Detailed Information

Cited 2 time in webofscience Cited 1 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Stepping Down Asthma Controller Treatment in Patients Controlled with Low-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting beta(2)-Agonist: Step-Down of Intervention and Grade in Moderate Asthma Study

Authors
Kim, Sae-HoonLee, TaehoonJang, An-SooPark, Chan SunJung, Jae-WooKim, Min-HyeKwon, Jae-WooMoon, Ji-YongYang, Min-SukLee, JaechunChoi, Jeong-HeeShin, Yoo SeobKim, Hee-KyooKim, SujeongKim, Joo-HeeLee, Suh-YoungNam, Young-HeeKim, Sang-HoonKim, Tae-Bum
Issue Date
Oct-2021
Publisher
ELSEVIER
Keywords
Asthma; Controller treatment; Inhaled corticosteroid; Long-acting beta(2)-agonist; Step-down
Citation
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE, v.9, no.10, pp.3638 - 3646.e3
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE
Volume
9
Number
10
Start Page
3638
End Page
3646.e3
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/140654
DOI
10.1016/j.jaip.2021.04.042
ISSN
2213-2198
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current asthma guidelines recommend stepping down controller treatment when the condition is well-controlled for a certain time. However, the optimal step-down strategy for well-controlled patients receiving a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study was a randomized, open-label, three-arm, parallel pragmatic trial comparing two kinds of step-down approaches for maintaining treatment. METHODS: Adults with asthma who were aged 18 years or older, and who had been stable with low-dose ICS/LABA for at least 3 months, were enrolled. Subjects (n = 225) were randomly allocated into one of three groups (maintaining low-dose ICS/LABA [G1], discontinuing LABA [G2], and reducing ICS/LABA to once daily [G3]), and were observed for 6 months. The primary end point was a change in Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores between randomization and the final 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The change in ACT was analyzed in the per-protocol population; non-inferiority was not demonstrated in either step-down group compared with the maintenance group (95% confidence interval of the difference, G2 vs G1 = -1.40-0.55; G3 vs G1 = -1.19-0.77). Although over 90% of patients were fine, higher rates of treatment failure were observed in step-down groups (G1: 0%; G2: 9.46%; and G3: 9.09%; P = .027). There were no significant differences between step-down approaches in terms of ACT change or treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: Both step-down methods were not noninferior to maintenance of treatment. Step-down therapy can be attempted when patients are stable, but appropriate monitoring and supervision are necessary with precautions regarding loss of disease control.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
서울 의과대학 > 서울 내과학교실 > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE