Statins for asthma | Figure 1

%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-14%27%20transform=%27translate(13.000000,%20103.176124)%27%3e%3cg%20id=%27Group-Copy-5%27%20transform=%27translate(0.000000,%20182.676124)%27%3e%3crect%20id=%27Rectangle-8%27%20fill=%27%23E2E0DE%27%20x=%270%27%20y=%270%27%20width=%2736%27%20height=%2736%27%20rx=%2718%27%3e%3c/rect%3e%3cpath%20d=%27M28,27.6503435%20C28,22.127496%2023.5228474,17.6503435%2018,17.6503435%20C12.4771525,17.6503435%208,22.127496%208,27.6503435%20M18,16.3472505%20C20.8165136,16.3472505%2023.099749,14.0640151%2023.099749,11.2475015%20C23.099749,8.43098783%2020.8165136,6.1477524%2018,6.1477524%20C15.1834863,6.1477524%2012.9002509,8.43098783%2012.9002509,11.2475015%20C12.9002509,14.0640151%2015.1834863,16.3472505%2018,16.3472505%20Z%27%20id=%27Combined-Shape%27%20fill=%27%23FFFFFF%27%20fill-rule=%27nonzero%27%3e%3c/path%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)

Deleted account

Some actions are only available when you log in.

Report case

Report this to our moderators

Statins for asthma

You can view up to 4 cases without signing up Sign up for unlimited access

Review question

We reviewed the evidence about the effect of statins in people with asthma.

Background

Asthma is a common chronic (persistent) airway disease. Asthma is caused by inflammation in the lungs and bronchoconstriction (tightening of the small tubes in the lungs in response to a trigger such as pollen or cold air). Inflammation and bronchoconstriction cause airflow obstruction (narrowing and blockage). People with asthma experience recurrent attacks of wheezing, difficultly in breathing, and chest tightness, with or without a cough.

Statins are anti‐inflammatory medicines. We wanted to review the evidence for statins because the theory is that their anti‐inflammatory properties will help people with asthma. We wanted to discover whether using statin therapy was better or worse than other alternatives, such as usual care alone or different types of statins (atorvastatin, simvastatin).

Study characteristics

We found only one trial that assessed atorvastatin (a type of statin drug) and placebo (dummy treatment) in 60 adults with asthma over a period of 12 weeks. These people had chronic asthma (persistent airway disease) when they started treatment.

Key results

We found that the statin (atorvastatin) did not result in any clear improvement in lung function in people with asthma, but may be better in asthma control than the dummy drug. However, because there is only one trial, we cannot draw firm conclusions.

The trial did not report on adverse effects or severe adverse effects (harms). We are uncertain whether statins may have beneficial effects on relieving asthma or whether they may increase the risk of adverse events or non‐serious adverse events.

Quality of the evidence

The evidence was of very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about whether statins are helpful and safe to be used by people with asthma.

The evidence is current to 7 February 2020.

