EXCEL: A randomised trial comparing salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and formoterol/budesonide combinations in adults with persistent asthma

Single inhaler with beclometasone, formoterol, and glycopyrronium versus triple therapies in adults with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Recent literature has shown that triple therapy is more effective than dual therapy for individuals with uncontrolled asthma. However, the comparative efficacy between different triple therapies remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative efficacy of extra-fine single-inhaler medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) of beclometasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) compared to other triple therapies in patients whose asthma remains uncontrolled with MD or HD inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists. A systematic literature review identified randomized control trials on adult patients with uncontrolled asthma. Two separate networks were constructed according to patients' previous inhaled-corticosteroid dosage. Network meta-analyses evaluated severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations, pre-dose forced expiratory volume, and asthma control questionnaire responses at 52 (± 3) weeks. Among single-inhaler triple therapies, MD BDP/FOR/GLY significantly reduced the risk of severe exacerbations (RR [95% CrI] compared to MD fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol: 0.65 [0.49, 0.89]), while HD BDP/FOR/GLY demonstrated an improved trend in reducing severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations versus HD indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone, fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol, and salmeterol/fluticasone + tiotropium. HD BDP/FOR/GLY and HD BDP/FOR + tiotropium did not differ significantly. Compared to relevant single-inhaler triple therapies, MD and HD BDP/FOR/GLY are associated with a significant benefit or trend for improvement in terms of reducing the rate of severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations.

Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol Versus Fluticasone/Salmeterol in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol (BF) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FS) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing BF versus FS in the treatment of COPD from inception to July 17, 2023. Outcomes, including exacerbations, hospitalizations, pneumonia, emergency department (ED) visits for COPD, length of hospitalization, and number of exacerbations, were compared using risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 12.0.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising a total of 136,369 participants were included. Compared with those treated with FS, patients with COPD treated with BF experienced a reduced number of exacerbations (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00]; p = 0.040), hospitalizations (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.88]; p < 0.001), and frequency of pneumonia (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.92]; p = 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between BF and FS in terms of ED visits for COPD (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.69-1.10]; p = 0.243), length of hospitalization (WMD -0.18 [95% CI -0.62-0.27]; p = 0.437), and number of exacerbations (WMD -0.06 [95% CI -0.28-0.16]; p = 0.602). Notably, no significant heterogeneity was noted in length of hospitalization between the two groups, whereas clear heterogeneity was observed in other outcomes (I2 > 50%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with FS, BF therapy appears to be a more promising treatment strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD; however, this should be verified in further high-quality studies.

Baseline Characteristics and Maintenance Therapy Choice on Symptom Control, Reliever Use, Exacerbation Risk in Moderate-Severe Asthma: A Clinical Modelling and Simulation Study

INTRODUCTION

Although some factors associated with asthma symptom deterioration and risk of exacerbation have been identified, these are not yet fully characterised. We conducted a clinical modelling and simulation study to understand baseline factors affecting symptom control, reliever use and exacerbation risk in patients with moderate-severe asthma during follow-up on regularly dosed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy, or ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

METHODS

Individual patient data from randomised clinical trials (undertaken between 2001 and 2019) were used to model the time course of symptoms (n = 7593), patterns of reliever medication use (n = 3768) and time-to-first exacerbation (n = 6763), considering patient-specific and extrinsic factors, including treatment. Model validation used standard graphical and statistical criteria. Change in symptom control scores (Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 [ACQ-5]), reduction in reliever use and annualised exacerbation rate were then simulated in patient cohorts with different baseline characteristics and treatment settings.

RESULTS

Being a smoker, having higher baseline ACQ-5 and body mass index affected symptom control scores, reliever use and exacerbation risk (p < 0.01). In addition, low forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted, female sex, season and previous exacerbations were found to contribute to a further increase in exacerbation risk (p < 0.01), whereas long asthma history was associated with more frequent reliever use (p < 0.01). These effects were independent from the underlying maintenance therapy. In different scenarios, fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol was associated with greater reductions in reliever use and exacerbation rates compared with FF or fluticasone propionate (FP) alone or budesonide/formoterol, independently from other factors (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided further insight into the effects of individual baseline characteristics on treatment response and highlighted significant differences in the performance of ICS/LABA combination therapy on symptom control, reliever use and exacerbation risk. These factors should be incorporated into clinical practice as the basis for tailored management of patients with moderate-severe asthma.

Systematic literature review of traits and outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of asthma with regular dosing of inhaled corticosteroids with short-acting β2-agonist reliever, as-needed ICS/formoterol, or ICS/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy

INTRODUCTION

Asthma treatments based solely on diagnostic label do not benefit patients equally. To identify patient traits that may be associated with improved treatment response to regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICSs) dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol-containing therapy, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted.

METHODS

Searches of databases including MEDLINE and Embase identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma, aged ≥12 years, published 1998-2022, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment arm, and reporting patient traits and outcomes of interest. Relevant data was extracted and underwent a feasibility assessment to determine suitability for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 39 RCTs of 72,740 patients and 90 treatment arms, reporting 11 traits and 11 outcomes. Five patient traits (age, body mass index, FEV1, smoking history, asthma control) and five outcomes (exacerbation rate, lung function, asthma control, adherence, time to first exacerbation) were deemed feasible for inclusion in meta-analyses due to sufficient comparable reporting. Subgroups of clinical outcomes stratified by levels of patient traits were reported in 16 RCTs.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review of studies of regular ICS dosing with SABA or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment strategies in asthma identified consistent reporting of five traits and outcomes, allowing exploration of associations with treatment response. Conversely, many other traits and outcomes, although being potentially relevant, were inconsistently reported and limited subgroup reporting meant analyses of treatment response for subgroups of traits was not possible. We recommend more consistent measurement and reporting of clinically relevant patient traits and outcomes in respiratory RCTs.

