Addition of salmeterol to fluticasone propionate treatment in moderate-to-severe asthma

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

Defining severe obstructive lung disease in the biologic era: an endotype-based approach

Severe obstructive lung disease, which encompasses asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or features of both, remains a considerable global health problem and burden on healthcare resources. However, the clinical definitions of severe asthma and COPD do not reflect the heterogeneity within these diagnoses or the potential for overlap between them, which may lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. Furthermore, most studies exclude patients with diagnoses of both asthma and COPD. Clinical definitions can influence clinical trial design and are both influenced by, and influence, regulatory indications and treatment recommendations. Therefore, to ensure its relevance in the era of targeted biologic therapies, the definition of severe obstructive lung disease must be updated so that it includes all patients who could benefit from novel treatments and for whom associated costs are justified. Here, we review evolving clinical definitions of severe obstructive lung disease and evaluate how these have influenced trial design by summarising eligibility criteria and primary outcomes of phase III randomised controlled trials of biologic therapies. Based on our findings, we discuss the advantages of a phenotype- and endotype-based approach to select appropriate populations for future trials that may influence regulatory approvals and clinical practice, allowing targeted biologic therapies to benefit a greater proportion and range of patients. This calls for co-ordinated efforts between investigators, pharmaceutical developers and regulators to ensure biologic therapies reach their full potential in the management of severe obstructive lung disease.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of current maintenance strategies in preventing exacerbations of asthma.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane systematic reviews on chronic asthma, complemented by an updated search when appropriate. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TRIALS OF Adults with asthma randomised to maintenance treatments of at least 24 weeks duration and that reported on asthma exacerbations in full text. Low dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment was the comparator strategy. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations. The secondary outcome was the composite of moderate or severe exacerbations. The rate of withdrawal was analysed as a safety outcome.

RESULTS

64 trials with 59,622 patient years of follow-up comparing 15 strategies and placebo were included. For prevention of severe exacerbations, combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists as maintenance and reliever treatment and combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists in a fixed daily dose performed equally well and were ranked first for effectiveness. The rate ratios compared with low dose inhaled corticosteroids were 0.44 (95% credible interval 0.29 to 0.66) and 0.51 (0.35 to 0.77), respectively. Other combined strategies were not superior to inhaled corticosteroids and all single drug treatments were inferior to single low dose inhaled corticosteroids. Safety was best for conventional best (guideline based) practice and combined maintenance and reliever therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies with combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists are most effective and safe in preventing severe exacerbations of asthma, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports.

Management of asthma: the current US and European guidelines

Asthma management guidelines aim to improve the implementation of current knowledge into daily clinical practice by establishing a consensus of scientific practices for the management of asthma. Initial guidelines were based on consensus of expert opinion in order to employ a severity-based classification system as a guide to treatment. However, advances in asthma research led to the development of evidence-based guidelines and a major paradigm shift to control-based asthma management. Control-based management is central to the published guidelines developed by The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and The British Thoracic Society (BTS), each one using the same volume of evidence but emphasizing aspects particular to their specific patient populations and socioeconomic needs. This chapter summarizes the evolution of these guidelines and summarizes the key points and evidence used in the recommendations for the assessment, monitoring, and management of asthma in all ages, with particular emphasis on the NHLBI guidelines.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Trends in the use of antiasthmatic medications in Morocco (1999-2010)

Background

Asthma is a big public health problem in Morocco. The drug therapy existing in Morocco is currently insufficient because of the low purchasing power and the low health insurance coverage available to the average citizen in Morocco. In this study we evaluated the consumption of antiasthmatics in Morocco during the period 1999–2010, the classes of used drugs and the generics’ market share.

Methods

We used sales data from the Moroccan subsidiaries of the IMS Health “Intercontinental Marketing Service”. The consumption volume was converted to Defined Daily Doses (DDDs).

Results

During 1999–2010, antiasthmatics’s consumption increased from 3.91 to 14.47 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day. In 2010, the association Beta-2-mimetic-Glucocorticosteroids were the most consumed (8.53 DDD/1000 Inhabitants/day) followed by the short-acting inhaled Beta-2-mimetic (4 DDD/1000 Inhabitants/day) and inhaled Glucocorticosteroids alone accounted for 1.13 DDD/1000 Inhabitants/day. The largest consumption share in volume was held by the short-acting inhaled Beta-2-mimetic (42%) followed by the combination Beta-2-mimetic-Glucocorticosteroids (38%). Between 1999 and 2010, the market for generic antiasthmatics increased from 1.84 to 2.18 DDD/1000 Inhabitants/day. The ratio of the monthly average cost of treatment to the minimum wage in Morocco decreased from 10.8% in 1999 to 7.11% in 2010.

Conclusion

Antiasthmatics’ consumption in Morocco has undergone significant changes between 1999 and 2010. However, the availability of these drugs expressed as the Average Monthly Expenditure/Guaranteed Minimum Wage ratio improved. Despite this, the use of antiasmathics in Morocco remains low.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in Asian patients (aged ≥16 years) with asthma: a sub-analysis of the COSMOS study

BACKGROUND

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), budesonide, and a rapid long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA), formoterol, in a single inhaler for use as maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™) effectively achieves a high level of asthma control and reduces exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalizations. The COSMOS study, a multinational, 12-month study (N = 2143), compared budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol, allowing physicians to modify maintenance doses of both combinations according to routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post hoc sub-group analysis of the COSMOS study is to provide focused data on budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol in patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled across Asian countries, specifically China, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

METHODS

This sub-analysis of the COSMOS study concerns all 404 randomized patients ≥16 years of age (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 69.1%) who were recruited from Asian countries. Patients received either budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™, n = 198), starting dose 160 mg/4.5 mg two inhalations twice daily (bid) [plus additional as-needed inhalations], or salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide(®) Diskus(®), n = 206), starting dose 50 mg/250 mg bid (plus salbutamol [Ventolin(®)] as needed). Maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks (budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus as needed, n = 198; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol, n = 206). To allow for free adjustment in maintenance doses in both arms, the trial was performed open-label; maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks. The time to first severe exacerbation (defined as deterioration in asthma resulting in hospitalization/emergency room treatment, oral corticosteroids for ≥3 days or unscheduled visit leading to treatment change) was the primary variable.

RESULTS

The time to first severe exacerbation was prolonged in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol (log-rank p = 0.024). The risk of a first exacerbation was reduced by 44% (hazard ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32, 0.95; p = 0.033) in patients using the adjusted budesonide/formoterol regimen versus titrated salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. The overall exacerbation rates were 0.16 versus 0.26 events/patient-year, respectively, with a 38% reduction (rate ratio 0.62/patient/year; 95% CI 0.41, 0.94; p = 0.024) in favour of the budesonide/formoterol regimen. Compared with baseline, both regimens provided clinically relevant improvements in asthma control, quality of life and FEV(1); no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. Mean adjusted (standard deviation) ICS dose (expressed as beclomethasone dose equivalents) during treatment, including as-needed budesonide doses, was 944 (281) and 1034 (394) μg/day, respectively, in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSION

In patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled from Asian countries as part of the COSMOS study, the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever regimen was associated with a lower future risk of exacerbations versus the physicians' free choice of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol. Single inhaler combination treatment with maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol was also at least as efficacious as salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol in improving current asthma control.

[Asthma exacerbations: pharmacological prevention]

Asthma exacerbations are responsible for many emergency medical interventions and account for a significant proportion of the health costs of the disease. Increased airway inflammation is a key feature of exacerbations in asthma and therefore inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are considered as first-line therapy for long-term asthma control. ICS have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, as well as improving lung function. Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists also reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbations but are less effective than ICS. In patients with inadequately controlled persistent asthma despite low-dose ICS, the addition of a long-acting inhaled beta-agonist (LABA) should be considered. LABA should not be given alone and should always be associated with ICS in asthma. The anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, omalizumab, reduces severe exacerbations and emergency visits in patients with severe allergic asthma. In clinical trials measurement of the inflammatory response in induced sputum could provide information concerning appropriate drug therapy. Asthma-associated comorbidities should be investigated and treated, particularly in severe asthma. Despite a high prevalence of both gastro-oesophageal reflux and allergic rhinitis among patients with asthma, treatment with proton-pump inhibitors or nasal corticosteroids does not reduce the rate of asthma exacerbations.

Impact of race on asthma treatment failures in the asthma clinical research network

RATIONALE

Recent studies suggest that people with asthma of different racial backgrounds may respond differently to various therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To use data from well-characterized participants in prior Asthma Clinical Research Network (ACRN) trials to determine whether racial differences affected asthma treatment failures.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline phenotypes and treatment failure rates (worsening asthma resulting in systemic corticosteroid use, hospitalization, emergency department visit, prolonged decrease in peak expiratory flow, increase in albuterol use, or safety concerns) in subjects participating in 10 ACRN trials (1993-2003). Self-declared race was reported in each trial and treatment failure rates were stratified by race.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1,200 unique subjects (whites = 795 [66%]; African Americans = 233 [19%]; others = 172 [14%]; mean age = 32) were included in the analyses. At baseline, African Americans had fewer asthma symptoms (P < 0.001) and less average daily rescue inhaler use (P = 0.007) than whites. There were no differences in baseline FEV(1) (% predicted); asthma quality of life; bronchial hyperreactivity; or exhaled nitric oxide concentrations. A total of 147 treatment failures were observed; a significantly higher proportion of African Americans (19.7%; n = 46) experienced a treatment failure compared with whites (12.7%; n = 101) (odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.5; P = 0.007). When stratified by treatment, African Americans receiving long-acting β-agonists were twice as likely as whites to experience a treatment failure (odds ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.6; P = 0.004), even when used with other controller therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having fewer asthma symptoms and less rescue β-agonist use, African-Americans with asthma have more treatment failures compared with whites, especially when taking long-acting β-agonists.

Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: double for nothing?

Two recent trials from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's asthma clinical trials networks raise a concern about using double the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a positive control arm in clinical trials of add-on therapy. The literature evaluating the response to doubling the dose of an ICS is briefly reviewed. The vast majority of studies do not demonstrate a significant positive benefit from doubling the dose of an ICS but do show improvement with 4-fold increases that is equal to or greater than that of add-on long-acting bronchodilators. It is recommended that doubling the dose of an ICS no longer be considered a positive comparator arm in clinical trials, although it might be beneficial in individual patients.

Safe use of long-acting β-agonists: what have we learnt?

