4.7 Article

Age and Risks of FDA-Approved Long-Acting β2-Adrenergic Receptor Agonists

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 128, Issue 5, Pages E1147-E1154

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1720

Keywords

asthma; meta-analysis; hospitalization; death

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk, by age group, of serious asthma-related events with long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic receptor agonists marketed in the United States for asthma. METHODS: The US Food and Drug Administration performed a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials comparing the risk of LABA use with no LABA use for patients 4 to 11, 12 to 17, 18 to 64, and older than 64 years old. The effects of age on a composite of asthma-related deaths, intubations, and hospitalizations (asthma composite index) and the effects of concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred ten trials with 60 954 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The composite event incidence difference for all ages was 6.3 events per 1000 patient-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2-10.3) for using LABAs compared with not using LABAs. The largest incidence difference was observed for the 4- to 11-year age group (30.4 events per 1000 patient-years [95% CI: 5.7-55.1]). Differences according to age were statistically significant (P = .020). Results for the subgroup of patients with concomitant ICS use (n = 36 210) were similar to the overall results; with assigned ICSs (n = 15 192), the incidence difference was 0.4 events per 1000 patient-years (95% CI: -3.8 to 4.6), and there was no statistically significant difference according to age group. CONCLUSIONS: The excess of serious asthma-related events attributable to LABAs was greatest among children. Additional data are needed to assess risks of LABA use for children with simultaneous ICS use. Pediatrics 2011; 128: e1147-e1154

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available