Formoterol (OXIS) Turbuhaler as a rescue therapy compared with salbutamol pMDI plus spacer in patients with acute severe asthma

The Role of ICS-Containing Rescue Therapy Versus SABA Alone in Asthma Management Today

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) monotherapy should no longer be prescribed, and that as-needed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol is the preferred reliever therapy in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. These recommendations are based on the risks of SABA monotherapy, the evidence that ICS-formoterol reliever therapy markedly decreases the occurrence of severe asthma exacerbations compared with SABA reliever therapy alone, and because ICS-formoterol reliever therapy has a favorable risk/benefit profile compared with maintenance ICS plus SABA reliever therapy. Data supporting the use of combination ICS-albuterol reliever therapy in mild asthma are more limited, but there are studies that inform its use in this population. In this review, we compare, using a pros and cons format, the (1) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-formoterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (2) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-albuterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (3) immediate bronchodilator effects of ICS-formoterol versus SABA alone, and (4) clinical and regulatory factors that may inform reliever therapy prescription decisions. By presenting the evidence of these reliever inhaler options, we hope to inform the reader while also calling for necessary future effectiveness and implementation research.

High inhaler resistance does not limit successful inspiratory maneuver among patients with asthma or COPD

INTRODUCTION

There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.

AREAS COVERED

For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.

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.

Repeated dose budesonide/formoterol compared to salbutamol in adult asthma: A randomised cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative bronchodilator, systemic beta2-agonist, cardiovascular and adverse effects of salbutamol 200 µg and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg when taken repeatedly in stable asthma.

METHODS

This open-label, cross-over, single-centre, controlled trial, randomised adults with asthma to different orders of two treatment regimens: salbutamol 200 µg via MDI at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, then salbutamol 2.5 mg via nebuliser at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min; or budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg one actuation via Turbuhaler at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, two actuations at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 180 min. Secondary outcomes included repeat measures of FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and adverse events RESULTS: Of 39 patients randomised, two withdrew due to adverse events (QTCF prolongation and T wave abnormalities) after the first intervention with salbutamol. The mean (sd) change from baseline FEV1 180 min after randomisation for salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol regimens was 0.71 (0.46) L, N=38, and 0.58 (0.45) L, N=37, respectively; with a mean (sd) paired difference of -0.10 (0.40) L, N=37, and a model-based estimated difference (95% CI) -0.12 (-0.25 to 0.02) L, p=0.088. In the main secondary analysis, salbutamol resulted in significantly greater FEV1 from 30 to 240 min, but lesser FEV1 at 360 and 420 min. Salbutamol resulted in a significantly lower serum potassium, and a higher heart rate and number of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The comparative bronchodilator responses of repeated administration of salbutamol 200 µg dose-1 and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg differed depending on the time of measurement. Salbutamol caused greater systemic beta2-agonist and cardiovascular effects and more adverse events.

New approach to intermittent and mild asthma therapy: evolution or revolution in the GINA guidelines?

New recommendations from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) were released in a pocket guide form on April 12, 2019. These recommendations provide very important changes to the management of asthma, especially regarding the treatment of intermittent and mild asthma. Due to safety concerns, GINA experts no longer recommend treatment with a short-acting β2 agonist alone. Henceforth, all adults and adolescents (but not yet children) with mild asthma should receive either symptom-driven or daily low-dose ICS. The main goal of this new approach is to reduce the risk of serious asthma exacerbations and asthma-related deaths in the population of patients with mild asthma. Herein, the authors present the epidemiological and clinical data regarding the risks of excessive SABA use and the benefits of regular treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The authors deliver a critical review on the evolution of the changes in the GINA experts’ standpoint and provide evidence-based background for the new approach to asthma treatment. Moreover, the authors identify gaps and unmet needs still present in the current asthma management recommendations and discuss them thoroughly.

Performance of Turbuhaler((R)) in Patients with Acute Airway Obstruction and COPD, and in Children with Asthma : Understanding the Clinical Importance of Adequate Peak Inspiratory Flow, High Lung Deposition, and Low In Vivo Dose Variability

The dry-powder inhaler (DPI) Turbuhaler((R)) has been on the market for nearly two decades. Products containing terbutaline, formoterol, budesonide, and the combination budesonide/formoterol are widely used by patients with asthma and COPD. Most patients and physicians find Turbuhaler((R)) easy to use, and local side effects are rare. This is thought to arise from the lack of additives or only small amounts in the formulation, in addition to minimal deposition of the drug in the oropharynx and on the vocal cords during inspiration.The function of Turbuhaler((R)) has frequently been questioned. This article aims to review and clarify some key issues that have been challenged in the literature (e.g. the effectiveness of Turbuhaler((R)) in patients with more restricting conditions), to discuss the importance of lung deposition, and to explain the low in vivo variability associated with Turbuhaler((R)) and the lack of correlation with the higher in vitro variability.Turbuhaler((R)), like other DPIs, is flow dependent to some degree. However, a peak inspiratory flow (PIF) through Turbuhaler((R)) of 30 L/min gives a good clinical effect. These PIF values can be obtained by patients with conditions thought to be difficult to manage with inhalational agents, such as asthmatic children and adult patients with acute severe airway obstruction and COPD. Excellent clinical results with Turbuhaler((R)) in large controlled studies in patients with COPD and acute severe airway obstruction provide indirect evidence that medication delivered via Turbuhaler((R)) reaches the target organ.Due to the large amount of small particles and the moderate inbuilt resistance in Turbuhaler((R)), which opens up the vocal cords during inhalation, Turbuhaler((R)) is associated with a high lung deposition (25-40% of the delivered dose) compared with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and other DPIs. A good correlation has been found between lung deposition and clinical efficacy. A high lung deposition always results in the best ratio between clinical efficacy and risk of unwanted systemic activity. Studies with Turbuhaler((R)) also show that the in vivo variation in lung deposition is significantly lower compared with a pMDI or, for example, the Diskus((R)) inhaler, and much lower than the in vitro dose variability seen in laboratory tests. Turbuhaler((R)) appears to be a reliable DPI which can be used with confidence by patients with airway diseases, including those with clinical conditions believed to be difficult to manage with inhalational therapy.