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce symptoms, improve lung function and enhance overall asthma control. However, several studies have indicated an increased risk of asthma mortality and asthma-related serious adverse events and the FDA recently mandated restrictions to the use of LABAs in asthma.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights the clinical studies on which safety analyses pertaining to salmeterol and formoterol have been based and then focuses on recent meta-analyses of safety outcomes with and without consideration of concomitant ICS.

EXPERT OPINION

The phenomenon of masking of inflammation by LABA if ICS dose is insufficient underscores the potential for confounding in determining real safety risks. Under-treatment with ICS and differential dosing of ICS in many trials are major factors driving the LABA safety concern. The FDA meta-analysis, when stratified for mandatory ICS use, found no significant increase in the composite outcome of asthma mortality, intubations and hospitalizations. Add-on therapy with LABA is effective and safe if the dose of ICS is adequate to treat airway inflammation. LABA and ICS given in a single device will negate the possibility of LABA monotherapy which is contraindicated. The FDA has recommended that LABAs be withdrawn when control is achieved with combination therapy but recent evidence suggests this may result in loss of symptom control.

Treatment comparison of budesonide/formoterol with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in adults aged > or =16 years with asthma: post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Three fixed maintenance-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations for the treatment of asthma are currently available: salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair) budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) and beclometasone/formoterol (Foster). All of these combinations have proven efficacy in terms of controlling symptoms, improving lung function and reducing the rate of exacerbations compared with ICSs and LABAs administered separately. Budesonide/formoterol is also approved for use as maintenance and reliever therapy in a number of countries (Symbicort SMART). Many of the studies supporting the use of budesonide/formoterol combination therapies have included populations of adolescents and adults aged >11 years.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of ICS/LABA fixed maintenance-dose treatment with budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in patients with persistent asthma aged > or =16 years.

METHODS

Following 2-weeks' run-in, 2866 adults aged > or =16 years were randomized to: fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol 640 microg/18 microg per day, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 100 microg/500 microg per day plus terbutaline as needed, or budesonide/formoterol 320 microg/9 microg per day plus additional inhalations as needed (budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy). Outcome measures included time to first severe asthma exacerbation (primary outcome) and number of severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy prolonged time to first severe exacerbation versus budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance dose (p = 0.037 and p = 0.0089, respectively). Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol reduced the risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room visits by 28% (relative rate [RR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53, 0.98; p = 0.034) and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy by 37% (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46, 0.87; p = 0.0043). All treatments provided similar improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol fixed maintenance dose or maintenance and reliever therapy provides similar improvements in current asthma control and reduces the future risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room treatments versus salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, providing additional clinical benefit to asthma patients aged > or =16 years.

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.

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.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Long-acting beta-agonists with and without inhaled corticosteroids and catastrophic asthma events

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether long-acting beta-agonists with concomitant inhaled corticosteroids increase asthma-related intubations and deaths. We pooled data on long-acting beta-agonists with variable and concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to evaluate the risk for catastrophic asthma events.

METHODS

We conducted searches of electronic databases, the US Food and Drug Administration website, clinical-trials registries, and selected references through December 2008. We analyzed randomized controlled trials in patients with asthma, which lasted at least 3 months, evaluated long-acting beta-agonists compared with placebo or long-acting beta-agonists with inhaled corticosteroids compared with corticosteroids alone, and included at least 1 catastrophic event, defined as asthma-related intubation or death.

RESULTS

In pooled trial data that included 36,588 participants, long-acting beta-agonists increased catastrophic events 2-fold (Peto odds ratio [OR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.22). Statistically significant increases were seen for long-acting beta-agonists with variable corticosteroids compared with placebo (OR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.14-2.95) and for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids compared with corticosteroids alone (OR 3.65; 95% CI, 1.39-9.55). Similar increases in risk were seen for variable and concomitant corticosteroid use, salmeterol and formoterol, and children and adults. When the analysis was restricted to trials with controlled corticosteroid use, given as part of the study intervention, concomitant treatment still increased catastrophic events compared with corticosteroids alone (OR 8.19; 95% CI, 1.10-61.18).

CONCLUSION

Long-acting beta-agonists increase the risk for asthma-related intubations and deaths, even when used in a controlled fashion with concomitant inhaled corticosteroids.

Pharmacological strategies for improving the efficacy and therapeutic ratio of glucocorticoids in inflammatory lung diseases

Glucocorticoids are widely used to treat various inflammatory lung diseases. Acting via the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), they exert clinical effects predominantly by modulating gene transcription. This may be to either induce (transactivate) or repress (transrepress) gene transcription. However, certain individuals, including those who smoke, have certain asthma phenotypes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or some interstitial diseases may respond poorly to the beneficial effects of glucocorticoids. In these cases, high dose, often oral or parental, glucocorticoids are typically prescribed. This generally leads to adverse effects that compromise clinical utility. There is, therefore, a need to enhance the clinical efficacy of glucocorticoids while minimizing adverse effects. In this context, a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) can enhance the clinical efficacy of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in asthma and COPD. Furthermore, LABAs can augment glucocorticoid-dependent gene expression and this action may account for some of the benefits of LABA/ICS combination therapies when compared to ICS given as a monotherapy. In addition to metabolic genes and other adverse effects that are induced by glucocorticoids, there are many other glucocorticoid-inducible genes that have significant anti-inflammatory potential. We therefore advocate a move away from the search for ligands of GR that dissociate transactivation from transrepression. Instead, we submit that ligands should be functionally screened by virtue of their ability to induce or repress biologically-relevant genes in target tissues. In this review, we discuss pharmacological methods by which selective GR modulators and "add-on" therapies may be exploited to improve the clinical efficacy of glucocorticoids while reducing potential adverse effects.