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS/long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2 agonist reliever or maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma

INTRODUCTION

Current treatment for moderate-severe asthma with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based therapy can follow two strategies: a single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) regimen, or regular dosing with ICS/long-acting β2-agonist used as maintenance therapy plus a separate short acting β2-agonist reliever inhaler. It would be clinically useful to understand the potential of patient traits to influence regular dosing or MART treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis was conducted to identify specific patient traits that may predict improved clinical outcomes with regular dosing or MART.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 28 studies in patients with moderate-severe asthma assessing regular dosing or MART treatments and reporting the traits and outcomes of interest. Network meta-regressions found no significant difference in the relative efficacy of regular dosing as compared with MART on any of the clinical outcomes (exacerbation rate, time to first exacerbation, FEV1, reliever use and adherence) for any of the patient traits (baseline lung function, baseline ACQ, age, BMI, and smoking history) evaluated. However, some trends towards traits influencing treatment efficacy were identified. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes was observed between trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysed patient traits evaluated in this study were associated with similar efficacy for the analysed outcomes to either regular dosing or MART; however, trends from the data observed encourage future analyses for possible identification of additional traits, or a combination of traits, that may be of interest. More comparable reporting of clinically important traits and outcomes would improve future analyses.

Understanding the Clinical Implications of Individual Patient Characteristics and Treatment Choice on the Risk of Exacerbation in Asthma Patients with Moderate-Severe Symptoms

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of future risk has become an important feature in the management of patients with asthma. However, the contribution of patient-specific characteristics and treatment choices to the risk of exacerbation is poorly understood. Here we evaluated the effect of interindividual baseline differences on the risk of exacerbation and treatment performance in patients receiving regular maintenance doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) combination therapy.

METHODS

Exacerbations and changes to asthma symptoms 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) were simulated over a 12-month period using a time-to-event and a longitudinal model developed from phase III/IV studies in patients with moderate-severe asthma (N = 16,282). Simulations were implemented to explore treatment performance across different scenarios, including randomised designs and real-world settings. Treatment options included regular dosing with ICS monotherapy [fluticasone propionate (FP)] and combination therapy [fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)]. Exacerbation rate was analysed using the log-rank test. The cumulative incidence of events was summarised stratified by treatment.

RESULTS

Being a woman, smoker, having higher baseline ACQ-5 and body mass index (BMI) and lower forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) are associated with increased exacerbation risk (p < 0.01). This risk is bigger in winter because of the seasonal variation effect. Across the different scenarios, the use of FP/SAL resulted in a 10% lower annual incidence of exacerbations relative to FP or regular dosing BUD/FOR, independently of baseline characteristics. Similar differences in the annual incidence of exacerbations were also observed between treatments in obese patients (BMI ≥ 25-35 kg/m2) (p < 0.01) and in patients who do not achieve symptom control on FP monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual baseline characteristics and treatment choices affect future risk. Achieving comparable levels of symptom control whilst on treatment does not imply comparable risk reduction, as shown by the lower exacerbation rates in FP/SAL vs. BUD/FOR-treated patients. These factors should be considered as a basis for personalised clinical management of patients with moderate-severe asthma.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

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.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries.

METHODS

A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year).

RESULTS

Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

Molecular mechanism of asthma and its novel molecular target therapeutic agent

Asthma is a chronic disease with major public health ramifications owing to its high morbidity and mortality rates, especially in severe and recurrent cases. Conventional therapeutic options could partially alleviate the burden of asthma, yet a novel approach is needed to completely control this condition. To do so, a comprehensive understanding of the molecular mechanism underlying asthma is essential to recognize and treat the major pathways that drive its pathophysiology. In this review, we will discuss the molecular mechanism of asthma, in particular focusing on the type of inflammatory responses it elicits, namely type 2 and non-type 2 asthma. Furthermore, we will discuss the novel therapeutic options that target the aberrant molecules found in asthma pathophysiology. We will specifically focus on the role of novel monoclonal antibody therapies recently developed, such as the anti-IgE, IL-5, IL-5Rα, and IL-4Rα antibodies, drugs that have been extensively studied preclinically and clinically.

The efficacy and safety of different long-acting β2-agonists combined with inhaled glucocorticoid regimens in patients with asthma: a network meta-analysis

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of current maintenance therapies consisting of different regimens of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with asthma. Methods: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to January 1, 2017. Randomized clinical trials comparing LABA combined with ICS in patients with asthma were selected. Results: Seventeen trials were included in the analysis, comprising 10,961 patients and seven treatment regimens. Our NMA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between agents regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations. For adverse effects, there were no significant differences between the included studies. Moreover, six of the results showed no statistically significant differences between agents regarding symptom-free days. The heterogeneity and inconsistency analysis of the outcomes showed that there were no differences between the regimens. Conclusions: Our findings have shown that there were no statistically significant differences between the different regimens of LABA + ICS regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations, adverse events, and symptom-free days.

A multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in real-world settings

BACKGROUND

To assess the level of asthma control achieved with budesonide/formoterol in Chinese patients with asthma, based on the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) definition and Asthma Control Test (ACT) score.

METHODS

This multicenter, cross-sectional study (NCT01785901) evaluated asthma control levels in Chinese patients receiving physician-prescribed budesonide/formoterol treatment. Adults with a diagnosis of asthma ≥6 months and receiving budesonide/formoterol treatment ≥3 months before screening were consecutively enrolled. Data including medical and medication history were collected using face-to-face questionnaires and physical examinations during a single visit.

