A three-month comparison of twice daily inhaled formoterol versus four times daily inhaled albuterol in the management of stable asthma

Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. However, often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov web site up to October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32; the large confidence interval translates into a risk of exacerbations in the intermittent ICS group varying between 17% and 25%, assuming a 19% risk with daily ICS). Age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β2-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, there was low quality evidence that intermittent and daily ICS strategies were similarly effective in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events. The strength of the evidence means that we cannot currently assume equivalence between the two options.. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. Clinicians should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

Intermittent versus daily inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended mainstay of treatment in children and adults with persistent asthma. Yet often, ICS are used intermittently by patients or recommended by physicians to be used only at the onset of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent versus daily ICS in the management of children and adults with persistent asthma and preschool-aged children suspected of persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to December 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared intermittent ICS versus daily ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma. No co-interventions were permitted other than rescue relievers and oral corticosteroids used during exacerbations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality and extracted data. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of patients with one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and the primary safety outcome was the number of patients with serious adverse health events. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, lung function tests, asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and inflammatory markers. Equivalence was assumed if the risk ratio (RR) estimate and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were between 0.9 and 1.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (including one trial testing two relevant protocols) met the inclusion criteria for a total of seven group comparisons. The four paediatric trials (two involving preschool children and two school-aged children) and two adult parallel-group trials, lasting 12 to 52 weeks, were of high methodological quality. A total of 1211 patients with confirmed, or suspected, persistent asthma contributed to the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients experiencing one or more exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (1204 patients; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32). The patients' age, severity of airway obstruction, step-up protocol used during exacerbations and trial duration did not significantly influence the primary efficacy outcome. No group difference was observed in the risk of patients with serious adverse health events (1055 patients; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.03). Compared to the daily ICS group, the intermittent ICS group displayed a smaller improvement in change from baseline peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) by 2.56% (95% CI -4.49% to -0.63%), fewer symptom-free days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.03), fewer asthma control days -9% (95% CI -14% to -4%), more use of rescue β(2)-agonists by 0.12 puffs/day (95% CI 0 to 0.23) and a greater increase from baseline in exhaled nitric oxide of 16.80 parts per billion (95% CI 11.95 to 21.64). There was no significant group difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), quality of life, airway hyper-reactivity, adverse effects, hospitalisations, emergency department visits or withdrawals. In paediatric trials, intermittent ICS (budesonide and beclomethasone) were associated with greater growth by 0.41 cm change from baseline (532 children; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69) compared to daily treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children and adults with persistent asthma and in preschool children suspected of persistent asthma, intermittent and daily ICS strategies did not significantly differ in the use of rescue oral corticosteroids and the rate of severe adverse health events, neither did they reach equivalence. Daily ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use. Both treatments appeared safe, but a modest growth suppression was associated with daily, compared to intermittent, inhaled budesonide and beclomethasone. The clinician should carefully weigh the potential benefits and harm of each treatment option, taking into account the unknown long-term (> one year) impact of intermittent therapy on lung growth and lung function decline.

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.

Formoterol versus short-acting beta-agonists as relief medication for adults and children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Formoterol is a long-acting beta(2)-agonist but because it has a fast onset of action it can also be used as a relief medication.

OBJECTIVES

To asses the efficacy and safety of formoterol as reliever therapy in comparison to short-acting beta(2)-agonists in adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and websites of clinical trial registers (for unpublished trial data), and we checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel-arm trials of at least 12 weeks duration in patients of any age and severity of asthma. Studies randomised patients to any dose of as-needed formoterol versus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or other maintenance medication 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. We sought unpublished data on primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight studies conducted in 22,604 participants (mostly adults). Six studies compared formoterol as-needed to terbutaline whilst two studies compared formoterol with salbutamol as-needed. Background maintenance therapy varied across the trials. Asthma exacerbations and serious adverse events showed a direction of treatment effect favouring formoterol, of which one outcome reached statistical significance (exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids). In patients on short-acting beta(2)-agonists, 117 people out of 1000 had exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over 30 weeks, compared to 101 (95% CI 93 to 108) out of 1000 for patients on formoterol as-needed. In patients on maintenance inhaled corticosteroids there were also significantly fewer exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids on formoterol as-needed (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91). There was one death per 1000 people on formoterol or on short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults, formoterol was similar to short-acting beta(2)-agonists when used as a reliever, and showed a reduction in the number of exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids. Clinicians should weigh the relatively modest benefits of formoterol as-needed against the benefits of single inhaler therapy and the potential danger of long-term use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists in some patients. We did not find evidence to recommend changes to guidelines that suggest that long-acting beta(2)-agonists should be given only to patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids.There was insufficient information reported from children in the included trials to come to any conclusion on the safety or efficacy of formoterol as relief medication for children with asthma.

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.

Potential adverse effects of bronchodilators in the treatment of airways obstruction in older people: recommendations for prescribing

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common disorders that are associated with increasing morbidity and mortality in older people. Bronchodilators are used widely in patients with these conditions, but even when used in inhaled form can have systemic as well as local effects. Older people experience more adverse drug effects because of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes and particularly drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. Cardiovascular disease is common in older people and beta-adrenoceptor agonists (beta-agonists) have inotropic and chronotropic effects that can increase arrhythmias and cardiomyopathy. They can also worsen or induce myocardial ischaemia and cause electrolyte disturbances that contribute to arrhythmias. Tremor is a well known distressing adverse effect of beta-agonist administration. Long-term beta-agonist use can be associated with tolerance, poor disease control, sudden life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths. Functional beta2-adrenoceptors are present in osteoblasts, and chronic use of beta-agonists has been implicated in osteoporosis. Inhaled anticholinergics are usually well tolerated but may cause dry mouth, which can be troublesome in older people. Pupillary dilatation, blurred vision and acute glaucoma can occur from escape of droplets from loosely fitting nebulizer masks. Although ECG changes have not been seen in randomized controlled trials of long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, supraventricular tachycardias have been observed in a 5-year randomized controlled trial of ipratropium bromide. Paradoxical bronchoconstriction can occur with inhaled anticholinergics as well as with beta-agonists, but tolerance has not been reported with anticholinergics. Anticholinergic drugs also cause central effects, most notably impairment of cognitive function, and these effects have been noted with inhaled agents. Use of theophylline is limited by its adverse effects, which range from commonly occurring gastrointestinal symptoms to palpitations, arrhythmias and reports of myocardial infarction. Seizures have been reported, but are rare. Theophylline is metabolized primarily by the liver, and commonly interacts with other medications. Its concentration in plasma should be monitored closely, especially in older people. Although many clinical trials have been conducted on bronchodilators in obstructive airways disease, the results of these clinical trials need to be interpreted with caution as older people are often under-represented and subjects with co-morbidities actively excluded from these trials.

