Cost comparison of beta 2-agonist bronchodilators used in the treatment of asthma

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus theophylline for maintenance treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Theophylline and long acting beta-2 agonists are bronchodilators used for the management of persistent asthma symptoms, especially nocturnal asthma. They represent different classes of drug with differing side-effect profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy, safety and side-effects of long-acting beta-2 agonists and theophylline in the maintenance treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of identified RCTs for other relevant published and unpublished studies and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Most recent search: November 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All included studies were RCTs involving adults and children with clinical evidence of asthma. These studies must have compared oral sustained release and/or dose adjusted theophylline with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In original review, two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, similarly in this update two reviewers undertook this. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 1344 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review. They were of varying quality. There was no significant difference between salmeterol and theophylline in FEV(1) predicted (6.5%; 95% CI -0.84 to 13.83). However, salmeterol treatment led to significantly better morning PEF (mean difference 16.71 L/min, 95% CI 8.91 to 24.51) and evening PEF (mean difference 15.58 L/min, 95% CI 8.33 to 22.83). Salmeterol also reduced the use of rescue medication. Formoterol, used in two studies was reported to be as effective as theophylline. Bitolterol, used in only one study, was reported to be less effective than theophylline. Participants taking salmeterol experienced fewer adverse events than those using theophylline (Parallel studies: Relative Risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.63, Risk Difference -0.11; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.07, Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) 9; 95% CI 6 to 14). Significant reductions were reported for central nervous system adverse events (Relative Risk 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86, Risk Difference -0.07; 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, NNT 14; 95% CI 8 to 50) and gastrointestinal adverse events (Relative Risk 0.30; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55, Risk Difference -0.11; 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06, NNT 9; 95% CI 6 to 16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting beta-2 agonists, particularly salmeterol, are more effective than theophylline in improving morning and evening PEF, but are not significantly different in their effect on FEV1. There is evidence of decreased daytime and nighttime short-acting beta-2 agonist requirement with salmeterol. Fewer adverse events occurred in participants using long-acting beta-2 agonists (salmeterol and formoterol) as compared to theophylline.

Long acting beta-agonists versus theophylline for maintenance treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Theophylline and long acting beta-2 agonists are bronchodilators used for the management of persistent asthma symptoms, especially nocturnal asthma. They represent different classes of drug with differing side-effect profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy, safety and side-effects of long-acting beta-2 agonists and theophylline in the maintenance treatment of asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group register. The register was searched using the following terms: asthma and theophylline and long acting beta-agonist or formoterol or foradile or eformoterol or salmeterol or bambuterol or bitolterol. Date of last search was April 2003. Titles and abstracts were then screened to identify potentially relevant studies. The bibliography of each RCT was searched for additional RCTs. Authors of identified RCTs were contacted for other relevant published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All included studies were RCTs involving adults and children with clinical evidence of asthma. These studies must have compared oral sustained release and/or dose adjusted theophylline with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potentially relevant trials, identified by screening titles and/or abstracts, were obtained. Two reviewers independently assessed full text versions of these trials to decide whether the trial should be included in the review, and assessed its methodological quality. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, this was resolved by consensus, or reference to a third party. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by simple agreement. Study authors were contacted to clarify randomisation methods, provide missing data, verify the data extracted and identify unpublished studies. Relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers were also contacted.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials originally met the inclusion criteria. Five used salmeterol and one, bitolterol. In an updated version of the review, six more trials were included. Four trials used salmeterol and two used formoterol. They were of varying quality. Salmeterol improved FEV1 significantly more than theophylline in five studies and salmeterol use was associated with significantly more symptom free nights in all the studies comparing these agents. Formoterol, used in two studies was reported to be as effective as theophylline. Bitolterol, used in only one study, was reported to be less effective than theophylline. Subjects taking salmeterol experienced fewer adverse events than those using theophylline (Parallel studies: Relative Risk 0.44; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.63), Risk Difference -0.11 (95%CI: -0.16 to -0.07), NNT 9 (6, 14). Significant reductions were reported for central nervous system adverse events (Relative Risk 0.50; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.29, 0.86), Risk Difference -0.07(95% CI -0.12, -0.02), NNT 14(8, 50) and gastrointestinal adverse events (Relative Risk 0.30; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.17, 0.55), Risk Difference -0.11(-0.16, -0.06), NNT 9(6, 16).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting beta-2 agonists are at least as effective than theophylline in reducing asthma symptoms including night waking and improving lung function. Fewer adverse events occurred in subjects using long-acting beta-2 agonists(salmeterol and formoterol) as compared to theophylline.

Outcomes and cost benefits associated with the introduction of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in a medicaid population of asthmatic patients

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess the clinical and economic impact of the introduction of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in the North Carolina Medicaid population of patients with asthma. The case group consisted of 180 patients who were followed for 1 year before and 1 year after the initiation of inhaled corticosteroid therapy. The control group consisted of 233 patients whose asthma was of similar severity to that of the case group and who remained on any therapy other than corticosteroids for a continuous 2-year period. After the initiation of inhaled corticosteroid therapy, the case group had reductions of 50% in hospitalizations, 26% in outpatient visits, and 15% in physician visits. At the end of the second year, the control group had significant increases of 23% in hospitalizations and 36% in outpatient visits. All of the changes were statistically significant. However, after adjusting for potential confounding factors, there was a nearly 24% decrease in total health care costs per asthmatic patient per month as a result of the introduction of inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Overall, we found that there was a cost benefit to Medicaid in the introduction of inhaled corticosteroid therapy and that this therapy brought about dramatic decreases in health care utilization and costs.