Improved asthma control with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler, compared with budesonide alone

Effectiveness of Single-Tablet Combination Therapy in Improving Adherence and Persistence and the Relation to Clinical and Economic Outcomes

Background: Single-tablet combination therapies (STCTs) combine multiple drugs into one formulation, making drug administration more convenient for patients. STCTs were developed to address concerns with treatment adherence and persistence, but the impact of STCT use is not fully understood across indications. Objectives: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine STCT-associated outcomes across 4 evidence domains: clinical trials, real-world evidence (RWE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) studies, and economic evaluations. Methods: Four SLRs were conducted across the aforementioned domains. Included studies compared STCTs as well as fixed-dose combinations ([FDCs] of non-tablet formulations) with the equivalent active compounds and doses in loose-dose combinations (LDCs). Original research articles were included; case reports, case series, and non-English-language sources were excluded. Databases searched included EconLit, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE® ALL. Two independent reviewers assessed relevant studies and extracted data. Conflicts were resolved with a third reviewer or consensus-based discussion. Results: In all, 109 studies were identified; 27 studies were identified in more than one SLR. Treatment adherence was significantly higher in patients receiving FDCs vs LDCs in 12 of 13 RWE studies and 3 of 13 clinical trials. All 18 RWE studies reported higher persistence with FDCs. In RWE studies examining clinical outcomes (n = 17), 14 reported positive findings with FDCs, including a reduced need for add-on medication, blood pressure control, and improved hemoglobin A1C. HRQoL studies generally reported numerical improvements with STCTs or similarities between STCTs and LDCs. Economic outcomes favored STCT use. All 6 cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses found FDCs were less expensive and more efficacious than LDCs. Four budget impact models found that STCTs were associated with cost savings. Medical costs and healthcare resource use were generally lower with FDCs than with LDCs. Discussion: Evidence from RWE and economic studies strongly favored STCT use, while clinical trials and HRQoL studies primarily reported similarity between STCTs and LDCs. This may be due to clinical trial procedures aimed at maximizing adherence and HRQoL measures that are not designed to evaluate drug administration. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the value of STCTs for improving patient adherence, persistence, and clinical outcomes while also offering economic advantages.

Executive summary: Japanese guidelines for adult asthma (JGL) 2021

Asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation, variable airway narrowing, and sensory nerve irritation, which manifest as wheezing, dyspnea, chest tightness, and cough. Longstanding asthma may result in airway remodeling and become intractable. Despite the increased prevalence of asthma in adults, asthma-associated deaths have decreased in Japan (0.94 per 100,000 people in 2020). The goals of asthma treatment include the control of symptoms and reduction of future risks. A functional partnership between physicians and patients is indispensable for achieving these goals. Long-term management with medications and the elimination of triggers and risk factors are fundamental to asthma treatment. Asthma is managed via four steps of pharmacotherapy ("controllers"), ranging from mild to intensive treatments, depending on disease severity; each step involves daily administration of an inhaled corticosteroid, which varies from low to high dosage. Long-acting β₂ agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, sustained-release theophylline, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended as add-on drugs. Allergen immunotherapy is a new option that is employed as a controller treatment. Further, as of 2021, anti-IgE antibody, anti-IL-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α-chain antibodies, and anti-IL-4 receptor α-chain antibodies are available for the treatment of severe asthma. Bronchial thermoplasty can be performed for asthma treatment, and its long-term efficacy has been reported. Algorithms for their usage have been revised. Comorbidities, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, should also be considered during the treatment of chronic asthma. Depending on the severity of episodes, inhaled short-acting β₂ agonists, systemic corticosteroids, short-acting muscarinic antagonists, oxygen therapy, and other approaches are used as needed ("relievers") during exacerbation.

Mometasone/Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) and MF/IND at Different MF Strengths versus Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Xinafoate (FLU/SAL) and FLU/SAL+ Tiotropium in Patients with Asthma

Background

Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY, an ICS/LABA/LAMA) and MF/IND (an ICS/LABA) via Breezhaler^® have been approved for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma inadequately controlled with medium-or high-dose ICS or medium-or high-dose ICS/LABA treatment.