Comparison of the effects of tulobuterol patch and salmeterol in moderate to severe asthma

1. Although the clinical effects of the tulobuterol patch have been reported to include an increase in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) values and a decrease of symptoms and the frequency of the rescue use of inhaled short-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, no trials comparing the efficacy of the tulobuterol patch to other standard inhaled long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists have yet been conducted. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical effects of the patch formulation of tulobuterol with those of inhaled salmeterol in moderate to severe asthma. 2. Fifty-four patients with moderate to severe asthma, whose conditions were suboptimally controlled despite receiving inhaled corticosteroids, were recruited. The study was a prospective, randomized trial of cross-over design comparing the effects of 4 weeks treatment with tulobuterol patch, 2 mg once daily, and salmeterol, 50 mg twice daily. The mean prebronchodilator morning PEF during the last 14 days of each treatment period and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were the primary outcome variables. The HRQoL was assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. 3. Forty-four patients (81.5%) completed the trial and were included in the analysis. The mean morning PEF and HRQoL score were significantly improved in both the salmeterol (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.05, respectively) and the tulobuterol patch (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively) treatment periods compared with the run-in period. Although the mean morning PEF was significantly higher in the salmeterol-treated group than in the tulobuterol-treated group (P < 0.001), the HRQoL scores were comparable. 4. The tulobuterol patch may be useful as a controller medication in addition to inhaled corticosteroids in moderate to severe asthma.

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.

The use of inhaled formoterol in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-acting beta2-agonists: comparative pharmacology and clinical outcomes

Salmeterol and formoterol are both long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (beta(2)-agonists). They both provide excellent bronchodilating and bronchoprotective effects in patients with asthma but their are some differences between these two long-acting beta(2)-agonists in vitro and in vivo. Formoterol has a greater potency and intrinsic activity than salmeterol, which can become especially apparent at higher doses than that clinically recommended, and in contracted bronchi. Long-term use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists can induce tolerance, which can be partially reversed with corticosteroids. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists have some anti-inflammatory effects in vitro, but data in vivo are less convincing. Compared with doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of inhaled long-acting beta(2)-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids improves symptom control in patients with asthma and reduces both the exacerbation rate of asthma and hospital admission rate. No enhanced airway responsiveness or loss of perception of dyspnea has been observed with the use of inhaled long-acting beta(2)-agonists. Monotherapy with long-acting beta(2)-agonists is not recommended.

A respiratory therapist-directed protocol for managing inpatients with asthma and COPD incorporating a long-acting bronchodilator

This prospective study was designed to determine whether incorporating formoterol into a standardized respiratory therapist-directed protocol for administering bronchodilators to hospitalized patients with obstructive airway disease would reduce health care resource use and provide a safety advantage. All patients admitted to Washington Hospital Center with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CODP) are administered bronchodilators under a standardized respiratory therapist-directed protocol. Formoterol was the primary bronchodilator for the intervention period from January through March 2002, with levalbuterol, albuterol, and ipratropium available as needed. Results for the intervention period were compared against two historical control periods. From January through March 2000, the bronchodilators in the protocol were albuterol and ipratropium, and from January through March 2001 levalbuterol, albuterol, and ipratropium were available. Health care resource use was determined by the number of bronchodilator treatments administered per admission. Costs (adjusted to 2002 dollars) for supplies, therapist time, and drugs were calculated for the three time periods. Adverse events related to bronchodilator administration were recorded in a standardized manner for all three time periods. Bronchodilator treatments per admission, respiratory therapist visits per admission, and time spent per admission, and cost per bronchodilator treatment significantly decreased in 2002. Significantly fewer adverse events related to bronchodilator treatments were reported in 2002 than 2000. The addition of formoterol to a respiratory therapist-directed protocol for administering bronchodilators reduced health care resource use and adverse events for patients with asthma and COPD.

The role of anticholinergics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Anticholinergics are the bronchodilators of choice in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). They work by blocking muscarinic receptors in airway smooth muscle. Cholinergic tone appears to be the only reversible component of COPD. With the discovery of different muscarinic receptor subtypes, the development of more selective anticholinergics is possible. A major advance in this therapeutic area has been the discovery of tiotropium bromide, which has kinetic selectivity for M3 receptors as well as a duration of action of >24 hours. Once-daily administration of tiotropium is well tolerated and has shown significant advantages over ipratropium bromide, given 4 times daily, in the control of COPD.

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

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

Relief of dyspnoea by beta2-agonists after methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction

Virtually all asthma patients use brorichodilators. Formoterol and salbutamol have a rapid onset of bronchodilating effect, whereas salmeterol acts slower. We studied the onset of improvement of dyspnoea sensation after inhalation with these bronchodilators and placebo to reverse a methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction as a model for an acute asthma attack. Seventeen patients with asthma completed this randomised, double-blind, crossover, double-dummy study. On 4 test days, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and Borg score were recorded and patients were challenged with methacholine until FEV1 fell with > or = 30% of baseline value. Thereafter, formoterol 12 microg via Turbuhaler, salbutamol 50 microg via Turbuhaler, salmeterol 50 microg via Diskhaler, or placebo was inhaled. FEV1 and Borg scores were assessed during the following 60 min. The first sensed improvement of Borg score was significantly (P<0.05) faster achieved with formoterol (geometric mean (Gmean) (range) 1.5 (1-40) min) and salbutamol 1.8 (1-10) min than with salmeterol 4.5 (1-30) min and placebo 3.4 (1-40) min. The Borg score returned significantly faster to the baseline value with formoterol, salbutamol, and salmeterol (Gmean time 13.8 (1-75), 13.4 (1-60), and 18.0 (1-75) min, respectively) than with placebo (33.6 (1-75 min). Formoterol and salbutamol act significantly faster than salmeterol in relieving dyspnoea induced by methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, in patients with asthma.

The impact of reducing dose frequency on health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Dosing schedules may be one important factor determining whether patients take their prescribed medication. Schedules may influence whether a patient stays on the prescribed therapy and, if so, the degree to which the regimen is followed. Both factors are important determinants of health outcomes and health care costs.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate the impact of reducing dose frequency on health outcomes and health care costs.

METHODS

Articles from peer-reviewed journals were identified from the medical literature databases MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and HealthSTAR for the years 1985 through 2002. The search included all references that reported on the impact of a change of dose frequency on chronic disease. Search terms used were combinations of dose frequency, dose schedule, and dosing and efficacy, safety, clinical effectiveness, preferences, adherence, compliance, persistence, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, resource use, and costs.

RESULTS

Reducing the number of daily doses through extended-release formulations or newer drugs has frequently been shown to provide the patient with better symptom control in a number of disease states. Overall improvements were seen in adherence, patient quality of life, patient satisfaction, and costs. However, results of some studies indicate that not all patients, medications, or diseases may be candidates for reduced dosing due to the potential effects on symptom control, incidence of adverse events, and overcompensation for missed doses.

CONCLUSION

Where feasible, reducing dose frequency may offer benefits for the patient in terms of health outcomes and for the health care budget holder in terms of costs.

