1
|
Zhang Y, Wang X, Zhang H, Tang H, Hu H, Wang S, Wong VKW, Li Y, Deng J. Autophagy Modulators From Chinese Herbal Medicines: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potentials for Asthma. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12:710679. [PMID: 34366865 PMCID: PMC8342996 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.710679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Asthma has become a global health issue, suffering more than 300 million people in the world, which is a heterogeneous disease, usually characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airway hyperreactivity. Combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long acting β-agonists (LABA) can relieve asthma symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, especially for patients with refractory asthma, but there are limited treatment options for people who do not gain control on combination ICS/LABA. The increase in ICS dose generally provides little additional benefit, and there is an increased risk of side effects. Therefore, therapeutic interventions integrating the use of different agents that focus on different targets are needed to overcome this set of diseases. Some findings suggest autophagy is closely correlated with the severity of asthma through eosinophilic inflammation, and its modulation may provide novel therapeutic approaches for severe allergic asthma. The chinese herbal medicine (CHM) have been demonstrated clinically as potent therapeutic interventions for asthma. Moreover some reports have found that the bioactive components isolated from CHM could modulate autophagy, and exhibit potent Anti-inflammatory activity. These findings have implied the potential for CHMs in asthma or allergic inflammation therapy via the modulation of autophagy. In this review, we discuss the basic pathomechanisms underpinning asthma, and the potential role of CHMs in treating asthma with modulating autophagy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yun Zhang
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.,Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Xing Wang
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - He Zhang
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.,Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Hongmei Tang
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Hang Hu
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Songping Wang
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.,Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Vincent Kam Wai Wong
- Dr. Neher's Biophysics Laboratory for Innovative Drug Discovery, State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China
| | - Yuying Li
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.,Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| | - Jun Deng
- Inflammation and Allergic Diseases Research Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.,Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Janjua S, Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Cates CJ. Inhaled steroids with and without regular formoterol for asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD006924. [PMID: 31553802 PMCID: PMC6760886 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006924.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). OBJECTIVES To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone. SEARCH METHODS We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sadia Janjua
- St George's, University of LondonCochrane Airways, Population Health Research InstituteLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Stefanie Schmidt
- UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für UrologieNestorstr. 8‐9 (1. Hof)BerlinGermany10709
| | - Montse Ferrer
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute)Health Services Research GroupC/ Doctor Aiguader, 88BarcelonaSpain08003
| | - Christopher J Cates
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cates CJ, Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Sayer B, Waterson S. Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12:CD006922. [PMID: 30521673 PMCID: PMC6524619 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Stefanie Schmidt
- UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für UrologieNestorstr. 8‐9 (1. Hof)BerlinGermany10709
| | | | - Ben Sayer
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Samuel Waterson
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Spahn JD. Combination inhaled glucocorticoid/long-acting beta-agonist safety: The long and winding road. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2018; 121:428-433. [PMID: 30056153 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2018] [Revised: 07/22/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph D Spahn
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy/Immunology, University of Colorado Medical School, and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ortega VE, Meyers DA. Pharmacogenetics: implications of race and ethnicity on defining genetic profiles for personalized medicine. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133:16-26. [PMID: 24369795 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 139] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2013] [Revised: 10/22/2013] [Accepted: 10/23/2013] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Pharmacogenetics is being used to develop personalized therapies specific to subjects from different ethnic or racial groups. To date, pharmacogenetic studies have been primarily performed in trial cohorts consisting of non-Hispanic white subjects of European descent. A "bottleneck" or collapse of genetic diversity associated with the first human colonization of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period, followed by the recent mixing of African, European, and Native American ancestries, has resulted in different ethnic groups with varying degrees of genetic diversity. Differences in genetic ancestry might introduce genetic variation, which has the potential to alter the therapeutic efficacy of commonly used asthma therapies, such as β2-adrenergic receptor agonists (β-agonists). Pharmacogenetic studies of admixed ethnic groups have been limited to small candidate gene association studies, of which the best example is the gene coding for the receptor target of β-agonist therapy, the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2). Large consortium-based sequencing studies are using next-generation whole-genome sequencing to provide a diverse genome map of different admixed populations, which can be used for future pharmacogenetic studies. These studies will include candidate gene studies, genome-wide association studies, and whole-genome admixture-based approaches that account for ancestral genetic structure, complex haplotypes, gene-gene interactions, and rare variants to detect and replicate novel pharmacogenetic loci.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victor E Ortega
- Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Deborah A Meyers
- Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pharmacogenetics and the development of personalized approaches for combination therapy in asthma. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2014; 13:443-52. [PMID: 23912588 DOI: 10.1007/s11882-013-0372-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Asthma is a common, chronic disease of the airways that is treated with a combination of different therapies. The combination of LABA and ICS therapy results in a synergistic interaction that is efficacious in improving asthma symptom control; however, genetic variation has the potential to alter therapeutic efficacy. Both agents mediate complex molecular pathways consisting of gene variation that has been investigated with the analysis of candidate genes in the β2-adrenergic receptor and glucocorticoid pathway. These pharmacogenetic studies have been limited to retrospective analyses of clinical trial cohorts and a small number of prospective, genotype-stratified trials. More recently, genome-wide association studies in combination with replication in additional cohorts and in vitro cell-based models have been used to identify novel pathway-related pharmacogenetic variations. This review of the pharmacogenetics of the β2-adrenergic receptor and glucocorticoid pathways highlights the genotypic effects of variation in multiple genes from interacting pathways which may contribute to differential responses to inhaled beta agonists and glucocorticoids. As our understanding of these genetic mechanisms improves, panels of biomarkers may be developed to determine which combination therapies are the most effective with the least risk to an individual asthma patient. Before we can usher in an era of personalized medicine for asthma, it is first important to improve our ability to analyze large volumes of genetic data in large clinical trial cohorts using a combination of study designs, analytical methods, and in vitro functional studies.