Objective

Once-daily (o.d.) formulations of MF/IND/GLY and MF/IND at different MF dose strengths have been compared with twice-daily (b.i.d.) fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FLU/SAL), and b.i.d. FLU/SAL+ o.d. tiotropium (TIO) in the PALLADIUM, IRIDIUM and ARGON studies.

Methods

The similarity in study design and consistent outcomes in these studies prompted the pooling of data in this review to better characterise these novel once-daily controller formulations.

Results

Pooled data from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies showed comparable or greater efficacy with o.d. MF/IND formulations versus b.i.d. FLU/SAL. The o.d. MF/IND/GLY was superior to b.i.d. FLU/SAL in the IRIDIUM study, and similar to, if not more efficacious than b.i.d. FLU/SAL + o.d. TIO in the ARGON study.

Conclusion

These formulations therefore provide novel once-daily treatment options for patients across asthma severity and flexibility for clinicians to step-up or step-down the treatment using the same device and formulations.

Dose bridging data for mometasone furoate in once-daily fixed-dose inhaled combinations of mometasone furoate/indacaterol and mometasone furoate/ indacaterol/glycopyrronium in patients with asthma

Once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combinations of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate (MF/IND) and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY), both delivered via the Breezhaler® device, are approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma. Across these fixed-dose combinations, while the doses of bronchodilators remain the same, the nominal doses of mometasone furoate in micrograms differ. This article presents the steps followed in bridging the mometasone furoate doses at the corresponding dose strengths in the mometasone furoate formulation delivered via the Twisthaler® and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulations delivered via the Breezhaler®. These were: (i) bridging the mometasone furoate doses in the Twisthaler® (previously approved) to mometasone furoate doses in the Breezhaler®; (ii) bridging the mometasone furoate doses in the Breezhaler® to mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulation. Following this stepwise approach, it was determined that mometasone furoate 80 μg o.d. (medium-dose strength) and 160 μg o.d. (high-dose strength) in mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulation provided comparable inhaled corticosteroid efficacy to mometasone furoate 160 μg o.d. (medium-dose strength) and 320 μg o.d. (high-dose strength) in the mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate formulation, respectively. These doses were used in the PLATINUM Phase III clinical program that investigated the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide combinations in patients with asthma.

Antiviral Effect of Budesonide against SARS-CoV-2

Treatment options for COVID-19, a disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, are currently severely limited. Therefore, antiviral drugs that efficiently reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication or alleviate COVID-19 symptoms are urgently needed. Inhaled glucocorticoids are currently being discussed in the context of treatment for COVID-19, partly based on a previous study that reported reduced recovery times in cases of mild COVID-19 after inhalative administration of the glucocorticoid budesonide. Given various reports that describe the potential antiviral activity of glucocorticoids against respiratory viruses, we aimed to analyze a potential antiviral activity of budesonide against SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants of concern (VOC) B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.351 (beta). We demonstrate a dose-dependent inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 that was comparable between all viral variants tested while cell viability remains unaffected. Our results are encouraging as they could indicate a multimodal mode of action of budesonide against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, which could contribute to an improved clinical performance.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.

Effects of a novel roflumilast and formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler formulation in experimental allergic asthma

