Evaluation of different inhaled combination therapies (EDICT): a randomised, double-blind comparison of Seretide (50/250 microg bd Diskus vs. formoterol (12 microg bd) and budesonide (800 microg bd) given concurrently (both via Turbuhaler) in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

Drug combinations for inhalation: Current products and future development addressing disease control and patient compliance

Pulmonary delivery is an alternative route of administration with numerous advantages over conventional routes of administration. It provides low enzymatic exposure, fewer systemic side effects, no first-pass metabolism, and concentrated drug amounts at the site of the disease, making it an ideal route for the treatment of pulmonary diseases. Owing to the thin alveolar-capillary barrier, and large surface area that facilitates rapid absorption to the bloodstream in the lung, systemic delivery can be achieved as well. Administration of multiple drugs at one time became urgent to control chronic pulmonary diseases such as asthma and COPD, thus, development of drug combinations was proposed. Administration of medications with variable dosages from different inhalers leads to overburdening the patient and may cause low therapeutic intervention. Therefore, products that contain combined drugs to be delivered via a single inhaler have been developed to improve patient compliance, reduce different dose regimens, achieve higher disease control, and boost therapeutic effectiveness in some cases. This comprehensive review aimed to highlight the growth of drug combinations by inhalation over time, obstacles and challenges, and the possible progress to broaden the current options or to cover new indications in the future. Moreover, various pharmaceutical technologies in terms of formulation and device in correlation with inhaled combinations were discussed in this review. Hence, inhaled combination therapy is driven by the need to maintain and improve the quality of life for patients with chronic respiratory diseases; promoting drug combinations by inhalation to a higher level is a necessity.

Safety and Effectiveness of As-Needed Formoterol in Asthma Patients Taking Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS)-Formoterol or ICS-Salmeterol Maintenance Therapy

BACKGROUND

As-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever is recommended in patients with asthma prescribed maintenance ICS-formoterol. Clinicians often ask whether ICS-formoterol reliever can be used with other maintenance ICS-long-acting β2-agonists.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of as-needed formoterol in patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol from the RELIEF study.

METHODS

RELIEF (SD-037-0699) was a 6-month, open-label study that randomized 18,124 patients with asthma to as-needed formoterol 4.5 μg or salbutamol 200 μg on top of maintenance therapy. This post hoc analysis included patients on maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol (n = 5436). The primary safety outcome was a composite of serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or adverse events leading to discontinuation (DAEs); the primary effectiveness outcome was time-to-first exacerbation.

RESULTS

For both maintenance groups and both relievers, similar numbers of patients had ≥1 SAE and/or DAE. In patients taking maintenance ICS-salmeterol, but not ICS-formoterol, significantly more non-asthma-related and nonserious DAEs occurred with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (P = .0066 and P = .0034, respectively). In patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol, there was a significantly lower risk in time-to-first exacerbation with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 0.95; P = .007). In patients taking ICS-salmeterol maintenance, time-to-first exacerbation was not significantly different between treatment arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06; P = .35).

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed formoterol significantly reduced exacerbation risk compared with as-needed salbutamol when added to maintenance ICS-formoterol, but not to maintenance ICS-salmeterol. More DAEs were seen with ICS-salmeterol maintenance therapy plus as-needed formoterol. Further research is needed to assess whether this is relevant to as-needed combination ICS-formoterol.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Low-Dose Aspirin Use Does Not Increase Survival in 2 Independent Population-Based Cohorts of Patients With Esophageal or Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Preclinical studies have shown aspirin to have anticancer properties and epidemiologic studies have associated aspirin use with longer survival times of patients with cancer. We studied 2 large cohorts to determine the association between aspirin use and cancer-specific mortality in patients with esophageal or gastric cancer.