Collapse
|
7
|
Chauhan BF, Ducharme FM. Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD003137. [PMID: 24459050 PMCID: PMC10514761 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003137.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS. OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary. MAIN RESULTS We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte‐JustineClinical Research Unit on Childhood Asthma3175, Cote Sainte‐CatherineMontrealCanada
| | - Francine M Ducharme
- University of MontrealDepartment of PaediatricsMontrealQuébecCanada
- CHU Sainte‐JustineResearch CentreMontrealCanada
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kew KM, Karner C, Mindus SM, Ferrara G. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD009019. [PMID: 24343671 PMCID: PMC8949777 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009019.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality). MAIN RESULTS Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kayleigh M Kew
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Sciences and EducationCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | | - Stephanie M Mindus
- Karolinska University Hospital SolnaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and AllergyStockholmSwedenSE‐171 76
| | - Giovanni Ferrara
- Karolinska University Hospital SolnaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and AllergyStockholmSwedenSE‐171 76
- Karolinska InstitutetRespiratory Medicine Unit, Department of MedicineStockholmSweden
- University of PerugiaSection of Respiratory Diseases, Department of Internal MedicinePerugiaItaly
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cates CJ, Jaeschke R, Schmidt S, Ferrer M. Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD006924. [PMID: 23744625 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006924.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. SEARCH METHODS Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cates CJ, Karner C. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD007313. [PMID: 23633340 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007313.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT). OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded.In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias).Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence).One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm).The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials.Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT.Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Zhong N, Lin J, Mehta P, Ngamjanyaporn P, Wu TC, Yunus F. Real-life effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma patients across Asia: SMARTASIA study. BMC Pulm Med 2013; 13:22. [PMID: 23557023 PMCID: PMC3637584 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-13-22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2012] [Accepted: 03/15/2013] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for both maintenance and reliever therapy is a recommended option for treatment of persistent asthma not responding well to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone. METHODS This was a multi-centre open-label study on patients whose asthma condition remained inadequately controlled by various asthma treatments other than budesonide/formoterol. After a 2-week run-in period, eligible patients underwent a 12-week treatment period with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort SMART(®), 160/4.5 μg) twice daily plus as needed. Patient's asthma control and quality of life were assessed using the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) and the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), respectively. RESULTS A total of 862 eligible asthma patients who have had asthma for a mean duration of 10.73 ± 12.03 years entered a 12-week treatment with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. During treatment, ACQ-5 score improved significantly by 0.58 ± 0.93 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.64, P < 0.0001) from the baseline level of 1.62 ± 1.00. AQLQ(S) score improved by 0.70 ± 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.76, P < 0.0001) from baseline. Asthma symptom score was also reduced significantly (P < 0.0001); between run-in and treatment periods, night- and day-time symptom scores were reduced by 0.32 ± 0.54 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.35) and 0.30 ± 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.34), respectively. The percentage of nights with awakenings due to asthma symptoms was reduced by 11.09 ± 26.13% (95% CI, 9.34 to 12.85%), while the percentage of asthma-control and symptom-free days increased by 20.90 ± 34.40% (95% CI, 18.59 to 23.21%) and 23.89 ± 34.62% (95% CI, 21.56 to 26.21%), respectively (P < 0.0001). Together with the improvement in asthma control, the number of night- and day-time inhalations of as-needed reliever medication decreased by 0.30 ± 0.82 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.35) inhalations and 0.30 ± 0.97 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.36) inhalations, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION During treatment of inadequately controlled asthmatic patients with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, significant improvement in patients' asthma control and reductions in asthma symptoms and as-needed medication use was observed. Patients' quality of life was improved and the treatment was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrial.gov: (NCT00939341).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nanshan Zhong
- Respiratory Research Institute, 1st Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou, China
| | | | - Parthiv Mehta
- Mehta’s Hospital and Cardiopulmonary Care Centre, Gujarat, India
| | - Pintip Ngamjanyaporn
- Allergy Immunology and Rheumatology Division, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Tzu-Chin Wu
- Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Faisal Yunus