In this study we aimed to develop a roflumilast (R) and formoterol fumarate (F) dry powder inhaler formulation (DPI) incorporating HPβCD by spray drying and evaluated if it attenuates the inflammatory process and improves lung function in a murine model of ovalbumin induced allergic asthma. The DPI was characterized by powder X-ray diffraction, thermal analysis, scanning electron microscopy, particle size, density, specific surface area and dynamic vapor sorption analyses. In vitro deposition studies were performed using a NGI, while transepithelial permeability and in vivo effects on lung mechanics and inflammation in a model of allergic asthma were also assessed. The R:F formulation was amorphous with high glass transition temperatures, comprised of wrinkled particles, had low bulk and tapped densities, high surface area, suitable particle size for pulmonary delivery and exhibited no recrystallization even at high relative humidities. MMAD were statistically similar of 4.22 ± 0.19 and 4.32 ± 0.13 µm for F and R, respectively. Fine particle fractions (<5 µm) were of more than 50% of the emitted dose. The R:F formulation led to reduced eosinophil infiltration and airway collagen fiber content, yielding decreased airway hyperresponsiveness. In the current asthma model, the R:F formulation combination decreased inflammation and remodeling, thus improving lung mechanics.

Once-daily mometasone plus indacaterol versus mometasone or twice-daily fluticasone plus salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (PALLADIUM): a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, controlled phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are considered safe and efficacious in asthma management. Most available FDCs require twice-daily dosing to achieve optimum therapeutic effect. The objective of the PALLADIUM study was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily FDC of mometasone furoate plus indacaterol acetate (MF-IND) versus mometasone furoate (MF) monotherapy in patients with inadequately controlled asthma.

METHODS

This 52-week, double-blind, triple-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 316 centres across 24 countries. Patients aged 12 to 75 years with a documented diagnosis of asthma for at least 1 year, percentage of predicted FEV₁ of 50-85%, and an Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 score of at least 1·5 despite treatment with medium-dose or high-dose ICS or low-dose ICS plus LABA were included. A history of asthma exacerbations was not a study requirement. Participants were randomily assigned (1:1:1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive one of the following treatments for 52 weeks: high-dose MF-IND (320 μg, 150 μg) or medium-dose MF-IND (160 μg, 150 μg) once daily via Breezhaler; high-dose MF (800 μg [400 μg twice daily]) or medium-dose MF (400 μg once daily) via Twisthaler; or high-dose fluticasone propionate-salmeterol xinafoate (FLU-SAL; 500 μg, 50 μg) twice daily via Diskus. Participants received placebo via inhalation through the Breezhaler, Twisthaler, or Diskus devices in the mornings and evenings, as appropriate. The primary endpoint was improvement in trough FEV₁ with high-dose and medium-dose MF-IND versus respective MF doses from baseline at 26 weeks, analysed in the full analysis set by means of a mixed model for repeated measures. High-dose MF-IND once daily was compared with high-dose FLU-SAL twice daily for non-inferiority on improving trough FEV₁ at week 26 with a margin of -90 mL using mixed model for repeated measures as one of the secondary endpoints. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02554786, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 29, 2015, and May 4, 2018, 2216 patients were randomly assigned (high-dose MF-IND, n=445; medium-dose MF-IND, n=439; high-dose MF, n=442; medium-dose MF, n=444; high-dose FLU-SAL, n=446), of which 1973 (89·0%) completed the study treatment and 234 (10·6%) prematurely discontinued study treatment. High-dose MF-IND (treatment difference [Δ] 132 mL [95% CI 88 to 176]; p<0·001) and medium-dose MF-IND (Δ 211 mL [167 to 255]; p<0·001) showed superiority in improving trough FEV₁ over corresponding MF doses from baseline at week 26. High-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to high-dose FLU-SAL in improving trough FEV₁ from baseline at week 26 (Δ 36 mL [-7 to 80]; p=0·101). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar across the treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Once-daily FDC of ICS and LABA (MF-IND) significantly improved lung function over ICS monotherapy (MF) at week 26; high-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to twice-daily combination of ICS and LABA (high-dose FLU-SAL) for improvement in trough FEV₁. The combination of MF-IND provides a novel once-daily dry powder option for asthma control.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled once-daily low-dose indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: Phase III randomised QUARTZ study findings

BACKGROUND

Global initiative for asthma (GINA) 2019 recommends adding a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a maintenance controller therapy in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Indacaterol acetate (IND, a LABA) in combination with mometasone furoate (MF, an ICS) is under development for the treatment of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

This phase III QUARTZ was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy and parallel-group study to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg once daily (o.d.) versus MF 200 μg o.d. in adult and adolescent patients with inadequately controlled asthma.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 802) were randomised (1:1) to receive either low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg o.d. via Breezhaler® or MF 200 μg o.d. via Twisthaler® for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and key secondary endpoint was Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) treatment difference after 12-week treatment. Other secondary endpoints included ACQ-7 responder analysis, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire total score, rescue medication use, daily symptom score, nighttime awakenings and rate of exacerbations, evaluated over 12-week treatment. Safety was also assessed including serious asthma outcomes.