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.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy in the management of moderate to severe asthma

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines aim at improving asthma control and preventing future risk. For patients with moderate to severe asthma an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination with a short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) as reliever is recommended. Despite the availability of effective maintenance therapies, a large proportion of patients still fail to achieve guideline-defined asthma control, and overuse of SABA reliever medication at the expense of ICS is commonly observed. New simplified treatment approaches may offer a solution and assist physicians to achieve overall asthma control. One such treatment approach, which is recommended in the GINA guidelines, is budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and reliever therapy. This treatment strategy significantly reduces the rate of severe asthma exacerbations compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA and achieves equivalent daily symptom control compared with higher doses of ICS/LABA plus separate SABA for relief. These benefits are achieved at a lower overall steroid load, and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy is well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe asthma. This review discusses current asthma management in patients with moderate to severe disease and examines the evidence for alternative asthma management approaches.

Safety of regular use of long-acting beta agonists as monotherapy or added to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Safety of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) has been questioned and recent evidence suggested a detrimental effect on asthma control as well as an increased risk of death.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of regular use of LABA compared with placebo or LABA added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared with ICS in persistent asthma.

METHODS

Randomized studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were identified. Additionally, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and FDA clinical trials databases were searched. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations (AE) requiring systemic corticosteroids or hospitalization, life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths.

RESULTS

We identified 92 randomized clinical trials with 74,092 subjects. LABA (as monotherapy) reduced exacerbations requiring corticosteroids (Relative Risk [RR]=0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), without detrimental effects on hospitalizations or life-threatening episodes. Contrarily, LABA showed a significant increase in asthma-related deaths (Relative Risk=3.83; 95% CI, 1.21-12.14). Subgroup analysis suggests that children, patients receiving salmeterol, and a duration of treatment>12 weeks are associated with a higher risk of serious adverse effects; also there was a protective effect of concomitant use of ICS. On the other hand, combination of LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and hospitalizations (RR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Combined therapy was also equivalent to ICS in terms of life-threatening episodes and asthma-related deaths. Again, children and use of salmeterol were associated with an increased risk of some severe outcomes as compared with adults and formoterol users, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reinforced the international recommendations in terms of the use of LABA remains the preferred add-on therapy to ICS for patients whose disease cannot adequately controlled with ICS, and that LABA cannot be prescribed as a monotherapy. Nevertheless, in spite of the protective effect of the ICS, children and salmeterol use still show an increased risk of non-fatal serious adverse events.

The effect of asthma therapeutics on signalling and transcriptional regulation of airway smooth muscle function

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

Our knowledge of the multifunctional nature of airway smooth muscle (ASM) has expanded rapidly in the last decade, but the underlying molecular mechanisms and how current therapies for obstructive airway diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), affect these are still being elucidated. Our current knowledge has built on the pharmacology of human ASM contraction and relaxation established prior to that and which is reviewed in detail elsewhere in this issue. The advent of methods to isolate and culture ASM cells, especially human ASM cells, has made it possible to study how they may contribute to airway remodelling through their synthetic, proliferative, and migratory capacities. Now the underlying molecular mechanisms of ASM growth factor secretion, extracellular matrix (ECM) production, proliferation and migration, as well as contraction and relaxation, are being determined. A complex network of signalling pathways leading to gene transcription in ASM cells permits this functional plasticity in healthy and diseased airways. This review is an overview of the effects of current therapies, and some of those in development, on key signalling pathways and transcription factors involved in these ASM functions.

Fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma.2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one published and unpublished trials (representing 55 group comparisons, 10,797 participants) met the inclusion criteria. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids, FP did not exhibit a dose-response effect in the lower dose comparisons in FEV1 (50mcg, 100mcg, 200mcg and 4-500mcg daily). There were no statisitically significant differences between 4-500mcg and 800-1000mcg, and between 50-100 and 800-1000mcg of FP. When 200mcg was compared with 800-1000mcg daily FEV1 favoured the four/five fold increase. For PEF, a dose response was present with FP when low and moderate, and low and high doses of FP were compared. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence of a pronounced dose response in FEV1 with increasing doses of fluticasone. The number of studies contributing to our primary outcomes was low. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are statistically significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

[Inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: a medico-economic analysis of clinical trials]

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic disease with a heavy economic burden in terms of public health on account of its clinical impact and consequences on quality of life and costs. Its management is based on pharmacological measures with inhaled corticosteroids playing a large role. The objective of this study was to undertake an analysis of the published literature of medico-economic trials of the use of inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

A review of the literature from 1990 to 2007 was undertaken with separate analyses of studies of inhaled steroids alone and those looking at combined preparations.

RESULTS

The costs of asthma vary greatly depending on the clinical management. Analysis of the published clinical trials showed that the addition of inhaled steroids increased the total cost. When efficacy is taken into account the economic results are acceptable for developed societies. The use of inhaled steroids as maintenance therapy, or maintenance and symptomatic therapy, was always cost effective.

CONCLUSION

These results are based on data from clinical trials. They need to be confirmed by large scale observational studies using validated criteria of effectiveness.