Dry-powder inhalers in acute asthma

An updated literature search was performed to evaluate the efficacy of rapid-acting β2-agonists delivered via dry powder inhalers in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute asthma. Databases were searched from 1985 up to December 2012. A total of 23 randomized, double-blind or open clinical studies in acute asthma comparing the efficacy of a dry powder inhaler with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler or a nebulizer, and performed under controlled hospital conditions, were identified. This review found that administration of β2-agonist bronchodilators via dry powder inhalers (formoterol, salbutamol, terbutaline and budesonide/formoterol) was effective during severe asthma worsening and acute asthma attacks, and was as effective as established therapies with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler with or without a spacer, or nebulization. These results ensure that patients can rely upon dry powder inhalers equally well as other inhaler devices during episodes of asthma worsening.

A randomized open-label trial on the use of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) as an alternative reliever medication for mild to moderate asthmatic attacks

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, a nebulized short-acting β-2 agonist like salbutamol is often used as the reliever in acute exacerbations of asthma. However, recent worldwide respiratory outbreaks discourage routine use of nebulization. Previous studies have shown that combined budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®, AstraZeneca) is effective as both a maintenance and reliever anti-asthmatic medication.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better.

RESULTS

Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no statistical difference between using Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol as the reliever for the first 15 min post-intervention.

Bronchodilatory effect of inhaled budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/salbutamol in acute asthma: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There are no published studies that have compared bronchodilatory effect of inhaled budesonide/formoterol combination with budesonide/salbutamol delivered by metered dose inhaler with a spacer in acute exacerbation of asthma in children. We, therefore, compared the bronchodilatory effects of inhaled budesonide/formoterol (dose: 200 μg and 12 μg respectively) combination with budesonide (200 μg)/salbutamol (200 μg) administered by metered dose inhaler and spacer in children of 5-15 years with mild acute exacerbation of asthma [Modified Pulmonary Index Score (MPIS) between 6-8] in this double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was FEV1 (% predicted) in the two groups at 1, 5, 15, 30, 60 min after administration of the study drug.

RESULTS

We did not observe any significant differences in the % predicted FEV1 and MPIS between formoterol and salbutamol at various time points from 1 min to 60 min post drug administration. There was significant improvement in FEV1 (% predicted) from baseline in both the groups as early as 1 min after drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Salbutamol or formoterol delivered along with inhaled corticosteroid by metered dose inhaler with spacer in children between 5-15 years of age with mild acute exacerbation of asthma had similar bronchodilatory effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00900874.

[Asthma: treatment of exacerbations]

INTRODUCTION

Exacerbations remain, in both adults and children, a common reason for emergency consultation. The management of the asthmatic patient with an acute exacerbation is well defined.

BACKGROUND

The initial evaluation, based on the background risk factors and the clinical examination, will determine the choice of treatment and management. Treatment is based on bronchodilators and corticosteroids in the majority of cases.

VIEWPOINTS

An episode of exacerbation may be the opportunity to establish contact with the patient (an educational approach) to improve the adherence to long-term treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, which remain the best way of preventing future exacerbations.

CONCLUSION

Early and appropriate management of exacerbations of asthma should reduce asthma morbidity and mortality. It could also reduce the socioeconomic costs of these episodes and the number and duration of hospital admissions.

A comparative study of efficacy and safety of arformoterol and salbutamol nebulization as rescue therapy in acute non-severe asthma

Arformoterol, a long-acting beta-2 agonist, has a rapid onset and long duration of action. Its role as rescue medication in acute asthma attack is undetermined. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of arformoterol with salbutamol nebulization, a study was conducted among 50 patients with acute non-severe asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n = 25) and group 2 (n = 25) who received three doses of salbutamol and arformoterol nebulization, respectively, at 20-min intervals. The peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was measured at the baseline and 5 min after each dose. The demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The mean PEFR significantly increased in both these groups when compared with the baseline. The increases in the PEFR in two groups were similar after the third dose. The adverse effects in both these groups were minor. Arformoterol was as effective and safe as salbutamol in acute non-severe asthma.

A smarter way to manage asthma with a combination of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid

Symbicort SMART® (Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) represents a new and unique way of treating patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, ie, those patients who require combination treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist. Symbicort SMART enables patients to use only one inhaler, the budesonide-formoterol combination inhaler, for both maintenance and reliever therapy. The maintenance dose is adjustable, but should be a minimum of two doses per day which can be administered as two doses once daily or as one dose twice daily. It is important that the temporary reliever medication includes not only a bronchodilator but also an antiinflammatory drug because worsening of asthma includes not only more airway narrowing, but also an increase in airway inflammation. The Symbicort SMART concept therefore ensures that the patient gets an antiinflammatory drug at the time of the first signs of asthma worsening. Clinical results show that Symbicort SMART prolongs the time to the first severe asthma exacerbation, reduces the rate of exacerbations, and maintains day-to-day asthma control at a reduced load of corticosteroids (inhaled plus systemic) when compared with higher fixed maintenance doses of combination inhalers. Symbicort SMART consequently offers a more effective and simple approach to asthma management for physicians and patients. Symbicort SMART is also easier for the patient as only one inhaler is required. The positive results with Symbicort SMART can be explained by the early as-needed use on the inhaled corticosteroid component, which puts out the early flames of inflammation, together with the interaction between the β₂-agonist, formoterol, and the inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide and formoterol are available in a combined inhaler that offers therapeutic advantages in the treatment of asthma. The rapid onset of bronchodilation seen with formoterol means that budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and relief therapy. This approach has been shown to reduce exacerbations and overcome the problem of patients who overuse short-acting β-agonists at the expense of inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns regarding safety of long-acting β-agonists have not been confirmed in studies of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler, and we believe the benefits of this medication clearly outweigh any possible small increased risk.

Fixed or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in asthma patients aged >or=16 years: post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) combinations are the preferred maintenance therapy for adult asthma patients uncontrolled by ICS alone. Supporting data are largely from mixed populations of adolescents and adults, although ICS/LABA combinations are not approved for adolescents in all countries. This analysis evaluates overall asthma control in asthma patients aged >or=16 years receiving ICS/LABA combinations.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of asthma patients aged >or=16 years in a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study. Patients received fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler), fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair Diskus) or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol. Patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for as-needed reliever medication. The primary efficacy variable was the odds of having a well controlled asthma week during the randomized treatment period.

RESULTS

ICS/LABA regimens were well tolerated and efficacious, and the odds for achieving a well controlled asthma week did not differ between groups in this sub-analysis. The number of exacerbations was similar between fixed-dose regimens; however, there were trends toward fewer exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room treatment in the fixed- and adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol groups (three and two events, respectively) than in the fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (eight events). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) were small but significantly greater with fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol versus fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis supports the use of ICS/LABA combinations in adults aged >or=16 years.