RESULTS

A total of 1483 asthma out-patients from 27 medical centers were enrolled; 217 (14.6%) were treated with budesonide/formoterol using a fixed-dose strategy and 1266 (85.4%) with the SMART (Symbicort^® Maintenance And Reliever Therapy) strategy. According to GINA criteria, asthma was controlled in 58.6% (95% CI: 56.1%-61.1%) of patients and was either controlled or partly controlled in 94.1% (95% CI: 92.8%-95.3%) of patients. According to ACT score, asthma was completely controlled in 22.4% (95% CI: 20.3%-24.6%) of patients and was either completely or well controlled in 83.3% (95% CI: 81.4%-85.2%) of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a >5-year history of asthma and an age of >50 years were factors associated with lower levels of asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated high levels of asthma control (GINA: controlled and partly controlled and ACT: completely and well controlled) in Chinese patients with asthma treated with budesonide/formoterol. Greater age and a longer disease history were associated with lower levels of asthma control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01785901. Registered February 5, 2013.

Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

A primary goal of asthma management is the reduction of exacerbation risk. We assessed the occurrence of oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbations (OCS exacerbations) with long-term fluticasone/formoterol therapy, and compared it with the occurrence of similar events reported with other inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations.

METHODS

The occurrence of OCS exacerbations was assessed in two open-label trials of fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol administered for between 26 to 60 weeks in adults and adolescents with asthma. The incidence of OCS exacerbations with fluticasone/formoterol was compared with those reported in three recent Cochrane meta-analyses of other ICS/LABAs.

RESULTS

The pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations with long-term fluticasone/formoterol was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1, 3.2%, n/N = 16/752). In only two of the nineteen treatment arms summarized by Cochrane did OCS exacerbation incidence approximate that seen in the two fluticasone/formoterol trials (single-inhaler fluticasone/salmeterol [2.9%]; separate inhaler budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus formoterol [3.4%]). In Lasserson's review the pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations for single-inhaler combinations was 9.5% (95% CI: 8.4, 10.6%; n/N = 239/2516) for fluticasone/salmeterol, and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.3, 11.8%; n/N = 257/2433) for budesonide/formoterol. In Ducharme's and Chauhan's meta-analyses (primarily incorporating separate inhaler combinations [fluticasone, budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus salmeterol or formoterol]), the pooled incidences of OCS exacerbations were 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 17.8%, n/N = 258/1615) and 16.7% (95% CI: 14.9, 18.5, n/N = 275/1643), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of exacerbations in two fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol studies was low and less than in the majority of comparable published studies involving other ICS/LABA combinations. This difference could not be readily explained by differences in features of the respective studies and may be related to the favorable pharmacological/mechanistic characteristics of the constituent components fluticasone and formoterol compared to other drugs in their respective classes.

Fixed-Dose combination of the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist therapy in adults with persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a respiratory condition characterized by airway inflammation, airflow obstruction, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The standard treatment of asthma comprises inhaled corticosteroid and beta2-agonist. Inhaled short-acting-beta2-agonists have been used as rescue medication for exacerbation. However, long-acting-beta2-agonists (LABA) used as monotherapy for asthma had been reported for having a safety concern. Consequently, it had been recommended as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in moderate to severe persistent asthma. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ICS and LABA has been approved since the year 2000. Evidences revealed using the combination of these medications is more effective in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

The rational and phase III onward randomized-controlled studies were reviewed. Sources of evidences were from studies published in Medline until November 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

There are six FDC inhaler regimens approved worldwide. The significant synergistic effects of ICS and LABA in one device are well evidenced. A FDC reduces the daily dosage of ICS and asthma exacerbation. It is safe to use regularly as controller. The efficacy of each individual combination on asthma treatment is generally similar. Clinical experience, ease of use, cost and side effects of medication would guide the clinician's preferences.

Real-life use of budesonide/formoterol in clinical practice: a 12-month follow-up assessment in a multi-national study of asthma patients established on single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy

Objective: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MRT) has been demonstrated in phase III clinical studies, but limited data are available in a real-life setting. We examined the pattern of maintenance and as-needed inhaler use in routine clinical practice among patients with asthma receiving budesonide/formoterol MRT (NCT00505388). Methods: This 12-month European observational study enrolled patients prescribed budesonide/formoterol MRT and grouped them based on regimen: 80/4.5 µg one inhalation twice daily (b.i.d.); 160/4.5 µg one inhalation b.i.d.; 160/4.5 µg two inhalations b.i.d. (all plus as needed). Patient data were collected daily using an interactive voice- or web-response system. The primary outcome measure was total number of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day. Results: Overall, 4,581 patients were included (64% female; mean age 48.4 years; regimen: 80/4.5 µg, n = 119; 160/4.5 µg, n = 3,106; 2 × 160/4.5 µg, n = 1,355). Mean (median) total numbers of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day were 2.48 (2.11), 2.53 (2.14), and 4.27 (4.05) for 80/4.5 µg b.i.d., 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., and 2 × 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., respectively; corresponding mean (median) number of as-needed inhalations/day were 0.68 (0.17), 0.73 (0.26), and 1.08 (0.45), respectively. As-needed budesonide/formoterol use was generally low with a mean of 61 – 66% of reliever-free days; over 4 reliever inhalations/day occurred on a mean of 0.4 – 2.5% of days for all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens. Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens were associated with a high proportion of reliever-free days and low incidence of high reliever-use days, indicating acceptable levels of asthma control with this symptom-adjusted controller regimen.

Role of the fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in adult Chinese patients with asthma and COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are common airway disorders characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction, and are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the People's Republic of China. These two diseases pose a high economic burden on the family and the whole of society. Despite evidence-based Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines being available for the diagnosis and management of COPD and asthma, many of these patients are not properly diagnosed or managed in the People's Republic of China. The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists has been established in the management of asthma and COPD globally. Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists such as fluticasone and salmeterol, have been shown to be effective for improving symptoms, health status, and reducing exacerbations in both diseases. In this review, we discuss the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy from key studies, particularly in the People's Republic of China.