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

The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily formoterol dry powder 12 microg and 24 microg (Foradil) delivered via Aerolizer inhaler with four times daily albuterol (salbutamol) 180 microg delivered via metered dose inhaler (MDI) and placebo. A total of 554 adolescents and adults (ages 12-75 years) with mild-to-moderate asthma were randomized to this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Twelve-hour spirometry measurements were taken at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. A total of 484 patients completed the study (122, 116, 127, and 119 given formoterol 12 microg, formoterol 24 microg, albuterol, and placebo, respectively). For the primary efficacy variable, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), both formoterol 12 microg and 24 microg were statistically superior to placebo at all time points on all test days (p < or = 0.017) and to albuterol at most time points on all test days (p < or = 0.001). The onset of improvement in FEV1 was rapid, with 15% increase within 5 min in 57%, 71%, and 65% of formoterol 12 microg, formoterol 24 microg, and albuterol patients, respectively. Formoterol was also superior to placebo and albuterol in terms of secondary efficacy variables: FEV1 area under the curve, percentage of predicted FEV1, forced vital capacity and forced expiratory flow, asthma symptom scores, and peak expiratory flows. In conclusion, both formoterol doses were superior to placebo in all lung function measurements. Overall, compared with albuterol, both formoterol doses produced superior bronchodilation. Formoterol and albuterol were safe and well-tolerated.

Management of asthma in adults: current therapy and future directions

Asthma is increasing in prevalence worldwide and results in significant use of healthcare resources. Although most patients with asthma can be adequately treated with inhaled corticosteroids, an important number of patients require additional therapy and an increasing number of options are available. A further minority of patients develop severe persistent asthma which remains difficult to manage despite current pharmacological therapies. This review discusses the various treatment options currently available for each stage of asthma severity, highlights some of the limitations of current management, and outlines directions which may improve the management of asthma in the future.

Inhalation therapy for bronchial asthma: strategies and targets

Bronchial asthma is associated with symptoms, reversible airflow obstruction, airway hyper-responsiveness and inflammation along large and small airways. Inhalation therapy with bronchodilators (relievers) and anti-inflammatory agents (controllers) forms the basis of treatment for most patients with asthma of different severities. Conventionally, therapeutic efficacy is assessed on the basis of improvements in symptoms and lung function. However, airway hyper-responsiveness as a primary outcome may change therapeutic strategies. There are problems associated with this concept which need to be addressed, such as the heterogeneity of airway inflammation in the asthmatic lung. The goals for inhalation therapy should be to determine the site of airway inflammation for each degree of asthma severity, to improve inhaler technology, ensuring that the drug can reach the site of inflammation, and to improve compliance. New inhalers need to do the following: contain appropriate therapeutic agents; have particle dimensions small enough to be deposited in distal airways; and minimize the effects of incorrect inhalation and low compliance.

Inhaled long acting beta agonists for stable chronic asthma

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 were introduced as prospective 'symptom controllers' in addition to inhaled corticosteroid 'preventer' therapy (ICS).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to determine the benefit or detriment on the primary outcome of asthma control with the regular use of long acting inhaled beta-2 agonists compared with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, most recently in October 2002. 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 two weeks duration, comparing a long acting inhaled beta-agonist given twice daily with a placebo, in chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty five studies met the inclusion criteria, 56 parallel group and 29 cross over design. Salmeterol xinafoate was used as long acting agent in 60 studies and formoterol fumarate in 25. The treatment period was two to four weeks in 32 studies, and 12 to 52 weeks in 53 studies. 34 study groups used concurrent inhaled corticosteroid treatment, 21 studies did not permit their use and 35 permitted either inhaled corticosteroid or cromones. There were significant advantages to long acting beta-2 agonist treatment compared to placebo for a variety of measurements of airway calibre including morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (weighted mean difference (WMD) 26.78 L/min 95%CI 20.36 to 33.20), evening PEF (WMD 19.17 L/min 95%CI 11.63 to 26.73). They were associated with significantly fewer symptoms, less use of rescue medication and higher quality of life scores. The risk of exacerbation was lower in adults using regular inhaled corticosteroids.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Long acting beta-2 agonists are effective in the control of chronic asthma, and the evidence supports their use in addition to inhaled corticosteroids, as emphasised in current guidelines. Further research is needed on their use in children under 12 and in mild asthmatics not taking ICS.

Possibilities of formoterol to enhance the peripheral lung deposition of the inhaled liposome corticosteroids

The pulmonary distribution and clearance of 99m-Tc-labelled beclomethasone dipropionate (Bec)--dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) were compared in nine asthmatic patients on inhaled steroids after a 1-week medical treatment period of long-acting beta2-agonist formoterol. The patients were given formoterol 12 microg (OxisTurbuhaler) twice daily in addition to their own regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Gamma lung scintigraphy and lung function tests were performed before and after formoterol treatment. The bronchodilating effect ofthe combined therapy was significant: 1-week usage of inhaled formoterol enhanced peripheral lung deposition of beclomethasone liposome and thus diminished central/peripheral deposition ratio (C/P ratio). All measured lung function values except FEV1/FVC% improved after the medication period, although statistically significant levels were not reached. A systemic positive connection was seen between enhanced lung functions and greater lung deposition measured as AUC(0-24h)/24 Beclomethasone liposome formulation maintained its long-lasting effect in connection with formoterol treatment. At the 4-h measurement, 76% of the liposome-entrapped radioactivity still remained in the lungs before and 75% after the medication period.

Effects of sustained-release tulobuterol on asthma control and beta-adrenoceptor function

1. Recently, a patch formulation of tulobuterol, a beta-adrenoceptor (AR) agonist, has been developed using a transdermal delivery system. The present study was designed to determine whether beta-AR function and asthma control were affected by the sustained-released beta-AR agonist. 2. Tulobuterol (2 mg) was applied daily for 8 weeks to seven patients with bronchial asthma in whom the morning dip in the peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate developed even though inhaled glucocorticoids were being taken. After treatment with tulobuterol, the early morning reduction in PEF was suppressed and PEF values were increased from 367 +/- 35 to 439 +/- 38 L/min (P < 0.05). The rescue use of inhaled beta-AR agonists was decreased from 6.9 +/- 2.0 to 1.0 +/- 0.7 puffs/week (P < 0.01). Symptom scores also decreased from 8.3 +/- 3.4 to 2.1 +/- 1.4 score/week (P < 0.01). 3. Next, we sought to examine the effects of exposure to tulobuterol on beta-AR function in guinea-pig tracheal smooth muscle. After exposure of tissues to tulobuterol (0.01-10 micro mol/L) for 45 min, the inhibitory effects of tulobuterol on methacholine-induced contractions were attenuated in a concentration-dependent manner. However, the inhibitory effects of tulobuterol were not affected after exposure to 0.01 micro mol/L tulobuterol (a concentration greater than serum levels in clinical use). In contrast, the inhibitory effects of procaterol were not affected after exposure to tulobuterol under the same experimental conditions. 4. These results indicate that the combination of sustained-released tulobuterol with inhaled glucocorticoid therapy is beneficial to patients with bronchial asthma who suffer from symptoms induced by the morning dip in PEF. Moreover, chronic exposure to lower concentrations of tulobuterol does not lead to desensitization of beta-AR in airway smooth muscle.

Formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 microg (delivered dose) has a rapid onset and 12-h duration of bronchodilation

Clinical trials show that formoterol (Oxis) Turbuhaler 4.5 microg delivered dose (6 microg metered dose) has a rapid onset of bronchodilation similar to that of salbutamol and a 12-h duration of action. Maximum increase in FEV(1) and duration of bronchodilation are dose-dependent, the 4.5 microg dose being the lowest dose tested giving both effects. Clinical studies investigating onset of bronchodilation show a significant increase in specific airway conductance occurring within 1 min after inhalation of formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 microg. When measured from 3-20 min after inhalation, formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 microg showed similar increases in FEV(1) to salbutamol administered via pMDI. No difference in onset of bronchodilation was observed between the formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 and 9 microg doses.Single-dose studies and studies of 1-12 weeks' duration show that formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 microg produces a significant and clinically important mean bronchodilating effect for > or =12 h after inhalation. In the cited studies no significant differences in duration of bronchodilation were observed between the formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 and 9 microg doses.

CONCLUSION

clinical data show that formoterol Turbuhaler 4.5 microg is an effective dose in patients with asthma, with a rapid onset of bronchodilation and a duration of at least 12 h.

Comparison of the effects of salmeterol and formoterol in patients with severe asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of salmeterol and formoterol to either regular treatment with albuterol or placebo. However, to date there have been no trials comparing the efficacy of salmeterol and formoterol in patients with severe asthma.

DESIGN

We undertook a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study to compare 4 weeks of treatment with inhaled formoterol (12 microg twice daily) or salmeterol (50 microg twice daily) in patients with severe asthma whose conditions were not being adequately controlled by therapy with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (i.e., > or = 1,500 microg daily) or with regular oral corticosteroid treatment. Morning pretreatment peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last 14 days of the treatment period was the primary outcome variable. Patients recorded morning and evening pretreatment PEF, daytime and nighttime symptom scores, and any use of rescue medication. Spirometry and bronchial reversibility were performed after each treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-two nonsmoking patients (29 women; mean age, 45 +/- 2 years; mean [+/- SEM] FEV(1), 61.8 +/- 3.4% of predicted) took part in the trial, and 27 patients completed the trial. The mean morning PEF was greater in patients receiving formoterol (mean increase, 14.4 L/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]. 0.2 to 28.6) or salmeterol (mean increase, 14.8 L/min; 95% CI, 0.5 to 29.1) compared with those receiving placebo, but there was no difference between these treatments. There were no significant treatment effects for any of the secondary outcome variables (i.e., FEV(1,) FVC, mean evening PEF, mean daytime symptom score, or nighttime symptom score).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the long-acting beta(2)-agonists salmeterol and formoterol improve morning PEF in patients with severe asthma, but that there is no difference in efficacy between the two drugs.

Regular treatment with long acting beta agonists versus daily regular treatment with short acting beta agonists in adults and children with stable asthma

BACKGROUND

Selective beta-adrenergic agonists for use in asthma are: short acting (2-6 hours) and long acting (>12 hours). There has been little controversy about using short acting beta-agonists intermittently, but long acting beta-agonists are used regularly, and their regular use has been controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit or detriment of treatment with regular short- or long acting inhaled beta-agonists in chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was carried out using the Cochrane Airways Group register. Bibliographies of identified RCTs were searched for additional relevant RCTs. Authors of identified RCTs were contacted for other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies of at least two weeks duration, comparing a long acting inhaled beta-agonist given twice daily with any short acting inhaled beta-agonist of equivalent bronchodilator effectiveness given regularly in chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

31 studies met the inclusion criteria, 24 of parallel group and 7 cross over design. Salmeterol xinafoate was used as long acting agent in 22 studies and formoterol fumarate in 9. Salbutamol was the short acting agent used in 27 studies and terbutaline in 5. The treatment period was over 2 weeks in 29 studies, and at least 12 weeks in 20. 25 studies permitted a variety of co-intervention treatments, usually inhaled corticosteroid or cromones. One study did not permit inhaled corticosteroid. Long acting beta-agonists were significantly better than short acting for a variety of lung function measurements including morning PEF (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 33 l/min 95% CI 25, 42) or evening PEF (WMD 26 l/min 95% CI 18, 33); and had significantly lower scores for day and night time asthma symptom scores and percentage of days and nights without symptoms. They were also associated with a significantly lower use of rescue medication both during the day and night. Risk of exacerbations was not different between the two types of agent, but most studies were of short duration which limits the power to test for such differences.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Long acting inhaled beta-agonists have advantages across a wide range of physiological and clinical outcomes for regular treatment.

Nocturnal asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids: theophylline or long-acting beta2 agonists?

Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways that is frequently characterised by marked circadian rhythm. Nocturnal and early morning symptoms are quite common among patients with asthma. Increased mortality and decreased quality of life are associated with nocturnal asthma. Although numerous mechanisms contribute to the pathophysiology of nocturnal asthma, increasing evidence suggests the most important mechanisms relate to airway inflammation. According to international guidelines, patients with persistent asthma should receive long term daily anti-inflammatory therapy. A therapeutic trial with anti-inflammatory therapy alone (without a long-acting bronchodilator) should be assessed to determine if this therapy will eliminate nocturnal and early morning symptoms. If environmental control and low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids do not eliminate nocturnal symptoms, the addition of a long-acting bronchodilator is warranted. Long-acting inhaled beta2 agonists (e.g. salmeterol, formoterol) are effective in managing nocturnal asthma that is inadequately controlled by anti-inflammatory agents. In addition, sustained release theophylline and controlled release oral beta2 agonists are effective. In patients with nocturnal symptoms despite low to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of salmeterol has been demonstrated to be superior to doubling the inhaled corticosteroid dose. In trials comparing salmeterol with theophylline, 3 studies revealed salmeterol was superior to theophylline (as measured by e.g. morning peak expiratory flow, percent decrease in awakenings, and need for rescue salbutamol), whereas 2 studies found the therapies of equal efficacy. Studies comparing salmeterol to oral long-acting beta2 agonists reveal salmeterol to be superior to terbutaline and equivalent in efficacy to other oral agents. Microarousals unrelated to asthma are consistently increased when theophylline is compared to salmeterol in laboratory sleep studies. In addition to efficacy data, clinicians must weigh benefits and risks in choosing therapy for nocturnal asthma. Long-acting inhaled beta2 agonists are generally well tolerated. If theophylline therapy is to be used safely, clinicians must be quite familiar with numerous factors that alter clearance of this drug, and they must be prepared to use appropriate doses and monitor serum concentrations. Comparative studies using validated, disease specific quality of life instruments (e.g. Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire) have shown long-acting inhaled beta2 agonists are preferred to other long-acting bronchodilators. Examination of costs for these therapeutic options reveals that evening only doses of long-acting oral bronchodilators are less expensive than multiple inhaled doses. However, costs of monitoring serum concentrations, risks, quality of life and otheroutcome measures must also be considered. Long-acting inhaled beta2 agonists are the agents of choice for managing nocturnal asthma in patients who are symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory agents and other standard management (e.g. environmental control). These agents offer a high degree of efficacy along with a good margin of safety and improved quality of life.