RESULTS

Low-dose IND/MF significantly improved trough FEV₁ (least squares mean treatment difference [LSMTD]: 0.182 L; p < 0.001) and ACQ-7 (LSMTD: -0.218; p < 0.001) versus MF at Week 12. Improvements in all other secondary endpoints favoured low-dose IND/MF. Safety was comparable.

CONCLUSION

These results support the use of low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg o.d. as a potential therapy for adult and adolescent patients with inadequately controlled asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A Multicenter, Observational, Prospective Study of the Effectiveness of Switching from Budesonide/Formoterol Turbuhaler® to Budesonide/Formoterol Easyhaler®

Introduction

In real-life practice, asthma remains poorly controlled, with a considerable burden on patients’ quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol (B/F) Easyhaler^® has demonstrated similar dose consistency, therapeutic equivalence, and equivalent bronchodilator efficacy to B/F Turbuhaler^®, but no real-life comparisons are yet available in patients switching from B/F Turbuhaler^® to B/F Easyhaler^®.

Methods

The primary objective of this real-life, non-interventional, observational study was to show non-inferiority of asthma control when adult patients in Swedish primary care with persistent asthma switched from B/F Turbuhaler^® to B/F Easyhaler^®. At visit 1, baseline demographic and endpoint data were recorded, and eligible patients switched to B/F Easyhaler^®. The study comprised a control visit (visit 2) and a concluding examination (visit 3) after 12 weeks. Asthma control was assessed using the Asthma Control Test (ACT). The mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and lung function test were performed, and participants and investigators answered questionnaires about ease-of-use and teaching.

Results

A total of 117 patients were enrolled in the on-treatment population; 81 (64.8%) were female. At visit 3, B/F Easyhaler^® demonstrated non-inferiority to B/F Turbuhaler^®; the mean difference in change from baseline ACT was statistically significant (18.9 vs. 20.7, respectively; p < 0.0001) and met the non-inferiority criteria of B/F Easyhaler^® being greater than − 1.5 points versus the reference product. Asthma was well controlled in 62 (53.0%) patients at baseline, increasing to 83 patients (70.9%) at visit 3. Patients experienced statistically significant improvements in mini-AQLQ score after B/F Easyhaler^® treatment and lung function remained stable across the treatment period. B/F Easyhaler^® was easy to learn and prepare for use.

Conclusion

This real-life, non-interventional, non-inferiority study in adults with persist asthma demonstrates equivalent or better disease control when patients switch from B/F Turbuhaler^® to B/F Easyhaler^®. A further study with direct comparison between treatments could add to the understanding of inhaler switch.

Funding

Orion Corporation, Orion Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00940-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Repurposing drugs as inhaled therapies in asthma

For the first 40 years of the 20th century treatment for asthma occurred in response to an asthma attack. The treatments were given by injection or orally and included the adrenergic agonists adrenalin/epinephrine and ephedrine and a phosphodiesterase inhibitor theophylline. Epinephrine became available as an aerosol in 1930. After 1945, isoprenaline, a non-selective beta agonist, became available for oral use but it was most widely used by inhalation. Isoprenaline was short-acting with unwanted cardiac effects. More selective beta agonists, with a longer duration of action and fewer side-effects became available, including orciprenaline in 1967, salbutamol in 1969 and terbutaline in 1970. The inhaled steroid beclomethasone was available by 1972 and budesonide by 1982. Spirometry alone and in response to exercise was used to assess efficacy and duration of action of these drugs for the acute benefits of beta₂ agonists and the chronic benefits of corticosteroids. Early studies comparing oral and aerosol beta₂ agonists found equivalence in bronchodilator effect but the aerosol treatment was superior in preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Inhaled drugs are now widely used including the long-acting beta₂ agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, and the corticosteroids, fluticasone, ciclesonide, mometasone and triamcinolone, that act locally and have low systemic bio-availability. Repurposing drugs as inhaled therapies permitted direct delivery of low doses of drug to the site of action reducing the incidence of unwanted side-effects and permitting the prophylactic treatment of asthma.