- Department of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia, Persahabatan Hospital, Persahabatan, Indonesia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Cates CJ, Jaeschke R, Schmidt S, Ferrer M. Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD006922. [PMID: 23543548 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVES To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists. SEARCH METHODS We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3:CD007695. [PMID: 22419326 PMCID: PMC4015850 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007695.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews. OBJECTIVES We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol. SEARCH METHODS We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers' websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled, parallel-design clinical trials on patients of any age and with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors. MAIN RESULTS The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s University of London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Combined Beta-agonists and corticosteroids do not inhibit extracellular matrix protein production in vitro. J Allergy (Cairo) 2012; 2012:403059. [PMID: 22500185 PMCID: PMC3303634 DOI: 10.1155/2012/403059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2011] [Accepted: 10/31/2011] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Persistent asthma is characterized by airway remodeling. Whereas we have previously shown that neither β(2)-agonists nor corticosteroids inhibit extracellular matrix (ECM) protein release from airway smooth muscle (ASM) cells, the effect of their combination is unknown and this forms the rationale for the present study. Methods. ASM cells from people with and without asthma were stimulated with TGFβ1 (1 ng/ml) with or without budesonide (10(-8) M) and formoterol (10(-10) and 10(-8) M), and fibronectin expression and IL-6 release were measured by ELISA. Bronchial rings from nonasthmatic individuals were incubated with TGFβ1 (1 ng/ml) with or without the drugs, and fibronectin expression was measured using immunohistochemistry. Results. Budesonide stimulated fibronectin deposition, in the presence or absence of TGFβ1, and this was partially reversed by formoterol (10(-8) M) in both asthmatic and nonasthmatic cells. Budesonide and formoterol in combination failed to inhibit TGFβ-induced fibronectin in either cell type. A similar pattern of expression of fibronectin was seen in bronchial rings. TGFβ1-induced IL-6 release was inhibited by the combination of drugs. Conclusion. Current combination asthma therapies are unable to prevent or reverse remodeling events regulated by ASM cells.
Collapse
|
16
|
Lasserson TJ, Ferrara G, Casali L. Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD004106. [PMID: 22161385 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004106.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice. OBJECTIVES To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby J Lasserson
- Cochrane Editorial Unit, The Cochrane Collaboration, 13 Cavendish Square, London, UK, W1G 0AN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
van Aalderen WMC, Sprikkelman AB. Inhaled corticosteroids in childhood asthma: the story continues. Eur J Pediatr 2011; 170:709-18. [PMID: 20931226 PMCID: PMC3098975 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-010-1319-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2010] [Accepted: 09/20/2010] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of persistent asthma in children. Treatment with ICS decreases asthma mortality and morbidity, reduces symptoms, improves lung function, reduces bronchial hyperresponsiveness and reduces the number of exacerbations. The efficacy of ICS in preschool wheezing is controversial. A recent task force from the European Respiratory Society on preschool wheeze defined two different phenotypes: episodic viral wheeze, wheeze that occurs only during respiratory viral infections, and multiple-trigger wheeze, where wheeze also occurs in between viral episodes. Treatment with ICS appears to be more efficacious in the latter phenotype. Small particle ICS may offer a potential benefit in preschool children because of the favourable spray characteristics. However, the efficacy of small particle ICS in preschool children has not yet been evaluated in prospective clinical trials. The use of ICS in school children with asthma is safe with regard to systemic side effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, growth and bone metabolism, when used in low to medium doses. Although safety data in wheezing preschoolers is limited, the data are reassuring. Also for this age group, adverse events tend to be minimal when the ICS is used in appropriate doses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wim M. C. van Aalderen
- Department of Paediatric Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Emma Children’s Hospital AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aline B. Sprikkelman
- Department of Paediatric Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Emma Children’s Hospital AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Kelly HW. Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: double for nothing? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 128:278-281.e2. [PMID: 21621831 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2010] [Revised: 04/27/2011] [Accepted: 05/05/2011] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Two recent trials from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's asthma clinical trials networks raise a concern about using double the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a positive control arm in clinical trials of add-on therapy. The literature evaluating the response to doubling the dose of an ICS is briefly reviewed. The vast majority of studies do not demonstrate a significant positive benefit from doubling the dose of an ICS but do show improvement with 4-fold increases that is equal to or greater than that of add-on long-acting bronchodilators. It is recommended that doubling the dose of an ICS no longer be considered a positive comparator arm in clinical trials, although it might be beneficial in individual patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H William Kelly
- Department of Pediatrics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid as maintenance and reliever therapy versus higher dose combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2011. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
20
|