Formoterol Fumarate Inhalation Powder

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary® Monograph Service receive five to six researched monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late Phase III trials. The monographs are targeted to your Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Subscribers also receive monthly one-page summary monographs on the agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation (DUE) is also provided each month. The monographs are published in printed form and on diskettes that allow customization. Subscribers to the The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board called The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X). All topics pertinent to clinical pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. If you would like information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The July 2001 Formulary monographs are on ima-tinib mesylate, alemtuzumab, parecoxib sodium, pramlintide acetate, and busesonide modified-release capsules. The DUE is on galantamine.

Tiotropium bromide

Tiotropium bromide is a new long-lasting anticholinergic drug which, like ipratropium bromide, is a quaternary ammonium derivative. It binds with high affinity to muscarinic receptors but dissociates very slowly from M(1)- and M(3)-muscarinic receptors. Pharmacology studies have demonstrated a prolonged protective effect against cholinergic agonists and cholinergic nerve stimulation in animal and human airways. In Phase II studies single inhaled doses of tiotropium bromide have a bronchodilator and bronchoprotective effect in asthmatic and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients of over 24 h. In Phase III studies, once daily inhaled tiotropium is an effective bronchodilator in COPD patients, giving great improvement in lung function and reduction in symptoms than ipratropium bromide given four times daily. The drug is well-tolerated and the only side effect of note is dryness of the mouth which occurs in approximately 10% of patients. Since, anticholinergics are the bronchodilators of choice in COPD it is likely that tiotropium bromide will become the most widely used bronchodilator for COPD patients in the future.

Comparison between formoterol 12 microg b.i.d. and on-demand salbutamol in moderate persistent asthma

Inhalation of on-demand salbutamol (ODS) several times daily is sometimes the only beta2-agonist prescribed in moderate persistent asthma, whereas a long-acting beta2-agonist should be added. This trial aimed to compare the efficacy of formoterol dry-powder capsule 12 microg b.i.d. (Foradil) and ODS in patients with moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids, in the conditions of real practice. Two hundred and fifty-nine patients were randomized (formoterol; 130; ODS: 129) in this open, parallel-group trial. The mean increases in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF primary variable) and evening PEF over the 3-month treatment period were statistically significantly higher with formoterol: +25.7 and +24.1 l min(-1), respectively vs. +4.5 and +0.5 l min(-1) respectively with ODS. The increase in FEV1 was statistically significantly higher with formoterol at months 1 and 3. Formoterol reduced the use of salbutamol as rescue medication by two-thirds. The percentages of symptom-free days and nights statistically significantly increased with formoterol (+20% and +33% respectively), but did not significantly change with ODS. Clinically relevant and statistically significant improvement in the mean total score of the St George's Hospital Respiratory Questionnaire was observed in the formoterol group. Adverse events were similar in the two groups. The results show that treatment with formoterol has significant advantages over ODS in patients with moderate persistent asthma.

Systemic effects of formoterol and salmeterol: a dose-response comparison in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

The main adverse effects of inhaled long acting beta(2) agonists relate to their systemic activity. The systemic effects seen over eight hours after inhalation of three doses of salmeterol and formoterol were therefore compared in normal subjects.

METHODS

A double blind, randomised, crossover study was carried out in 16 healthy subjects who inhaled formoterol 24, 48 and 96 microg (via Turbuhaler((R))), salmeterol 100, 200 and 400 microg (via Diskhaler((R))), or placebo on separate days. Heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and plasma potassium and glucose concentrations were measured for eight hours following each drug and mean values were used to plot the time course of change after each dose. Mean maximum (or minimum) absolute values were used to construct dose-response curves to calculate the relative dose potency of the two drugs. Lunch was taken after the four hour readings and, since this caused additional changes to the main outcome measures, data from the first four hours are also presented in a post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Both salmeterol and formoterol caused an early dose dependent increase in heart rate and glucose concentrations and a fall in diastolic blood pressure and plasma potassium concentration; formoterol also caused an early increase in systolic blood pressure. The cardiovascular effects occurred more rapidly than the metabolic effects and the response to formoterol was faster than that of salmeterol, apart from the glycaemic response. The effects of salmeterol were slightly more prolonged than those of formoterol, although some dose related effects were apparent at eight hours with both drugs. The relative dose potency for formoterol compared with salmeterol at four and eight hours for the different end points excluding systolic blood pressure ranged from 1.6 to 7.0 after adjusting for baseline values. Relative dose potencies (95% CI) for maximum heart rate and plasma potassium concentrations were 4.1 (3.0 to 5.6) and 5.8 (4.1 to 8.6) over four hours and 2.4 (1.2 to 3.8) and 3.0 (1.2 to 5.7) over eight hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol and salmeterol cause dose related changes in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, and plasma glucose and potassium concentrations. Formoterol has a more rapid onset for most end points whereas salmeterol has slightly more prolonged activity. Both drugs have a relatively modest therapeutic window. The relative dose potencies of the two drugs for the main end points were similar to the fourfold difference in recommended doses. Some differences in the pharmacological profile of the two drugs emerged and are as yet unexplained.

[Hospital admission for asthma. Descriptive analysis and prognostic factors after discharge]

BACKGROUND

Few authors have looked at admissions in Spain of patients with acute asthma attacks. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical profile of such patients and analyze factors influencing disease course after release.

METHODS

Asthmatics admitted to our hospital were enrolled prospectively over 12 consecutive months. The patients were telephoned one and four months after release. Demographic and clinical data were collected in addition to data on exacerbations, readmissions, treatment and medical follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (44 women and 21 men, mean age 45, SD 19). Most (54%) were admitted in autumn and the most common cause of exacerbation was respiratory tract infection (68%). Before admission, 54% had severe asthma, 32% had moderate asthma and 14% had mild asthma. At least one exacerbation occurred for 54% of patients, while 38% required emergency assistance and 19% were readmitted. Two patients (3%) died of asthma. Multiple factor logistic regression analysis showed a relation between the appearance of exacerbation after release and greater severity of asthma and the absence of long-lasting (beta-adrenergic drugs. Readmission was related to shorter duration of treatment with oral glucocorticoids after release and a higher number of prior hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Admission due to asthma occurs mainly in autumn and is probably related to respiratory infections, rather than exclusively to severe asthma. 2) After release, short-term morbidity and mortality due to the disease are high. 3) Disease severity itself and inadequate treatment are both related to poor clinical course after release.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the relative economic consequences of treating asthmatics with twice daily dry powder formoterol 12 micrograms as compared with salmeterol 50 micrograms from a societal perspective.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A randomised, 6-month, open-label study including 482 patients with asthma was conducted in Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, the UK and Sweden. Medical costs included the costs of medications, physician services, emergency room visits, hospital admissions and lung function and other tests. Travel costs and costs of production loss were also calculated. Unit prices were estimated from external sources. To pool the costs of the 6 countries, European currencies were converted to US dollars using 1995 exchange rates. Outcome measures were the number of episode-free days (EFDs) and the number of patients reaching a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life as measured using the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment arms in the frequency of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, use of rescue medication or contacts with general practitioners (GPs), specialists or nurses. Median medical costs over 6 months were $US828 per patient with formoterol and $US850 with salmeterol. This difference was not statistically significant. In both groups, about 60% of all days were episode-free. Average costs per EFD were about $US9 for both treatments. The average cost per patient reaching a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life was between $US1300 and $US1400. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were not calculated because both costs and outcomes were not significantly different. Asthma-related absenteeism ranged between 3 days and 6 months per patient in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to suggest that either treatment was more cost effective than the other.