Formoterol for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several published studies have suggested that formoterol fumarate could be equivalent to short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) for the treatment of asthma exacerbations, its role in acute asthma treatment remains undefined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled formoterol (compared with SABAs) for the emergency department treatment of patients with acute asthma.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and manufactures' trial registers, without language restriction. The primary outcomes were spirometric measures. The secondary outcomes included final serum potassium level, heart rate, electrocardiographic QT interval corrected for heart rate, and total withdrawals.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials (including 576 participants) were selected. No significant difference could be detected between formoterol and SABAs for any of the selected time points: at 30 to 40 minutes after the first administration of study drugs (standardized mean difference, -0.19; 95% confidence interval, -0.56 to 0.17; I2 = 75%), at the end of treatment (standardized mean difference, -0.25; 95% confidence interval, -0.72 to 0.13; I2 = 89%), and at 60 to 90 minutes after the last dose (standardized mean difference, -0.13; 95% confidence interval, -0.55 to 0.28; I2 = 80%). Similarly, there were no significant differences between formoterol and SABAs regarding final serum potassium level, heart rate, QT interval, hospitalization rate, and total withdrawals.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that high-dose formoterol administered via dry powder inhaler is well tolerated and provides rapid and effective bronchodilation, similar to high-dose salbutamol or terbutaline via metered-dose inhaler or nebulizer. Formoterol may be used in the treatment of acute asthma in the emergency department setting.

Protective effect of budesonide/formoterol compared with formoterol, salbutamol and placebo on repeated provocations with inhaled AMP in patients with asthma: a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study

Background

The budesonide/formoterol combination is successfully used for fast relief of asthma symptoms in addition to its use as maintenance therapy. The temporarily increased corticosteroid dose during increasing inhaler use for symptom relief is likely to suppress any temporary increase in airway inflammation and may mitigate or prevent asthma exacerbations. The relative contribution of the budesonide and formoterol components to the improved asthma control is unclear.

Methods

The acute protective effect of inhaled budesonide was tested in a model of temporarily increased airway inflammation with repeated indirect airway challenges, mimicking an acute asthma exacerbation. A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study design was used. Asthmatic patients (n = 17, mean FEV₁ 95% of predicted) who previously demonstrated a ≥30% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after inhaling adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP), were challenged on four consecutive test days, with the same dose of AMP (at 09:00, 12:00 and 16:00 hours). Within 1 minute of the maximal AMP-induced bronchoconstriction at 09:00 hours, the patients inhaled one dose of either budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg), formoterol (4.5 μg), salbutamol (2 × 100 μg) or placebo. The protective effects of the randomised treatments were assessed by serial lung function measurements over the test day.

Results

In the AMP provocations at 3 and 7 hours after inhalation, the budesonide/formoterol combination provided a greater protective effect against AMP-induced bronchoconstriction compared with formoterol alone, salbutamol and placebo. In addition all three active treatments significantly increased FEV₁ within 3 minutes of administration, at a time when inhaled AMP had induced the 30% fall in FEV₁.

Conclusions

A single dose of budesonide/formoterol provided a greater protective effect against inhaled AMP-induced bronchoconstriction than formoterol alone, both at 3 and at 7 hours after inhalation. The acute protection against subsequent bronchoconstrictor stimuli such as inhaled AMP and the rapid reversal of airway obstruction supports the use of budesonide/formoterol for both relief and prevention in the treatment of asthma.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00272753

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

A randomized, comparative study of formoterol and terbutaline dry powder inhalers in the treatment of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations in the pediatric acute care setting

BACKGROUND

Formoterol is a fast-acting, long-acting beta-agonist. Its on-demand use by outpatients has been beneficial in controlling asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of formoterol as rescue medication for pediatric asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted on parallel groups involving 79 pediatric patients (mean [SD] age, 9.92 [2.5] years) with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. They were treated with up to 3 doses of formoterol aerolizer, 12 microg, or terbutaline Turbuhaler, 0.5 mg (dry powder inhalers). Respiratory rate, clinical score, pulse oximetry, and spirometry were analyzed at baseline and 15 minutes after administration of each bronchodilator dose. All the patients received oral prednisolone, 1 mg/kg, at study entry, followed by a single daily dose for 4 days. Forty-one patients were treated with formoterol and 38 with terbutaline. The groups were comparable in age and in severity of asthma exacerbation.

RESULTS

Both treatments resulted in similar clinical and functional improvement; 37 patients (47%) required 1 bronchodilator dose. Increases of 19.5% and 15.3% occurred in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in the formoterol and terbutaline groups, respectively. Therapeutic failures occurred in 2 patients. No adverse effects were observed. At 1-week follow-up, patients were stable, with pulmonary function close to normal.

CONCLUSION

Formoterol therapy was at least as effective as terbutaline therapy in children and adolescents with mild and moderate asthma exacerbations.

The role of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in the management of asthma

The aim of asthma management is to gain and maintain asthma control and reduce the risk of future exacerbations. However, despite the availability of effective therapies and national and international guidelines for their use, many patients remain inadequately controlled and continue to endure and accept a reduced quality of life. This review discusses current challenges in asthma management facing primary care physicians and provides insight into new treatment strategies developed to improve asthma control. A web-based literature review was undertaken with a focus on studies and reviews discussing asthma control and management with traditional therapies and new therapies, including a novel treatment approach using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. One of the most common problems in long-term asthma control is poor adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy, resulting in under-treatment of inflammation. Many patients tend to over-rely on short-acting beta(2)-agonist medication for quick relief of symptoms at the expense of ICS therapy, thus lowering anti-inflammatory protection and increasing the propensity for the development of severe and potentially life-threatening exacerbations. New simplified treatment strategies have been investigated with the aim of overcoming many of these primary care challenges, ultimately improving asthma control and reducing the future risk of exacerbations.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Evaluation of combination long-acting beta-2 agonists and inhaled glucocorticosteroids for treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Treating asthma with a combination of inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-2-agonist is often preferred when asthma is not controlled when using a low-medium dose of an inhaled corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of inhalers containing combinations of long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids to treat moderate-to-severe, persistent asthma.

METHODS

Using a list of keywords, we conducted a PubMed search of the literature. Data provided by the manufacturer were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Fluticasone propionate with salmeterol and budesonide with formoterol are both well tolerated, have equal clinical efficacy and have recent data affirming their safe use in diverse patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination inhalers improve asthma control in patients previously uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids.

