puff) via MDI-home-made spacer or MDI-commercial spacer. Pre and post inhalation measurements of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), oxygen saturation (SaO2), respiratory rate (RR), pulse rate (PR) were made and compared. Sixty children were enrolled in the study, 31 were administered salbutamol via the home-made spacer and 29 via the commercial spacer. The median increase in PEFR was similar in both the groups (20.8% vs 22.2%, p=0.4), clinical improvement being satisfactory in all patients. The valve-less home-made spacer is equally efficacious and cheaper than the commercial spacer in administering bronchodilators in acute exacerbations of asthma. Further studies on the efficacy of home-made spacer in delivery of inhaled steroids are needed. Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children.
                We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).
                An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated.
                Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast.
                The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA. Few robust studies have tested whether enhancing housing also improves health.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of installing ventilation systems, and central heating where necessary, in the homes of children with moderate or severe asthma.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) in homes within Wrexham County Borough, Wales, UK.
                A pragmatic RCT was carried out, of a tailored package of housing improvements providing adequate ventilation and temperature, following inspection by a housing officer. One hundred and ninety-two children with asthma aged 5 to 14 years, identified from general practice registers, were randomised to receive this package, either immediately or a year after recruitment. At baseline, and after 4 and 12 months, parents reported their child's asthma-specific and generic quality of life, and days off school.
                The package improved parent-reported asthma-specific quality of life significantly at both 4 and 12 months. At 12 months, this showed an adjusted mean difference between groups of 7.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.8 to 11.4, P= 0.001): a moderate standardised effect size of 0.42. The generic quality-of-life scale showed reported physical problems were significantly reduced at 4 months, but not quite at 12 months, when the mean difference was 4.5 (95% CI = -0.2 to 9.1, P= 0.061). The improvement in psychosocial quality of life at 12 months was not significant, with a mean difference of 2.2 (95% CI = -1.9 to 6.4, P= 0.292). Parent-reported school attendance improved, but not significantly.
                This novel and pragmatic trial, with integrated economic evaluation, found that tailored improvement of the housing of children with moderate to severe asthma significantly increases parent-reported asthma-related quality of life and reduces physical problems. Collaborative housing initiatives have potential to improve health. A metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer is the best way to deliver bronchodilator therapy for treatment of acute asthma. In developing countries, commercially produced spacers are generally unavailable or too costly. We tested the efficacy of home-made spacers (500 mL plastic bottle, polystyrene cup) compared with a conventional spacer for delivery of a beta2 agonist via MDI for children with acute asthma.
                We studied children aged 5 to 13 years with acute asthma, stratified into those with mild airways obstruction (peak expiratory flow [PEF] 60-79% of predicted value) or moderate to severe airways obstruction (PEF 20-59% of predicted value). A beta2 agonist (fenoterol hydrobromide) was given via MDI and one of four randomly assigned spacers (conventional spacer, sealed 500 mL plastic bottle, unsealed 500 mL bottle, 200 mL polystyrene cup). Clinical score, pulmonary function tests, and oximetry were recorded at baseline and 15 min after treatment. If a second bronchodilator treatment was needed, nebulised fenoterol was given and the assessment repeated 15 min later. Primary outcome measures were changes in clinical score and pulmonary function, and need for and response to nebulisation.
                88 children were eligible for study. In 44 children with moderate to severe airways obstruction, a cup gave significantly less bronchodilation (median increase in: forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 0%; PEF 12%) compared with the conventional spacer (37%; 59%), sealed bottle (33%; 36%), or unsealed bottle (18%; 21%, p<0.05 for difference between groups). Nebulisation was required by ten of 11 who had used a cup, nine of 11 who had used an unsealed bottle, eight of 11 who had used a sealed bottle, and only four of 11 who had used a conventional spacer. After nebulisation, improvement in FEV1 (15.5%) and PEF (26%) was more marked in children who had used a cup than in those who had used a conventional spacer (5.5% FEV1; 4% PEF), sealed bottle (3%; 0%), or unsealed bottle (7%; 9%). For 44 children with mild airways obstruction, response to bronchodilator was similar for all spacers and need for nebulisation was not associated with use of a particular spacer.
                A conventional spacer and sealed 500 mL plastic bottle produced similar bronchodilation, an unsealed bottle gave intermediate improvement in lung function, and a polystyrene cup was least effective as a spacer for children with moderate to severe airways obstruction. Use of bottle spacers should be incorporated into guidelines for asthma management in developing countries. In a double blind, controlled trial, the effect of high dose beclomethasone dipropionate (750 micrograms three times daily for five days) administered by metered dose inhaler and valved spacer, was compared with placebo, during 70 paired episodes of acute asthma in 24 preschool children. Treatment commenced at home at the first sign of an attack. Parents' blind preference for active treatment was significant. Data from 17 pairs of treatment, however, were affected by interventions such as hospital admission or oral corticosteroid treatment. These events occurred similarly in active and control periods. An intrasubject comparison was made of diary scores from the 18 pairs of episodes in which no intervention occurred in either the active or placebo treatment. Both daytime and night symptoms over the first week of the attack were significantly reduced by active treatment. Intermittent high dose inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate is beneficial in modifying the severity of acute episodic asthma in preschool children able to use a spacer device. Chiropractic spinal manipulation has been reported to be of benefit in nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including asthma.
