Formoterol delivered via the dry powder Aerolizer inhaler versus albuterol MDI and placebo in mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial

Safety of SABA Monotherapy in Asthma Management: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) reliever overuse is common in asthma, despite availability of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance therapies, and may be associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of SABA reliever monotherapy for adults and adolescents with asthma, through analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence.

METHODS

An SLR of English-language publications between January 1996 and December 2021 included RCTs and observational studies of patients aged ≥ 12 years treated with inhaled SABA reliever monotherapy (fixed dose or as needed) for ≥ 4 weeks. Studies of terbutaline and fenoterol were excluded. Meta-analysis feasibility was dependent on cross-trial data comparability. A random-effects model estimated rates of mortality, serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuation due to AEs (DAEs) for as-needed and fixed-dose SABA treatment groups. ICS monotherapy and SABA therapy were compared using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies were identified by the SLR for assessment of feasibility. Final meta-analysis included 24 RCTs. Too few observational studies (n = 2) were available for inclusion in the meta-analysis. One death unrelated to treatment was reported in each of the ICS, ICS + LABA, and fixed-dose SABA groups. No other treatment-related deaths were reported. SAE and DAE rates were < 4%. DAEs were reported more frequently in the SABA treatment groups than with ICS, potentially owing to worsening asthma symptoms being classified as an AE. SAE risk was comparable between SABA and ICS treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of data from RCTs showed that deaths were rare with SABA reliever monotherapy, and rates of SAEs and DAEs were comparable between SABA reliever and ICS treatment groups. When used appropriately within prescribed limits as reliever therapy, SABA does not contribute to excess rates of mortality, SAEs, or DAEs.

Validation of a simplified-geometry model of inhaled formoterol pharmacodynamics in asthmatic patients

PharmacoKinetics (PK) and PharmacoDynamics (PD) mathematical models of inhaled bronchodilators represent useful tools for understanding the mechanisms of drug action and for the individuation of therapy regimens. A PK/PD model for inhaled bronchoactive compounds was previously proposed, incorporating a simplified-geometry approach: the key feature of that model is a mixed compartmental and spatially distributed representation of the kinetics, with the direct computation of representative flow rates from Ohm's law and bronchial diameter profiles. The aim of the present work is the enrichment and validation of this simplified geometry modeling approach against clinical efficacy data. The improved model is used to compute airflow response to treatment for each single virtual patient from a simulated population and it is found to produce very good fits to observed FEV₁ profiles. The model provides a faithful quantitative description of the increasing degree of improvement with respect to basal conditions with continuing administration and with increasing drug dosages, as clinically expected.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta₂-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone.

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 as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

An evaluation of comparative treatment effects with high and low dose fluticasone propionate/formoterol combination in asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite extensive use of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combinations in asthma, limited data evaluating dose-response for this combination class are available. The benefits of dose escalation and nature of patient subgroups likely to benefit are thus ill-defined.

METHOD

In this randomised, double-blind, 8-week study the effects of two dose levels (100/10 and 500/20 μg b.i.d.) of a fixed combination of fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform(®)) were compared in 309 patients. Treatment effects upon spirometric and symptom-based endpoints were examined in the overall population and in two subgroups defined a priori by % predicted FEV1 at baseline (≥40-≤60% ["severe" airways obstruction] and >60-≤80% ["moderate" airways obstruction]).

RESULTS

No dose-response was evident for spirometric outcomes (FEV1, FEV1 AUC0-12, PEFR) either overall or in either subgroup. At variance with the spirometric data, statistically significant dose-dependent differences were seen for nocturnal outcomes and consistent numerical differences were found across multiple symptom-based outcomes (symptom scores, sleep scores, rescue medication use, asthma control days, AQLQ scores, exacerbations); greater effects were noted with the higher dose of fluticasone/formoterol. Between-group differences for the overall population were driven by treatment effect differences in the "severe" subgroup.

CONCLUSION

In this exploratory comparison a high dose of fluticasone/formoterol in asthmatic patients appears to provide additional improvement in symptom-based rather than spirometric outcomes. Additional benefits from high versus low dose treatment are most likely in patients with severe airway obstruction, although the doses at which ceiling effects are attained may vary between individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734318; EudraCT number: 2007-001633-34.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in 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 formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Safety of formoterol in adults and children with asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety of long-acting β2 agonists (LABA) for the treatment of persistent asthma remains a topic of ongoing debate.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of serious asthma-related events among patients treated with formoterol, a meta-analysis of all Novartis-sponsored controlled clinical trials was conducted.

METHODS

Forty-five randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group or crossover studies with formoterol were included. Background inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all studies; however, in only 2 studies was ICS randomized as study medication. Sub-analyses of the pooled data were performed according to age (5-12; 13-18; >18 years), baseline ICS use, and lung function. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated between formoterol (twice-daily), albuterol (salbutamol) 4 times per day (active control), and placebo.

RESULTS

Patients were randomized to formoterol (n = 5,367), placebo (n = 2,026), and albuterol (n = 976). Two deaths were reported, 1 each in the formoterol (asthma exacerbation) and the placebo (hemorrhagic pancreatitis) groups. No statistically significant differences in serious asthma exacerbations were observed compared with placebo in adolescents and adults. In children, a higher frequency of hospitalizations was observed among patients treated with formoterol compared with placebo (OR 8.4; 95% CI: 1.1-65.3). A trend toward fewer exacerbations was observed among subjects reporting concomitant ICS use at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis supports current guideline recommendations for the use of LABAs only as add-on therapy to ICS.

Long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol combination for treatment of patients with persistent asthma

Objective: The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonist is recommended for treatment of patients with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on ICS monotherapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) administered through metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with persistent asthma previously on medium- to high-dose ICS. Methods: This was a 52-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, evaluator-blinded study. At baseline, 404 patients (aged >12 years) were stratified according to their previous ICS dose (medium or high), then randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily treatment of MF/F (200/10 or 400/10 μg) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S; 250/50 or 500/50 μg). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients reporting any adverse event (AE). Additional safety evaluations included plasma cortisol 24-hour area under the curve (AUC_0–24h) and ocular changes. Pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and use of rescue medication were monitored. Results: The incidence of >1 treatment-emergent AE was similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 77.3% [n = 109]; FP/S 250/50 μg, 82.4% [n = 56]; MF/F 400/10 μg, 79.2% [n = 103]; FP/S 500/50 μg, 76.9% [n = 50]). Rates of treatment-related AEs were also similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 28.4%; FP/S 250/50 μg, 23.5%; MF/F 400/10 μg, 23.1%; FP/S 500/50 μg, 20.0%). Headache (3.7%) and dysphonia (2.7%) were the most common treatment-related AEs overall. The nature and frequency of AEs and the decreases in plasma cortisol AUC_{0–24 h} observed with MF/F treatment were similar to those observed with FP/S treatment. Ocular events were rare (2–6% overall incidence among treatment groups); in particular, no posterior subcapsular cataracts were reported. Only three patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related ocular AEs (two for lens disorders in the MF/F 400/10 μg group; one for reduced visual acuity in the FP/S 250/50 μg group) and no asthma-related deaths occurred. Furthermore, MF/F showed numerical improvement in lung function and clinical benefits by reducing asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Conclusions: One-year treatment with the new combination therapies -twice-daily MF/F-MDI 200/10 and 400/10 μg — is safe and well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

Modulite technology in the development of formoterol HFA pMDI: clinical evidence and future opportunities

This article is based on published safety and efficacy data on formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) developed with the Modulite technology. This technology allows the development of ozone-friendly inhaled drugs that replace the same doses of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-formulated products and enables the attainment of new formulations with extra-fine particles and improved lung deposition. Clinical pharmacology, as well as clinical studies against comparators, have demonstrated that formoterol Modulite and the existing dry powder inhaler and CFC formoterol formulations have a similar pharmacokinetic profile, are clinically equivalent in bronchodilating effects and exhibit a similar potential for systemic side effects. Therefore, the Modulite formoterol hydrofluoroalkane-based formulation in extra-fine particles is a valuable therapeutic option for both patients and physicians in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in 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 when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids.

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 formoterol 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 formoterol 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 formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, 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.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)].Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

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.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in 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 formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

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 formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 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 formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

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

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

Inhalation devices for long-acting beta2-agonists: efficiency and ease of use of dry powder formoterol inhalers for use by patients with asthma and COPD

BACKGROUND

Since the long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator, formoterol, first became available for the treatment of subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), generic forms of this agent have been launched in a variety of devices. It is timely to review the characteristics of the original dry powder delivery device, the single-dose Aerolizer, its in vitro performance and its comparability with other inhaler devices that are now available for delivery of formoterol.