Use of dry powder inhalers in acute exacerbations of asthma and COPD

To investigate whether dry powder inhalers (DPIs) function in a constrained situation, a literature analysis was performed to evaluate the use of DPIs compared with established therapies in the treatment of acute asthma and COPD, irrespective of rapid-acting beta(2)-agonist used. The external databases Medline, Embase, Biosis and Current Contents and AstraZeneca's internal literature database Planet were searched up to April 2008. Only publications or congress abstracts describing clinical trials in patients treated at EDs or hospitals were considered, and then only those in which exacerbation severity (measured as FEV(1)) were included. Fifteen clinical studies met these criteria; twelve in acute asthma and three in acute COPD. For acute asthma, eight studies were double-blind, randomised studies (six in adults and two in children), two were open-label studies (one in adults and one in children), and two were investigational (methacholine challenge) studies. For the acute COPD studies, one was double-blind and randomised, one was single-blind and randomised, and one was open-label. This review found that administration of fast-acting bronchodilators via DPIs, the majority of which were Turbuhaler, is effective during an asthma or COPD worsening. Our literature review finds that DPIs function in patients with acute asthma or COPD equally well as established therapies with other inhaler devices. Patients can therefore rely upon DPIs in the same way that they rely upon other inhaler devices.

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.

Formoterol dry-powder inhaler for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Formoterol, a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist, is used as an inhaled bronchodilator therapy for patients with asthma or for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm in children and in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Formoterol has unique characteristics of rapid onset and sustained duration of action compared with other bronchodilators. In addition to its effectiveness as regular maintenance therapy in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, formoterol is also reported to be effective as an as-needed reliever therapy in patients with asthma. Formoterol is available in several different types of dry-powder inhalers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers.

Long duration of airway but not systemic effects of inhaled formoterol in asthmatic patients

RATIONALE

Formoterol is approved as asthma rescue medication in many countries. The exact duration of the airway vs. systemic effects of formoterol compared with another rescue medication, salbutamol, has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the duration of airway bronchodilatory effects vs. systemic effects of inhaled formoterol and salbutamol in asthmatic patients.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with stable and reversible asthma were given single doses of formoterol dry-powder inhaler (OxisTurbuhaler) 2x9 microg (lower dose; LD) and 6x9 microg (higher dose; HD), salbutamol (VentolinDiskhaler) 3x400 microg (LD) and 9x400 microg (HD), and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Airway and systemic effects were assessed by forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1), serum potassium, blood pressure, corrected QT-interval (QTc), and palpitation and tremor scores. Time with clinically relevant bronchodilation (FEV1 increase 12%) without clinically relevant markers of systemic effects (serum potassium suppression 0.2 mmol/L, QTc-prolongation 20 ms, or heart rate increase 8 beats per minute) was evaluated.

RESULTS

Bronchodilation was maintained for 24h with both formoterol doses and for 7-11h with salbutamol. Maximum bronchodilation and systemic effects were similar after formoterol and salbutamol, except for statistically significantly larger maximum heart rate and palpitation and tremor scores after salbutamol. Systemic responses were similarly brief for formoterol and salbutamol (7 h).

CONCLUSIONS

The airway effects of inhaled formoterol are of long duration, whereas the systemic effects are of a similarly short duration as salbutamol. Thus, the time with clinically relevant bronchodilation without systemic effects is substantially longer after formoterol than after salbutamol.

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

The addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo.

METHODS

This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the role of formoterol in the management of acute asthma

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of formoterol delivered by Aerolizer in the emergency department.

METHODS

A single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study was conducted in patients seeking emergent care for an acute exacerbation of asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 1 (salbutamol), receiving a total dose of 600 microg salbutamol (200+200+200) delivered by a meter-dose inhaler into a spacer device as two puffs at 20 min intervals; and group 2 (formoterol), receiving formoterol 24 microg (12+12) as two dry powder capsules each containing 12 microg of formoterol via Aerolizer at 20 min intervals. The peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was measured at baseline and 5 min after the second and third doses.

RESULTS

60 subjects receiving salbutamol (n = 28) or formoterol (n = 32) completed the study. Age, gender, baseline PEFR, duration of asthma and previous medication were balanced between the two groups. Mean PEFR increased significantly over baseline values in both the salbutamol and formoterol groups (63% in the salbutamol group, p = 0.001, and 55% in the formoterol group, p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the increase in PEFR between the groups (p = 0.99, 95% CI -29.62 to 29.59). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Formoterol was found to be well tolerated and as effective as salbutamol in the management of acute asthma. Further studies are needed to follow the patients after discharge from the emergency room to compare the long-term effect of formoterol on patients' stability.

Formoterol turbuhaler is as effective as salbutamol diskus in relieving adenosine-induced bronchoconstriction in children

Salbutamol diskus (SD) and formoterol turbuhaler (FT) are both fast-acting beta(2) agonists delivery systems used to relieve bronchoconstriction, such as that which accompanies acute exacerbations of asthma. Although SD (which is used only on an as-needed basis) is flow independent, the FT (currently recommended for regular therapy) requires a forceful deep inspiration. Thus, the efficacy of FT in children with bronchoconstriction may be inferior to that of SD. We have studied the bronchodilatation response induced by FT after a standard adenosine-5-monophosphate (AMP) bronchial challenge, and compared it to that induced by SD, and placebo. Seventeen children (mean age +/- SD 10.3 +/- 1.7 y) with asthma underwent three AMP challenges, each time followed by inhalation of either placebo, SD (200 mug) or FT (9 mug), in random order. Patterns of bronchodilatation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second recovery) to 90% of baseline levels were compared. Both SD and FT were significantly better than placebo. FT was slightly better than SD, but this difference was not statistically significant. FT and SD are both effective bronchodilators and may be of comparable efficiency during acute bronchoconstriction in young children with asthma.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurised metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are the preferred maintenance therapy for adults and children with mild, moderate and severe persistent asthma, with the addition of a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist to ICS therapy recommended for patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma. The efficacy and safety of the combination of budesonide and formoterol delivered via dry powder inhaler (DPI) is well documented.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler (budesonide/formoterol pMDI; Symbicort pMDI, AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE, USA) with budesonide pMDI (Pulmicort pMDI, Astra [corrected] Zeneca, Lund, Sweden), formoterol DPI (Oxis Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden), budesonide plus formoterol in separate inhalers (budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI) and placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a 12-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

This multicentre study was conducted in the respiratory specialty clinical practice setting.