METHODS

We performed a population-based study using cohorts of patients newly diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer, identified from cancer registries in England from 1998 through 2012 and the Scottish Cancer Registry from 2009 through 2012. Low-dose aspirin prescriptions were identified from linkages to the United Kingdom Clinical Research Practice Datalink in England and the Prescribing Information System in Scotland. Deaths were identified from linkage to national mortality records, with follow-up until September 2015 in England and January 2015 in Scotland. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality by low-dose aspirin use after adjusting for potential confounders. Meta-analysis was used to pool results across the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

The combined English and Scottish cohorts contained 4654 patients with esophageal cancer and 3833 patients with gastric cancer, including 3240 and 2392 cancer-specific deaths, respectively. The proportions surviving 1 year, based on cancer-specific mortality, were similar in aspirin users vs non-users after diagnosis with esophageal cancer (48% vs 50% in England and 49% vs 46% in Scotland, respectively) or gastric cancer (58% vs 57% in England and 59% vs 55% in Scotland, respectively). There was no association between postdiagnosis use of low-dose aspirin and cancer-specific mortality among patients with esophageal cancer (pooled adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09) or gastric cancer (pooled adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85-1.08). Long-term aspirin use was not associated with cancer-specific mortality after diagnosis of esophageal cancer (pooled adjusted HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.25) or gastric cancer (pooled adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32).

CONCLUSIONS

In analyses of 2 large independent cohorts in the United Kingdom, low-dose aspirin usage was not associated with increased survival of patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer.

Assessing biomarkers in a real-world severe asthma study (ARIETTA)

The prognostic value of asthma biomarkers in routine clinical practice is not fully understood. ARIETTA (NCT02537691) is an ongoing, prospective, longitudinal, international, multicentre real-world study designed to assess the relationship between asthma biomarkers and disease-related health outcomes. The trial aims to enrol and follow for 52 weeks approximately 1200 severe asthma patients from approximately 160 sites in more than 20 countries. Severe asthmatics, treated with daily inhaled corticosteroid (≥500 μg of fluticasone propionate or equivalent) and at least 1 second controller medication are to be included. In this real-world study, patients will be treated according to the investigator's routine clinical practices and no treatment regimen will be implemented as part of the trial. At baseline and again at 26 and 52 weeks, FEV1, FeNO, serum periostin, blood eosinophil count and serum IgE will be measured. Asthma-related symptom and quality of life questionnaires will be administered at the visits and during telephone interviews at Weeks 13 and 39. Data about medication use, asthma exacerbation data, asthma-related healthcare utilization and events raising safety concerns will also be collected. This study design, unique in both its scope and scale, will address fundamental unanswered questions regarding asthma biomarkers and their interrelationship, as well as predict deviations in the course of asthma in a real-world setting.

Asthma symptoms and nasal congestion as independent risk factors for insomnia in a general population: results from the GA(2)LEN survey

BACKGROUND

Asthma and rhinitis have been related to insomnia. The aim of this study was to further analyse the association between asthma, nasal symptoms and insomnia and to identify risk factors for sleep disturbance among patients with asthma, in a large population-based set of material.

METHOD

In 2008, a postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 45 000 adults in four Swedish cities. The questionnaire included questions on insomnia, asthma, rhinitis, weight, height, tobacco use and physical activity.

RESULTS

Twenty-five thousand six hundred and ten subjects participated. Asthma was defined as either current medication for asthma or at least one attack of asthma during the last 12 months, and 1830 subjects (7.15%) were defined as asthmatics. The prevalence of insomnia symptoms was significantly higher among asthmatics than non-asthmatics (47.3% vs 37.2%, <0.0001). In the subgroup reporting both asthma and nasal congestion, 55.8% had insomnia symptoms compared with 35.3% in subjects without both asthma and nasal congestion. The risk of insomnia increased with the severity of asthma, and the adjusted OR for insomnia was 2.65 in asthmatics with three symptoms compared with asthmatics without symptoms. Nasal congestion (OR 1.50), obesity (OR 1.54) and smoking (OR 1.71) also increased the risk of insomnia.

CONCLUSION

Insomnia remains a common problem among asthmatics. Uncontrolled asthma and nasal congestion are important, treatable risk factors for insomnia. Lifestyle factors, such as smoking and obesity, are also risk factors for insomnia among asthmatics.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Systemic exposure and implications for lung deposition with an extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fixed combination

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Foster is a fixed combination of beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol (BDP/F). It is formulated as an extra-fine solution and delivered via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) using a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. The aims of this study were to compare the systemic exposure to BDP, to its active metabolite beclometasone-17-monopropionate (B17MP) and to formoterol after administration of BDP/F versus separate administration of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) formulation of BDP and formoterol HFA, and to explore a possible relationship between pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings.