SCOPE

This review focuses on the performance of the formoterol Aerolizer inhaler in comparison with other inhalers. Publically available data (PubMed) on the device performance characteristics of the Aerolizer were reviewed and summarized, together with the results of comparative studies performed by the authors. Published studies (PubMed) on patient handling and inhaler technique that include the Aerolizer are described and studies comparing the clinical effect of formoterol in the Aerolizer with formoterol delivered via other devices were reviewed and are summarized.

FINDINGS

The Aerolizer performs consistently in dosing efficiency across a range of inspiratory flow rates, suggesting its suitability for use by patients with differing inspiratory flow abilities. The single-dose, capsule-based nature of the device provides patients with obvious feedback on whether the drug has been taken successfully and the Aerolizer has been shown to be one of the more easily used devices in comparative patient handling studies. Studies comparing the clinical effect of formoterol delivered by different inhalation devices show that formoterol via Aerolizer has an equivalent therapeutic effect.

CONCLUSION

Judged on the basis of dosing efficiency, ease of use and clinical equivalence, formoterol Aerolizer remains a useful option in the management of patients with asthma or COPD.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic asthma in adults and children where background therapy contains varied or no inhaled corticosteroid

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common respiratory disease among both adults and children and short acting inhaled beta-2 agonists are used widely for 'reliever' bronchodilator therapy. Long acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) were introduced as prospective 'symptom controllers' in addition to inhaled corticosteroid 'preventer' therapy (ICS). In this updated review we have included studies in which patients were either not on ICS as a group, or in which some patients, but not all, were on ICS to complement previous systematic reviews of studies where LABA was given in patients uniformly receiving ICS. We have focussed particularly on serious adverse events, given previous concerns about potential risks, especially of death, from regular beta-2 agonist use.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to determine the benefit or detriment on the primary outcome of asthma control with the regular use of LABA compared with placebo, in mixed populations in which only some were taking ICS and in populations not using ICS therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, most recently in October 2005. We searched bibliographies of identified RCTs for additional relevant RCTs and contacted authors of identified RCTs for other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies of at least four weeks duration, comparing a LABA given twice daily with a placebo, in chronic asthma. Selection criteria to this updated review have been altered to accommodate recently published Cochrane reviews on combination and addition of LABA to ICS therapy. Studies in which all individuals were uniformly taking ICS were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers performed data extraction and study quality assessment independently. We contacted authors of studies for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies (representing 68 experimental comparisons) randomising 42,333 participants met the inclusion criteria. Salmeterol was used as long-acting agent in 50 studies and formoterol fumarate in 17. The treatment period was four to nine weeks in 29 studies, and 12 to 52 weeks in 38 studies. Twenty-four studies did not permit the use of ICS, and forty permitted either inhaled corticosteroid or cromones (in three studies this was unclear). In these studies between 22% and 92% were taking ICS, with a median of 62%. There were significant advantages to LABA treatment compared to placebo for a variety of measurements of airway calibre including morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening PEF and FEV1. They were associated with significantly fewer symptoms, less use of rescue medication and higher quality of life scores. This was true whether patients were taking LABA in combination with ICS or not. Findings from SMART (a recently published surveillance study) indicated significant increases in asthma related deaths, respiratory related deaths and combined asthma related deaths and life threatening experiences. The absolute increase in asthma-related mortality was consistent with an increase of around one per 1250 patients treated with LABA for six months, but the confidence intervals are wide (from 700 to 10,000). Post-hoc exploratory subgroups suggested that African-Americans and those not on inhaled corticosteroids were at particular risk for the primary end-point of death or life-threatening asthma event. There was also a suggestion of an increase in exacerbation rate in children. Pharmacologically predicted side effects such as headache, throat irritation, tremor and nervousness were more frequent with LABA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LABA are effective in the control of chronic asthma in the "real-life" subject groups included. However there are potential safety issues which call into question the safety of LABA, particularly in those asthmatics who are not taking ICS, and it is not clear why African-Americans were found to have significant differences in comparison to Caucasians for combined respiratory-related death and life threatening experiences, but not for asthma-related death.

