A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Changing to and Stepping Down Fluticasone/Formoterol in Asthma

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

A prediction model for asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the prediction of the risks of asthma exacerbation after stopping asthma biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of asthma exacerbations after stopping asthma biologics using machine learning models.

METHODS

We identified 3057 people with asthma who stopped asthma biologics in the OptumLabs Database Warehouse and considered a wide range of demographic and clinical risk factors to predict subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome used to assess success after stopping was having no exacerbations in the 6 months after stopping the biologic. Elastic-net logistic regression (GLMnet), random forest, and gradient boosting machine models were used with 10-fold cross-validation within a development (80%) cohort and validation cohort (20%).

RESULTS

The mean age of the total cohort was 47.1 (SD, 17.1) years, 1859 (60.8%) were women, 2261 (74.0%) were White, and 1475 (48.3%) were in the Southern region of the United States. The elastic-net logistic regression model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.78) in the development and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The random forest model yielded an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.72 in the validation cohort. The gradient boosting machine model yielded an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) in the development cohort and an AUC of 0.74 in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes after stopping asthma biologics can be predicted with moderate accuracy using machine learning methods.

Fixed-dose combination fluticasone/formoterol for asthma treatment in a real-world setting: meta-analysis of exacerbation rates and asthma control

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for asthma management are derived almost exclusively from the results of controlled clinical trials undertaken in carefully selected patient populations; meaning that their outcomes may not reflect the true performance of treatments when used in general daily medical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to combine the results of observational studies investigating the fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) fixed-dose combination in real-world asthma patients.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was completed in March 2019 using the PubMed database. We identified 394 studies. Five studies, which included a total of 4756 patients treated with FP/FORM, were judged eligible and included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated severe asthma exacerbation rate was 11.47% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.72%), calculated from the random effect model. A sensitivity analysis excluding 2 studies (one was an outlier, and the exacerbation rate for the studied treatment alone could not be determined in the other) showed a 7.04% rate of severe asthma exacerbations. The estimated relative risk of the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.323 (95% CI, 0.159 to 0.658). The estimated asthma control rate was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.7% to 65.6%). The odds of achieving asthma control significantly increased by FP/FORM compared with pre-study conditions (estimated odds ratio: 2.214 [95% CI, 1.292 to 3.795]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis confirm the effectiveness of FP/FORM for the treatment of asthma patients in a real-world setting beyond the limitations of RCTs.

Treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients with asthma initiating treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients initiating inhaler treatment with fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-2-adrenergic agonists (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of asthma.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study conducted by review of electronic medical records (database: Fundación RediSS).

SETTING

Retrospective cohort study. The follow-up period was 1 year.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included patients aged ≥18 years who started treatment with ICS/LABA and met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study groups were fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/FORM), budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM), fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM). The main measurements were persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR) and exacerbations. Statistical significance was established as p<0.05.

RESULTS

In total, 3203 patients were recruited for the study. By groups, 31.1% FP/SAL, 28.6% BDP/FORM, 25.0% BUD/FORM, 8.2% FF/VI and 7.0% FP/FORM. The mean age was 52.2 years, 60.8% were female and 44.9% had persistent-moderate asthma. Treatment persistence was 61.7% (95% CI 60.0% to 63.4%) and by study group it was FP/SAL: 60.7%, BDP/FORM: 61.2%, BUD/FORM: 60.3%, FF/VI: 66.7% and FP/FORM: 67.6% (p=0.046). MPR by study group was FP/SAL: 74.3%, BDP/FORM: 73.8%, BUD/FORM: 74.6%, FF/VI: 79.4% and FP/FORM: 80.6% (p=0.028). The mortality rate was 2.9%. By treatment group, exacerbations were FP/SAL: 21.9% (95% CI 19.3% to 24.5%), BDP/FORM: 22.2% (95% CI 19.5% to 24.9%), BUD/FORM: 22.8% (95% CI 19.9% to 25.7%), FF/VI: 17.9% (95% CI 14.9% to 20.7%) and FP/FORM: 16.0% (95% CI 12.2% to 19.3%), p=0.036.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment with FP/FORM and FF/VI versus FP/SAL, BDP/FORM and BUD/FORM were associated with greater treatment adherence (persistence, MPR) and lower rates of exacerbations. However, further studies will be needed to strengthen the consistency of the results.

