Patient experiences of as-needed budesonide-formoterol by Turbuhaler® for treatment of mild asthma; a qualitative study

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting β-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States.

METHODS

Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation.

RESULTS

Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting β-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Evaluating as-needed inhaled corticosteroid strategies in asthma: expanding the benefits to mild asthma

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to regular anti-inflammatory treatment is commonly low, and short-acting β2 agonist (SABA) overuse is common in patients with asthma, leading to an increased risk of asthma-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Given the pivotal role of inflammation in asthma, multiple as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies have been developed, leading to a reduction in asthma exacerbations and improvement in symptom control. Currently, as-needed ICS/formoterol is one of the most commonly available formulations; however, other combinations such as ICS/SABA have been shown to be superior to as-needed SABA alone. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature to enhance the advantages and disadvantages of each combination in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The future direction we foresee in asthma management consists in abandoning as-needed short-acting bronchodilators in favor of as-needed ICS-containing therapies. Each patient is unique and differs from others; consequently, a single option will not fit everyone. Patients' and physicians' awareness of this perspective can be reached through the development of multiple therapeutic options suitable for each condition that can be found in 'real life'.

Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review

Objective

Including qualitative research in clinical trial design is an innovative approach to understanding patients' perspective and incorporate the patient's voice in all stages of drug development and evaluation. This review aims to explore current practices, lessons learned from the literature, as well as how qualitative interviews are considered by health authorities for marketing authorization and reimbursement.

Methods

A targeted literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted in February 2022 to identify publications on qualitative methods embedded in clinical trial of pharmaceutical products. An additional search of guidelines and labeling claims of approved products regarding qualitative research was performed in various sources of grey literature.

Results

From the 24 publications and nine documents reviewed, we identified the research questions addressed with qualitative methods during clinical trials (e.g., change in quality of life, symptoms assessment, treatment benefit), preferred data collection methods (e.g., interviews), and data collection points (e.g., baseline and exit interviews). Moreover, the data from labels and HTAs demonstrate that qualitative data can play an important role in approval processes.

Conclusion

The use of in-trial interviews is still emerging and is not yet common practice. Although the industry, scientific community, regulatory agencies and HTAs are showing an increasing interest in the use of evidence generated via in-trial interviews, guidance from regulators and HTAs would be helpful. Developing new methods and technologies to address the common challenges for such interviews is key to progress.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

A Shift in Asthma Treatment According to New Guidelines: An Evaluation of Asthma Patients' Attitudes towards Treatment Change

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has presented a shift in pharmacological asthma treatment. The objective of this study was to explore factors influencing a successful switch to a new asthma treatment approach with a focus on asthma patients' attitudes toward treatment change and supportive initiatives. This study was performed as a case study involving a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative semi-structured interview. A total of 284 responses were collected from the questionnaire, and 141 responses were included. The results showed that asthma patients thought that effectiveness of the new treatment approach, doctor recommendation, and knowledge of the new treatment approach were the most important factors influencing treatment change considerations. Nine interviews were conducted where the main themes were barriers to a shift in asthma treatment, such as effects and side effects of the new treatment, the role of the general practitioner (GP) and conflicts in agreeing on a treatment plan; as well as facilitators to a shift in asthma treatment, such as trust in the GP and easier inhaler use. We found several supportive initiatives, such as consultation with the GP, handing out information leaflets and a consultation at the pharmacy. In conclusion, this study uniquely identified factors that may influence successful treatment shifts in asthma patients that may be instrumental in understanding similar situations in other pharmacological settings.

Asthma control with ICS-formoterol reliever versus maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials

Background

In randomised controlled trials, as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever therapy reduces severe exacerbation risk compared with maintenance ICS plus short-acting beta₂-agonist (SABA) reliever in adolescent and adult asthma, but results in slightly worse control of asthma symptoms, as measured by mean Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score.

Objective

To assess the levels and changes in asthma control for as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA in post hoc analyses from the Novel START and PRACTICAL clinical trials.