Bailey CD, Wagland R, Dabbour R, Caress A, Smith J, Molassiotis A. An integrative review of systematic reviews related to the management of breathlessness in respiratory illnesses. BMC Pulm Med 2010; 10:63. [PMID: 21143887 PMCID: PMC3016307 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-10-63] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2010] [Accepted: 12/09/2010] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breathlessness is a debilitating and distressing symptom in a wide variety of diseases and still a difficult symptom to manage. An integrative review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in non-malignant disease was undertaken to identify the current state of clinical understanding of the management of breathlessness and highlight promising interventions that merit further investigation. METHODS Systematic reviews were identified via electronic databases between July 2007 and September 2009. Reviews were included within the study if they reported research on adult participants using either a measure of breathlessness or some other measure of respiratory symptoms. RESULTS In total 219 systematic reviews were identified and 153 included within the final review, of these 59 addressed non-pharmacological interventions and 94 addressed pharmacological interventions. The reviews covered in excess of 2000 trials. The majority of systematic reviews were conducted on interventions for asthma and COPD, and mainly focussed upon a small number of pharmacological interventions such as corticosteroids and bronchodilators, including beta-agonists. In contrast, other conditions involving breathlessness have received little or no attention and studies continue to focus upon pharmacological approaches. Moreover, although there are a number of non-pharmacological studies that have shown some promise, particularly for COPD, their conclusions are limited by a lack of good quality evidence from RCTs, small sample sizes and limited replication. CONCLUSIONS More research should focus in the future on the management of breathlessness in respiratory diseases other than asthma and COPD. In addition, pharmacological treatments do not completely manage breathlessness and have an added burden of side effects. It is therefore important to focus more research on promising non-pharmacological interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris D Bailey
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | - Richard Wagland
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | - Rasha Dabbour
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Ann Caress
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Jaclyn Smith
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK & Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center, Boston, USA
| | - Alex Molassiotis
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. J Pediatr 2010; 157:322-330.e17. [PMID: 20434730 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.02.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2009] [Revised: 01/15/2010] [Accepted: 02/09/2010] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. STUDY DESIGN We identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2007) meta-analyses with data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized trial with binary primary efficacy outcome. For each meta-analysis, we calculated the summary odds ratio of the adult trials and the pediatric trials, respectively; the relative odds ratio (ROR) of the adult versus pediatric odds ratios per meta-analysis; and the summary ROR across all meta-analyses. ROR <1 means that the experimental intervention is more unfavorable in children than adults. RESULTS Across 128 eligible meta-analyses (1051 adult and 343 pediatric trials), the summary ROR did not show a statistically significant difference between adults and children (0.96; 95% confidence intervals, 0.86 to 1.08). However, in all meta-analyses except for 1, the individual ROR's 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in efficacy over 20%. In two-thirds, the relative difference in observed point estimates exceeded 50%. Nine statistically significant discrepancies were identified; 4 of them were also clinically important. CONCLUSIONS Treatment effects are on average similar in adults and children, but available evidence leaves large uncertainty about their relative efficacy. Clinically important discrepancies may occur.
Collapse
|
22
|
24-h bronchodilator efficacy of single doses of indacaterol in Japanese patients with asthma: a comparison with placebo and salmeterol. Respir Med 2010; 104:1629-37. [PMID: 20619623 DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2010] [Revised: 06/11/2010] [Accepted: 06/14/2010] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled once-daily ultra-long-acting beta-2 agonist under development as a fixed-dose combination with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for asthma treatment. This study evaluated the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol in Japanese patients with asthma. METHODS Randomised, placebo-controlled, 5-period crossover study. Patients with persistent asthma (18-75 years, FEV(1) 50-85% predicted, ≥12% and 200 mL FEV(1) reversibility) receiving ICS were randomised to double-blind single dose indacaterol 150, 300, or 600 μg or placebo, with open-label salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily for one day in the 5(th) period. Primary endpoint was FEV(1)AUC(22-24h). RESULTS Of 41 randomised patients (48.8% male; mean age: 47.8 years), 39 completed. All indacaterol doses showed significantly higher FEV(1)AUC(22-24h) than placebo (P<0.001), with treatment-placebo differences of 180, 220, and 260 mL for indacaterol 150, 300, and 600 μg, respectively (salmeterol-placebo difference 170 mL; P < 0.001). For individual time-point FEV(1), all indacaterol doses were superior to placebo from 5 min to 24h post-dose (P < 0.001). Compared with salmeterol, all indacaterol doses were superior from 5 to 30 min (P < 0.05); in addition indacaterol 300 μg and 600 μg were superior at a number of subsequent time points. Changes in safety parameters with indacaterol were similar to placebo. All indacaterol doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSION Single dose indacaterol provided sustained 24-h bronchodilation with a faster onset of action than salmeterol and a good overall safety and tolerability profile in Japanese patients with asthma. These results are consistent with data from Caucasian populations.