Real-world effects of two inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

There are several inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations currently used to treat asthmatic patients, but the differences in the clinical effects of these ICS/LABAs are currently unknown. We herein evaluated the effects of two currently available ICS/LABA combinations in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combined Discus inhaler (FP/SM; 250/50 μg bid) was switched to a budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler inhaler (BUD/FM; 160/4.5 μg two inhalations bid) and FP/SM (500/50 μg bid) was also switched to BUD/FM (160/4.5 μg four inhalations bid) in symptomatic asthmatic patients treated with FP/SM over 20 years of age.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in this study, and the scores of the asthma control test (ACT) and asthma control questionnaire-5 item version (ACQ5) were significantly improved 4 and 8 weeks after the switch to ICS/LABA treatments, and well-controlled asthma (ACQ5 score <0.75) and good control (ACT score >20) was achieved in 54 (90%) and 40 (66.7%) patients, respectively, at 8 weeks. The spirometric analysis revealed significant improvements of the values of the peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after switching from FP/SM to BUD/FM, and significantly improved small airway impairments ([Formula: see text]50 and [Formula: see text]25) were observed in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA. These subjective and objective improvements were also seen in patients aged over 65 years old.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrated that changing the combined ICS/LABA inhaler from FP/SM to BUD/FM can lead to more effective management of symptomatic patients with asthma, especially in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA.

A comparison of long-term anti-inflammatory effect of two ICS/LABA combination inhalers; fix-dosed maintenance therapy with budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone

BACKGROUND

The clinical usefulness of fixed-dose maintenance therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) and budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FM) has been established, though evidence of the long-term anti-inflammatory effects of these 2 inhalers are limited.

METHODS

Patients with moderate persistent adult asthma who had received SFC 50/250μg bid with well-control status were recruited. After switching to 8-week therapy with fixed-dose BUD/FM 4 puffs (640/18μg) (phase-1), patients chose either SFC or BUD/FM. FeNO and ACT score were evaluated every 8 weeks until the end of the 52-week treatment period for both treatment groups (phase-2).

RESULTS

In total, 103 patients were examined: BUD/FM was chosen by 34 patients (BUD/FM group), while SFC was chosen by 23 (SFC group). Thirty-six received SFC consistently from the beginning of the study (control). Patients in the BUD/FM and SFC groups showed significant improvements in ACT scores and FeNO levels in phase-1; these beneficial effects persisted for 52 weeks in the BUD/FM group. On the other hand, in the SFC group, although the FeNO level decreased from 54.3 ± 26.4 ppb to 41.9 ± 18.3 ppb in phase-1, it increased to 54.5 ± 26.2 ppb, a level similar to the baseline prior to the beginning of BUD/FM therapy, at 8 weeks in phase-2, and remained at 50-odd ppb thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that maintenance therapy with fixed-dose BUD/FM is a useful treatment option exerting an airway anti-inflammatory effect for a period as long as 1 year, even for asthmatics who could not accomplish total control with SFC.

Comparison of the effects of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment on airway inflammation and small airway impairment in patients who need to step-up from inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy

BACKGROUND

If asthma patients fail to achieve symptom control using a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone, adding a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) is the preferred treatment. We aimed to compare the effect of two widely available ICS/LABA combinations in these patients in real-life conditions: budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM; Symbicort(®)) for maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) and a fixed dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SM).

METHODS

Inadequately controlled asthma patients treated with a medium dose of ICS alone, with an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score >0.75 and using a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) 2-6 occasions/week, were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups and treated with two inhalation twice-daily BUD/FM 160/4.5 μg plus as-needed BUD/FM (SMART group, n = 15) or one inhalation twice-daily FP/SM 250/50 μg plus as-needed procaterol (FP/SM group, n = 15) for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in airway inflammation, pulmonary functions and symptoms from baseline. The SMART group showed significant improvement in the fraction of nitric oxide, ACQ score, rescue medication use and small airway parameter R5-R20 measured by impulse oscillometry compared with the FP/SM group.

CONCLUSION

For stepping up treatment from ICS alone to an ICS/LABA combination, SMART is preferable for controlling asthma symptoms by suppressing airway inflammation and improving small airway impairment compared with a fixed dose of FP/SM. It may be achieved by the property of BUD/FM itself and as-needed use, but the degree of each contribution must be investigated further.

Switching from salmeterol/fluticasone to formoterol/budesonide combinations improves peripheral airway/alveolar inflammation in asthma

BACKGROUND

Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is the mainstay of asthma management. We previously showed that switching from salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) 50/250 μg bid to a fixed-dose formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) 9/320 μg bid improved asthma control and pulmonary functions, but not fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in patients with asthma not adequately controlled under the former treatment regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether switching from SFC to FBC improves peripheral airway/alveolar inflammation in asthma (UMIN000009619).

METHODS

Subjects included 66 patients with mild to moderate asthma receiving SFC 50/250 μg bid for more than 8 weeks. Patients were randomized into FBC 9/320 μg bid or continued the same dose of SFC for 12 weeks. Asthma Control Questionnaire, 5-item version (ACQ5) score, peak expiratory flow, spirometry, FeNO, alveolar NO concentration (CANO), and maximal NO flux in the conductive airways (J'awNO) were measured.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients completed the study. The proportion of patients with an improvement in ACQ5 was significantly higher in the FBC group than in the SFC group (51.6% vs 16.7%, respectively, p = 0.003). A significant decrease in CANO was observed in the FBC group (from 8.8 ± 9.2 ppb to 4.0 ± 2.6 ppb; p = 0.007) compared to the SFC group (from 7.4 ± 7.8 ppb to 6.4 ± 5.0 ppb; p = 0.266) although there was no significant difference in the changes in pulmonary functions between the 2 groups. Similar significant differences were found in the CANO corrected for the axial back diffusion of NO (FBC, from 6.5 ± 8.2 ppb to 2.3 ± 2.5 ppb; and SFC, from 4.3 ± 5.3 ppb to 3.9 ± 4.3 ppb). There was no difference in the changes in FeNO or J'awNO between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching therapy from SFC to FBC improves asthma control and peripheral airway/alveolar inflammation even though there is no improvement in pulmonary functions, and FeNO in asthmatic patients.