Longitudinal asthma exacerbation phenotypes in the Korean childhood asthma study cohort

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbation (AE) leads to social and economic costs and long-term adverse outcomes. We aimed to predict exacerbation-prone asthma (EPA) in children.

METHODS

The Korean childhood Asthma Study (KAS) is a prospective nationwide pediatric asthma cohort of children aged 5-15 years followed every 6 months. Patients with AE during the 6 months prior to all three visits, with AE prior to one or two visits, and without AE prior to any visit were defined as having EPA, exacerbation-intermittent asthma (EIA), and exacerbation-resistant asthma (ERA), respectively. Risk factors and prediction models of EPA were explored.

RESULTS

Of the 497 patients who completed three visits, 42%, 18%, and 15% had exacerbations prior to visits 1, 2, and 3 and 5%, 47%, and 48% had EPA, EIA, and ERA, respectively. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression revealed forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) z-score, forced vital capacity (FVC) z-score, white blood cell (WBC) count, and asthma control test (ACT) score as relevant EPA risk factors. The EPA prediction model comprised FVC z-score, WBC count, ACT score, sex, and parental education level (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.841 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.728-0.954]).

CONCLUSION

With appropriate management, AE decreases over time, but persistent AEs may occur. Apart from asthma control level, baseline lung function and WBC count predicted EPA.

Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Stepping Down Asthma Controller Treatment in Patients Controlled with Low-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting β2-Agonist: Step-Down of Intervention and Grade in Moderate Asthma Study

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines recommend stepping down controller treatment when the condition is well-controlled for a certain time. However, the optimal step-down strategy for well-controlled patients receiving a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study was a randomized, open-label, three-arm, parallel pragmatic trial comparing two kinds of step-down approaches for maintaining treatment.

METHODS

Adults with asthma who were aged 18 years or older, and who had been stable with low-dose ICS/LABA for at least 3 months, were enrolled. Subjects (n = 225) were randomly allocated into one of three groups (maintaining low-dose ICS/LABA [G1], discontinuing LABA [G2], and reducing ICS/LABA to once daily [G3]), and were observed for 6 months. The primary end point was a change in Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores between randomization and the final 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The change in ACT was analyzed in the per-protocol population; noninferiority was not demonstrated in either step-down group compared with the maintenance group (95% confidence interval of the difference, G2 vs G1 = -1.40-0.55; G3 vs G1 = -1.19-0.77). Although over 90% of patients were fine, higher rates of treatment failure were observed in step-down groups (G1: 0%; G2: 9.46%; and G3: 9.09%; P = .027). There were no significant differences between step-down approaches in terms of ACT change or treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both step-down methods were not noninferior to maintenance of treatment. Step-down therapy can be attempted when patients are stable, but appropriate monitoring and supervision are necessary with precautions regarding loss of disease control.

A step-down experience in asthma treatment: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

According to recent guidelines; patients with controlled asthma who are stable for at least three months and don't have risk factor should be considered for step down.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate our step down attempts and affecting factors.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective-cohort study of patients with asthma who were followed up in our clinic for at least one year. Sociodemographic, phenotypic, clinical features and number of step-down attempts were recorded from the files. Step down was tried in well controlled patients and considered as successful whether descending step was maintained or a lower step was reached until the last visit.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients (196 F/43 M) with a mean age of 51.54 ± 15.29 years were included in the study. Step-down attempt was performed in 44.8% (n = 107) of the patients and % 74.8 (n = 80) of them were successful. Factors related to failure were lower level of education, allergic comorbidity (p = 0.04) and female gender (p = 0.04). Risk of failure was 3.45 and 1.84 times higher than university graduates in high school and primary school graduates, respectively. The probability of failure in step down was 3.38 times higher in patients with allergic comorbidity, and it was 3.92 times more likely in women than men.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the step down attempt could be performed in patients receiving treatment from all steps. In addition, treatment of allergic comorbidities and increased level of education, may make a step down attempt more successful.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

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 can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Fluticasone/formoterol compared with other ICS/LABAs in asthma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics.