Asthma exacerbations in African Americans treated for 1 year with combination fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate alone

OBJECTIVE

This long-term prospective study was conducted in African Americans with persistent asthma to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of the inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (FP), and the long-acting beta-agonist, salmeterol, compared with FP alone.

RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multi-center trial in adolescent and adult subjects >/=12 years of age symptomatic on a low dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The study consisted of a 2-week screening period on low dose ICS; a 4-week open-label FP 250 mcg twice daily (BID) run-in; a 52-week double-blind period (FP/salmeterol [FSC] 100/50 mcg [n=239] or FP 100 mcg [n=236] BID), and a 4-week FP 250 mcg BID run-out period. Annualized exacerbation rate was the primary outcome for comparing the two treatments. Other measures of asthma control included peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, and albuterol use. Safety was assessed through adverse events.

RESULTS

Exacerbation rates were not significantly different in those treated with FSC 100/50 mcg (0.449 per year) compared with FP 100 mcg (0.529 per year, p=0.169). When the per-protocol analysis was applied, the rates were 0.465 and 0.769 per year for FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg, respectively. Treatment with FSC 100/50 mcg provided statistically greater improvements in lung function measures and nighttime awakenings (p</=0.050) and demonstrated numerically lower daily symptoms (p=0.216) and albuterol use (p=0.122). Two subjects treated with FSC 100/50 mcg were hospitalized for an asthma exacerbation compared to three treated with FP 100 mcg. The overall incidence of adverse effects during double-blind treatment was similar between the FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg treatment groups (61% and 68%, respectively). Frequent study visits were required of subjects during this long-term study, and it remains unknown whether this intervention may affect generalizability.

CONCLUSION

In this large, prospective study among African Americans with asthma, the addition of salmeterol to FP resulted in a similar low rate of exacerbations and improved other markers of asthma control. Both FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg were well-tolerated, and the overall safety-profiles were similar over 1 year of treatment.

Comparison of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination with FP+sustained release theophylline in moderate asthma patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product with concurrent sustained release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate in adult Japanese patients with persistent asthma.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Three hundred and eighty-three asthmatic patients receiving sustained release theophylline 200-400mg/day entered the study and were randomised to receive either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50microg/250microg+1 placebo tablet, fluticasone propionate 250microg+1 sustained release theophylline 200mg (SR-T+FP), twice daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean change morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over 8 weeks was 29.8L/min in the SFC group and 16.3L/min in the SR-T+FP group, with a treatment difference of 13.4L/min (p=0.0004). SFC improved evening PEF, FEV1, V50 and V25 at the completion of treatment to a greater extent than SR-T+FP (all p<0.05). A higher percentage of patients on SFC were symptom free (p=0.0286) and rescue free (ns) than those on SR-T+FP. There was not a statistically significant difference between treatments in symptom scores. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that SFC was associated with greater improvements in lung function than SR-T+FP, a commonly employed treatment for asthmatic patients in Japan, suggests that SFC should be the preferred therapeutic option in these patients.

A Holy Grail of asthma management: toward understanding how long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists enhance the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids

There is unequivocal evidence that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) -- i.e. glucocorticoid -- and an inhaled long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) is superior to each component administered as a monotherapy alone in the clinical management of asthma. Moreover, Calverley and colleagues (Lancet 2003, 361: 449-456; N Engl J Med 2007, 356: 775-789) reporting for the 'TRial of Inhaled STeroids ANd long-acting beta(2)-agonists (TRISTAN)' and 'TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH)' international study groups also demonstrated the superior efficacy of LABA/ICS combination therapies over ICS alone in the clinical management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This finding has been independently confirmed indicating that the therapeutic benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies is not restricted to asthma and may be extended to other chronic inflammatory diseases of the airways. Despite the unquestionable benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies, there is a vast gap in our understanding of how these two drugs given together deliver superior clinical efficacy. In this article, we review the history of LABA/ICS combination therapies and critically evaluate how these two classes of drugs might interact at the biochemical level to suppress pro-inflammatory responses. Understanding the molecular basis of this fundamental clinical observation is a Holy Grail of current respiratory diseases research as it could permit the rational exploitation of this effect with the development of new 'optimized' LABA/ICS combination therapies.

Comparison of the effects of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with fluticasone propionate on airway physiology in adults with mild persistent asthma

Background

This study compared the effect of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) with the combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) on lung function parameters in patients with mild asthma.

Methods

Adult patients with mild persistent asthma (≥ 80% predicted FEV₁) receiving 200–500 μg of BDP or equivalent were randomised to receive either FP 100 μg or SFC 50/100 μg twice daily from a Diskus^® inhaler for four weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in airway resistance (sRaw) at 12 hrs post dose measured by whole body plethysmography. Impulse oscillometry and spirometry were also performed.

Results

A comparison of the geometric mean sRaw at 12 hrs post dose in the SFC group to the FP group gave a ratio of 0.76 (0.66 – 0.89, p < 0.001) at week 2 and 0.81 (0.71 – 0.94, p = 0.006) at week 4. Similarly, significant results in favour of SFC for oscillometry measurements of resistance and reactance were observed. FEV₁ was also significantly superior at week 2 in the SFC group (mean difference 0.16L, 95% CI; 0.03 – 0.28, p = 0.015), but not at week 4 (mean difference 0.17L, 95% CI -0.01 – 0.34, p = 0.060).