Asthma in primary care: a case-based review of pharmacotherapy

Asthma remains a significant public health burden in the United States. Primary care providers are in an ideal position to be able to target treatment for their patients on an individual basis. It is important to determine the level of control and then base treatment on both the severity and activity of disease and the ability of the patient to be adherent to the therapy regimen. Because prescription medications along with office visits represent most asthma expenses, it is imperative to choose wisely from among the quick-relief and the long-term control medications to find the right choice for your patient.

Effect of switching from salmeterol/fluticasone to formoterol/ budesonide combinations in patients with uncontrolled asthma

BACKGROUND

Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is the mainstay of asthma management and salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) and fixed-dose formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) are currently available in Japan; however, there is nothing to choose between the two. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effect of switching from SFC to FBC in patients with asthma not adequately controlled under the former treatment regimen.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled longitudinal study in 87 adult patients with an Asthma Control Questionnaire, 5-item version (ACQ5) score of greater than 0.75 under treatment with SFC 50/250μg one inhalation twice daily (bid). SFC was switched to FBC 4.5/160μg two inhalations bid. Study outcomes included ACQ5 score, peak expiratory flow (PEF), FEV(1), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) at the end of treatment period.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients completed the study. ACQ5 scores improved and exceeded the clinically meaningful difference after 12 weeks of treatment and well-controlled asthma (ACQ5 score ≤0.75) was attained in 37 (44.6%) patients. Minimum and maximum PEF and FEV(1) values improved significantly, but not FeNO values, after switching from SFC to FBC.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching ICS/LABA combination therapy is a useful option in the management of asthma that is not optimally controlled.

Fluticasone propionate and Salmeterol combination induces SOCS-3 expression in airway epithelial cells

Fluticasone propionate (FP) and Salmeterol (SAL) are commonly used in combination therapy for patients with Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical studies show that FP/SAL used in combination therapy was found to inhibit airway inflammation in COPD patients. However, the mechanisms associated with FP/SAL induced anti-inflammatory effects were not clear. We have evaluated the effect of FP/SAL and tobacco smoke (TS) on SOCS-3 and interleukine-6 expression in bronchial airway epithelial cells (BAEpCs). Human BAEpCs were exposed to TS and subsequently treated with FP or SAL alone or in combinations in the presence and absence of mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitors for either Erk1/Erk2, or p38 or PI3 kinase. In BAEpCs, TS induced IL-6 expression via ERK1/ERK2 MAPK pathway and FP/SAL inhibited TS mediated IL-6 expression. TS down regulated the SOCS-3 expression via activation of Erk1/Erk2, and p38 MAPK signaling. When TS exposed BAEpCs were treated with FP/SAL SOCS-3 expression was restored. FP/SAL combinations induced significantly higher expression of SOCS-3 in BAEpCs when compared to individual drug. Pretreatment with Ly294002 a PI3 MAPK inhibitor significantly attenuated FP/SAL induced SOCS-3 expression in BAEpCs. Furthermore, FP/SAL blunted TS induced phosphorylation of Erk1/Erk2 and p38 MAPK in BAEpCs. Our study suggests that TS inhibits SOCS-3, combination of FP/SAL has a profound synergistic effect on SOCS-3 induction in BAEpCs and it is dependent on PI3 kinase signaling pathway. SOCS-3 may represent a potential biomarker for understanding the efficacy and a novel anti-inflammatory mechanism of FP/SAL combination therapy in the treatment of COPD.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

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.

Efficacy of a fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol: the EXCITED-study

Recommended treatment for moderate to severe asthma is the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist. The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol in comparison to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in patients with moderate asthma. This was a phase II, multi-centre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study. After a 2-week run-in period, 160 patients with moderate asthma were randomized to a 6-week treatment with ciclesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg bid (CIC/F) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 μg bid (FP/S), both delivered as powder formulations. The primary outcome FEV1 increased during treatment by 0.356 L in the CIC/F group and by 0.288 L in the FP/S group (p < 0.0001). The increases were statistically significant and clinically relevant. The between-treatment analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of CIC/F to FP/S treatment (p < 0.0001). A significant improvement from baseline in lung function, symptom score and rescue medication use was observed in both groups at all time points. No differences were observed between treatments in the frequency of adverse events and overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio. The studied fixed combination of ciclesonide/formoterol is not inferior to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone/salmeterol in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide/formoterol is a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist available as a dry-powder inhaler for the indication of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in various countries outside of the USA and as a pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the USA for the indication of asthma. Clinical studies have shown that budesonide/formoterol is significantly more effective than an equivalent or higher dose of budesonide or fluticasone propionate alone in patients with moderate-to-severe disease, and at least as effective as its two components administered via separate inhalers in asthmatics with predominantly moderate to severe persistent disease. Budesonide/formoterol is effective when administered both once or twice daily. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol has been shown to provide equivalent or better asthma control with a significantly lower amount of study drug use compared with fixed dosing. The rapid onset of action of budesonide/formoterol, predominantly due to formoterol, as well as its favorable dose-response, has prompted budesonide/formoterol to be used as both a maintenance and reliever medication, referred to as the Symbicort maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) dosing regimen in several countries. Use of this approach has resulted in studies evaluating SMART, demonstrating significantly lower rates of exacerbations and reliever medication use compared with fixed-dosing regimens in asthma.