METHODS

In this open-label, crossover, placebo-controlled study, 12 healthy male subjects received a single dose of BDP/F 400 microg/24 microg (four inhalations of Foster BDP/F 100 microg/6 microg), single doses of BDP CFC 1000 microg (four inhalations of Becotide Forte 250 microg) plus formoterol 24 microg (four inhalations of Atimos 6 microg) via separate MDIs, or placebo. Continuous pharmacokinetic variables for BDP, B17MP, formoterol, cortisol and potassium were evaluated. Cardiovascular effects, peak flow measurements and tolerability were also examined.

RESULTS

Exposure to BDP was not significantly different between active treatment arms, but lower systemic exposure to B17MP was observed with the fixed combination than with the separate components (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] from time zero to infinity [AUC(infinity)] 5280 vs 8120 pg.h/mL; p = 0.001). Despite a lower total systemic exposure to B17MP with the fixed combination, B17MP plasma concentrations during the first 30 minutes after administration, indicative of pulmonary absorption, were 86% higher with BDP/F than with the separate components (AUC from 0 to 30 minutes [AUC(30 min)] 353 vs 190 pg x h/mL; p = 0.003). Twenty-four-hour serum cortisol concentrations were significantly higher with BDP/F than with BDP and formoterol administered separately (2.26 vs 1.90 microg x h/mL; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of formoterol and no clinically relevant differences in serum potassium and cardiovascular or spirometric parameters were observed between the treatments. Both active treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

These pharmacokinetic data show that with a BDP dose from Foster that is 2.5 times less than a BDP dose from Becotide Forte, pulmonary absorption is 86% higher; however, systemic exposure is 35% lower, resulting in less cortisol suppression for a similar BDP dosage.

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.

Inhaled beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol extra-fine fixed combination in the treatment of asthma: evidence and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Combinations of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are effective and safe options in asthma management.

OBJECTIVE

To review available data on a recently developed combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol (F) given via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler.

METHODS

Published data on preclinical and clinical studies were reviewed.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

In the treatment of asthma, BDP/F was shown to be at least as effective and well-tolerated as other available combinations of ICS and LABA with the advantage of a better cost effectiveness, and more effective in improving asthma control than BDP and formoterol given via separate inhalers. The extra-fine BDP/F combination appears to be a valuable therapeutic option in the management of asthma.

Beclomethasone/formoterol vs fluticasone/salmeterol inhaled combination in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Recommended treatment for moderate to severe asthma is the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist. The present study was designed to compare a new fixed combination of extrafine beclomethasone and formoterol, with the fixed combination fluticasone and salmeterol.

METHODS

This was a phase III, multinational, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, two-arm parallel groups, controlled study. After a 2-week run-in period, 228 patients with moderate to severe asthma were randomized to a 12-week treatment with either beclomethasone 100 microg plus formoterol 6 microg or fluticasone 125 microg plus salmeterol 25 microg, both delivered two inhalations b.i.d. via a pressurized metered dose inhaler.

RESULTS

The analysis of noninferiority on the primary outcome, morning peak expiratory flow in the last 2 weeks of treatment, showed no difference between groups (difference -3.32 l/min; 95% CI -17.92 to 11.28). A significant improvement from baseline in lung function, symptom score and rescue medication use was observed in both groups at all time points. Beclomethasone plus formoterol combination showed a significantly faster onset of bronchodilation when compared with fluticasone plus salmeterol with the difference maintained for up to 1 h postdosing. No differences were observed between treatments in the rate of asthma exacerbations, frequency of adverse events and overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The new combination of extrafine beclomethasone plus formoterol is not inferior to the marketed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in terms of efficacy and tolerability, with the advantage of a faster onset of bronchodilation. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394368).