In Vitro Comparison of Two Delivery Devices for Administering Formoterol: Foradil® P and Formoterol Ratiopharm Single-Dose Capsule Inhaler

Formoterol, a long-acting beta (2)-agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation, is available in various delivery devices. However, differences in the size and uniformity of drug particles generated by different devices may result in variable clinical effects. The present study compared in vitro the aerodynamic particle size distribution, emitted dose and device resistance of formoterol delivered via Foradil Aerolizer (Foradil P) with those a non-proprietary single-dose capsule inhaler (ratiopharm), using an 8-stage Andersen Cascade Impactor set at a flow of 60 L/min. Relative to the formoterol ratiopharm capsule inhaler, Foradil Aerolizer produced particles with a smaller mass median aerodynamic diameter (3.5 vs. 4.1 microm, p = 0.018) and a smaller measured particle diameter distribution (geometric standard deviation 2.2 vs. 2.5, p = 0.048). The Foradil Aerolizer produced a 44% higher fine particle dose than the single-dose capsule inhaler (2.6 vs. 1.8 microg, p = 0.0001). Although the single-dose capsule inhaler produced a higher total emitted dose than that from Foradil Aerolizer (11.2 vs. 10.0 microg, p = 0.155, not significant), the respirable fraction from Foradil Aerolizer was 58% higher (25.7 vs. 16.3%, p = 2 x 10(8)). Both devices had a similarly low airflow resistance. These relative particle size profiles suggest that the Aerolizer may provide a more clinically effective delivery of formoterol to the lungs at the high inspiratory flows such as are typically achieved using this device.

Cardiac safety of formoterol 12 microg twice daily in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Some evidence suggests an increased risk of myocardial infarction and dysrhythmia events associated with beta(2)-agonist use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the cardiac safety of formoterol and placebo in patients with COPD.

METHODS

After a 3-14-day run-in, 204 patients were randomized to receive formoterol 12 microg dry powder inhalation or matching placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. Twenty four-hour continuous electrocardiography (Holter monitoring) was performed at screening and after 2 and 8 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Only a small number of patients met the predefined criteria for a proarrhythmic event (4 formoterol and 2 placebo patients). No patients had sustained postbaseline ventricular tachycardia events, postbaseline run of ventricular ectopic beats associated with relevant symptoms (e.g. hypotension, syncope), or an episode of ventricular flutter or fibrillation. Holter monitoring data were variable but showed no clinically meaningful differences between the formoterol and placebo groups, respectively, for variables such as (mean+/-SD at end of treatment): heart rate (80+/-8.6 vs. 80+/-10.6 bpm), number and rate of ventricular premature beats (total 732+/-2685.4 vs. 650+/-2090.6; rate 35+/-131.0 vs. 30+/-101.3 per h), ventricular tachycardia events (total 0.4+/-1.70 vs. 1.0+/-9.23; rate 0.02+/-0.082 vs. 0.05+/-0.479 per h), and supraventricular premature beats (total 504+/-1844.1 vs. 823+/-2961.8; rate 22+/-80.6 vs. 37+/-129.6 per h). Vital signs and electrocardiogram data, including corrected QT intervals (Bazett and Fridericia), were similar across treatment groups. The overall adverse event experience was similar in the formoterol (n=26 [27%]) and placebo (n=33 [31%]) groups. The most common adverse events, infections and respiratory events, were expected for this patient population. The incidence of cardiac adverse events was low (1 formoterol and 4 placebo patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the good cardiovascular safety profile of formoterol in patients with COPD.

Formoterol, 24 microg bid, and serious asthma exacerbations: similar rates compared with formoterol, 12 microg bid, with and without extra doses taken on demand, and placebo

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine whether high-dose formoterol, 24 mug bid, was associated with more asthma exacerbations compared with lower formoterol doses in patients with stable persistent asthma. Serious asthma exacerbations (life threatening or requiring hospitalization) were the primary end point. Secondary end points included significant exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, all exacerbations, and changes in FEV1.

DESIGN

In a multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to 16 weeks of treatment with formoterol, 24 microg bid; formoterol, 12 microg bid, with up to two additional 12-microg doses daily on demand for worsening symptoms (12 microg bid plus on demand); formoterol, 12 microg bid; or placebo. The formoterol 12-microg-bid plus on-demand regimen was administered open label, while the other three regimens were double blind.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics.