PATIENTS

The study included 596 patients > or =12 years of age with moderate to severe persistent asthma previously receiving ICSs.

INTERVENTIONS

After 2 weeks on budesonide pMDI 80 microg x two inhalations (160 microg) twice daily, patients received budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160 microg/4.5 microg x two inhalations (320 microg/9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg) + formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); or placebo twice daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

There were two prespecified primary efficacy variables: mean change from baseline in morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), obtained approximately 12 hours after the most recent administration of study medication at home and immediately before the next administration of study medication at the clinic; and mean change from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1), assessed as the average change in FEV(1) from serial spirometry over the 12-hour period after administration of the morning dose of study medication at the clinic.

RESULTS

Mean changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) at end of treatment were greater (p < or = 0.049) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.19L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.10L), formoterol DPI (-0.12L) and placebo (-0.17L). Mean changes from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1) were greater (p < or = 0.001) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI after 1 day (0.37L), 2 weeks (0.34L) and at end of treatment (0.37L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.11, 0.15 and 0.15L) and placebo (0.09, -0.03 and -0.03L), and after 2 weeks and at end of treatment versus formoterol DPI (0.19 and 0.17L). Fewer (p < or = 0.025) patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus monoproducts or placebo met worsening asthma criteria. Results were similar in the budesonide/formoterol pMDI group and the budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI group on all measures. All treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI provides asthma control significantly greater than the monocomponents or placebo and comparable with budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI. Safety profiles were similar for all treatments.

Onset of relief of dyspnoea with budesonide/formoterol or salbutamol following methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction in adults with asthma: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) formoterol has an onset of effect comparable to that of salbutamol. Consequently, the combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler, approved for maintenance use, can potentially be used for reliever therapy. This study compared the onset of relief from induced bronchospasm with a single dose of budesonide/formoterol versus standard salbutamol therapy in patients with asthma.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 32 patients with asthma underwent a methacholine provocation test leading to a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of > or =30% at enrollment (Visit 1) and three subsequent study visits (Visits 2-4). Immediately after each provocation at Visits 2-4, patients received one of three test treatments: one inhalation of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg (via Turbuhaler), two inhalations of salbutamol 100 microg (via a pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI]) or placebo. All patients received each of the test treatments in a randomised order, after separate methacholine provocations. The effect of treatment on FEV1 and breathlessness (using the Borg scale) was measured at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after test treatment.

RESULTS

Following methacholine provocation, Borg score increased from a baseline value of below 0.5 to 3.03, 3.31 and 3.50 before treatment with budesonide/formoterol, salbutamol and placebo, respectively. Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol reversed methacholine-induced dyspnoea (breathlessness) rapidly. At 1 minute after inhalation, statistically significant decreases in Borg score were observed for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol (p = 0.0233 and p < 0.0001, respectively, versus placebo), with similar rapid increases in FEV1 (both active treatments p < 0.0001 versus placebo). The median time to 50% recovery in Borg score after methacholine provocation was 3 minutes with budesonide/formoterol, 2 minutes with salbutamol and 10 minutes with placebo. All treatments and procedures were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Single doses of budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol both provided rapid relief of dyspnoea and reversal of severe airway obstruction in patients with asthma with experimentally induced bronchoconstriction. The perception of relief, as confirmed by objective lung function assessment, provides evidence that budesonide/formoterol can be used as reliever medication in asthma.

The role of intrinsic efficacy in determining response to a beta2-agonist in acute severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend repeated doses of albuterol for the emergency treatment of acute asthma. However, approximately one-third of patients show little or no initial response to this partial beta(2)-agonist.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study to investigate whether a full beta(2)-agonist, isoproterenol, offers a therapeutic advantage in adults presenting with acute severe asthma (FEV(1)<50%) who fail to respond to an initial treatment of the partial beta(2)-agonist, albuterol. Study subjects were randomized to receive a 2-h continuous nebulization of either albuterol (7.5mg/h) (n=10, mean FEV(1)=37% predicted) or isoproterenol (7.5mg/h) (n=9, mean FEV(1)=33% predicted). Respiratory symptoms, vital signs and pulmonary function measures were collected.

RESULTS

Subjects from both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The percent improvements from baseline FEV(1) at 60 and 120min were significantly higher in subjects receiving isoproterenol than those receiving albuterol (44 vs. 17% and 63 vs. 24%, respectively, P<0.05). The change in symptoms measured by the modified Borg score was also significantly greater in subjects receiving isoproterenol (P<0.01). Both treatments were well tolerated, though the mean increase in pulse rate at 60 and 120min (21 vs. 1 and 23 vs. 6beats/min, respectively, P<0.05) and the mean change in serum potassium at 120min (-0.52 vs. -0.07meq/L, P<0.05) from baseline were significantly greater in the isoproterenol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that in subjects presenting with acute severe asthma who fail to show an initial response to albuterol, the use of a beta(2)-agonist of higher intrinsic efficacy can be more effective in improving lung function and symptoms.

The use of inhaled formoterol in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol when used to relieve symptoms of asthma and prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was performed for articles published between 1997 and 2005 with the keywords formoterol, asthma, and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist, with cross-referencing to identify peer-reviewed journal articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Published articles on the clinical use of formoterol for asthma or EIB were included as well as articles detailing the pharmacologic properties of the drug. To present a thorough review of the literature, published studies based on patient number, study design, or other measures of study quality were not excluded.

RESULTS

Formoterol is the only long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that combines a rapid onset of action (within 3 minutes) with a long duration of effect (approximately 12 hours). Clinically, as recommended by asthma treatment guidelines, formoterol in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is a preferred treatment for moderate to severe persistent asthma. Significant clinical data support the use of formoterol in combination with ICSs for the treatment of asthma, with studies demonstrating improved pulmonary function and symptom scores and decreased need for maintenance ICSs and short-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (SABAs) as relief medication. Recent studies also demonstrate that use of formoterol as needed as relief medication is associated with a prolonged time to exacerbation, improved pulmonary function, and decreased asthma symptoms. When used as monotherapy, formoterol provides protection against EIB. Clinical data also demonstrate that formoterol is safe and well tolerated even in high doses, with an adverse event profile similar to that of SABAs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, formoterol is safe and effective as adjunct controller therapy for moderate and severe persistent asthma and as monotherapy for EIB.

Randomised trial comparing as-needed versus regular treatment with formoterol in patients with persistent asthma

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the equivalent efficacy of inhaled formoterol in asthmatic patients, either given as-needed or on a regular twice-daily schedule.