Onset and duration of action of single doses of formoterol inhaled via Turbuhaler

The aim of the study was to investigate the time of onset and the duration of the bronchodilating effect of different doses of formoterol administered via Turbuhaler in patients with moderate asthma. Thirty-one patients (five women) with a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 1.97 +/- 0.54 1 and a mean reversibility of 31 +/- 14% of baseline were included in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled and cross-over study. The patients inhaled single doses of placebo, i.e. 6, 12, 24, or 48 micrograms formoterol fumarate, on 5 separate days. Serial measurements of specific airways conductance (SGAW) and FEV1 were performed at regular time intervals for 12 h. The majority of the patients had at least a 50% increase in SGAW within 1-4 min after administration of all active treatments. The maximum increase in FEV1 over placebo was dose-dependent: 12% (6 micrograms), 18% (12 micrograms), 19% (24 micrograms), and 26% (48 micrograms) (P < 0.001). Twelve hours after administration of 6, 12, 24, and 48 micrograms formoterol, the mean increase in FEV1 was still 7%, 15%, 18%, and 27%, respectively, above the value following placebo. Headache was the most frequently reported adverse event in all treatments including placebo. After inhalation of 48 micrograms, three patients experienced mild tremor lasting for less than 1 h; likewise, one patient experienced the same event for 3 h after placebo. Formoterol administered via Turbuhaler10 gave a rapid and dose-related bronchodilating effect lasting for 12 h and was well tolerated.

A 6-month comparison between formoterol and salmeterol in patients with reversible obstructive airways disease

The aim of this randomized, open, parallel group study was to compare the clinical efficacy of formoterol dry powder capsule 12 micrograms b.i.d. and salmeterol dry powder 50 micrograms b.i.d. in the treatment of patients with reversible obstructive airways disease. The 6-month treatment was preceded by a 2 week run-in period. Morning pre-dose peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last 7 days of treatment was the primary variable. Throughout the study, patients recorded morning and evening pre-dose PEF, use of rescue medication, respiratory symptoms and adverse events. Clinic visits were scheduled at monthly intervals. Of the 482 patients randomized (equal numbers in the two treatment groups), 428 completed the study. Four hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the efficacy analysis for the primary variable. For mean morning pre-dose PEF during the last 7 days of treatment, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment contrast formoterol minus salmeterol was included entirely in the pre-defined range of equivalence (CI limits = -8.69, +9.841 min-1). This was also the case for the morning PEF during the last week before each clinic visit. For mean evening pre-dose PEF, the estimated treatment contrasts showed a trend towards superiority of formoterol over salmeterol, which became statistically significant at 2, 3 and 4 months (P < 0.05; estimated contrasts 7.27, 10.45 and 10.511 min-1, respectively). No treatment group differences were found in use of rescue medication and respiratory symptom scores. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. These findings demonstrate that formoterol 12 micrograms b.i.d. and salmeterol 50 micrograms b.i.d., both formulated as dry powders, have similar long-term efficacy and safety profiles in patients with reversible obstructive airways disease.

Long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists in asthma therapy

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology of the long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, summarize results of their clinical trials, evaluate their safety records, and discuss their roles in the treatment of asthma.

DATA SOURCES

Preclinical and clinical studies involving salmeterol or formoterol were identified by a MEDLINE search, weekly computerized literature updates, and manual searches. Studies of satisfactory quality were chosen for review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Salmeterol and formoterol are potent and selective beta2-adrenoceptor agonists with durations of action >12 h. Their major differences are that formoterol has a rapid onset of action and is a partial agonist of high intrinsic efficacy, whereas salmeterol has a delayed onset and is a partial agonist of low intrinsic efficacy. Twice daily use of either drug results in improved lung function, reduced symptoms, and a better quality of life. These agents protect against exercise-induced asthma for 12 h and eliminate nighttime awakening in most patients. Limited tolerance develops, especially to their bronchoprotective effects, but their improvement of lung function is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of salmeterol or formoterol provides subjective and objective amelioration of asthma in patients experiencing excessive symptoms or physiologic impairment despite the regular administration of low doses of inhaled corticosteroids (equivalent to approximately 500 microg/d of beclomethasone). Intermittent use of either long-acting beta2-agonist can provide prolonged protection against exercise-induced asthma or nighttime symptoms. Patients should be instructed to continue taking inhaled steroids when long-acting beta2-agonists are administered on a regular schedule and to not take long-acting beta2-agonists between regularly scheduled doses. Used properly, they are effective and safe adjunctive agents in the treatment of asthma.

Efficacy and tolerability of formoterol in elderly patients with reversible obstructive airways disease

This study has compared the efficacy and tolerability of formoterol (FORADIL) dry powder and salbutamol in elderly patients with reversible obstructive airways disease (ROAD). A total of 262 elderly outpatients with clinically stable ROAD participated in a multicentre, double-blind, parallel study. Patients were randomized in equal numbers to receive formoterol 12 micrograms b.i.d. formoterol 24 micrograms b.i.d. or salbutamol 400 micrograms q.i.d. for a 3 month period. All study drugs were inhaled through an Aeroliser device. Daily morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF) values, symptom scores and additional bronchodilator use were recorded by the patients throughout the study. Clinic assessment which included spirometry and PEF measurements was made at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Morning and evening PEF values were significantly higher with both doses of formoterol compared with salbutamol. This difference was statistically significant both for the overall study period and during the week preceding each of the clinic visits (4, 8 and 12 weeks). There was no significant difference for the two doses of formoterol with respect to PEF values. The FEV1 and FVC values between the three treatment groups were similar. The daily use of rescue medication was significantly lower for the formoterol 24 micrograms group compared with the salbutamol group. The percentage of patients rating the therapeutic effect as 'very good' was significantly higher for formoterol: 41% on 12 micrograms; 34% on 24 micrograms; 19% on salbutamol. All treatments were well tolerated. This study demonstrates that formoterol 12 micrograms and 24 micrograms b.i.d. by dry powder inhalation are equally effective and are both significantly superior to salbutamol 400 micrograms q.i.d. in the treatment of ROAD in the elderly.