Rescue use of beclomethasone and albuterol in a single inhaler for mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the regular use of inhaled corticosteroids for patients with mild persistent asthma. We investigated whether the symptom-driven use of a combination of beclomethasone dipropionate and albuterol (also known as salbutamol) in a single inhaler would be as effective as the regular use of inhaled beclomethasone and superior to the as-needed use of inhaled albuterol.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-month, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group trial. After a 4-week run-in, patients with mild asthma were randomly assigned to receive one of four inhaled treatments: placebo twice daily plus 250 microg of beclomethasone and 100 microg of albuterol in a single inhaler as needed (as-needed combination therapy); placebo twice daily plus 100 microg of albuterol as needed (as-needed albuterol therapy); 250 microg of beclomethasone twice daily and 100 microg of albuterol as needed (regular beclomethasone therapy); or 250 microg of beclomethasone and 100 microg of albuterol in a single inhaler twice daily plus 100 microg of albuterol as needed (regular combination therapy). The primary outcome was the morning peak expiratory flow rate.

RESULTS

In 455 patients with mild asthma who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 2.96 liters (88.36% of the predicted value), the morning peak expiratory flow rate during the last 2 weeks of the 6-month treatment was higher (P=0.04) and the number of exacerbations during the 6-month treatment was lower (P=0.002) in the as-needed combination therapy group than in the as-needed albuterol therapy group, but the values in the as-needed combination therapy group were not significantly different from those in the groups receiving regular beclomethasone therapy or regular combination therapy. The cumulative dose of inhaled beclomethasone was lower in the as-needed combination therapy group than in the groups receiving regular beclomethasone therapy or regular combination therapy (P<0.001 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild asthma, the symptom-driven use of inhaled beclomethasone (250 microg) and albuterol (100 microg) in a single inhaler is as effective as regular use of inhaled beclomethasone (250 microg twice daily) and is associated with a lower 6-month cumulative dose of the inhaled corticosteroid. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00382889 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Medication compliance and disease exacerbation in patients with asthma: a retrospective study of managed care data

BACKGROUND

Compliance with asthma medications probably results in improved outcomes, but few studies have examined this relationship.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between medication compliance and exacerbation in asthmatic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a managed care database. The 97,743 participants (aged 6-99 years; mean age, 32.8 years) had asthma and prescriptions for controller medications. Compliance with the index medication (the first controller medication prescribed) was measured using 2 methods: medication possession ratio (MPR), calculated for 365 days after the index date, and number of prescriptions for each index medication. Exacerbation was defined as 1 or more emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 1 year of the index date. Multivariate models were used to determine the odds of exacerbation based on relative compliance for each definition of compliance.

RESULTS

Based on the median MPR, more-compliant patients were less likely to experience exacerbation than less-compliant patients (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.97; P < .001). Using the 75th percentile MPR, risk of exacerbation was even smaller (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.92; P < .001). All the cutoff points for compliance (> or = 2 through > or = 6 prescriptions) demonstrated significantly less exacerbations in more-compliant vs less-compliant patients after adjusting for covariates. As the criteria for compliance became more stringent, more-compliant patients became increasingly less likely to have an exacerbation vs less-compliant patients.

CONCLUSION

More-compliant asthmatic patients were significantly less likely to experience exacerbation than less-compliant asthmatic patients. These findings demonstrate the importance of improving medication compliance among asthmatic patients to impact outcomes.

Inhaled steroid/long-acting beta 2 agonist combination products provide 24 hours improvement in lung function in adult asthmatic patients

Background

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) is recommended by treatment guidelines for the treatment of persistent asthma. Two such combination products, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC, Seretide™ GSK, UK) and formoterol/budesonide (FBC, Symbicort™, AstraZeneca, UK) are commercially available.

Objectives

The purpose of these studies was to evaluate and compare the duration of bronchodilation of both combination products up to 24 hours after a single dose.