Conclusion

SFC is superior to FP in reducing airway resistance in mild asthmatics with near normal FEV₁ values. This study provides evidence that changes in pulmonary function in patients with mild asthma are detected more sensitively by plethysmography compared to spirometry

Trial registration number

NCT00370591.

Acute asthma intervention: insights from the STAY study

In some patients, asthma control is improved by combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting beta(2)-agonists. However, fluctuating asthma control and exacerbations can still occur. The STAY study evaluated whether, in patients with moderate to severe asthma, replacing a short-acting beta(2)-agonist reliever with the combination of budesonide/formoterol as reliever would both provide rapid symptom relief and reduce asthma exacerbations. The study evaluated 2760 patients with asthma (4-80 years) randomized to budesonide 400 microg twice daily (bid) and terbutaline as reliever, budesonide/formoterol 100/6 microg bid and terbutaline as reliever, or budesonide/formoterol 100/6 microg bid both as maintenance and reliever. Children (age 4-11 years) used a once-daily maintenance dose. Budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk by 45% to 47% compared with the other 2 treatments and improved symptoms, awakenings, and lung function. The benefit was seen in patients of all ages. Subsequent studies have revealed that this beneficial effect of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever requires both components of the combination.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of salmeterol and sustained-release tulobuterol (patch) on inadequately controlled asthma patients on inhaled corticosteroids

Patients with inadequately controlled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid (400 to 1,600 microg/day chlorofluorocarbon beclomethasone equivalent) were treated with concomitant salmeterol (n = 18) or sustained-release tulobuterol (patch) (n = 18), or the inhaled corticosteroid dose was doubled (add-on) (n = 13) to compare clinical efficacy. (1) At 8 weeks, morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were significantly improved in the salmeterol group only (p < 0.01). (2) Symptom and sleeplessness scores improved in the order, salmeterol (symptom score; p < 0.0001), inhaled corticosteroid add-on, and tulobuterol groups. (3) Only the salmeterol group showed significant improvement in the total Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score (p < 0.05). (4) No adverse reactions considered related to the study drugs were observed.

Combination therapy with the single inhaler salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus increased doses of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Although results from a few meta-analyses were most uniformly supportive of the beneficial effect of combination therapy on lung function, there were inconsistent results on other endpoints such as asthma exacerbation. Single inhalers of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate have been available, and some studies compared the effect of combination products with increased doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) on several outcome variables.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the studies systematically, providing a quantitative summary estimate on the efficacy and safety measures of the combination products.

METHODS

We searched databases (Medline and Embase) from January 1997 to December 2005 using 'fluticasone and salmerterol' or 'Seretide' or 'Advair', in combination with 'randomized controlled trial'. The databases of GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trial Register and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, or relevant articles were searched for additional studies.

RESULTS

Combination products had a comparatively low, but significant improvement in pulmonary function, with morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening PEF and FEV1 increasing by 17.86 liters/min, 15.57 liters/min and 0.09 liter, respectively, compared with increased doses of inhaled corticosteroid (ICSs) over 12 weeks' treatment. But there were no statistically significant differences in other endpoints such as asthma exacerbation, overall withdrawal and drug-related adverse events, with the exception of overall adverse events and symptom free 24 h, which favored combination products.

CONCLUSIONS

Thecombination products provided a statistically significant improvement in lung function and in symptoms but provided no significantly increased protection against exacerbation. Unless high doses of ICSs are required, there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend the use of combination products rather than increased moderate doses of ICSs as a first-line treatment for patients uncontrolled on their current doses of ICSs.

Oral xanthines as maintenance treatment for asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Xanthines have been used in the treatment of asthma as a bronchodilator, though they may also have anti-inflammatory effects. The current role of xanthines in the long-term treatment of childhood asthma needs to be reassessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of xanthines (e.g. theophylline) in the maintenance treatment of paediatric asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was undertaken with predefined search terms. Searches are current to May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials,lasting at least four weeks comparing a xanthine with placebo, regular short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), cromoglycate (SCG), ketotifen (KET) or leukotriene antagonist, in children with diagnosed with chronic asthma between 18 months and 18 years old.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected each study for inclusion in the review and extracted data. Primary outcome was percentage of symptom-free days.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four studies (2734 participants) of adequate quality were included. Xanthine versus placebo (17 studies): The proportion of symptom free days was larger with xanthine compared with placebo (7.97% [95% CI 3.41, 12.53]). Rescue medication usage was lower with xanthine, with no significant difference in symptom scores or hospitalisations. FEV1 , and PEF were better with xanthine. Xanthine was associated with non - specific side-effects. Data from behavioural scores were inconclusive. Xanthine versus ICS (four studies) : Exacerbations were less frequent with ICS, but no significant difference on lung function was observed. Individual studies reported significant improvements in symptom measures in favour of steroids, and one study reported a difference in growth rate in favour of xanthine. No difference was observed for study withdrawal or tremor. Xanthine was associated with more frequent headache and nausea. Xanthine versus regular SABA (10 studies): No significant difference in symptoms, rescue medication usage and spirometry. Individual studies reported improvement in PEF with beta-agonist. Beta-agonist treatment led to fewer hospitalisations and headaches. Xanthine was associated with less tremor. Xanthine versus SCG (six studies ): No significant difference in symptoms, exacerbations and rescue medication. Sodium cromoglycate was associated with fewer gastro-intestinal side-effects than xanthine. Xanthine versus KET (one study): No statistical tests of significance between xanthine and ketotifen were reported. Xanthine + ICS versus placebo + same dose ICS (three studies) : Results were conflicting due to clinical/methodological differences, and could not be aggregated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xanthines as first-line preventer alleviate symptoms and reduce requirement for rescue medication in children with mild to moderate asthma. When compared with ICS they were less effective in preventing exacerbations. Xanthines had similar efficacy as single preventative agent compared with regular SABA and SCG. Evidence on AEs (adverse effects) was equivocal: there was evidence for increased AEs overall, but no evidence that any specific AE (including effects on behaviour and attention) occurred more frequently than with placebo. There is insufficient evidence from available studies to make firm conclusions about the effectiveness of xanthines as add-on preventative treatment to ICS, and there are no published paediatric studies comparing xanthines with alternatives in this role. Our data suggest that xanthines are only suitable as first-line preventative asthma therapy in children when ICS are not available. They may have a role as add-on therapy in more severe asthma not controlled by ICS, but further studies are needed to examine this, and to define the risk-benefit ratio compared with other agents.