Effect of adjusting the combination of budesonide/formoterol on the alleviation of asthma symptoms

Background

The combination of budesonide + formoterol (BFC) offers the advantages of dose adjustment in a single inhaler according to asthma symptoms. We analyzed the relationship between asthma symptoms in terms of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and dose adjustment by the patient.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients with asthma who used BFC for alleviation of their symptoms (12 men, 16 women; 60 years old) were instructed that the inhaled BFC dose could be increased to a maximum of 8 inhalations per day according to symptom severity. Patients measured and recorded PEF every morning and evening in their asthma diary along with their symptoms and the dose of drugs taken.

Results

Sixteen of the 28 patients increased their dose for asthma symptoms. The time to recovery from the asthma symptoms was significantly shorter when cough was the only symptom present compared with dyspnea or wheeze (1.4 vs. 5.3 or 6.6 days, p < 0.05) and when they had only one symptom compared with two or three symptoms (1.3 vs. 5.7 or 10.5, p < 0.01). The relationship between PEF (% of personal best) when the dose was increased (Y) and the days for the increased dose to achieve a PEF greater than PEF in the symptom-free state (X) was determined to be Y = - 0.591X + 89.2 (r² = 0.299, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

As a guide for increasing the BFC dose when patients with mild asthma have asthma symptoms, the dose should be increased when cough is present or PEF is decreased to 88.9% (i.e., X = 0.5).

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Single-Inhaler Combination Therapy with Budesonide/Formoterol Fumarate in Patients with Bronchial Asthma in Daily Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol fumarate combination therapy for asthma has been previously shown for the original product. The aim of this nonrandomized, open-label, postauthorization efficacy study (PAES) real-life clinical assessment was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a second product (Bufomix Easyhaler®) in the daily clinical practice of asthma therapy.

METHODS

This multicenter PAES was conducted by 220 unselected allergologists and pulmonologists who enrolled 2200 adult outpatients (age 49.8 ± 17.9 years) with asthma treated with Bufomix Easyhaler® for at least 14 days before enrolment. Asthma control was assessed during three subsequent visits with 8-12-week intervals on the basis of the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Adherence was assessed with the Medication Adherence Questionnaire. In addition, patient satisfaction with Bufomix Easyhaler® was scored, and adverse drug reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma or total control of asthma (ACT score 20-25 points) increased from 46.6% at the first visit to 90.8% at the third visit (p < 0.001). In addition, the percentage of patients with poor control of asthma (ACT score less than 15 points) decreased from 14.9% to 1.2% (p < 0.001). The adherence rate increased from 88% at the first visit to 95.3% at the third visit. Patient satisfaction with the use of this dry powder inhaler increased with the duration of its use. Only one adverse drug reaction was reported.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained confirm the effectiveness of Bufomix Easyhaler® in the treatment of asthma in outpatient adults in daily clinical practice.

FUNDING

Orion Corporation.