Methods

The number and proportion of participants at study end in each ACQ-5 category (‘well-controlled’, ‘partly controlled’ or ‘inadequately controlled’ symptoms), and in each responder category based on the minimal clinically important difference for ACQ-5 of 0.5 (improved, no change and worse) with as-needed budesonide–formoterol and maintenance budesonide plus SABA treatment were calculated.

Results

With last observation carried forwards, 189/214 (88.3%) and 354/434 (81.6%) of patients in the budesonide–formoterol group had ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ symptoms at the end of the study, vs 183/214 (85.5%) and 358/431 (83.1%) in the budesonide maintenance group, for Novel START and PRACTICAL, respectively. The proportion of patients whose symptom control was either improved or unchanged from baseline was 190/214 (88.8%) and 368/434 (84.8%) for budesonide–formoterol, vs 185/214 (86.4%) and 376/431 (87.2%) for maintenance budesonide, in Novel START and PRACTICAL respectively.

Conclusions

There were no clinically important differences in the proportions of patients with ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ asthma symptoms, or proportions who improved or maintained their level of control, with as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA.

Expert Opinion on Practice Patterns in Mild Asthma After the GINA 2019 Updates: A Major Shift in Treatment Paradigms from a Long-Standing SABA-Only Approach to a Risk Reduction-Based Strategy with the Use of Symptom-Driven (As-Needed) Low-Dose ICS/LABA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This expert opinion, prepared by a panel of chest disease specialists, aims to review the current knowledge on practice patterns in real-life management of mild asthma and to address the relevant updates in asthma treatment by The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) to guide clinicians for the best clinical practice in applying these new treatment paradigms.

RECENT FINDINGS

On the basis of the emerging body of evidence suggesting the non-safety of short-acting β2-agonists (SABA)-only therapy and comparable efficacy of the as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol combinations with maintenance ICS regimens, GINA recently released their updated Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Guide (2019). The new GINA 2019 recommendations no longer support the SABA-only therapy in mild asthma but instead includes new off-label recommendations such as symptom-driven (as-needed) low-dose ICS-formoterol and "low dose ICS taken whenever SABA is taken." The GINA 2019 asthma treatment recommendations include a major shift from long-standing approach of clinical practice regarding the use of symptom-driven SABA treatment alone in the management of mild asthma. This expert opinion supports the transition from a long-standing SABA-only approach to a risk reduction-based strategy, with the use of symptom-driven (as-needed) low-dose ICS/LABA in mild asthma patients, particularly in those with poor adherence to controller medications. The thoughtful and comprehensive approach of clinicians to these strategies is important, given that the exact far-reaching impact of this major change in management of mild asthma in the real-world settings will only be clarified over time.

Asthma management in low- and middle-income countries: case for change

Asthma is the most common non-communicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they suffer disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality.Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times/week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS is prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting beta₂ agonist (SABA) alone, due to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries.The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death - despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches - is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Perspectives of mild asthma patients on maintenance versus as-needed preventer treatment regimens: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

As-needed low-dose combination budesonide-formoterol is recommended by asthma guidelines in many countries as an alternative to maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for treatment of mild asthma, but there are few data on patient attitudes toward these regimens. This study explored the comparative implementation experiences and future treatment preferences of mild asthma patients who had experienced these two treatment regimens.

SETTING

A subgroup of adults randomised to maintenance ICS or as-needed ICS-formoterol in a multinational, 52-week open-label randomised controlled trial (NovelSTART) in mild asthma patients were interviewed to explore their motivations for treatment use during the study and their preferences for future treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 74 participants (Maintenance group: n=39, As-needed group n=35, mean age 38 (range 19-69)) and thematically analysed from transcribed audiorecordings.