METHODS

Randomised, open 12-week study in patients with mild to moderate asthma not adequately controlled with inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone. Patients received inhaled formoterol as needed or on a regular schedule (2x2 puffs/day with 6 microg formoterol per puff). Patients in the twice-daily formoterol group could use salbutamol as a rescue medication. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with asthma exacerbations in each group.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine centres randomised 359 patients. The number of patients with asthma exacerbations showed neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically significant difference between groups: formoterol as-needed: 3.95% (7 of 177); twice daily: 3.45% (6 of 174). Patients in the formoterol as-needed group used significantly less formoterol (-1.5 puffs per day; P<0.0001). Including the saved rescue medication (up to one puff per day), total beta-2 agonist use in the formoterol as-needed group decreased by approximately 2-2.5 puffs per day. Both formoterol treatment schedules were well tolerated. Musculoskeletal pain and tremor were less frequent in the formoterol as-needed group: headaches were slightly more frequent.

CONCLUSION

Formoterol given as needed and without additional beta-2 agonist, and formoterol given on a regular basis twice daily, supplemented by salbutamol as a rescue medication, appeared equally effective in this clinical study. Drug consumption was markedly lower in the former group.

Acute relief of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by inhaled formoterol in children with persistent asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the acute bronchodilatory effect of the long-acting beta2-agonist formoterol against the short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) terbutaline during exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children with asthma.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the immediate effect of formoterol, 9 microg, vs terbutaline, 0.5 mg, and placebo administered as dry powder at different study days. Exercise challenge test was used as a model of acute bronchoconstriction.

PATIENTS

Twenty-four 7- to 15-year-old children with persistent asthma.

INTERVENTIONS

The children performed standardized treadmill exercise tests, breathing dry air, with a submaximal workload. Study medication was administered 5 min after exercise if FEV1 dropped > or = 15% within 5 min after exercise. FEV1 and forced expiratory flows were measured repeatedly until 60 min after dose.

RESULTS

Formoterol and terbutaline offered a significant acute bronchodilatory effect from 3 min after dose compared with placebo (p < 0.001). There was no difference between formoterol and terbutaline in FEV1 5 min after dose (p = 0.15), with a mean increase from each predrug baseline of 62% of the maximum increase for both. Median times to recovery within 5% of baseline FEV1 were 5.0 min and 7.4 min for formoterol and terbutaline, respectively (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

Single-dose formoterol, 9 microg, via dry powder inhaler provided an acute bronchodilatory effect similar to terbutaline during EIB in schoolchildren with persistent asthma. Formoterol is at least as effective as SABA and may be considered an alternative in the treatment of acute bronchoconstriction in school children.

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief in mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomized, double-blind trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare a novel asthma management strategy--budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for both maintenance therapy and symptom relief--with a higher dose of budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline.

METHODS

This was a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma (n = 697; mean age, 38 years [range, 11 to 79 years]; mean baseline FEV1, 75% of predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dosage, 348 microg/d). Following a 2-week run-in period, all patients received two blinded, dry powder inhalers, one containing maintenance medication and one containing medication to be used as needed for the relief of symptoms. Patients were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (80 microg/4.5 microg, two inhalations qd) for maintenance plus additional inhalations as needed for symptom relief, or budesonide (160 microg, two inhalations qd) for maintenance medication plus terbutaline (0.4 mg) as needed. The primary efficacy variable was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF).

RESULTS

Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol showed greater improvements in morning PEF than patients receiving budesonide (increases of 34.5 L/min vs 9.5 L/min, respectively; p < 0.001). The risk of having a severe exacerbation (hospitalization/emergency department [ED] treatment, oral steroids for asthma, or a > or = 30% decrease from baseline in morning PEF on 2 consecutive days) was 54% lower with budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide (p = 0.0011). Budesonide/formoterol patients experienced 90% fewer hospitalizations/ED treatments due to asthma than budesonide patients (1 vs 10, respectively; p = 0.026). The increased efficacy with budesonide/formoterol was achieved with less ICS than was used in the budesonide group (mean dose, 240 microg/d vs 320 microg/d, respectively) and with 77% fewer oral steroid treatment days vs budesonide (114 days vs 498 days, respectively). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and relief improves asthma control with a lower steroid load compared with a higher dose of budesonide plus terbutaline.

Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provide similar rapid relief in patients with acute asthma showing refractoriness to salbutamol

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) with formoterol (Oxis) in the treatment of patients with acute asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to short-acting beta2-agonist therapy.

METHODS

In a 3 hour, randomized, double-blind study, a total of 115 patients with acute asthma (mean FEV1 40% of predicted normal) and a refractory response to salbutamol (mean reversibility 2% of predicted normal after inhalation of 400 microg), were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 1280/36 microg]) or formoterol (9 microg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 36 microg]). The primary efficacy variable was the average FEV1 from the first intake of study medication to the measurement at 90 minutes. Secondary endpoints included changes in FEV1 at other timepoints and change in respiratory rate at 180 minutes. Treatment success, treatment failure and patient assessment of the effectiveness of the study medication were also measured.

RESULTS

FEV1 increased after administration of the study medication in both treatment groups. No statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was apparent for the primary outcome variable, or for any of the other efficacy endpoints. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for treatment success, treatment failure or patient assessment of medication effectiveness. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provided similarly rapid relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to a short-acting beta2-agonist.