METHODS

The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage.

CONCLUSION

FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.

Perspective on the Budgetary Impact of FP/FORM pMDI on Treatment and Management of Exacerbation in Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients in Singapore

Purpose

Reducing the risk of exacerbation is a long-term goal of managing moderate-to-severe asthma. The use of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FORM) pressurized metered-dose (pMDI, Flutiform^®), a type of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination, has been associated with lower oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbation rates than other ICS/LABA fixed-dose combinations, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/FORM). This study presents the first budget impact analysis of drug and exacerbation management cost savings associated with the increased access to FP/FORM compared to the currently available ICS/LABAs for treating moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore.

Patients and Methods

A budget impact model showed changes to annual drug and exacerbation costs over 5 years for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore, following the inclusion of FP/FORM on a government subsidy list. The eligible patient population was identified based on national statistics data. Different treatment costs pertaining to the population were applied according to the usage data (IQVIA Singapore National Sales Data) for different scenarios. Drug costs were obtained from public-sector hospitals. Exacerbation management costs were obtained from literature searches.

Results

The analysis showed that increased access to FP/FORM as a result of switching from FP/SAL could help achieve drug (S$1,042,289) and exacerbation management (S$223,550) cost savings over 5 years. In the scenario where patients switched from BUD/FORM, greater drug (S$2,572,797) and exacerbation management (S$256,781) cost savings were observed over 5 years.

Conclusion

The analysis provides a perspective that the increased access to FP/FORM could help achieve drug and exacerbation cost savings for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma.

Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease: strengths, challenges and considerations for study design

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy in patients with obstructive lung disease. However, due to strict inclusion criteria and the conditions required for ascertaining statistical significance, the patients included typically represent as little as 5% of the general obstructive lung disease population. Thus, studies in broader patient populations are becoming increasingly important. These can be randomised effectiveness trials or observational studies providing data on real-world treatment effectiveness and safety data that complement efficacy RCTs. In this review we describe the features associated with the diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the real-world clinical practice setting. We also discuss how RCTs and observational studies have reported opposing outcomes with several treatments and inhaler devices due to differences in study design and the variations in patients recruited by different study types. Whilst observational studies are not without weaknesses, we outline recently developed tools for defining markers of quality of observational studies. We also examine how observational studies are capable of providing valuable insights into disease mechanisms and management and how they are a vital component of research into obstructive lung disease. As we move into an era of personalised medicine, recent observational studies, such as the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY), have the capacity to provide a greater understanding of the value of a personalised healthcare approach in patients in clinical practice by focussing on standardised outcome measures of patient-reported outcomes, physician assessments, airway physiology, and blood and airway biomarkers across both primary and specialist care.

Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence

Asthma is the commonest chronic disease affecting airways in humans and has an increasing global disease burden. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line therapeutic option for asthma, and addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) has been shown to improve asthma control. A combination of the two agents in a single inhaler is beneficial with regard to ease of administration and patient compliance. Various ICS-LABA formulations are available across various countries in the world, one among them being formoterol-fluticasone. Both formoterol and fluticasone have pharmacologic peculiarities which places the combination in a uniquely advantageous position when it comes to asthma therapy. The present review focuses on some of the, hitherto, less explored aspects of this combination inhaler such as real-world efficacy, impact on budget allocation, results of switch-over therapy, and potential to improve adherence to asthma treatment. It also provides practical recommendations on positioning it in real-world asthma management.

Asthma control factors in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the effectiveness of ICS/LABA fixed dose combinations: a dual rapid literature review

Background

Asthma control is influenced by multiple factors. These factors must be considered when appraising asthma interventions and their effectiveness in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates [UAE]). Based on published studies, the most prevalent asthma treatment in these countries are fixed dose combinations (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). This study is a rapid review of the literature on: (a) factors associated with asthma control in the GCC countries and (b) generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies.

Methods

To review local factors associated with asthma control and, generalisability of published ICS/LABA FDC studies, two rapid reviews were conducted. Review 1 targeted literature pertaining to asthma control factors in GCC countries. Eligible studies were appraised, and clustering methodology used to summarise factors. Review 2 assessed ICS/LABA FDC studies in conditions close to actual clinical practice (i.e. effectiveness studies). Eligibility was determined by reviewing study characteristics. Evaluation of studies focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In both reviews, initial (January 2018) and updated (November 2019) searches were conducted in EMBASE and PubMed databases. Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists.