Single-inhaler combination therapy for asthma: a review of cost effectiveness

Clinical studies have shown that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) for patients with asthma is more effective than the use of ICS alone in equivalent or higher doses, as well as the use of other combinations. However, the relatively higher acquisition costs for the combination therapy require assessment of the value of the incremental costs, especially from a societal perspective. This review provides an overall assessment of the cost effectiveness of ICS plus LABA combination therapy for asthma. A systematic literature research was conducted in MEDLINE to identify studies published between January 1994 and September 2005. Cost-effectiveness studies derived from 11 clinical studies were identified. The ICS plus LABA combination was compared with ICS alone in eight studies, ICS plus a leukotriene antagonist in two studies, and a leukotriene antagonist alone in one study. All studies focused on measuring direct medical costs in a total of six different healthcare systems, and three studies conducted sensitivity analyses, including productivity costs. Outcomes were measured in treatment success (changes in lung function), episode-free days, and symptom-free days by evaluating short-term follow-up. The combination of ICS and LABA was found to be more efficacious and cost effective compared with ICS alone or alternative combinations of controller medications. Further considerations for measuring long-term outcomes and dose-response relationships might be required to provide further evidence on the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with ICS plus LABA.

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.

Long-acting beta2-agonists as an inhaled corticosteroid-sparing agent for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The addition of a long acting beta agonist (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy can improve asthma symptoms and reduce exacerbations. The addition of LABA may also have an ICS-sparing effect and permit a reduction in ICS maintenance dose.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of adding LABA to maintenance ICS therapy in reducing the requirement for ICS while maintaining control of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: November 2004

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel RCTs that compared reduced dose ICS in combination with LABA vs ICS alone in asthmatics requiring daily ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. Trials were analysed according to the following ICS dose comparisons: a fixed moderate/high dose or a reduced/tapering dose of the same ICS.

MAIN RESULTS

19 publications describing 10 trials of adults were included in the review. Studies that compared reduced dose (mean 60% reduction) ICS/LABA combination to a fixed moderate/high dose ICS found no significant difference in severe exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.32), withdrawal due to worsening asthma (RR 0.82, 95%CI 0.5 to 1.35) or airway inflammation. There were also significant improvements in FEV1 (change from baseline WMD 0.10, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.12), morning & evening PEF and percent rescue free days with LABA. Two studies provided outcomes for a reduced/tapering ICS dose comparison. More participants receiving the LABA/reduced ICS combination achieved a reduction in ICS dose reaching significance in one study. A significant reduction of 253 mcg BDP was achieved in one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma, using moderate to high maintenance doses of ICS, the addition of LABA has an ICS-sparing effect. The addition ofLABA permits more participants on minimum maintenance ICS to reduce ICS. The precise magnitude of the ICS dose reduction requires further study.

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.

Control of asthma under specialist care: is it achieved?

BACKGROUND

The goal of asthma treatment is control of asthma and good quality of life for asthmatic patients; however, many asthmatic patients experience symptoms and limitations.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine treatment outcome in asthmatic patients under specialist care.

DESIGN

Multicenter, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Four large outpatient asthma clinics in teaching hospitals in three Greek cities.

PATIENTS

Three hundred seventy-eight randomly selected patients with mild or moderate asthma (265 female patients; mean age, 42.3 years).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Patients completed a questionnaire structured with eight domains covering patient characteristics, drug use at baseline and during exacerbations, regular follow-up, emergency visits, asthma control, symptoms, and limitations. Results show that the majority of patients have symptoms and limitations in their physical and social activities and have frequent exacerbations, while > 40% of patients think that their asthma is not well controlled. Most of our patients receive preventive medication (primarily inhaled corticosteroids, but less so long-acting beta2-agonists [LABAs] and leukotriene antagonists), increase their use of medication in case of exacerbations and have regular follow-up. However, the report shows that 48% of patients tried to reduce their medication dose, a fact implying that compliance is not always good.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that the goals of asthma treatment are not achieved, even under specialist care. Perhaps more effort should be invested in patient education while an increase in the use of LABAs and leukotriene antagonists, medications that have been shown to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and improve quality of life, may help better asthma outcomes.