Methods

Two randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were performed. Study A was conducted in 33 asthmatic adults receiving 400–1200 mcg of budesonide or equivalent. Serial forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) was measured over 24 hours to determine the duration of effect of both SFC (50/100 mcg) and FBC (4.5/160 mcg). Study B was conducted in 75 asthmatic adults receiving 800–1200 mcg of budesonide or equivalent and comprised a 4 week run-in of 400 mcg bd Becotide™ followed by 4 weeks treatment with either SFC 50/100 mcg bd or FBC 4.5/160 mcg bd taken in a cross-over manner. Serial 24-hour FEV₁ was measured after the first dose and the last dose after each 4-weeks treatment period to determine the offset of action of each treatment.

Results

In study A, a single inhalation of SFC and FBC produced a sustained bronchodilation at 16 hours with an adjusted mean increase in FEV₁ from pre-dose of 0.22 L (95% CI 0.19, 0.35 L) for SFC and 0.25 L (95% CI 0.21, 0.37 L) for FBC, which was significantly greater than placebo for both treatments (-0.05 L; p < 0.001). In study B, the slope of decline in FEV₁ from 2–24 hours post dose was -16.0 ml/hr for SFC and -14.2 ml/hr for FBC. The weighted mean AUC over 24 hours was 0.21 Lxmin and 0.22 Lxmin and mean change from pre-dose FEV₁ at 12 hours was 0.21 L for SFC and 0.20 L for FBC respectively

Conclusion

Both SFC and FBC produced a similar sustained bronchodilator effect which was prolonged beyond 12 hours post dose and was clearly measurable at 24 h.

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

OBJECTIVES

This multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised 24-week study was designed to compare the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50/250 microg one inhalation twice daily (bid) with formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) 6/200 microg two inhalations bid in patients with persistent asthma, currently receiving 1000-2000 microg/day of inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

The intent-to-treat population comprised 694 patients in the SFC group and 697 patients in the FBC group.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint, mean rate of all exacerbations over 24 weeks, was similar in both treatment groups (SFC: 2.69; FBC: 2.79; SFC/FBC ratio 0.96; 95% CL 0.84, 1.10; P=0.571). A reduction in the rate of exacerbations over time was observed in both treatment groups. Overall, there was a 30% lower annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 0-49%, 52% reduction vs. 1% increase; P=0.059). This effect increased with time: in weeks 17-24 the moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 57% lower in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 21-77% reduction; P=0.006). Similar improvements in lung function, asthma symptoms and rescue medication usage were seen with both treatments and both were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Twice-daily treatment with SFC and FBC over 6 months significantly improved asthma symptoms and lung function in patients with persistent asthma. The rate of exacerbations was significantly reduced over time on both treatments but SFC was found to be significantly superior to FBC in reducing the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations with sustained treatment.

Can patients use all dry powder inhalers equally well?

If patients are unable to use their inhaler, drug delivery may be unsatisfactory and the patients may fail to benefit from the prescribed medication. It is important to consider whether patients can use all dry powder inhalers equally well. Changing a patient from a dry powder inhaler used well to one that the patient is unable to operate effectively could compromise asthma control. The many marketed dry powder inhalers reflect differences in design decisions that could affect lung deposition. Studies using different dry powder inhalers have confirmed that different lung deposition patterns are observed. Furthermore, there may be considerable individual variability in lung deposition. Differences in lung deposition patterns could have clinical effects. Studies may show similar clinical effectiveness with two inhalers, because most products are used at the plateau phase of the dose-response curve, although there may be differences in the adverse event profile. The ideal inhaler does not yet exist. Different dry powder inhalers show some but not all features of the ideal inhaler; hence, patients may prefer some aspects of one inhaler while favouring a different inhaler for other features. The individual balance of features will govern the overall preference for one inhaler over others. The method for operation of dry powder inhalers varies. Ease of use is seen as an important consideration when selecting an inhaler device, which should be evaluated in real-life studies using unselected patient populations. In conclusion, the evidence suggests that patients cannot use all dry powder inhalers equally well.

Changes in prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids (1999-2002) in Scotland

PURPOSE

To investigate the trend in prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids and general practitioner (GP) consultations for respiratory diseases.