RESULTS

Emergent themes from analysis comprised: 'How much my asthma affects me' (how their asthma's impact affected their self-management motivation); 'What I know about asthma' (limited knowledge impeded appropriate self-management decision making); 'How much effort this treatment regimen involves for me' (treatment complexity and/or difficulty establishing a medication routine impeded implementation, particularly in the Maintenance group); and 'My beliefs about the benefits and risks of this treatment' (patients who considered their treatment as ineffective, eg, limited difference in symptoms relative to salbutamol (both groups) or slower onset of relief (As-needed group) had poor motivation to use the treatment). Due to the simplicity of the as-needed combination strategy, this was the preferred future regimen, even by patients who had not yet tried it.

CONCLUSIONS

Key patient perspectives on the implementation of preventer treatments for mild asthma included factors relating to perceived asthma burden, disease knowledge, treatment complexity and treatment usefulness or safety. The as-needed budesonide-formoterol regimen was preferred to maintenance ICS treatment in mild asthma though patient education is urgently needed to address implementation motivation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615000999538.

A patient decision aid for mild asthma: Navigating a new asthma treatment paradigm

INTRODUCTION

In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol offers similar protection from severe exacerbations as daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with lower ICS exposure but slightly increased symptoms. We sought to develop an electronic decision aid to guide discussions about the pros and cons of these first-line options, while identifying and integrating user preferences.

METHODS

Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards, we created a mild asthma decision aid prototype comparing convenience, clinical outcomes, cumulative ICS dose exposure, costs, and side-effects of each option. After face validation, the prototype was iteratively adapted through rapid-cycle development. Each cycle consisted of a patient focus group and a primary care physician interview. We made user preference-based improvements after each round, until reaching a pre-set stopping criterion (no new critical issues identified). We then performed a summative qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Over 5 cycles, we recruited 21 asthma patients (12/21 women, 10/21 ≥ 60 years old) and 5 physicians. Serial changes included simplification and reduction of text and reading level, inclusion of an ICS "myths" section and elaboration of patient-friendly infographics for numerical comparisons. User preferences fell within Content, Format, and tool use Process themes. In response to decision-making preferences, we created a complementary one-page conversation aid for patient-provider use at the point-of-care.

CONCLUSIONS

We present preference-based electronic patient decision and conversation aids for treatment of mild asthma. Our user preference analyses offer useful insights for development of such tools in other chronic diseases. These tools now require integration into point-of-care workflows for measurement of real-world uptake and impact.

Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Mild Asthma: Data from the Two Phase III SYGMA Studies

Introduction

Budesonide-formoterol taken as needed is an emerging treatment for mild asthma.

Objective

We used data from the SYGMA studies to assess the safety of As-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with As-needed terbutaline and compared with maintenance budesonide.

Methods

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies in patients aged ≥ 12 years with physician-assessed mild asthma. Patients were randomized to As-needed budesonide-formoterol 200/6 μg, twice-daily budesonide 200 μg as maintenance plus As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg, and As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs (DAEs), and study-defined asthma-related discontinuations from corresponding treatment groups in both studies were pooled. SYGMA 1 data were used for comparisons with As-needed terbutaline alone.

Results

The pooled analysis included 3366 patients in the As-needed budesonide-formoterol group and 3369 in the budesonide maintenance group, with AEs in 40.8% and 42.5% of patients, respectively. Common AEs included viral upper respiratory tract infection (viral URTI) and URTI. SAE, DAE, and asthma-related discontinuation rates were similar with As-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide. Potential local and systemic corticosteroid class effects were reported in ≤ 1% of patients for each budesonide-containing regimen. In SYGMA 1, AEs were more common in the As-needed terbutaline (n = 1277) than As-needed budesonide-formoterol (n = 1277) groups (42.7 vs. 38.0%), as were DAEs (2.9 vs. 0.8%) and asthma-related discontinuations (1.6 vs. 0.3%).

Conclusions

Budesonide-formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever therapy is generally well-tolerated in patients with mild asthma and has a safety profile similar to that of daily budesonide. No new safety signals were identified.

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifiers

NCT02149199 (SYGMA 1) and NCT02224157 (SYGMA 2).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-020-01041-z.