Association between previous health care use and initiation of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist combination therapy among US patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Combination inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy is recommended for patients whose asthma is not adequately controlled by other maintenance therapies and for those with moderate to severe asthma.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the appropriateness of initiation of ICS/LABA combination therapy based on health care use criteria and the proportions of US patients filling prescriptions for either of 2 available therapies.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from commercially insured asthma patients aged 12 to 64 years who initiated combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) or budesonide/ formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BFC) from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008. Continuously enrolled patients who had not received ICS/LABA therapy during a 12-month preindex period were assigned to the BFC or FSC cohort based on their initial ICS/LABA prescription (index date). Appropriate initiation of ICS/LABA combination therapy was determined based on the risks for asthma exacerbation, high impairment, and previous controller medication use. Specifically, initiation of ICS/LABA therapy was considered appropriate if patients had claims during the preindex period for an ICS or leukotriene receptor antagonist, an asthma-related emergency department visit or hospitalization, >or=2 courses of oral corticosteroid, or >or=6 canisters of a rescue short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (SABA). Factors associated with appropriate initiation of ICS/LABA therapy were assessed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 16,205 patients initiated on ICS/LABA therapy, 39.2% met >or=1 criterion for appropriate use-788 of 1417 patients (55.6%) in the BFC group and 5572 of 14,788 patients (37.7%) in the FSC group (P < 0.001). Significantly greater proportions of BFC than FSC users met the individual criteria for previous controller medication use (45.7% vs 26.1%, respectively) and high SABA use (9.7% vs 6.1%). BFC users had a significantly higher likelihood of meeting >or=1 appropriateness criterion compared with FSC users (odds ratio = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.60-2.00; P < 0.001). Also significantly associated with appropriate use were receipt of the initial ICS/LABA prescription from a pulmonologist or allergist rather than from a physician in family medicine/general practice (P < 0.001), residence in the West relative to the Northeast (P < 0.005), and presence of specific comorbidities (allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and acute respiratory infection; all, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Just under 40% of patients met the criteria for appropriate initiation of ICS/LABA therapy, with significantly greater proportions of BFC than FSC users meeting the overall and individual criteria for appropriate use. Patients with appropriate initiation of ICS/LABA therapy were significantly more likely to be treated by pulmonologists and allergists than by family medicine/general practitioners.

Current trends in the treatment of asthma: focus on the simultaneous administration of salmeterol/fluticasone

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airways that affects over 20 million people in the United States. It is a complex disease that involves airway infiltration by different types of cells and cell mediators causing chronic inflammation of the airway as well as hyper-responsiveness and edema. Management of asthma symptoms often requires combination therapy with multiple medications. Long-acting beta-2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have become key medications in the prevention of asthma exacerbations. The bronchodilatory effects of the beta-2 agonists coupled with the anti-inflammatory action of the corticosteroids combat the multi-factorial causes of asthma. The combination inhaler containing salmeterol and fluticasone is one such product that has been proven safe and effective for asthma therapy.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in comparison with placebo in previous Cochrane reviews. This increase was significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but less certain in the smaller numbers of participants in trials that included an inhaled corticosteroid in the randomised treatment regimen.

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, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment.

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 July 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma were included 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 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

Eight studies met the eligibility criteria of the review recruiting 6,163 adults and adolescents. There were seven studies (involving 5,935 adults and adolescents) comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone. All but one study administered the products as a combined inhaler, and most used formoterol 50 mcg and budesonide 400 mcg twice daily versus salmeterol 50 mcg and fluticasone 250 mcg twice daily. There were two deaths overall (one on each combination) and neither were thought to be related to asthma.There was no significant difference between treatment groups for non-fatal serious adverse events, either all-cause (Peto OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.59, I(2) = 26%) or asthma-related (Peto OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26, I(2) = 33%). Over 23 weeks the rates for all-cause serious adverse events were 2.6% on formoterol and budesonide and 2.3% on salmeterol and fluticasone, and for asthma-related serious adverse events, 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.There was one study (228 adults) comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone, but there were no deaths or hospital admissions.No studies were found in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The seven identified studies in adults did not show any significant difference in safety between formoterol and budesonide in comparison with salmeterol and fluticasone. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths. There was a single small study comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, but no serious adverse events occurred in this study. No studies were found in children.Overall there is insufficient evidence to decide whether regular formoterol and budesonide or beclomethasone have equivalent or different safety profiles from salmeterol and fluticasone.

Appropriate use of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist combination therapy among asthma patients in a US commercially insured population

OBJECTIVE

To examine health care utilization measures indicating which asthma patients are appropriate for inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy and determine whether two ICS/LABA therapies were initiated in accordance with guidelines.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of commercially insured asthma patients aged > or =12 years that initiated fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BFC) combination therapy in 2007 was conducted. Use was considered appropriate if patients met any of the following during a 1-year period before ICS/LABA initiation: ICS or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) use; an asthma-related emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization; > or =2 oral corticosteroids (OCS) courses; or > or =6 short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (SABA) canisters. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with appropriate ICS/LABA use. Certain limitations inherent to the use of claims data for research apply to this study.

RESULTS

Of 24,231 patients who initiated ICS/LABA therapy, 993 received BFC and 23,238 received FSC. Among all patients, 37.6% met > or =1 criteria for appropriate use. However, compared with FSC users, BFC users had a significantly higher likelihood of meeting > or =1 of these criteria (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.76-2.30; p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of BFC than FSC patients met 4 of the 5 appropriate use criteria. In total, 58.4% of BFC patients versus 36.7% of FSC patients met > or =1 criteria for appropriate use. Other factors associated with appropriate use included age, region, Charlson comorbidity score, number of medications, and prescriber specialty.