                We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of chiropractic spinal manipulation for children with mild or moderate asthma. After a three-week base-line evaluation period, 91 children who had continuing symptoms of asthma despite usual medical therapy were randomly assigned to receive either active or simulated chiropractic manipulation for four months. None had previously received chiropractic care. Each subject was treated by 1 of 11 participating chiropractors, selected by the family according to location. The primary outcome measure was the change from base line in the peak expiratory flow, measured in the morning, before the use of a bronchodilator, at two and four months. Except for the treating chiropractor and one investigator (who was not involved in assessing outcomes), all participants remained fully blinded to treatment assignment throughout the study.
                Eighty children (38 in the active-treatment group and 42 in the simulated-treatment group) had outcome data that could be evaluated. There were small increases (7 to 12 liters per minute) in peak expiratory flow in the morning and the evening in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between the groups in the degree of change from base line (morning peak expiratory flow, P=0.49 at two months and P=0.82 at four months). Symptoms of asthma and use of 3-agonists decreased and the quality of life increased in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups. There were no significant changes in spirometric measurements or airway responsiveness.
                In children with mild or moderate asthma, the addition of chiropractic spinal manipulation to usual medical care provided no benefit. To compare the efficacy of a commercial spacer device versus an improvised spacer device in delivering aerosolized beta-2 agonist through metered dose inhaler in an acute exacerbation of bronchial asthma.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Urban tertiary care teaching hospital.
                60 children between 1 to 12 years of age with acute asthma were prospectively enrolled and randomized into two groups. Detailed history, clinical evaluation and appropriate laboratory investigations were recorded on a pretested proforma. One group received inhaled salbutamol using metered dose inhaler via commercial spacer device (Group 1), while the other received it via improvised spacer device (Group II). The response was sequentially assessed after 20, 40 and 60 minutes of institution of therapy.
                The two groups were comparable with respect to various parameters at presentation (p > 0.05). All the outcome parameters showed a significant improvement with time in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the response in the two groups (p< 0.05).
                Metered dose inhaler with improvised spacer device is equivalent in efficacy and a more cost effective alternative to metered dose inhaler with commercial spacer for administration of beta-2 agonist in acute asthma. Inhaled bronchodilator treatment given via a metered dose inhaler (MDI) and spacer is optimal for relief of bronchoconstriction. Conventional spacers are expensive or unavailable in developing countries, but there is little information on the efficacy of low-cost spacers in young children.
                To compare the response to bronchodilator treatment given via a conventional or a low-cost bottle spacer
                A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of a conventional spacer compared with a bottle spacer for bronchodilator treatment in young children with acute lower airway obstruction. Bronchodilator treatment was given from an MDI via an Aerochamber or a bottle spacer. Clinical score and oximetry recording were carried out before and after 15 min of treatment. MDI-spacer treatment was repeated up to three times, depending on clinical response, after which nebulisation was used. The primary outcome was hospitalisation.
                400 children, aged (median (25th-75th centile)) 12 (6-25) months, were enrolled. The number of children hospitalised (n = 60, 15%) was identical in the conventional and bottle spacer groups (n = 30, 15% in each). Secondary outcomes including change in clinical score (-2 (-3 to -1)), oxygen saturation (0 (-1 to 1)) and number of bronchodilator treatments (2 (1 to 3)) were similar in both groups. Oral corticosteroids, prescribed for 78 (19.5%) children, were given to a similar number in the conventional (37 (18.5%)) and bottle spacer groups (41 (20.5%)).
                A low-cost bottle spacer is as effective as a conventional spacer for bronchodilator treatment in young children with acute obstruction of the lower airways. Currently available anti-inflammatory treatment for young children with asthma includes inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast.
                To evaluate potential biomarkers of predicting short-term (6-week) response to ICS and LTRAs in children with asthma.
                A total of 102 children aged 4 to 7 years with episodic asthma were enrolled in an open labelled single-centre study. Biomarkers and asthma characteristics were evaluated as predictors of treatment. Of 102 patients 45 became symptomatic during observation and were randomised to treatment either to montelukast or fluticasone for 6 weeks.
                Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) increased with both treatments: FEV1 at randomisation was 90.2% and after therapy 106.8% with fluticasone vs. 90.8% and 103.7% for montelukast, respectively, showing that montelukast and fluticasone were equally effective in this age group (p = 0.44). Strong correlations to a favourable treatment response were pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 (p < 0.001) and airway reversibility (p = 0.04) at time of randomisation. None of the other biomarkers (methacholine testing, exhaled nitric oxide [eNO], presence of allergy, total Immunoglobulin E [IgE], cumulative specific IgE, eosinophils and parental smoking) were predictive.
                Despite the small sample size and the open-label design, the study suggests that the use of pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 and airway reversibility appears to be a good indicator of short-term anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma.
Overall, this review did not identify a statistically significant difference between these two methods for delivering bronchodilator therapy to children with acute asthma or lower airways obstruction attacks. Care should be taken in the interpretation and applicability of our results because of the small number of RCTs along with few events available meeting the criteria for inclusion in the review, absence of the primary outcome of interest and other clinically important outcomes in the majority of included studies. The possible need for a face-mask in younger children using home-made spacers should also be considered in practice.