Results

We identified 51 publications reporting factors associated with asthma control. These publications reported studies conducted in Saudi Arabia (35), Qatar (5), Kuwait (5), UAE (3), Oman (1) and multiple countries (2). The most common factors associated with asthma control were: asthma-related education (13 articles), demographics (11articles), comorbidities (11 articles) and environmental exposures (11 articles). Review 2 identified 61 articles reporting ICS/LABA FDC effectiveness studies from countries outside of the GCC. Of these, six RCTs were critically appraised. The adequacy of RCTs in informing clinical practice varied when appraised against previously published criteria.

Conclusions

Asthma-related education was the most recurring factor associated with asthma control in the GCC countries. Moreover, the generalisability of ICS/LABA FDC studies to this region is variable. Hence, asthma patients in the region, particularly those on ICS/LABA FDC, will continue to require physician review and oversight. While our findings provide evidence for local treatment guidelines, further research is required in GCC countries to establish the causal pathways through which asthma-related education influence asthma control for patients on ICS/LABA FDC therapy.

An innovative corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist breath-triggered inhaler: facilitating lung delivery of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate for the treatment of asthma

Introduction: Incorrect inhaler technique is one reason why the efficacies of inhaled asthma treatments in clinical trials and effectiveness in the real world differ. Inhaler technique is critical for drug delivery to the lungs; incorrect technique negatively impacts asthma control and long-term outcomes. Breath-triggered inhalers (BTIs) can simplify drug administration and are suitable for most patients, including those with reduced inspiratory flow. Until recently, no inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination BTI was available in Europe. The flutiform® (fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate [FP/FORM]) k-haler® is the first combination BTI now approved in Europe for asthma maintenance treatment.Areas covered: We review studies examining the challenges posed to patients by different inhaler types and explore evidence demonstrating the clinical efficacy of FP/FORM administered via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. We also review the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies supporting FP/FORM k-haler use, and consider data showing high lung deposition with the device. Finally, we review patient experiences using the BTI, device characteristics, and health economic aspects.Expert opinion: Despite the availability of therapies, asthma control levels remain low, and there is a clear need for easy-to-use inhalers. Research to increase our understanding of critical errors with each inhaler and how to overcome them is important for improving care.Abbreviations: AUC_t: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration; BDP: beclometasone dipropionate; BTI: breath-triggered inhaler; BUD: budesonide; CI: confidence interval; C_max: maximum observed plasma concentration; DPI: dry powder inhaler; FDC: fixed-dose combination; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FORM: formoterol fumarate; FP: fluticasone propionate; HCP: health-care professional; ICS: inhaled corticosteroid; LABA: long-acting β₂-agonist; OR: odds ratio; PIL: patient information leaflet; pMDI: pressurized metered-dose inhaler; SAL: salmeterol xinafoate.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management

Introduction:

In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform^®) was conducted.

Methods:

This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.

Results:

The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusion:

In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

The Asthma Controller Step-down Yardstick

Asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to disease management in which the assessment of impairment and risk is linked to step-based therapy. Using this model, controller treatment is adjusted-upward or downward-according to a patient's level of asthma control over time. Strategies for stepping up controller therapy are well described, and the adult and pediatric Asthma Yardsticks provide operational recommendations based on patient profiles. Strategies for stepping down controller treatment are less clear, although stepping down to the minimum effective therapy is important and should be considered when a patient's asthma has been well controlled for an adequate period as defined by risk and impairment. This Yardstick presents recommendations for when and how to step down asthma controller therapy according to guideline-defined control levels. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat patients with asthma with a practical and clinically relevant framework for implementing a step-down in controller therapy.