Formoterol for maintenance and as-needed treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Formoterol is a long-acting beta2-agonist with a rapid onset of effect in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), making it potentially suitable for both maintenance and as-needed bronchodilator treatment. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of maintenance formoterol in patients with COPD and to compare the effects of additional formoterol as needed with terbutaline. In this 6-month, double-blind study, 657 patients with COPD (40 years, forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV1] 40-70% predicted normal) were randomized to formoterol 9 microg twice daily (bid) plus terbutaline 0.5 mg as needed (FORM bid), formoterol 9 microg bid plus formoterol 4.5 microg as needed (FORM bid+prn), or placebo bid plus terbutaline 0.5 mg as needed (placebo), all administered via Turbuhaler. Primary efficacy variables were FEV1 and the sum of breathlessness and chest tightness scores combined symptom score. Formoterol significantly (P<0.01) increased FEV(1) compared with placebo: FORM bid 6.5% (95% CI: 2.5, 10.7%); FORM bid+prn 11.8% (95% CI: 7.7, 16.2%). Combined symptom score decreased significantly in both formoterol groups compared with placebo: FORM bid -0.27 (95% CI: -0.49, -0.06; P=0.012); FORM bid+prn -0.32 (95% CI: -0.53, -0.11; P=0.0026). Similar significant (P<0.05) improvements were seen in both formoterol groups for morning peak expiratory flow, cough and sleep scores, and reliever use. In this study, formoterol 9 microg bid via Turbuhaler as maintenance therapy, with either formoterol or terbutaline as rescue medication, provided sustained improvements in lung function and COPD symptoms. Both formoterol regimens were well tolerated with no differences in adverse events or electrocardiogram profiles.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus placebo in addition to inhaled corticosteroids in children and adults with chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled beta2-adrenergic agonists are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and other measures of asthma control.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers, until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids alone for asthma therapy in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptom scores, adverse events and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 594 identified citations, 49 trials met the inclusion criteria: 27 full-text publications, one unpublished full-text report and 21 abstracts. Twenty-three citations (21 abstracts and two full-text publications) provided data in insufficient detail, 26 trials contributed to this systematic review. All but three trials were of high methodological quality. Most interventions (N = 26) were of four-month duration or less. Eight trials focused on children and 18 on adults, with participants generally symptomatic with moderate airway obstruction despite their current inhaled steroid regimen. If a trial had more than one intervention or control group, additional control to intervention comparisons were considered separately. Formoterol (N = 17) or salmeterol (N = 14) were most frequently added to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent). The addition of a daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids by 19% (relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.90). The number needed to treat for one extra patient to be free from exacerbation for one year was 18 (95% CI 13 to 33). The addition of LABA significantly improved FEV1 (weighted mean difference (WMD) 170 mL, 95% CI 110 to 240) using a random-effects model, increased the proportion of symptom-free days (WMD 17%, 95% CI 12 to 22, N = 6 trials) and rescue-free days (WMD 19%, 95% CI 12 to 26, N = 2 trials). The group treated with LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid showed a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists (WMD -0.7 puffs/day, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2), experienced less withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7) and less withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.98), using a random-effects model. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75) or specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are symptomatic on low to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, improves lung function, symptoms and use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists. The similar number of serious adverse events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of long-acting beta2-agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids.

Combination of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled steroids versus higher dose of inhaled steroids in children and adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled beta2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in asthmatic patients, the effect of the combination of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, on pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children aged 2 years and older, and in adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of rescue beta2 agonists, adverse events and withdrawal rates. The meta-analysis was done with RevMan Analyses and the meta-regression, with Stata.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 593 citations identified, 30 (three pediatric; 27 adult) trials were analysed recruiting 9509 participants, including one study providing two control-intervention comparisons. Only one trial included corticosteroid-naive patients. Participants were symptomatic, generally (N=20 trials) presenting with moderate (FEV1 60-79% of predicted) rather than mild airway obstruction. Trials tested the combination of salmeterol (N=22) or formoterol (N=8) with a median of 400 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 800 to 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq. Trial duration was 24 weeks or less in all but four trials. There was no significant group difference in the rate of patients with exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [N=15, RR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.02)]. The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 [N=7, WMD=0.10 L (95% CI: 0.07, 0.12)], in symptom-free days [N=8 , WMD=11.90% (95% CI:7.37, 16.44), random effects model], and in the daytime use of rescue beta2 agonists than a higher dose of ICS [N=4, WMD= -0.99 puffs/day (95% CI: -1.41, -0.58), random effects model]. There was no significant group difference in the rate of overall adverse events [N=15, RR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.03), random effects model], or specific side effects, with the exception of a three-fold increase rate of tremor in the LABA group [N= 10, RR=2.96 (95%CI: 1.60, 5.45)]. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS [N=20, RR=0.69 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.93)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adult asthmatics, there was no significant difference between the combination of LABA and ICS and a higher dose of ICS for the prevention of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Overall, the combination therapy led to greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue beta2 agonists, (although most of the results are from trials of up to 24 weeks duration). There were less withdrawals due to poor asthma control in this group than when using a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor, the two options appear safe although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored.

Comparison of the bronchodilating effects of formoterol and albuterol delivered by hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of bronchodilation with a new formoterol hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with albuterol (salbutamol) HFA pMDI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with stable mild or moderate asthma (23 using inhaled corticosteroids, mean FEV(1) 82% of predicted, >or=15% reversibility to terbutaline 1mg after 30 minutes) received formoterol HFA (Oxis) 2 x 4.5microg, albuterol HFA (Ventoline) Evohaler) 2 x 100microg, or placebo at three separate visits in this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, three-way crossover study. FEV(1) was measured before and 3, 10, 20, 30 and 60 minutes after inhalation. Change in FEV(1) at 3 minutes after inhalation was the primary variable.

RESULTS

Mean baseline FEV(1) was stable on all study days (range 2.92-2.94L). FEV(1) values at 3 minutes were: formoterol 3.22L (8% increase), albuterol 3.23L (9% increase) and placebo 2.99L (both p < 0.001 vs placebo). Maximum FEV(1) increased similarly with formoterol and albuterol, with no differences observed between the active treatments at any time point. Patients rated treatment effective at 3 minutes in 15 of 30, 19 of 30 and 7 of 30 cases with formoterol, albuterol and placebo, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In stable, mild, or moderate asthma, formoterol 9microg and albuterol 200microg, both by HFA pMDI, provided equally rapid and effective bronchodilation.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol in the treatment of acute asthma

This study compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Turbuhaler)) with salbutamol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with spacer for relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (n = 104 allocated to treatment; n = 103 received treatment; mean age 45 years) seeking medical attention for acute asthma (mean FEV(1) 43% of predicted) received two doses repeated at t = -5 and 0 min of either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, two inhalations) or salbutamol (100 microg x eight inhalations); total doses 1280/36 microg and 1600 microg, respectively. All patients received prednisolone 60 mg at 90 min and FEV(1) was assessed over 3h. FEV(1) 90 min after dosing (primary variable) increased compared with pre-dose FEV(1) by an average of 30% and 32% for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol, respectively (P = 0.66), with similar increases at all timepoints from 3 to 180 min for both groups. Mean pulse rate over 3h was significantly higher in the salbutamol group versus the budesonide/formoterol group (92 vs. 88 bpm; P < 0.01). No treatment differences were seen for other vital signs, including ECG. High-dose budesonide/formoterol was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of acute asthma, with rapid onset of efficacy and a safety profile over 3h similar to high-dose salbutamol.