Read the full Cochrane Review here

Comment

Sign up to add a comment

More about this case

ResolvedVerified literature

Why you should join Figure 1

Sign up to explore now

Similar cases

\ \ Background\ COPD is a progressive lung condition caused by damage from harmful chemicals breathed in and is predominantly seen in people who smoke tobacco. These chemicals cause inflammation and lung damage and increase mucus production in the lungs. This leads to periods of breathlessness and coughing called exacerbations (or flare‐ups). Exacerbations make it harder for people to do their day‐to‐day tasks. Exacerbations become more frequent and severe over time. People vary in terms of how they are affected by COPD. This is related in part to the severity of the disease but also to differences in response to medicines, as well as fitness and co‐existent conditions. For most people, the only way to prevent further lung damage is to stop smoking.\ Medicines prescribed to manage COPD generally aim to improve symptoms, reduce exacerbations, or both. In early stages, taking bronchodilators makes breathing easier by relaxing muscles in the lungs and widening airways, allowing more air to move freely into and out of the lungs.\ Some long‐acting agents may reduce exacerbations. For example, steroid inhalers reduce inflammation in the lungs and thus modestly reduce the number of exacerbations.\ Phosphodiesterase‐4 (PDE₄) inhibitors are a relatively new class of medicines marketed to improve COPD. They have both bronchodilator and anti‐inflammatory effects. Two currently available medicines ‐ roflumilast and cilomilast ‐ are taken as a tablet. We collated and analysed results of existing trials to define the benefits and risks of PDE₄ inhibitors in COPD.\ Key results\ Data analysis included 42 studies in 24,587 adults with moderate to very severe disease who discontinued other regular COPD medications. Some trials allowed people to carry on using their usual COPD medicines. Most trials were funded by manufacturers of PDE₄ inhibitors.\ PDE₄ inhibitors provided a small benefit in improving lung function measurements (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak expiratory flow (PEF)). PDE₄ inhibitors also reduced the likelihood of COPD‐related exacerbations. We found that 28 out of 100 people taking PDE₄ inhibitors every day for a year would experience at least one exacerbation, which was five fewer than for people who did not receive these medicines.\ PDE₄ inhibitors provided a small benefit in reducing breathlessness and improving quality of life. Around 5% to 10% of people who received roflumilast or cilomilast reported side effects such as diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. We expected that 11 out of 100 people taking PDE₄ inhibitors every day for 39 weeks would experience an episode of diarrhoea, which was seven more than for those not receiving PDE₄ inhibitors. We found that 7 people out of 100 were likely to experience a psychiatric event with roflumilast 500 µg. A two‐ to three‐fold increase in risk of sleep or mood disturbance was found with roflumilast 500 μg, although overall the total number of reported incidents was low. There was no effect on death rates. Effects were the same regardless of the severity of COPD, or whether other medicines for COPD were being taken.\ Quality of the evidence\ We were moderately certain about data for lung function and quality of life. We were highly certain of evidence for side effects such as diarrhoea and of data for exacerbations.\ Results seen in trials published in journals by pharmaceutical companies show greater benefit of these medicines than those that were unpublished. Psychiatric adverse effects data remain unpublished.\ Conclusions\ We support the use of PDE₄ inhibitors for COPD, but with caution. PDE₄ inhibitors provided a small benefit in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of COPD exacerbations, but they had little impact on quality of life and COPD symptoms. Side effects including diarrhoea and weight loss were common.\ PDE₄ inhibitors may be best used as add‐on therapy for a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite otherwise optimal COPD management (e.g. people whose condition was not controlled on fixed‐dose long‐acting beta₂‐agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations). This is in accordance with GOLD 2020 guidelines. Longer‐term trials are necessary to get a more accurate estimate of the benefits and safety of these medicines over time, including determining whether they slow COPD disease progression.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2d5c2714-050c-472a-8629-6128b44bfd51)

\ \ We included 11 studies with 762 people with COPD flare‐ups. Studies were done in one or two centres in many countries between 2004 and 2018. The average age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Seven studies tested magnesium infusion, three studies assessed magnesium inhalation, and one study examined both. The evidence in this review is current to 2 August 2021.\ Key results\ People who received magnesium infusion may have fewer admissions to hospital from the emergency room. Seven people with COPD flare‐ups would need to be treated with magnesium infusion to prevent one additional person being admitted to hospital. There was little to no difference in terms of breathing support without intubation (putting a tube into the windpipe to help a person to breathe). None of the participants required breathing support with intubation. Included studies did not report ICU admission or deaths. Only one trial reported on serious adverse events, but no‐one in the study experienced any. Magnesium infusion may shorten the duration of hospital stay and reduce breathlessness. However, we were not clear about its effect on lung function, oxygen concentration in blood or adverse events.\ Magnesium inhalation (nebuliser) had little or no effect on hospital admission or the need for breathing support (with or without intubation) compared to placebo. Nebulised magnesium may reduce ICU admission and improve breathlessness. However, we are not confident of these findings due to small number of participants and study limitations. There is no evidence of a difference for duration of hospital stay, lung function or oxygen saturation in blood. Serious adverse events were not reported. There is no available data for adverse events. One trial reported one death in the placebo group, but we are not confident to draw any conclusion as the trial had very few participants.\ Only one study compared magnesium sulfate inhalation and infusion versus inhaled ipratropium bromide and placebo infusion. We could not identify any differences between the effects of these treatments.\ We do not have enough information to assess any effects on serious adverse events or deaths.\ Magnesium sulfate infusion may be useful as an add‐on treatment for COPD flare‐ups. However, we cannot draw conclusions about whether magnesium sulfate inhalation is helpful for use in people with COPD flare‐ups.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/5f87d80b-3be5-4ef9-a681-2dc72682d8a3)