Formoterol. An update of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of asthma

Formoterol, a selective beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist, produces effective dose-proportional bronchodilation, which persists for up to 12 hours, in patients with reversible obstructive respiratory disease. Bronchodilation is significant within minutes of inhalation, maximal within 2 hours, and at therapeutic doses is equivalent to that produced by standard doses of traditional beta 2-agonists. In single-dose studies comparing the two long-acting beta 2-agonists formoterol and salmeterol, significant bronchodilation is achieved more rapidly with formoterol than salmeterol. Duration of bronchodilation is similar with both drugs. The therapeutic efficacy of inhaled formoterol has been equal to or greater than that of salbutamol (albuterol), fenoterol and terbutaline in both short and long term clinical trials. Formoterol reduces symptoms of nocturnal asthma and reduces the need for rescue medication compared with salbutamol. Recent studies have shown that the addition of inhaled formoterol 12 or 24 micrograms twice daily to existing inhaled corticosteroid regimens improves lung function and reduces asthma symptoms compared with placebo. In one well designed study, the frequency of severe exacerbations of asthma over 12 months was decreased by adding formoterol to existing regimens of inhaled corticosteroids. Tolerance to the bronchodilator response of formoterol has not been observed in long term clinical trials. Because of its long duration of action, formoterol offers significant therapeutic advantages over shorter-acting beta 2-agonists in the treatment of nocturnal and exercise-induced asthma. Formoterol is effective in preventing exercise-induced asthma in adults and children and confers significantly more protection than salbutamol when administered 3 and 12 hours before exercise. In general, inhaled formoterol is well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse effects, tremor and palpitations, are those traditionally associated with the use of beta 2-agonists. Oral formoterol and high doses of inhaled formoterol are associated with more adverse events than are the recommended doses of 6 to 24 micrograms. Formoterol is currently recommended for use as an alternative to increasing inhaled steroid dosage in patients whose symptoms are inadequately controlled despite therapy with low to moderate doses of inhaled steroids and intermittent short-acting beta 2-agonists, and results of recent studies support therapeutic guidelines. Long term clinical studies comparing formoterol and salmeterol have not yet been published. Further studies to evaluate the earlier use of formoterol in patients with mild to moderate asthma are needed to determine the role and long term safety of formoterol in the management of asthma.

Effect of inhaled formoterol and budesonide on exacerbations of asthma. Formoterol and Corticosteroids Establishing Therapy (FACET) International Study Group

BACKGROUND

The role of long-acting, inhaled beta2-agonists in treating asthma is uncertain. In a double-blind study, we evaluated the effects of adding inhaled formoterol to both lower and higher doses of the inhaled glucocorticoid budesonide.

METHODS

After a four-week run-in period of treatment with budesonide (800 microg twice daily), 852 patients being treated with glucocorticoids were randomly assigned to one of four treatments given twice daily by means of a dry-powder inhaler (Turbuhaler): 100 microg of budesonide plus placebo, 100 microg of budesonide plus 12 microg of formoterol, 400 microg of budesonide plus placebo, or 400 microg of budesonide plus 12 microg of formoterol. Terbutaline was permitted as needed. Treatment continued for one year; we compared the frequency of exacerbations of asthma, symptoms, and lung function in the four groups. A severe exacerbation was defined by the need for oral glucocorticoids or a decrease in the peak flow to more than 30 percent below the base-line value on two consecutive days.

RESULTS

The rates of severe and mild exacerbations were reduced by 26 percent and 40 percent, respectively, when formoterol was added to the lower dose of budesonide. The higher dose of budesonide alone reduced the rates of severe and mild exacerbations by 49 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Patients treated with formoterol and the higher dose of budesonide had the greatest reductions -- 63 percent and 62 percent, respectively. Symptoms of asthma and lung function improved with both formoterol and the higher dose of budesonide, but the improvements with formoterol were greater.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who have persistent symptoms of asthma despite treatment with inhaled glucocorticoids, the addition of formoterol to budesonide therapy or the use of a higher dose of budesonide may be beneficial. The addition of formoterol to budesonide therapy improves symptoms and lung function without lessening the control of asthma.

Effects of the long acting beta agonist formoterol on asthma control in asthmatic patients using inhaled corticosteroids. The Netherlands and Canadian Formoterol Study Investigators

BACKGROUND

The long acting beta 2 agonist formoterol has proved to be an effective bronchodilator with a prolonged action of 12-14 hours. However, the precise role of formoterol in the maintenance treatment of asthma is still under debate. A study was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of treatment with formoterol for six months in subjects with asthma.

METHODS

In a multicentre double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study 239 subjects with mild to moderate asthma were randomly assigned to treatment with either inhaled formoterol 24 micrograms twice daily (n = 125) or placebo (n = 114) during eight months. The study consisted of a four week run in period, a 24 week treatment period, and a four week washout period. All subjects were using regular inhaled corticosteroids (100-3200 micrograms daily) but were still needing at least five inhalations of short acting beta 2 agonist per week for symptom relief. The study was performed in 10 outpatient clinics in Canada, and five outpatient clinics and one coordinating centre for 44 Dutch general practitioners in The Netherlands. Twice daily self-reported peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements, symptom scores, and rescue beta 2 agonist use during the last 28 treatment days compared with baseline values were used as main outcome measures. Spirometric values were measured at entry, at the start of treatment, after four, 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, and after four weeks washout.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty five subjects received formoterol 24 micrograms twice daily via Turbohaler and 114 received placebo. Baseline FEV1 was 67.1% predicted and mean bronchodilator reversibility was 26%. The mean total asthma symptom score was 3.6 (maximum possible 21). A significant decrease in symptoms in favour of formoterol (difference from placebo -0.64, 95% CI -0.04 to -1.23, p = 0.04) was observed. Compared with placebo, morning PEF increased (difference from placebo 28 l/min, 95% CI 18.3 to 37.7, p = 0.0001) and the use of short acting beta 1 agonists decreased (daytime difference from placebo -1.1 inhalation, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.7, p = 0.0001) in the formoterol group. PEF returned to baseline following discontinuation of formoterol, as did asthma symptom scores. Thirty three patients treated with formoterol and 32 treated with placebo required treatment with prednisolone during the study (58 and 55 courses, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding formoterol 24 micrograms twice daily by Turbohaler to inhaled corticosteroids was effective in improving symptom scores and morning PEF, and decreasing the use of rescue beta 2 agonists. There was no apparent loss of asthma control during 24 weeks of treatment with formoterol.

Airway subsensitivity with long-acting beta 2-agonists. Is there cause for concern?