Combination therapy of long-acting beta agonists and inhaled corticosteroids in the management of chronic asthma

Both the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Expert Panel guidelines recommend combination treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for patients whose asthma is not adequately controlled by low doses of ICSs alone. Not only is this combination more effective than the combination of either theophylline or leukotriene modifiers with ICSs, there is suggestive evidence that the results with LABAs and ICSs may be more than additive. Through the effect of each one on the receptor for the other, they may have a synergistic action. This marked effectiveness of the combination, particularly when combined in the same device, has led to new objectives and novel applications. Therefore, for the first time, it appears that the Goals of Asthma Therapy, as outlined in the guidelines, are achievable for many patients with asthma. Also, at least for combination therapies including formoterol, adjustable dosing and perhaps even use as a rescue as well as a maintenance therapy may be possible.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of initiating anti-inflammatory therapy using the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS+LABA) as compared to inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) until April 2004, bibliographies of identified RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS + LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone in steroid-naive children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by each reviewer for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of other measures of asthma control, adverse events, and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria; nine (totaling 1061 adults) contributed sufficient data to be analysed. Baseline forced expiratory volume in one minute (FEV1) was less than 80% predicted value in four trials and equal to or greater than 80% in five trials. The long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) formoterol (N=2) or salmeterol (N=7) were added to a dose of at least 800 microg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in three trials and to at least 400 microg/day in the six remaining trials. Treatment with ICS plus LABA was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than ICS alone (relative risk (RR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9). FEV1 improved significantly with LABA (weighted mean difference (WMD) 210 ml; 95% CI 120 to 300), as did symptom-free days (WMD 10.74%; 95% CI 1.86 to 19.62), but the change in use of rescue fast-acting beta2-agonists was not significantly different between the groups (WMD -0.4 puff/day, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.1). There was no significant group difference in adverse events (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), withdrawals (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the initiation of inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists does not significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations over that achieved with inhaled corticosteroids alone; it does improve lung function and symptom-free days but does not reduce rescue beta2-agonist use as compared to inhaled steroids alone. Both options appear safe. There is insufficient evidence at present to recommend use of combination therapy rather than ICS alone as a first-line treatment.

A benefit-risk assessment of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists in the management of obstructive pulmonary disease

The two inhaled long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, have been studied extensively since their introduction in the early 1990s. In this review we consider the evidence for their efficacy and safety in adults with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), by reviewing long-term prospective studies in which these drugs have been compared with placebo or an alternative bronchodilator. We have also assessed safety, including data from postmarketing surveillance studies and case-control studies using large databases. In patients with asthma, salmeterol and formoterol increase lung function, reduce asthmatic symptoms and improve quality of life when compared with placebo. Both drugs protect against exercise-induced asthma, although some tolerance develops with regular use. Tolerance to the bronchodilator effects of formoterol has also been seen, although this is small and most of the beneficial effects are maintained long-term. Both drugs have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations but only in studies in which most patients were taking an inhaled corticosteroid. Adding a long-acting beta2-agonist provided better control than increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid in several studies. Long-acting beta2-agonists also provide better asthma control than use of regular short-acting beta2-agonists and theophylline. Their relative efficacy compared with leukotriene antagonists is uncertain as yet. Formoterol appears to be at least as safe and effective as a short-acting beta2-agonist when used on an 'as required' basis. In patients with COPD, both salmeterol and formoterol offer improved lung function and reduced COPD symptoms compared with placebo, and quality of life has been improved in some studies. Some tolerance to the bronchodilating effect of salmeterol was seen in one study. Most studies have not found a significant reduction in exacerbations in COPD. Both drugs have provided greater benefit than ipratropium bromide or theophylline; there are limited data on tiotropium bromide. The long-acting beta2-agonists cause predictable adverse effects including headache, tremor, palpitations, muscle cramps and a fall in serum potassium concentration. Salmeterol can also cause paradoxical bronchospasm. There is some evidence that serious adverse events including dysrhythmias and life-threatening asthma episodes can occur; however, the incidence of such events is very low but may be increased in patients not taking an inhaled corticosteroid. Salmeterol 50 microg twice daily and formoterol 12 microg twice daily are effective and safe in treating patients with asthma and COPD. Higher doses cause more adverse effects, although serious adverse events are rare.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy versus a higher dose of budesonide in moderate to severe asthma

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel asthma management strategy--budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and symptom relief (Symbicort Single Inhaler Therapy)--compared with a higher maintenance dose of budesonide in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a 12-month, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 1890; mean age 43 years [range 11 years-80 years], mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV(1)] 70% of predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 746 microg/day) received either budesonide (160 microg, 2 inhalations twice daily) plus terbutaline 0.4 mg as needed or a daily maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, 2 inhalations once daily) with additional inhalations of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg as needed. Time to first severe exacerbation (hospitalisation/emergency room [ER] treatment or systemic steroids due to asthma worsening or a fall in morning peak expiratory flow [PEF] to < or = 70% of baseline on 2 consecutive days) was the primary outcome variable.

RESULTS

A total of 1890 patients were randomised, of whom 1563 (83%) had severe asthma. The time to first severe exacerbation was prolonged by budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy (p < 0.001) compared with a higher dose of budesonide. The risk of having a severe exacerbation was 39% lower with budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy compared with budesonide (p < 0.001). The number needed to treat to prevent one severe exacerbation per year with budesonide/formoterol compared with budesonide was 5. The budesonide/formoterol group had 45% fewer severe exacerbations requiring medical intervention per patient compared with the budesonide group (p < 0.001). Budesonide/formoterol patients had fewer hospitalisations/ER treatments (15 vs 25 events, respectively [descriptive statistics]) and fewer treatment days with systemic steroids (1776 days vs 3177 days, respectively [descriptive statistics]) compared with budesonide patients. Budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy patients used less as-needed medication compared with budesonide patients (0.90 vs 1.42 inhalations/day; p < 0.001). The mean daily ICS dose was lower in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the budesonide group (466 microg/day vs 640 microg/day). Over the 12-month study period, the budesonide/formoterol group achieved asthma control sufficient to not require any additional as-needed medication on 60% of days. Overall, budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy gave 31 more asthma control days (a night and day with no asthma symptoms and no as-needed medication use) per patient-year and 12 additional undisturbed nights per patient-year compared with a higher dose of budesonide. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy has the potential to provide a complete asthma management approach with one inhaler, demonstrating a high level of efficacy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.