No abstract

@ERSpublicationsA paradigm shift in asthma management that addresses the paradoxes of SABA reliever therapy is required; consideration needs to be given to replacement of SABA reliever with ICS/fast-onset β-agonist reliever therapy across the range of asthma severity http://ow.ly/ccff30lNLPv Cite this article as: Beasley R, Bird G, Harper J, et al. The further paradoxes of asthma management: time for a new approach across the spectrum of asthma severity. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800694 [https://doi.org/ 10.1183/13993003.00694-2018].Should short-acting β-agonist (SABA) reliever monotherapy be replaced by combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/fast-onset β-agonist as reliever therapy in asthma patients at Global Initiative for Asthma step 1 [1]? This uncertainty is the latest chapter in the controversy relating to the risks and benefits of β-agonist therapy in asthma management [2]. This 70-year controversy began with the introduction of isoprenaline and the concerns that it caused severe refractory asthma and an increased risk of death [3][4][5].The dilemma of evaluating the relative efficacy and risk of β-agonists has persisted since then. Two asthma mortality epidemics in the 1960s and 1970s/1980s were primarily caused by use of high-dose preparations of the potent, yet poorly β 2 -selective agonists, isoprenaline [6] and fenoterol [7], respectively. The epidemics ended abruptly with regulatory restriction and withdrawal of these agents [2,8]. In response to evidence that regular scheduled use of SABAs could increase asthma severity and the risk of exacerbations, the recommendation for their use was changed to "as required for relief of symptoms". This therapeutic approach, together with the increasing use of ICSs, both as separate inhalers and combination ICS/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) inhalers, has been associated with a marked reduction in asthma mortality since the 1990s, although the global rates of asthma mortality have now plateaued [9]. There is clearly a need for alternative treatment strategies to achieve further reductions in global asthma mortality.One strategy is to reduce the potential risks associated with starting SABA reliever monotherapy in intermittent and mild persistent asthma. This strategy was the focus of a recent review in the European Respiratory Journal [1], which identified five paradoxes of this therapeutic approach. The review summarised evidence that SABA reliever monotherapy exposes patients to significant avoidable risk and leads to learned behaviours, which result in difficulties for both patients and doctors (table 1). SABA reliever therapy not only reduces the potential to achieve optimal control at step 1, but also when patients progress to higher treatment steps in the stepwise approach to pharmacological therapy. In this editorial,

BackgroundGuideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO2) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO2 outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO2 within a prescribed target rangeMethodsAn open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO2 range of 88%–92% or 92%–96% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO2 within the prescribed range.Results20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95% CI) 24.2% (7.9% to 35%), p<0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO2 ≥2% above and ≥2% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1% (−8.2% to −0.04%), p=0.017 and −2.4% (−11.5% to 0.3%), p=0.05 respectively.ConclusionsNasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO2 in target range compared with manual titration.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).