\ \ Main point: the existing evidence suggests a benefit of macrolides compared to placebo for reducing exacerbations requiring hospitalisation and severe exacerbations (defined as exacerbations requiring emergency department visit/treatment with systemic steroids). The effect of macrolides on other relevant clinical outcomes such as symptom scales and lung function is still unclear.\ Background\ Asthma is a chronic disease in which inflammation of the airways leads to coughing, wheezing and breathing problems. There are probably different reasons for this inflammation and why it persists, and these may require different treatments. Infection in the lungs may be one cause, and macrolides are a type of antibiotic that may be used long term as a way of improving symptoms for these people.\ We looked for studies on adults or children with asthma who were either given a macrolide or placebo (pretend treatment) for at least four weeks to see if it improved their symptoms and made it less likely for them to have an asthma attack, often referred to as an 'exacerbation'. We carried out our most recent search for studies in March 2021.\ What we found\ We found 25 studies, including two new ones that had been published since the last search was done in 2015. Overall, almost 2000 people received either macrolides or placebo. There were many problems in the way studies were described and how well they reported data, which made us consider the overall evidence to be low quality, undermining our confidence in most of the results. The studies were quite different from each other, for example in the severity of people's asthma, the type of macrolide they were given and the length of the treatment period.\ Our review showed that macrolides were better than placebo in reducing exacerbations and may have benefits for some people in improving asthma symptoms, asthma control, asthma quality of life and some measures of lung function, but how much benefit and for whom are uncertain. Based on one well conducted study, the macrolide azithromycin may have some benefit for people with severe asthma, but overall the findings of this review do not support the use of macrolides for all asthma of any grade or severity. There were no reports of serious side effects of macrolides, but 16 studies did not report whether any occurred.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/8d273288-adad-4164-87ef-ec8cf6cee200)

\ \ What is the aim of this review?\ The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out whether probiotics can induce remission in people with ulcerative colitis. We analysed data from 14 studies to answer this question.\ Key messages\ Probiotics may be better at inducing remission than placebo (dummy treatment). It is unclear whether probiotics are better than 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA, an anti‐inflammatory agent used to treat inflammatory bowel disease), however there is limited evidence that when both treatments are used as combined therapy they may be better than 5‐ASA alone in inducing remission. Most studies reported that no serious adverse events took place. For the studies that did report on it, serious adverse events did not occur in the probiotic group. Minor adverse events reported were bloating and diarrhoea.\ What was studied in the review?\ Ulcerative colitis is a relapsing and remitting disease which causes inflammation of the large bowel and leads to symptoms such as abdominal pain, diarrhoea and tiredness. There is some evidence to suggest that an imbalance in the bacteria of the gut is the cause of the disease, and therefore probiotics, which are live micro‐organisms, can alter the bacteria and possibly reduce the inflammation.\ What are the main results of the review?\ We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs; clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing probiotics with placebo, probiotics with 5‐ASA, and probiotics in combination with 5‐ASA. We found 14 RCTs looking at 865 participants. The trials looked at adult and paediatric participants. Eight studies allowed additional therapy to continue, whilst the other four studies were unclear about this.\ \

  1. Probiotics may improve induction of clinical remission when compared to placebo.\
  2. It is unclear whether probiotics lead to a difference in adverse events (minor and serious) when compared to placebo.\
  3. There is limited evidence to determine whether probiotics offer better disease improvement when compared to placebo.\
  4. There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5‐ASA (low‐certainty evidence).\
  5. There is limited evidence to suggest that when probiotics plus 5‐ASA are compared to 5‐ASA alone, probiotics may offer a slightly better chance of induction of remission. This is based on low‐certainty evidence from one study, and we are not sure of the type of remission studied.\
  6. Serious adverse events were reported when probiotics were compared with placebo, but only occurred in the placebo group.\ Conclusion\ Whilst the evidence suggests that probiotics may be better at improving induction than placebo, our confidence in the estimate is limited because of the low‐certainty evidence. This is attributed to the small number of participants in each study along with the unreliable methods utilised by the trials. With the evidence presented in these studies, we are unable to make strong conclusions into the effectiveness of probiotics; better designed studies with more participants are needed.\ How up‐to‐date is this review?\ This review is up‐to‐date as of October 2019.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/9bf7c6d4-4cdc-4bd8-bbe9-0d0fa9f894c4)
Trending now

\ \ A 52-year-old man presented with a 20-minute history of chest pain radiating to the left shoulder and neck, associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis.\ He had a history of hypertension, long-term smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.\ On physical examination, bibasilar crackles were noted on lung auscultation. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed in the primary care setting, and the patient was promptly referred to the emergency department.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/ae0fe999-6875-4474-94f0-ad823dbb9b3a)

\ \ A 28-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of intense pruritus over the lower back. She reported no recent travel or exposure to new environments. She cares for a small kennel with approximately eight dogs rescued from the streets.\ Physical examination revealed multiple small vesicles, some clustered and others scattered, predominantly involving the lumbar region and the left gluteal area.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/c271070f-2bc7-4052-9895-635277e1a7d5)

\ \ A 4-month-old male infant presented with skin lesions localized to the chin for the past 3 days. Physical examination revealed multiple small pustules with surrounding inflammatory signs on the chin, along with a few scattered papules on the chest.](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/48f41642-b9db-4089-b120-a94ee52328de)

\ \ patient in late teens presenting after a collapse, no chest pain, no previous cardiac history, no history of sudden death in family, are there any features in this ekg that would warrant further work-up or is this just a pediatric ekg?](https://app.figure1.com/case-detail/2af390e1-ace8-40ed-ba1c-98fb2d72f4c5)