Inhaled fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. 2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2005) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using RevMan (Analyses 1.0.2).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three studies (45 data sets with 8913 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was high. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids a dose-response effect was present with FP for change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). For low doses (100 versus 200 microg/day) the weighted mean difference (WMD) was 6.29 litres/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.28 to 10.29. Comparing medium (400 to 500 microg/day) to low dose (200 microg/day) FP the WMD was 6.46 litres/min (95% CI 3.02 to 9.89); this effect was more pronounced in one trial with more severely asthmatic children. For FP 100 versus 400 to 500 microg/day the WMD was 8 litres/min (95% CI 1 to 15) and at high versus low doses (800 to 1000 versus 50 to 100 microg/d) the WMD was 22 litres/min (95% CI 15 to 29). When high and medium doses were compared there was no significant difference in the change in morning PEF: at 400 to 500 versus 800 to 1000 microg/day the WMD was 0.16 litres/min (95% CI 6.95 to 6.63). There was no dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effects of fluticasone are dose dependent but relatively small. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids

A randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and tolerability of salmeterol 25 microg/fluticasone propionate 125 microg (two puffs, twice daily) delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and salmeterol 50microg/fluticasone propionate 250 microg (one puff, twice daily) delivered via a Diskus inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included evening PEF, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, day and night symptom scores, rescue medication and patient self-evaluation of efficacy. Safety was assessed according to adverse events recorded. Both treatments were equipotent and significantly improved morning PEF (HFA-MDI 40 l/min; Diskus 42 l/min; p < 0.05) and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05) from baseline, over 1-4 weeks. Similarly, both treatments were well tolerated. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via an HFA-MDI or Diskus inhaler provides a choice of efficacious delivery systems in Chinese patients whose asthma is poorly controlled on ICSs alone.

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.

Long-acting beta-agonists: anti-inflammatory properties and synergy with corticosteroids in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Contemporary asthma management calls for combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. This combination has consistently shown superior clinical efficacy compared with monotherapy with higher doses of ICS. It is unclear whether ICS and LABA act additively because of their complementary mechanisms of action, or whether they act synergistically based on possible favorable interactions between them. The purpose of this review is to summarize research findings on the anti-inflammatory activity of LABA published since October 2002 and to speculate on how these findings will affect future asthma management recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Combination ICS plus LABA consistently demonstrates superiority over ICS monotherapy in clinical outcomes such as pulmonary function, symptoms, and exacerbation rates, and is consistent with definitive data published before the review period. However, investigations into possible effects of LABA on inflammatory mediators are preliminary. Positive effects of LABA on some serum and bronchial inflammatory measures have been observed, but the clinical importance of these findings has not been established.

SUMMARY

Current asthma treatment recommendations are based on clinical trials demonstrating improved clinical outcomes of combination ICS plus LABA over ICS alone. Whether LABA possesses clinically important benefits beyond bronchodilation remains to be established. Distinguishing anti-inflammatory activity of LABA will help define optimal long-term treatment regimens for asthma that not only improve pulmonary function, symptoms, and exacerbation rates but also protect against airway remodeling.

Budesonide/formoterol combination therapy as both maintenance and reliever medication in asthma

Asthma control is improved by combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting beta2-agonists. However, fluctuating asthma control still occurs. We hypothesized that in patients receiving low maintenance dose budesonide/formoterol (bud/form), replacing short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) reliever with as-needed bud/form would provide rapid symptom relief and simultaneous adjustment in antiinflammatory therapy, thereby reducing exacerbations. In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 2,760 patients with asthma aged 4-80 years (FEV1 60-100% predicted) received either terbutaline 0.4 mg as SABA with bud/form 80/4.5 microg twice a day (bud/form + SABA) or bud 320 microg twice a day (bud + SABA) or bud/form 80/4.5 microg twice a day with 80/4.5 microg as-needed (bud/form maintenance + relief). Children used a once-nocte maintenance dose. Bud/form maintenance + relief prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (p < 0.001; primary endpoint), resulting in a 45-47% lower exacerbation risk versus bud/form + SABA (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.44, 0.67) or bud + SABA (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.65). Bud/form maintenance + relief also prolonged the time to the first, second, and third exacerbation requiring medical intervention (p < 0.001), reduced severe exacerbation rate, and improved symptoms, awakenings, and lung function compared with both fixed dosing regimens.

Add-on therapy options in asthma not adequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids: a comprehensive review

Many patients with persistent asthma can be controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). However, a considerable proportion of patients remain symptomatic, despite the use of ICS. We present systematically evidence that supports the different treatment options. A literature search was made of Medline/PubMed to identify randomised and blinded trials. To demonstrate the benefit that can be obtained by increasing the dose of ICS, dose-response studies with at least three different ICS doses were identified. To demonstrate whether more benefit can be obtained by adding long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), leukotriene antagonist (LTRA) or theophylline than by increasing the dose of ICS, studies comparing these options were identified. Thirdly, studies comparing the different "add-on" options were identified. The addition of a LABA is more effective than increasing the dose of ICS in improving asthma control. By increasing the dose of ICS, clinical improvement is likely to be of small magnitude. Addition of a LTRA or theophylline to the treatment regimen appears to be equivalent to doubling the dose of ICS. Addition of a LABA seems to be superior to an LTRA in improving lung function. However, addition of LABA and LTRA may be equal with respect to asthma exacerbations. However, more and longer studies are needed to better clarify the role of LTRAs and theophylline as add-on therapies.