A Simple Score for Future Risk Prediction in Patients with Controlled Asthma Who Undergo a Guidelines-Based Step-Down Strategy

BACKGROUND

The minimum controlling dose of treatment must be established in patients with asthma, but the outcome of step-down is unpredictable.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with risk of control loss when stepping down asthma treatment and to develop a score to predict this risk.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study including adults with well-controlled asthma was performed. Treatment was stepped up or stepped down over a 12-month period to maintain asthma control. We determined associations between clinical and functional variables and step-down failure. Finally, we derived a score to predict loss of control in 1 cohort and validated it in an independent cohort.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort consisted of 228 patients; 218 completed at least 1 step-down episode and a total of 495 step-down episodes were evaluated. A medical-record documented postbronchodilator spirometry result of <70% forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.43), current FEV₁ < 80% (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.03-3.14), ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01), and Asthma Control Test score < 25 (OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.35-3.92) were independently associated with failure. The score showed an area under the curve of 0.690 (95% CI: 0.633-0.747; P < .05) in the derivation cohort and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.643-0.882; P < .001) in a validation cohort of 114 patients. A score <4.5 implies a low risk of failure (<20%), whereas a score >8 implies a high risk (>40%).

CONCLUSION

This score can facilitate the prediction of step-down failure before medication taper in patients with well-controlled asthma.

Treatment patterns and related clinical consequences in adults with asthma

OBJECTIVE

A stepwise therapeutic management is recommended for asthma patients by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Little is known about the recommendations applied in real world settings. This study aims to associate Treatment step with clinical events in patients with mild or severe asthma.

METHODS

A retrospective claims database analysis included adult patients with mild (GINA step 1) or severe asthma (GINA step 4). Maximum Treatment Step was measured within the first and second 90-day period after index date (the first date of asthma diagnosis during the inclusion period). Step-down was defined as a Treatment Step change from a higher to lower step, while Step-up was defined as a Treatment Step change from a lower to higher step. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of asthma-related clinical events, measured at the third 90-day period.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A total of 6,354 mild-asthma patients and 5,695 severe-asthma patients were included. In mild-asthma, when compared with No Change in Treatment Step, Step-down was associated with a lower risk of future clinical events [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (95% CI); 0.69-0.94], while Step-up was not associated with a change in clinical events [OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.77-1.27]. In severe-asthma patients, Step-down was not associated with a change in clinical events [OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.81-1.10], while Step-up was associated with a higher risk of future clinical events [OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.29-3.33]. Our findings reassure the appropriateness of stepping-down treatment in mild-asthma patients. Clinicians should closely monitor and/or provide detailed asthma action plans for severe-asthma patients who are stepping-up treatment.

[Persistence to treatment and resources use with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of corticosteroids and long-acting β-adrenergic agonists for the treatment of asthma: A population-based retrospective study]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the persistence, exacerbations, and use of resources in patients who use inhaler treatment with fluticasone propionate/formoterol (PF/Form) in relation with other combinations of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-adrenergic (ICS/LABA) at fixed doses, for the treatment of asthma in real-life practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational study conducted by reviewing medical records. The study included subjects ≥18 years of age who started treatment with ICS/LABA and who met certain inclusion/exclusion criteria. The follow-up was carried out for one year. Study groups: a) PF/Form and b) Other-combinations (Other-ICS/LABA).

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), exacerbations, and costs (direct/indirect). The statistical analysis was performed using regression models, with a P<.05.

RESULTS

A total of 3,203 patients were included in the study. By groups: a) FP/Form: 7.0% and b) Other-ICS/LABA: 93.0%. The mean age was 52.2 years, and 60.8% were women. A total of 44.9% of patients had persistent-moderate asthma. Patients under treatment with FP/Form were associated with greater persistence (67.6 vs. 61.2%, P=.043), a higher RPM (80.6 vs. 74.3%, P=.002), and less exacerbations (16.0 vs. 21.9%, P=.021), particularly severe-exacerbations (4.0 vs. 7.7%, P=.043). The mean/unit of the total cost (ANCOVA) was lower in patients under treatment with PF/Form (2,033 vs. € 2,486, P=.012), respectively. The total cost was associated with: Exacerbations (β=0.618), asthma-severity (β=0.214), age (β=0.073), and lack-adherence (RPM: β=-0.031), P<.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment with PF/Form were associated with greater adherence to treatment (persistence, RPM), a circumstance that leads to less severe exacerbations and total costs for the national health system. These differences could be due to the pharmacological properties of the drug or other factors not measured.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.