METHODS

A longitudinal observation study of all prescriptions, from primary care, for inhaled corticosteroids dispensed in Scotland from January 1999 to May 2002 was undertaken. The main outcome measures were the trends in prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids and GP consultations for respiratory diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The prescribing of all inhaled corticosteroids has risen over the study period. The rise in prescribing of the combination product containing fluticasone and salmeterol appears not to have been at the expense of the prescribing of fluticasone alone while the prescribing of the budesonide/eformoterol combination may be at the expense of budesonide (BUD) alone. GP consultations for both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have declined over a similar period. The increased prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids over this period is associated with the increased use of the fluticasone/salmeterol combination rather than an increase in the use of all inhaled corticosteroids. The accompanying fall in number of consultations with GPs may be due to this increased prescribing or a move to nurse led clinics.

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, administered twice daily via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Seretide/Advair Diskus), Seretide Accuhaler or metered-dose hydrofluoroalkane (chlorofluorocarbon-free) inhaler (Seretide Evohaler), is a combination of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (beta(2)-agonist) [LABA] salmeterol and the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. Maintenance therapy with combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is at least as effective in improving lung function and symptoms and is as well tolerated in patients with asthma as concurrent salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate. In patients previously receiving as-required short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was significantly more effective in providing asthma control than fluticasone propionate and in improving lung function and asthma symptoms than inhaled corticosteroids (at equivalent or higher dosages), salmeterol or montelukast (as monotherapy or in combination with fluticasone propionate). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective in improving asthma symptoms than adjusted-dose budesonide/formoterol in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA in a well designed 1-year study. In pharmacoeconomic analyses, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compared favourably with inhaled corticosteroids and mono- or combination therapy with oral montelukast. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is, therefore, an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma.

Effects of 24 weeks of lansoprazole therapy on asthma symptoms, exacerbations, quality of life, and pulmonary function in adult asthmatic patients with acid reflux symptoms

BACKGROUND

Difficult-to-control asthma has been associated with gastroesophageal acid reflux. Acid-suppressive treatment has been inconsistent in improving asthma control.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a proton-pump inhibitor improves asthma control in adult asthmatic patients with acid reflux symptoms.

DESIGN

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Twenty-nine private practices and 3 academic practices in the United States.

PATIENTS

Two hundred seven patients receiving usual asthma care including an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Patients had acid reflux symptoms and moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.

INTERVENTION

Lansoprazole, 30 mg bid, or placebo, bid, for 24 weeks.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure was daily asthma symptoms by diary. Secondary asthma outcomes included rescue albuterol use, daily morning and evening peak expiratory flow, FEV1, FVC, asthma quality of life with standardized activities (AQLQS) questionnaire score, investigator-assessed symptoms, exacerbations, and oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations.

RESULTS

Daily asthma symptoms, albuterol use, peak expiratory flow, FEV1, FVC, and investigator-assessed asthma symptoms at 24 weeks did not improve significantly with lansoprazole treatment compared to placebo. The AQLQS emotional function domain improved at 24 weeks (p = 0.025) with lansoprazole therapy. Fewer patients receiving lansoprazole (8.1% vs 20.4%, respectively; p = 0.017) had exacerbations and oral corticosteroid-treated (ie, moderate-to-severe) exacerbations (4% vs 13.9%, respectively; p = 0.016) of asthma. A post hoc subgroup analysis revealed that fewer patients receiving one or more long-term asthma-control medications in addition to an ICS experienced exacerbations (6.5% vs 24.6%, respectively; p = 0.016) and moderate-to-severe exacerbations (2.2% vs 17.5%, respectively; p = 0.021) with lansoprazole therapy.

CONCLUSION

In adult patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and symptoms of acid reflux, treatment with 30 mg of lansoprazole bid for 24 weeks did not improve asthma symptoms or pulmonary function, or reduce albuterol use. However, this dose significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma quality of life, particularly in those patients receiving more than one asthma-control medication.

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.