Collapse
|
23
|
Liao MM, Ginde AA, Clark S, Camargo CA. Salmeterol use and risk of hospitalization among emergency department patients with acute asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2010; 104:478-84. [PMID: 20568379 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2010.04.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The safety of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) in the treatment of chronic asthma remains controversial and has not been evaluated in emergency department (ED) patients with acute asthma. OBJECTIVE To determine whether ED patients undergoing long-term LABA therapy would have increased risk of asthma-related hospitalization compared with those not undergoing LABA therapy and whether concurrent long-term inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy would mitigate this risk. METHODS Prospective cohort study of patients aged 12 to 54 years with acute asthma in 115 EDs. Four patient groups were created based on their asthma regimen: no ICS or salmeterol (group A), salmeterol monotherapy (group B), ICS monotherapy (group C), and combination ICS and salmeterol (group D). RESULTS Of the 2,236 included patients, group A had 1,221 patients (55%), group B had 48 patients (2%), group C had 787 patients (35%), and group D had 180 patients (8%); 489 patients (22%) required hospitalization. In a multivariable model controlling for 20 factors and using group A as the reference, group B had an increased risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-4.9), whereas groups C (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5) and D (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.9) did not. CONCLUSION Among ED patients with acute asthma, those undergoing salmeterol monotherapy had an increased risk of hospitalization; however, this risk was not seen among patients undergoing combination ICS-salmeterol therapy. Our findings provide data from a unique ED population on clinical response to acute asthma treatment among patients undergoing long-term LABA therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael M Liao
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Ducharme FM, Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ. Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD005535. [PMID: 20464739 PMCID: PMC4169792 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005535.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above. OBJECTIVES To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone. SEARCH STRATEGY We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | | | | | - Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Elers J, Strandbygaard U, Pedersen L, Backer V. Daily use of salmeterol causes tolerance to bronchodilation with terbutaline in asthmatic subjects. Open Respir Med J 2010; 4:48-50. [PMID: 20556208 PMCID: PMC2885602 DOI: 10.2174/1874306401004010048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2009] [Revised: 12/30/2009] [Accepted: 03/18/2010] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The purpose was to assess tolerance to terbutaline after daily use of long-acting β2- agonist (LABA) and further to evaluate two designs of reversibility test widely used in research and clinic in order to demonstrate tolerance. Methods: Twenty-eight asthmatics were given daily LABA in 12 weeks and were randomized to challenge test and either conventional reversibility test with 2 puffs terbutaline or reversibility test with refracted doses (1 puff) every 5 min, total 4 puffs. FEV1 was measured pre-challenge, post-challenge, during and after reversibility test. All subjects had 3 visits: baseline, after 4 weeks and after 12 weeks of LABA treatment. All subjects were non-smokers, aged 18–45 years and had a positive methacholine challenge. Results: The analyses showed a significant fall in reversibility after 4 and 12 weeks of LABA treatment (p=0.001) in the group with the conventional reversibility test. The group with reversibility test using refracted doses also showed a significant fall in reversibility after 4 weeks of LABA treatment (p=0.017) followed by a similar trend after 12 weeks (p=0.054), however, we experienced an interfering number of dropouts at the last visit. Conclusion: The bronchodilator response to terbutaline was significantly reduced in asthmatic subjects using daily LABA. The tolerance develops rapidly and is present after 4 weeks of treatment. Our study showed that both the conventional reversibility test and the reversibility test with refracted doses, combined with methacholine challenge is able to demonstrate tolerance to bronchodilator after daily use of LABA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jimmi Elers
- Respiratory and Allergy Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Ducharme FM, Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ. Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD005533. [PMID: 20393943 PMCID: PMC4169793 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005533.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option. SEARCH STRATEGY We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. MAIN RESULTS This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | | | | | - Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
FitzGerald JM, Shahidi N. Achieving asthma control in patients with moderate disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125:307-11. [PMID: 20159239 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.12.978] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2009] [Revised: 12/07/2009] [Accepted: 12/08/2009] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Patients with moderate asthma are symptomatic on an ongoing basis. They are usually treated initially with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) supplemented with a short-acting bronchodilator as a rescue medication. Most steroid-naive patients will achieve good control with this strategy. For patients in whom adherence, inhaler technique, environmental control, and comorbidities have been addressed but who still have uncontrolled symptoms, the addition of a long-acting beta-adrenergic agonist should be considered. Some patients might require a higher dose of ICS. Leukotriene receptor antagonists might be considered as alternate initial therapy or as an add-on to maintenance therapy with an ICS. All patients should receive a structured education program emphasizing the need for ongoing maintenance treatment, even when control is achieved. Patients should also be provided with a written action plan that clearly explains which additional anti-inflammatory therapy should be taken if asthma symptoms worsen. The most effective strategy in this situation has been shown to be the quadrupling of the maintenance dose of ICS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Mark FitzGerald
- University of British Columbia Respiratory Division and the Centre for Lung Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ, Ducharme FM. Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD005307. [PMID: 19821344 PMCID: PMC4170786 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005307.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2). SEARCH STRATEGY We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Francine M Ducharme
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007695. [PMID: 19821436 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007695.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews. OBJECTIVES We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was January 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors. MAIN RESULTS Four studies were included in the review (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 mug versus salmeterol 50 mug twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma), and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six month period in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis the percentage with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a 3 month period the percentage of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol, and 1.3% for salmeterol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Four studies have been identified comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all subjects were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ, Jaeschke R. Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD006922. [PMID: 19588410 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. MAIN RESULTS The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Ni Chroinin M, Lasserson TJ, Greenstone I, Ducharme FM. Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007949. [PMID: 19588447 PMCID: PMC4167878 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children. OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. MAIN RESULTS A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Beasley R, Martinez FD, Hackshaw A, Rabe KF, Sterk PJ, Djukanovic R. Safety of long-acting beta-agonists: urgent need to clear the air remains. Eur Respir J 2009; 33:3-5. [PMID: 19118222 DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00163408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
|
33
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ, Jaeschke R. Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD006924. [PMID: 19370661 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006924.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. MAIN RESULTS The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)].Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007313. [PMID: 19370682 PMCID: PMC4053857 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007313.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has been considered as preventer and reliever therapy. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in a single inhaler introduces the possibility of using a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy). OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to compare formoterol and corticosteroid in single inhaler for maintenance and relief of symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids for maintenance and a separate reliever inhaler. SEARCH STRATEGY We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in September 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with chronic asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS Five studies on 5,378 adults compared single inhaler therapy with current best practice, and did not show a significant reduction in participants with exacerbations causing hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.45) or treated with oral steroids (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). Three of these studies on 4281 adults did not show a significant reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07). These trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids with single inhaler therapy (mean reduction ranged from 107 to 267 micrograms/day, but the trial results were not combined due to heterogeneity). The full results from four further studies on 4,600 adults comparing single inhaler therapy with current best practice are awaited.Three studies including 4,209 adults compared single inhaler therapy with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. No significant reduction was found with single inhaler therapy in the risk of patients suffering an asthma exacerbation leading to hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09), but fewer patients on single inhaler therapy needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64). These results translate into an eleven month number needed to treat of 14 (95% CI 12 to 18), to prevent one patient being treated with oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of long-acting beta(2)-agonists, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in.One study included children (N = 224), in which single inhaler therapy was compared to higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with single inhaler therapy, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the single inhaler therapy group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the single inhaler therapy group, [95% CI 0.3 to 1.7 cm].There was no significant difference found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroids. Guidelines and common best practice suggest the addition of regular long-acting beta(2)-agonist to inhaled corticosteroids for uncontrolled asthma, and single inhaler therapy has not been demonstrated to significantly reduce exacerbations in comparison with current best practice, although results of five large trials are awaiting full publication. Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2009. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
|
36
|
Abstract
Management decisions for pediatric asthma (in patients younger than 12 years of age) based on extrapolation from available evidence in adolescents and adults (age 12 years and older) is common but rarely appropriate. This article addresses the disparity in response between the two age groups, presents the available pediatric evidence, and highlights the important areas in which further research is required. Evidence-based recommendations for acute and interval management of pediatric asthma are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul D Robinson
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid versus beta2-agonist as relief medication for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 2009:CD007085. [PMID: 19160317 PMCID: PMC4023854 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007085.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Formoterol has a fast onset of action and can therefore be used to relieve symptoms of asthma. A combination inhaler can deliver formoterol with different doses of inhaled corticosteroid; when used as a reliever both drugs will be delivered more frequently when asthma symptoms increase. This has the potential to treat both bronchoconstriction and inflammation in the early stages of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of combined inhalers containing both formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid when used for reliever therapy in adults and children with chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in April 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials in adults and children with chronic asthma, where a combination inhaler containing formoterol and inhaled corticosteroid is compared with fast-acting beta2-agonist alone for the relief of asthma symptoms. This should be the only planned difference between the trial arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS Three trials involving 5905 participants were included. In patients with mild asthma who do not need maintenance treatment, no clinically important advantages of budesonide/formoterol as reliever were found in comparison to formoterol as reliever.Two studies enrolled patients with more severe asthma who were not controlled on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (around 700 mcg/day in adults), and had suffered a clinically important asthma exacerbation in the past year. Hospitalisations related to asthma in the two studies comparing budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with the same dose of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance with terbutaline for relief yielded an odds ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.16), which was not a statistically significant reduction. One adult study found a reduction in exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids compared to terbutaline, odds ratio 0.56 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and the study in children found less serious adverse events with budesonide/formoterol used for maintenance and relief. There was no significant difference in annual growth in children using budesonide/formoterol reliever in comparison to terbutaline. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In mild asthma it is not yet known whether patients who use a budesonide/formoterol inhaler for relief of asthma symptoms derive any clinically important benefits. In more severe asthma, one study that enrolled patients who were not controlled on quite high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and had suffered an exacerbation in the previous year, demonstrated a reduction in the risk of exacerbations that require oral corticosteroids with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in comparison with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and terbutaline or formoterol for relief. The incidence of serious adverse events in children was also less using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in one study, which similarly enrolled children who were not controlled on medium to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and compared to terbutaline relief with an explorative maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol that is not approved for treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
|
39
|
Plint AC, Russell K, Bjornson CL, Rowe BH. The Cochrane Libraryand Long-Acting Beta-agonist Treatment for Childhood Asthma: An Overview of Reviews. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2008. [DOI: 10.1002/ebch.282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
40
|
Rodrigo GJ, Moral VP, Marcos LG, Castro-Rodriguez JA. Safety of regular use of long-acting beta agonists as monotherapy or added to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. A systematic review. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2008; 22:9-19. [PMID: 19026757 DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2008.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2008] [Revised: 09/21/2008] [Accepted: 10/11/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Safety of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) has been questioned and recent evidence suggested a detrimental effect on asthma control as well as an increased risk of death. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety of regular use of LABA compared with placebo or LABA added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared with ICS in persistent asthma. METHODS Randomized studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were identified. Additionally, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and FDA clinical trials databases were searched. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations (AE) requiring systemic corticosteroids or hospitalization, life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths. RESULTS We identified 92 randomized clinical trials with 74,092 subjects. LABA (as monotherapy) reduced exacerbations requiring corticosteroids (Relative Risk [RR]=0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), without detrimental effects on hospitalizations or life-threatening episodes. Contrarily, LABA showed a significant increase in asthma-related deaths (Relative Risk=3.83; 95% CI, 1.21-12.14). Subgroup analysis suggests that children, patients receiving salmeterol, and a duration of treatment>12 weeks are associated with a higher risk of serious adverse effects; also there was a protective effect of concomitant use of ICS. On the other hand, combination of LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and hospitalizations (RR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Combined therapy was also equivalent to ICS in terms of life-threatening episodes and asthma-related deaths. Again, children and use of salmeterol were associated with an increased risk of some severe outcomes as compared with adults and formoterol users, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This review reinforced the international recommendations in terms of the use of LABA remains the preferred add-on therapy to ICS for patients whose disease cannot adequately controlled with ICS, and that LABA cannot be prescribed as a monotherapy. Nevertheless, in spite of the protective effect of the ICS, children and salmeterol use still show an increased risk of non-fatal serious adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo J Rodrigo
- Departamento de Emergencia, Hospital Central de las Fuerzas Armadas, Av. 8 de Octubre 3020, Montevideo 11600, Uruguay.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Blais L, Beauchesne MF, Forget A. Acute care among asthma patients using budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. Respir Med 2008; 103:237-43. [PMID: 18930647 DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2008] [Revised: 08/29/2008] [Accepted: 09/01/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists has become the standard therapy for many patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. Whether the differences between budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol translate into differences in treatment outcomes in a real life setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES This study compared the use of healthcare services between new users of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol in a single inhaler between 2002 and 2004. METHODS A 12-month population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health care databases was conducted. Asthma patients 16-65 years of age using budesonide/formoterol were matched according to age and markers of asthma severity to patients using fluticasone/salmeterol. The rate of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma, hospitalizations for asthma, claims for oral corticosteroids, and visits to a respiratory specialist were compared between the two groups using Poisson regression models. The mean number of doses of short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists (SABA) per week was compared between the two groups using a linear regression model. RESULTS Users of budesonide/formoterol were found to be less likely to have an ED visit for asthma (adjusted RR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.96), a hospitalization for asthma (adjusted RR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.25-0.99), a claim for oral corticosteroids (adjusted RR=0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.95), and use SABA (adjusted mean difference=-1.1 dose per week; 95% CI: -1.7; -0.5) than patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol. CONCLUSION Our study has found that subjects initiating ICS/LABA treatment with budesonide/formoterol had better outcomes than those initiating treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucie Blais
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Cates CJ, Cates MJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD006923. [PMID: 18843738 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006923.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought. MAIN RESULTS The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Jaeschke R, O'Byrne PM, Mejza F, Nair P, Lesniak W, Brozek J, Thabane L, Cheng J, Schünemann HJ, Sears MR, Guyatt G. The safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 178:1009-16. [PMID: 18776152 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200804-494oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
RATIONALE Inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), when used as monotherapy in asthma, may increase asthma-related hospitalizations, life threatening events requiring intubation/mechanical ventilation, and asthma-related deaths, but concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may modify this effect. OBJECTIVES To determine the safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using corticosteroids. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of parallel-group, blinded, randomized, controlled trials with at least 12 weeks of treatment addressing the impact of LABA on asthma-related and total morbidity and mortality in patients concomitantly using ICS. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, and Cochrane (Central) databases, and contacted authors and sponsors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We used a random effects model to pool results from different studies as odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) (OR < 1.0 favors LABA). The search yielded 62 relevant studies included in this analysis. Among over 29,000 participants (15,710 taking LABA, with over 8,000 patient-years observed in the LABA groups), there were three asthma-related deaths and two asthma-related, nonfatal intubations (all in LABA groups; <or= one event per study). Differences in asthma-related hospitalizations (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03) and asthma-related serious adverse events (mostly hospitalizations; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03) failed to reach statistical significance. The OR for total mortality was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.58-2.74), reflecting 14 deaths in LABA groups and eight deaths in control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with asthma using ICS, LABA did not increase the risk of asthma-related hospitalizations. There were very few asthma-related deaths and intubations, and events were too infrequent to establish LABA's relative effect on these outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roman Jaeschke
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Lasserson TJ, Cates CJ, Ferrara G, Casali L. Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD004106. [PMID: 18646100 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004106.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis. OBJECTIVES To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants). PRIMARY OUTCOMES The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). SECONDARY OUTCOMES Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, UK, SW17 ORE.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data was extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events was sought. MAIN RESULTS The review includes 26 trials comparing salmeterol to placebo and 8 trials comparing with salbutamol. These included 62,630 participants with asthma (including 2,380 children). In 6 trials (2,766 patients), no serious adverse event data could be obtained. All cause mortality was higher with regular salmeterol than placebo but the increase was not significant, Odds Ratio 1.33 [95% CI: 0.85, 2.10]. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular salmeterol was compared with placebo, Odds Ratio 1.14 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.28]. One extra serious adverse event occurred over 28 weeks for every 188 people treated with regular salmeterol [95% CI: 95 to 2606]. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the risk in children is higher or lower than in adults. No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular salmeterol was compared with regular salbutamol. Individual patient data from the SNS study have been combined with the results of the SMART study; in patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids, compared to regular salbutamol or placebo, there was a significant increase in risk of asthma-related death with regular salmeterol, Odds Ratio 9.52 [95% CI: 1.24, 73.09]. The confidence interval for patients taking inhaled corticosteroids is too wide to rule out an increase in asthma mortality in this group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular salmeterol. There is also a clear increase in risk of asthma-related mortality in patients not using inhaled corticosteroids in the two large surveillance studies. Although the increase in asthma-related mortality was smaller in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids at baseline, the confidence interval is wide, so it cannot be concluded that the inhaled corticosteroids abolish the risks of regular salmeterol. The adverse effects of regular salmeterol in children remain uncertain due to the small number of children studied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Hanania NA. Targeting airway inflammation in asthma: current and future therapies. Chest 2008; 133:989-98. [PMID: 18398119 DOI: 10.1378/chest.07-0829] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airway that requires long-term antiinflammatory therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended for first-line treatment of persistent disease, but not all patients achieve asthma control even when these agents are used in high doses and in combination with other medications, including a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or a leukotriene modifier. Such patients may require additional therapy. As information about asthma pathophysiology and inflammatory phenotypes continues to increase, and additional antiinflammatory options become available, it may be possible to target antiinflammatory therapy to various aspects of the disease and consequently to improve the treatment of patients with inadequate responses to standard ICS-based therapy. Several novel antiinflammatory therapies are in different stages of clinical development. The most clinically advanced of these is omalizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets IgE and is indicated for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma caused by allergies. Omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma and documented evidence of allergen sensitivity. Other key therapy options in clinical development either target proinflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin-4 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) or inflammatory cells (eg, T-helper type 2 cells and eosinophils). This review provides an overview of the current and future approaches targeting airway inflammation in patients with asthma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola A Hanania
- Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Asthma Clinical Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Ortega VE, Hawkins GA, Peters SP, Bleecker ER. Pharmacogenetics of the beta 2-adrenergic receptor gene. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2008; 27:665-84; vii. [PMID: 17996583 DOI: 10.1016/j.iac.2007.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Asthma is a complex genetic disease with multiple genetic and environmental determinants contributing to the observed variability in response to common antiasthma therapies. One focus of asthma pharmacogenetic research has been the beta2-adrenergic receptor gene (ADR beta 2) and its effect on individual responses to beta agonist therapy. Knowledge about the effects of ADR beta 2 variation on therapeutic responses is evolving and should not alter current Asthma Guideline approaches, which consist of the use of short-acting beta agonists (SABAs) for as-needed symptom-based therapy and the use of a regular long-acting beta agonist (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroid therapy for those asthmatics whose symptoms are not controlled by inhaled corticosteroid alone. These approaches are based upon studies showing a consistent pharmacogenetic response to regular use of SABAs and less consistent findings in studies evaluating LABAs. The emerging pharmacogenetic studies are provocative and should lead to functional studies. Meanwhile, the conflicting data concerning LABAs may be caused by such factors as small sample sizes of study populations and differences in experimental design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victor E Ortega
- Center for Human Genomics, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Synthèse : Imputabilité des bronchodilatateurs de longue durée d’action dans la survenue des exacerbations sévères et des décès liés à l’asthme. Rev Mal Respir 2008. [DOI: 10.1016/s0761-8425(08)74807-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
49
|
Cates CJ, Cates MJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2008. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
50
|
Cates CJ, Cates MJ, Lasserson T. Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2008. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006923] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
|