alexa Risks of Long-Acting Beta-Agonist in Asthma-Perceived or Real? | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2161-105X
Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Risks of Long-Acting Beta-Agonist in Asthma-Perceived or Real?

Li-Cher LOH*

Lung Research, Penang Medical College, Penang, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author:
Dr. Li-Cher LOH
Lung Research, Penang Medical College
JalanSepoy Lines, Penang 10450, Malaysia
Tel: (+604) 226 3459
Fax: (+604) 227 6529
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: March 21, 2012; Accepted date: March 23, 2012; Published March 25, 2012

Citation: Loh LC (2012) Risks of Long-Acting Beta-Agonist in Asthma-Perceived or Real?. J Pulmonar Respirat Med 2:e115. doi:10.4172/2161-105X.1000e115

Copyright: © 2012 Loh LC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine

The concern about safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) in asthma is not new and is a spill-over from that of short-acting β2- agonist. The consensus, and not conclusion, by regulatory authorities especially FDA of US, requires that LABA should be prescribed together with a regular asthma controlled medication such as inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). FDA, in their latest safety warning of 2010 [1], further recommends that the use of LABA should be limited whenever asthma control can be achieved on regular ICS alone.

However this remains as consensus because of ongoing debate as to the true nature of LABA risk in asthma. Following the trend of debate since approval of salmeterol by FDA in 1994, studies like Serevent Nationwide Surveillance study from UK [2] and Salmeterol Multicentre Asthma Research Trial (SMART) from US [3], favored the understanding that LABA increases asthma-related death. However the studies especially SMART are heavily criticized including its problematic recruitment and misclassification of death [4]. Several meta-analyses that were conducted based on combined clinical trial data did not reach satisfactory conclusion either [5-7]. One key argument against LABA's risk of death is that the observed incidence of such is already small and that they are not necessarily attributable to LABA use [7]. What is clear is simply the surprising lack of safety data on LABA from properly powered prospective studies to date. Such studies should include both adult and children, and have appropriate comparators. This lack has dismayed many including the regulatory authorities.

It is noteworthy that the clinical benefit of LABA in asthma remains strong and well tested over a decade now. It would seem illogical to remove a therapy that has such proven record. Its efficacies on symptom relieve and lung function improvement in persistent asthmatics is solid enough to be recommended as the standard first line add-on therapy to regular ICS. The argument that LABA masks underlying airway inflammation seems unfounded when it is combined with ICS. This is because combined ICS/LABA treatment further reduces frequency and severity of asthma exacerbation, and not the reverse [8,9]. This approach has become the normalcy in most asthma guidelines today and has revolutionized the landscape of asthma management beyond that of theophylline and oral corticosteroids that were historically the add-on for poorly controlled asthmatics on regular ICS alone. LABA as add-on appears the most effective among all other add-ons including leukotriene receptor antagonist [10]. For COPD, LABA is also increasingly shown to be a primary therapy that is safe [11]. This is relevant for older patients with chronic airways diseases where the delineation between asthma and COPD is not always clear. In fact, it has a practical importance that combined ICS and LABA treatment is now an effective therapy for both asthma and COPD of moderateto- severe severity. As such, from the treatment perspective for busy practicing clinicians, it is not overtly important to distinguish whether one has asthma or COPD or both in certain patients.

Given the current knowledge of the pros and cons in the debate of LABA safety, it is no surprise that any decision on LABA safety to date remains a consensus and arguable and that it is still unclear whether its risks are real or perceived. The regulatory requirement for the black box safety labeling to warn public and physicians of the possible risks is prudent and justifiable. Latest FDA recommendation to restrict the use of LABA should not be construed in a negative manner given that the jury is still out on the absolute safety of LABA prescribed for a disease as prevalent as asthma.


Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11540
  • [From(publication date):
    June-2012 - Oct 20, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7772
  • PDF downloads :3768

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version