The National Asthma Council Logo

 

 

Leading the attack against asthma

Search website
Home About the NAC Strategy Managing Asthma Research Emergency
 
Inhaled Corticosteroids:

A Practical Perspective

 
Asthma Management Handbook Asthma Action Plans Spirometry Resources  Other Resources Information Papers Special Topics Professional Development  

Inhaled Corticosteroids:
A Practical Perspective

Home
Introduction
Efficacy of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids 
What has changed?
What is a minimum effective dose?
How is the minimum effective dose achieved?
A guide to dose adjustments in clinical practice
Prescribing in children
References
Acknowledgements
Copyright & Disclaimer
Content created Aug 2003
Page updated 31 Aug 2005

Get Adobe Reader

Get Adobe Flash Player

ForwardBackWhat has changed?

The recommendations for higher doses of ICS were a feature of asthma guidelines in the years before long-acting beta2 agonists (LABAs) were introduced. In addition, past recommendations for higher doses were not based on evidence of dose-response relationships for efficacy or side effects. As a result, prescribers tended to use higher than necessary doses for maintaining asthma control.

There is now clear evidence that low doses of ICS are effective for maintaining control of asthma symptoms in most patients and there is little need to use high doses.2 Although studies show some dose-response benefit at ICS doses over 500 mcg/day FP or equivalent, the side effect impact is now better understood, and these doses can be avoided by adding a LABA in most symptomatic patients.

However, data on prescribing patterns in Australia suggest that:

  • Australian prescribers have used higher doses of ICS than clinicians in Europe and the United States.8
  • A substantial proportion of patients in whom ICS maintenance therapy is indicated have not been prescribed ICS treatment.9
      

What's old?

  • High doses of ICS (400-1000 mcg HFA-BDP or FP; 800-2400 mcg BUD) were recommended for controlling moderate to severe asthma symptoms and improving lung function.10
  • The recommended doses were not based on evidence of dose-response relationships for systemic effects.11

What's new?

  • High doses of ICS achieve minimal additional clinical benefit compared with moderate and low doses,3 while significantly increasing the risk of adverse effects.4
  • Risk of catastrophic treatment-related adverse effects in children is associated with prolonged high-dose ICS.6, 12
  • Stepping down of ICS is recommended for maintenance of asthma control.2, 13
  • Regular reassessment is important to monitor response to treatment and adjust dose to minimum effective dose.2