An international observational prospective study to determine the cost of asthma exacerbations (COAX)

Asthma is a common chronic condition that places substantial burden on patients and healthcare services. Despite the standards of asthma control that international guidelines recommend should be achieved, many patients continue to suffer sub-optimal control of symptoms and experience exacerbations (acute asthma attacks). In addition to being associated with reduced quality of life, asthma exacerbations are a key cost driver in asthma management. Routine clinical practice for the management of asthma exacerbations varies in different healthcare systems, so healthcare providers require local costs to be able to assess the value of therapies that reduce the frequency and severity of exacerbations. This prospective study, conducted in a total of 15 countries, assessed the local cost of asthma exacerbations managed in either primary or secondary care. Healthcare resources used were costed using actual values appropriate to each country in local currency and in Euros. Results are presented for exacerbations managed in primary care in Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Ukraine, and in secondary care in Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. Multiple regression analysis of the 2052 exacerbations included in the economic analysis showed that the cost of exacerbations was significantly affected by country (P<0.0001). Mean costs were significantly higher in secondary care (euro 1349) than primary care (euro 445, P=0.0003). Age was a significant variable (P=0.0002), though the effect showed an interaction with care type (P<0.0001). As severity of exacerbation increased, so did secondary care costs, though primary care costs remained essentially constant. In conclusion, the study showed that asthma exacerbations are costly to manage, suggesting that therapies able to increase asthma control and reduce the frequency or severity of exacerbations may bring economic benefits, as well as improved quality of life.

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.

Asthma economics: focusing on therapies that improve costly outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 1998, the economic burden of asthma was estimated to be 12.7 billion dollars. Subsequent research has focused on identifying important outcomes that reflect high resource utilization and finding therapies that improve these outcomes and decrease cost. Recent developments include an update to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guidelines, new treatment strategies using combination therapy, and the development of a monoclonal antibody therapy for asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two important costly outcomes are asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Asthma-related hospitalizations started to decline in the 1990s, primarily in white Americans, but not in young African Americans. Many hospitalizations and emergency department visits are preventable, and costs were lowered by shifting management to the ambulatory care setting. Increased asthma severity and suboptimal compliance with NHLBI asthma care guidelines can contribute to the persistence of symptoms, which triggers behaviors that increase resource utilization.A recent economic analysis was one of the first well-controlled clinical trials to show that inhaled corticosteroids provide clinical benefit at modest costs. Combination therapy, particularly that containing an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting bronchodilator in a single inhaler, potentially can reduce overall costs by improving compliance with inhaled corticosteroids. Nonpharmacologic therapies also have been shown to be cost-effective. However, a significant number of patients with asthma continue to have symptoms even while on recommended controller therapy. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment that binds IgE, was released in the summer of 2003.

SUMMARY

Many costly asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits are preventable, and chronic disease care can be shifted to the ambulatory setting. Increased asthma severity and noncompliance with NHLBI guidelines are associated with increased resource utilization. Combination therapies can assist in improving patient compliance, and omalizumab potentially offers a novel but expensive way to decrease symptoms and resource utilization.

[Efficacy and acceptability of the fixed fluticasone + salmeterol combination in the treatment of acute asthma attacks. Results of a one-year comparative study]

BACKGROUND

The objective of an asthma treatment is to control asthma, particularly to prevent exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy, acceptability and safety of the fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S) combination in preventing asthma exacerbations in comparison with the continuation of previous treatment (TA).

METHODS

This was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study to compare the fixed combination FP/S to TA (treatment with a free combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist) over one year in patients whose asthma was well controlled with their current treatment.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty patients were randomized and their data analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Seventy-four percent of the patients in the FP/S group and 71% in the TA group had no exacerbation. The 3.12% difference in favor of the FP/S group (90% CI: -3.32% to 9.56%) demonstrated that FP/S was at least as effective TA in preventing asthma exacerbations. Treatment acceptability, evaluated by the patient on visual analog scales (inclusion as part of the daily habits, constraint, simplicity) was better with FP/S (p<0.001) than with TA. Clinical safety was good and comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The fixed fluticasone/salmeterol combination provided a protection as good as that obtained with free combinations over a one-year treatment period, with a significant improvement in treatment acceptability and a good clinical safety.