Regular treatment with both long- and short-acting beta 2-agonists results in tolerance to their bronchoprotective effects, although the relevance of this phenomenon in terms of long term asthma control remains unclear. However, there appears to be no appreciable difference between the 2 long-active beta 2-agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, in their propensity to induce beta 2-adrenoceptor down-regulation and subsensitivity. The degree of subsensitivity appears to be somewhat greater with indirect stimuli such as exercise and allergen challenge, compared with direct stimuli such as histamine and methacholine. This loss of functional antagonism with long-acting beta 2-agonist therapy is partial and is not prevented by concomitant inhaled corticosteroid therapy. However, the protective effects of inhaled corticosteroids on their own appear to be additive to those of long-acting beta 2-agonists when both drugs are concomitantly administered in the long term. The subsensitivity to bronchoprotection may be of clinical relevance in terms of patients who are inadvertently exposed to indirect bronchoconstrictor stimuli such as allergens or exercise, suggesting that long-acting beta 2-agonists should not be taken on a regular basis for this particular indication. There is a greater tendency for bronchodilator subsensitivity to develop with longer-acting, than with shorter-acting beta 2-agonists, and this may reflect the longer duration of beta 2-adrenoceptor occupancy and consequent downregulation. As with the bronchoprotective effects of long-acting beta 2-agonists, the development of bronchodilator subsensitivity is only partial and occurs regardless of whether patients are taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid therapy. The long-term bronchodilator action of the long-acting beta 2-agonist itself is maintained within the twice daily administration interval. However, subsensitivity occurs in relation to a blunted response to repeated doses of short-acting beta 2-agonists, as in the setting of an acute asthma attack. There is considerable inter-individual variability in the propensity for downregulation and subsensitivity, which is determined by genetic polymorphism of the beta 2-adrenoceptor. Current international asthma management guidelines suggest that long-acting beta 2-agonists should be used on a regular basis in patients who ware inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid therapy, so the addition of long-acting beta 2-agonist therapy is an alternative to using higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids. There are, however, concerns that regular long-acting beta 2-agonists might result in masking of inadequately treated inflammation in patients receiving suboptimal inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Physicians should be aware of the airway subsensitivity that develops with long-acting beta 2-agonist therapy, and patients should be warned that they may have to use higher than conventional dosages of short-acting beta 2-agonists to relieve acute bronchoconstriction in order to overcome this effect. In patients receiving an optimised maintenance dose of inhaled corticosteroid, if long-acting beta 2-agonists are to be used on an as required basis, it would seem rational to use formoterol for this purpose, due to its faster onset of action than salmeterol.

Formoterol inhaled as dry powder or via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in a cumulative dose-response study

Formoterol administered by a dry-powder (DP) capsule inhaler was compared with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with regard to bronchodilating and systemic effects. The study used a double-blind, crossover, double-dummy technique. Twelve patients with moderate reversible asthma in a stable phase were examined on two separate study days, and the inhalers were given in randomized order. After baseline measurements, increasing doses of formoterol were given at intervals of 75 min. FEV1 and heart rate and tremor measurements were repeated after each dose, and the doses were 12 + 12 + 24 + 48 micrograms, giving a total dose of 96 micrograms. The peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was recorded in the morning before the first dose, after the last dose, and then repeatedly at home until 19 h after the last dose. There was an equal increase in ventilatory capacity at each dose level, independent of inhaler device. Repeated PEFR measurements after the last dose did not reveal any differences in duration of effect. There was a slight but statistically significant increase in heart rate and tremor after the highest doses of the DP formulation compared to the pMDI. These systemic effects can probably be explained by the reduced oral deposition of the aerosol caused by using a spacer. This study indicates that the DP and pMDI formulations of formoterol are equipotent in bronchodilation.

The beta-agonist controversy

After many years of increasing morbidity and mortality, several avenues of scientific investigation now appear to be converging to offer an explanation for the asthma paradox and indicate that regular or long-term use of short-acting inhaled beta-agonist drugs is inappropriate. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies indicate a strong association between increased beta-agonist use and asthma deaths, which does not appear entirely related to confounding by severity. Clinical data, although still limited, show little evidence for symptomatic or functional improvement during long-term beta-agonist therapy and, in many instances, reveal significant adverse effects. Related investigations offer evidence of potential plausible mechanisms, notably increased bronchial responsiveness to inhaled allergen, to explain these findings. A radical revision of the therapeutic use of these drugs in asthma has been prompted by these findings. Beta-agonist drugs remain essential for the management of acute severe attacks. They are also useful on demand for the relief of breakthrough symptoms and for prophylaxis of exercise-induced symptoms. In chronic asthma, however, adequate anti-inflammatory therapy is the treatment of choice. Long-term treatment with short-acting beta-agonist, even in the presence of seemingly adequate anti-inflammatory therapy, may be associated with deterioration of asthma over the long-term. The effects of long-acting beta-agonists remain under review. To date, there are no data that clearly indicate a deleterious effect, and many clinical trials show benefits in symptom control and improved lung function associated with their regular use. The significance of tachyphylaxis remains to be defined. Their current role is still somewhat unclear, but they have been successfully used in subjects in whom, despite the use of moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroid, short-acting bronchodilator is still frequently required. The use of twice-daily long-acting beta-agonist appears preferable to frequent use of short-acting beta-agonists.

Oral vs inhaled asthma therapy. Pros, cons and combinations

A number of oral and inhaled drugs are available for the long term management of patients with persistent asthma, yet the disease continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Over the past years, inhaled glucocorticoids have become established as a cornerstone of maintenance therapy because of their demonstrated clinical efficacy, ability to reduce bronchial inflammation and good tolerability. Other inhaled drugs (e.g. sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil, long-acting beta 2 agonists) also play a role in the long term treatment of patients with asthma. However, many patients (especially children and the elderly) find inhalers difficult to use, and poor inhalation technique can affect the amount of drug reaching the lungs and response to therapy. Oral drug administration is simple, but, until recently, oral asthma therapy has primarily consisted of sustained-release theophylline and glucocorticoids. Theophylline has a narrow therapeutic index, necessitating regular monitoring of serum drug concentrations, and long term oral glucocorticoid therapy is associated with potentially serious adverse events including osteoporosis with bone fracture. The recent development of orally administered leukotriene receptor antagonists (e.g. zafirlukast) and 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors (e.g. zileuton) offers novel mechanisms of action and potential solutions to compliance issues associated with regular administration of inhaled asthma therapy. These drugs have demonstrated efficacy as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and, importantly, lack the adverse effects associated with long term systemic glucocorticoid therapy. Further clinical trials and the increasing use of these new therapies will help to establish the precise role of orally administered leukotriene receptor antagonists and 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors in the long term management of patients with asthma.

Inhaled formoterol dry powder in the treatment of patients with reversible obstructive airway disease. A 3-month, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of formoterol and salbutamol, followed by a 12-month trial with formoterol

Inhaled formoterol is a potent selective beta 2-agonist with rapid onset and at least 12-h duration of bronchodilation. The aim of the study was to compare the bronchodilating effect of inhaled formoterol dry powder (dp) 12 micrograms b.i.d. with salbutamol dp 400 micrograms q.i.d. and placebo in patients with reversible obstructive airway disease (ROAD). The study design consisted of a closed 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial followed by an open noncomparative, multicenter, 12-month follow-up trial, in which the tolerability of formoterol dp was assessed. A total of 304 patients (146 men, 158 women) aged 18-79 years, ill during 0.1-64 years, were randomized. No demographic or baseline differences were found among the different treatment groups. The bronchodilating effect of formoterol, assessed by morning premedication PEFR, was significantly superior to placebo (P < 0.0001) and salbutamol (P < 0.0001). Efficacy was maintained during the open follow-up study with 12 micrograms b.i.d. in most of the patients. A few patients, however, needed 24 micrograms b.i.d. to control their ROAD. Formoterol 12 micrograms b.i.d. significantly reduced morning and evening asthma symptoms and sleep disturbances, and reduced significantly the need for rescue medication. The tolerability of the three treatment groups was comparable. In conclusion, formoterol 12 micrograms dp b.i.d. was significantly superior to both salbutamol 400 micrograms dp q.i.d. and placebo, and reduced asthma symptoms significantly. Overall, formoterol showed a tolerability profile comparable to that of salbutamol, and no tachyphylaxis was observed during 1 year of treatment.