CONCLUSION

Fewer than half of all patients fulfilled the specified criteria for being appropriate for ICS/LABA therapy. However, a significantly higher proportion of BFC than FSC users met the criteria for appropriate use of ICS/LABA therapy. These results may suggest a need for improved physician awareness of consensus guidelines for the initiation of ICS/LABA therapy.

Treatment of moderate to severe asthma: patient perspectives on combination inhaler therapy and implications for adherence

Symptom control in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma is essential to reduce the significant morbidity associated with the disease. Poor adherence to controller medications has been identified as a major contributing factor to the high level of uncontrolled asthma. This review examines patient perspectives on, and preferences for, controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β(2)-agonist combinations [ICS/LABA]), and how this may affect adherence to therapy. Fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol, the currently available ICS/LABA combination products, have similar efficacy and tolerability based on a recent meta-analysis of asthma trials. Adherence is higher with the combination ICS/LABAs than when the components are administered separately. Investigations into patient preferences for desirable attributes of asthma medications indicate that an effective reliever with a fast onset and long duration of action is preferred and may lead to improved adherence. This rapid onset of effect was perceived and highly valued in patient surveys, and was associated with greater patient satisfaction. Thus, future research should be directed at therapy that offers both anti-inflammatory activity and a rapid onset of bronchodilator effect. To further improve patient adherence and treatment outcome, the effect of these characteristics as well as other factors on adherence should also be investigated.

A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany

AIMS

This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting.

METHODS

Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting beta(2)-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as >or=1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n = 1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n = 982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (-33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (-31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus current care in the management of persistent asthma in Korea

OBJECTIVES

In the Asia-Pacific region there is a general preference for prescribing oral over inhaled medications for the treatment of asthma. This study compared inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate therapy (SFC) with physician-determined current care (CC) in the management of persistent asthma in Korea.

METHODS

Adult patients with a documented history of reversibility in FEV(1) (>or= 12%) or PEF (>or= 15%), were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to unblinded treatment with SFC (50/250 microg bd or 50/500 microg bd) via Diskus (N = 284) or CC (N = 140) for 52 weeks. Morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (primary endpoint), exacerbations, asthma symptoms and patient-reported outcome measures were recorded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

GSK study number:100614.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean morning PEF in the SFC and CC group was 374 and 401 L/min respectively. The adjusted mean morning PEF at 52 weeks was 423 +/- 3 and 396 +/- 4 L/min for SFC and CC respectively (treatment difference of 27 +/- 5 in favour of SFC; 95% CI 17, 37; p < 0.0001). The mean rate of exacerbations over 52 weeks was significantly lower in the SFC group (SFC/CC odds ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.44, 0.74; p < 0.0001). Treatment with SFC also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in asthma symptoms, in the number of patients assessed to have well controlled asthma (Asthma Control Test score >or= 20), and in a clinically significant improvement in overall Quality of Life. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar between the two groups and events were of the type expected in this population.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this open-label, randomised study showed that SFC provided greater asthma control than CC in the management of persistent asthma.

Acute care among asthma patients using budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

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.

Differences in the pharmacodynamics of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone reflect differences in their therapeutic usefulness in asthma

Although the available inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta( 2)-agonist (LABA) combinations principally work in a similar fashion, they differ in several important ways, leading to different efficacy. The ICS/LABA combination product budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and reliever therapy, providing a fixed maintenance dose, which does not change, and replacing short-acting beta(2)-agonists as relievers thereby allowing intervention to address the underlying inflammation at the earliest sign of symptomatic worsening. This approach is not suitable for other combination products such as salmeterol/fluticasone. Here we review the pharmacological differences of budesonide/ formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone that permit the use of budesonide/formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

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.

Comparison of adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler and fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in asthma patients

BACKGROUND

The adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) has demonstrated similar or greater asthma control with less inhaled corticosteroid compared with the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol DPI.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and resource use of maintenance therapy with the adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler and the fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients (N = 1225) 12 years and older with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. After 10 to 14 days of current therapy, patients were randomized 2:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] twice daily) or fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 microg x 1 inhalation twice daily) for 1 month (treatment period 1), after which, the fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol group continued therapy and the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol group was randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol or adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol (adjustable from 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] twice daily to 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] once daily or 4 inhalations [640/18 microg] twice daily) for 6 months (treatment period 2).

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in asthma exacerbations (primary variable), asthma symptoms, or lung function during the 7-month treatment period. Less study drug (inhalations per day, P < .001) was used with adjustable-dose versus fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustable-dose and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol showed no differences in asthma control or tolerability versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol.

Symbicort: a pharmacoeconomic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the published evidence on the pharmacoecomonics of Symbicort. Symbicort is a combination inhaler used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that contains budesonide and formoterol. In asthma, Symbicort can be used as fixed or adjustable dose maintenance therapy as well as for both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART).

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed was carried out to find all publications on the pharmacoeconomics of Symbicort. Additional studies were searched for in the reference lists of the papers retrieved and by searching tables of contents of relevant journals. A total of 13 studies on Symbicort in asthma and 2 studies on Symbicort in COPD were found.

RESULTS

Total costs were lower with Symbicort than with separate inhalers containing budesonide and formoterol. Adjustable dosing maintained control of asthma using less medication and was associated with lower treatment costs than fixed dosing with Symbicort or the combination of fluticasone/salmeterol. SMART improves asthma control, reduces exacerbations and reduces direct and indirect costs compared to fixed maintenance therapy with either Symbicort or fluticasone/salmeterol. In COPD, Symbicort offers clinical advantages over therapy with the monocomponents and these are achieved at little or no extra cost.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol using fixed dosing (BUD/FORM) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone or alternative ICS and long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) regimens for adults with moderate/severe asthma.