PATIENTS

A total of 2,085 patients aged > or = 12 years with stable, persistent asthma were enrolled and treated; 65% (n = 1,347) received regular concomitant antiinflammatory therapy during the study.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Nine patients had respiratory-related serious adverse events (SAEs) requiring hospitalization: two patients (0.4%) in the 24-microg-bid group; one patient (0.2%) in the 12-microg-bid plus on-demand group; five patients (0.9%) in the 12-microg-bid group; and one patient (0.2%) in the placebo group. All of these events were asthma related, except for two SAEs in the 12-microg-bid group that were later considered not to be asthma related by independent reviewers who were not associated with the conduct of the study. The proportions of patients with significant asthma exacerbations (requiring systemic corticosteroids) were similar in the 24-microg-bid group (6.3%, 33 of 527 patients), 12-microg-bid group (5.9%, 31 of 527 patients) and placebo group (8.8%, 45 of 514 patients) and lower in the 12-microg-bid plus on-demand group (4.4%, 23 of 517 patients; p = 0.0057 vs placebo). All treatments were well tolerated. All formoterol treatment regimens had a significant effect on FEV1 measured 2 h after dose during the study (p < 0.0001 vs placebo); and on predose trough FEV1 measured at all visits after baseline (p < 0.002 vs placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with formoterol, 24 microg bid, was not associated with an increase in serious asthma exacerbations compared with the lower formoterol doses or placebo.

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, single-dose, efficacy crossover trial comparing formoterol-HFA (pMDI) versus formoterol-DPI (Aerolizer) and placebo (pMDI or Aerolizer) in asthmatic patients

BACKGROUND

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have traditionally been used as propellants in pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), which are often used to deliver drugs to the lungs for the treatment of reversible obstructive airways diseases. However, CFCs are harmful to the environment and need to be phased out. Hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs), such as HFA-134a, represent a safe alternative to CFC propellants for use with pMDIs. Formoterol fumarate has been recently formulated in an HFA-134a-containing pMDI and is undergoing clinical testing with the aim of providing an effective, safe and environmentally-friendly alternative to currently existing formulations.

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority (clinical equivalence) of the HFA-134a-propelled formoterol pMDI versus the formoterol Aerolizer dry powder inhaler (DPI).

METHODS

The study was a single dose, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo and reference product controlled, three-periods, crossover trial in 49 patients with moderate-to-severe stable asthma. The active treatments involved a single 12-microg dose of formoterol delivered from an HFA-134a-propelled pMDI and an Aerolizer DPI. The primary efficacy parameter was the average 12-hour forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), calculated as area under the 12-hour post-morning dose FEV1 time curve divided by time (hours).

RESULTS

Mean 12-hour average FEV1 was 2.28 liters for placebo, 2.60 liters for formoterol pMDI and 2.60 liters for the formoterol DPI. Contrast analysis showed that the HFA-propelled formoterol pMDI was significantly superior to placebo in terms of 12-hour average FEV1. Further statistical analysis confirmed bronchodilation with the pMDI formoterol formulation which was clinically equivalent to that seen with the DPI formoterol formulation. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The bronchodilatory effect of a 12-microg dose of formoterol inhaled from a CFC-free, HFA-propelled pMDI is significantly superior to placebo and equivalent to a commercially available formoterol DPI.

Safety and tolerability of high-dose formoterol (Aerolizer) and salbutamol (pMDI) in patients with mild/moderate, persistent asthma

This double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study evaluated the tolerability of high-dose formoterol and salbutamol. Sixteen adults with mild/moderate persistent asthma (FEV1 > or = 70% predicted) were randomized to receive either formoterol 36 microg three times daily (TID) at 5-h intervals via Aerolizer (total daily dose 108 microg), or salbutamol 600 microg TID via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (total daily dose 1800 microg) for 3 consecutive days. After a 3-7-day washout period patients received the other treatment. FEV1 was measured 15 min pre-dose and 2 h post-dose. Both formoterol and salbutamol were associated with decreased plasma potassium (mean of minimum values: 3.4 and 3.6 mmol/L, respectively; P<0.001), increased serum glucose (mean of maximum values: 8.3 and 7.9 mmol/L, respectively; P=0.021), and small increases in mean QTc interval (mean of maximum values: 428.8 and 417.4 ms, respectively; P<0.001). However, none of these effects was clinically significant. Both treatments increased FEV1 to a mean maximum of 4.6 L (P=0.613), but the mean FEV1 AUC(0-72)h for formoterol was significantly greater than for salbutamol (302.2 L h, vs. 277.4 L h; P<0.001). No patients discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events. High-dose formoterol via Aerolizer did not produce any clinically significant systemic effects in patients with mild/moderate asthma.