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines recommend that patients are educated to adjust their medication according to their asthma severity using physician-guided self-management plans. However, many patients take a fixed dose of their controller medication and adjust their reliever medication according to asthma symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether asthma control improved if patients adjusted the maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler* 160/4.5 microg) according to asthma severity compared with traditional fixed dosing (FD) regimens.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 658, mean symptom score 1.5, mean inhaled corticosteroids 735 microg/day, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 84% predicted) were randomised after 2 weeks' run-in to either: budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD), budesonide/formoterol FD or salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide Diskus dagger 50/250 microg) FD. In a 4-week double-blind period, both budesonide/formoterol AMD and FD groups received two inhalations twice daily (bid) and salmeterol/fluticasone FD patients received one inhalation bid. In the following 6-month open extension, both FD groups continued with the same treatment. Patients in the AMD group with well-controlled asthma stepped down to one inhalation bid; others continued with two inhalations bid. All AMD patients could increase to four inhalations bid for 7-14 days if symptoms worsened. All patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for symptom relief throughout. The primary variable was the odds of achieving a well-controlled asthma week (WCAW).

RESULTS

The odds ratio for achieving a WCAW did not differ between the FD regimens; however, during the open period, budesonide/formoterol AMD increased the odds of achieving a WCAW vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (odds ratio 1.335; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.783; p = 0.049) despite a 15% reduction in average study drug use. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients had a lower exacerbation rate over the study: 40% lower vs. salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.018); 32% lower vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (NS). During the double-blind period, there were no clinically relevant differences between the budesonide/formoterol FD and salmeterol/fluticasone FD groups. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients used less reliever medication in the open extension: 0.58 vs. 0.92 occasions/day for budesonide/formoterol FD (p = 0.001) and 0.80 occasions/day for salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provides more effective asthma control by reducing exacerbations and reliever medication usage compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone.

Formoterol (Foradil) and medium-high doses of inhaled corticosteroids are more effective than high doses of corticosteroids in moderate-to-severe asthma

This double-blind, randomised, multi-centre, parallel-group study compared the effect of adding Foradil (formoterol fumarate) to existing medium-high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with that of doubling the dose of ICS in patients with sub-optimally controlled asthma. After a run-in period, 203 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remained symptomatic despite treatment with 500 microg beclomethasone twice daily, were randomised to receive either 12 microg formoterol twice daily (Foradil Aerolizer), Novartis) in addition to beclomethasone 500 microg twice daily, or beclomethasone 1000 microg twice daily and placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was mean morning pre-medication peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last seven days of treatment. The difference in PEF between treatments was 27.78 l/min in favour of the formoterol/beclomethasone combination (95% CI 13.42, 42.14 l/min, p=0.0002, intention-to-treat population). Significant differences in the urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio between treatment groups at 12 weeks (p=0.001) indicated suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in the patients on beclomethasone 1000 microg twice daily. The addition of formoterol 12 microg twice daily to beclomethasone in patients with asthma who were poorly controlled with beclomethasone 500 microg twice daily was more effective than doubling the ICS dose and resulted in less suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Pharmacology of airway inflammation in asthma and COPD

The current asthma therapies are not cures and symptoms return soon after treatment is stopped even after long term treatment. Although inhaled glucocorticoids are highly effective in controlling airway inflammation in asthma, they are ineffective in the small group of patients with glucocorticoid-dependent and -resistant asthma. With very few exceptions, COPD is caused by tobacco smoking, and smoking cessation is the only truly effective treatment of COPD available. Current pharmacological treatment of COPD is unsatisfactory, as it does not significantly influence the severity of the disease or its natural course. Glucocorticoids are scarcely effective in COPD patients without concomitant asthma. Bronchodilators improves symptoms and quality of life, in COPD patients, but, with the exception of tiotropium, they do not significantly influence the natural course of the disease. Theophylline is the only drug which has been demonstrated to have a significant effect on airway inflammation in patients with COPD. Here we review the pharmacology of currently used antiinflammatory therapies for asthma and COPD and their proposed mechanisms of action. Recent understanding of disease mechanisms in severe steroid-dependent and -resistant asthma and in COPD, has lead to the development of novel compounds, which are in various stages of clinical development. We review the current status of some of these new potential drugs.