METHODS

BIOSIS, CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for abstracts and papers. All searching was completed in July 2006. No restriction was placed on language. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a fixed effects model. RCTs were included if the comparator with BUD/FORM had an equivalent daily dose of ICS at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was, 'treatment failure', defined as: asthma-related serious adverse event, oral glucocorticosteroid treatment, A&E visit and/or admission to hospital, withdrawal due to a need for additional asthma therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 330 papers identified in the literature search, 15 met the inclusion criteria. The following alternative treatments were found: ICS alone (BUD), BUD/FORM adjustable maintenance dose (BUD/FORM-AMD), and salmeterol/fluticasone in a single inhaler (SALM/FP). Meta-analysis of treatment failure demonstrated a 50% increase with BUD versus BUD/FORM (Relative Risk [RR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.12-2.02, p = 0.007; 2 RCTs); a trend in favour of a reduction with BUD/FORM-AMD versus BUD/FORM (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77-1.02, p = 0.09; 11 RCTs); and no evidence of a difference with SALM/FP versus BUD/FORM (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.83-1.16, p = 0.86; 3 RCTs). Significant heterogeneity was not detected in the primary analyses. Secondary analyses demonstrated the following significant differences: hospitalisations/A&E visits (49% increased risk with SALM/FP vs. BUD/FORM, RR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.07-2.08, p = 0.02, and 28% reduced risk with BUD/FORM-AMD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99, p = 0.04); and use of oral steroids (51% increase in risk with BUD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.10-2.09, p = 0.01, and 19% reduced risk with BUD/FORM-AMD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed-dose BUD/FORM is an effective treatment option for adult patients with moderate/severe asthma when compared to BUD and SALM/FP, with adjustable maintenance dosing demonstrating important advantages over fixed dosing in relation to exacerbation prevention and reduced treatment load.

Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination inhaler in chronic asthma

OBJECTIVE

To determine where in the treatment steps recommended by the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN) Asthma Guideline it is cost-effective to use salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination inhaler (SFC) (Seretide) compared with other inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing regimens (with and without a long acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)) for chronic asthma in adults and children.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Meta-analyses of percentage symptom-free days (%SFD) were used within a cost-effectiveness model. Time spent in two asthma control health states, 'symptom-free' and 'with-symptoms' was used as the measure of differential treatment effectiveness. SFC was compared with varying doses of fluticasone propionate (FP) and beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) with or without a separate salmeterol inhaler, and with the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FORM) (Symbicort). Drug costs, non-drug costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were incorporated into the analyses. Results are presented as cost per QALY ratios and uncertainty explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with an increased dose of FP in adults, SFC either 'dominates' (i.e. cheaper and more effective) FP or the cost per QALY is 6852 pounds sterling. The cost per QALYs estimated in sensitivity analyses using BDP costs range from 5679 pounds sterling to 15,997 pounds sterling. For children the cost per QALY for SFC 50 Evohaler compared with an increased dose of FP is pound 15,739 pounds sterling. SFC is similarly clinically effective in improving %SFDs compared with FP plus salmeterol delivered in separate inhalers (mean differences for each dose comparison of -3.9 (low) (with a 95% confidence interval (CI): -12.96; 5.16); 4.10 (medium) (95% CI: -3.01; 11.21); -0.4 (high) (95% CI: -8.88; 8.08)) and BUD/FORM (mean difference of 0.40 (95% CI -3.69; 4.49)) in adults, and a cheaper SFC option is available at all doses (annual cost savings range from 18 pounds sterling-427 pounds sterling per patient). SFC was similarly effective compared with FP plus salmeterol in separate inhalers in children under 12 and also resulted in annual cost savings of between 47 pounds sterling and 77 pounds sterling. A number of other comparisons were also made and the results are available as electronic supplementary data.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SFC in chronic asthma compared with multiple comparators and based on a systematic identification of relevant trials and data on %SFDs. The findings suggest that for adults and children uncontrolled on BDP 400 microg/day or equivalent it is a cost-effective option to switch to SFC (at an equivalent ICS dose) compared with increasing the dose of ICS. For adults and children aged 12 years and over who have passed this point and are uncontrolled on BDP 800 microg/day or equivalent, switching to SFC remains a cost-effective approach. Where an adult or child requires an ICS and a LABA to be co-prescribed, SFC is a cost-effective option compared with FP or BDP plus salmeterol delivered in separate inhalers. In adults who require combination therapy, SFC is a cost-effective option compared with BUD/FORM.

Effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on asthma exacerbations

This randomised, double-blind, 6-month study compared budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with salmeterol/fluticasone and a fixed maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol, both with terbutaline for relief. Following a 2-week run-in, 3335 symptomatic adults and adolescents (mean FEV1 73% predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid dose 745 microg/day) received budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg one inhalation bid plus additional inhalations as needed, salmeterol/fluticasone 25/125 microg two inhalations bid plus as-needed terbutaline or budesonide/formoterol 320/9 microg one inhalation bid plus as-needed terbutaline. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, emergency room treatment or oral steroids (primary variable) vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol (p=0.0034 and p=0.023 respectively; log-rank test). Exacerbation rates were 19, 16 and 12 events/100 patients/6 months for salmeterol/fluticasone, fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief, respectively, [rate reduction vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76, p<0.001) and vs. fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol (0.72; 95% CI 0.57-0.90, p=0.0048)]. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and relief patients used less inhaled corticosteroid vs. salmeterol/fluticasone and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol patients. All treatments provided similar marked improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduces asthma exacerbations and maintains similar daily asthma control at a lower overall drug load compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol.