Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Diagnoses and prescription patterns among users of medications for obstructive airway diseases in Finland

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases mostly treated in primary care. However, the usage patterns of drugs for obstructive airway diseases (R03 drugs) at the national level are not known.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to describe (1) for which diagnoses each class of R03 drugs were used, (2) the usage pattern of different drug classes for asthma and COPD, and (3) how often these medications were used without a diagnosis of asthma or COPD in Finland.

METHODS

We sent questionnaires that included questions on physician-diagnosed asthma and COPD to a random sample of 2000 Finnish subjects who had been dispensed R03 medications in the previous year. Details of R03 medications dispensed were retrieved from national registries.

RESULTS

Altogether, 803 subjects (40.6%) responded. Of these, 61.6% had asthma, 5.7% had both asthma and COPD, 5.1% had COPD, and 27.5% had neither asthma nor COPD. Among subjects with asthma or asthma and COPD, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were the most frequently dispensed class of drugs (93.7% and 97.8%, respectively). Even among subjects with COPD, ICS were dispensed as frequently (68.3%) as long-acting bronchodilators (70.7%). Antileukotrienes were dispensed mainly to asthmatic individuals only (18.4%) but far less frequently than ICS. The use of theophylline and roflumilast was rare.

CONCLUSIONS

R03 medications are dispensed far more frequently for asthma than for COPD and often also for subjects without asthma or COPD. In line with guidelines, asthma is treated mainly with ICS, but there seems to be overuse of ICS for COPD.

Might It Be Appropriate to Anticipate the Use of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in Asthma?

A growing number of clinical trials are documenting that adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to established asthma treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) is a treatment option that improves the health of patients with uncontrolled severe asthma even when therapy is optimized. These favorable results are the reason why the leading guidelines recommend triple therapy with ICS + LABA + LAMA in patients with asthma uncontrolled by medium- to high-dose ICS-LABA. However, we suggest adding LAMAs to ICS-LABAs at an earlier clinical stage. Such action could positively influence airflow limitation, exacerbations, and eosinophilic inflammation, conditions that are associated with acetylcholine (ACh) activity. It could also interrupt the vicious cycle related to a continuous release of ACh leading to the progressive expansion of neuronal plasticity resulting in small airway dysfunction. The utility of an earlier use of triple therapy in asthma should, in any case, be confirmed by statistically powered trials.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.