Fixed-Dose combination of the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist therapy in adults with persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a respiratory condition characterized by airway inflammation, airflow obstruction, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The standard treatment of asthma comprises inhaled corticosteroid and beta2-agonist. Inhaled short-acting-beta2-agonists have been used as rescue medication for exacerbation. However, long-acting-beta2-agonists (LABA) used as monotherapy for asthma had been reported for having a safety concern. Consequently, it had been recommended as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in moderate to severe persistent asthma. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ICS and LABA has been approved since the year 2000. Evidences revealed using the combination of these medications is more effective in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

The rational and phase III onward randomized-controlled studies were reviewed. Sources of evidences were from studies published in Medline until November 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

There are six FDC inhaler regimens approved worldwide. The significant synergistic effects of ICS and LABA in one device are well evidenced. A FDC reduces the daily dosage of ICS and asthma exacerbation. It is safe to use regularly as controller. The efficacy of each individual combination on asthma treatment is generally similar. Clinical experience, ease of use, cost and side effects of medication would guide the clinician's preferences.

Effect of once-daily indacaterol maleate/mometasone furoate on exacerbation risk in adolescent and adult asthma: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of QMF149, a once-daily, fixed-dose combination of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) indacaterol maleate and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) mometasone furoate (MF) for the treatment of persistent asthma. The hypothesis was that QMF149 would not increase the risk of serious asthma exacerbations.

SETTING

174 research centres in nine countries.

PARTICIPANTS

1519 adolescents and adults with persistent asthma who were treated or qualified for treatment with combination LABA/ICS were randomised, and 1508 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to QMF149 (indacaterol maleate 500 µg/MF 400 µg) or MF (400 µg) once daily via Twisthaler inhalation device in a double-blind, parallel-group study for 6-21 months.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was time to first serious asthma exacerbation (resulting in hospitalisation, intubation or death). The key secondary end point was annual rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids.

RESULTS

Treatment with QMF149 resulted in no significant difference in time to first serious exacerbation compared to MF (2 (0.3%) vs 6 events (0.8%); difference -0.52 percentage point; 95% CI -1.25 to 0.21, p=0.160, HR=0.31; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.54, p=0.151). QMF149 significantly reduced the annual rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio=0.71; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.90, p=0.005). Proportions of patients experiencing adverse events were similar across groups (74.0% in the QMF149 group and 73.4% in the MF group). Serious adverse events occurred in 4% and 5.8% of patients in the QMF149 and MF groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed in the primary outcome of time to first serious asthma exacerbation in patients treated with QMF149 compared with patients treated with MF. Long-term treatment with QMF149 once daily had a favourable safety/efficacy profile in adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00941798.

[A new fixed dose combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler for the treatment of asthma]

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting beta-2 agonist is indicated for the regular treatment of persistent moderate-to-severe asthmatics whose asthma is not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and the occasional use of a short acting beta-2 agonist. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the rationale of combining formoterol and fluticasone and to analyze the clinical data concerning a new fixed combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler with a dose counter (Flutiform(®)) that was approved for the treatment of asthma in France in 2013. The clinical studies provide evidence that combined fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone (Flixotide(®)) and formoterol (Foradil(®)) administered concurrently. The combination of fluticasone/formoterol gave a more rapid bronchodilatation than the combination fluticasone/salmeterol. As a whole, the combination of fluticasone/formoterol had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to the combinations of either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol.

Orally inhaled fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: not simple math

Over the past decade, orally inhaled fixed-dose combination products (FDCs) have emerged as an important therapeutic class for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the conceptual simplicity of inhaled FDCs belies both the complexity of their development, and the profound advantages they offer patients. The benefits of combining agents are not merely additive, and range from increased compliance via simple convenience to complex receptor-level synergies. Similarly, though, the development challenges often exceed the sum of their parts. FDC formulation and analytical method development is generally more complex than for two monotherapy products. Likewise, FDC clinical programs can easily eclipse those of their monotherapy peers and their inherent complexity is often furthered by the diverse regulatory requirements for worldwide approval. As such, the proposition of developing an orally inhaled FDC for global registration often represents a significant increase in both the potential rewards and assumed risks of drug development.

A comparison of long-term anti-inflammatory effect of two ICS/LABA combination inhalers; fix-dosed maintenance therapy with budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone

BACKGROUND

The clinical usefulness of fixed-dose maintenance therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) and budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FM) has been established, though evidence of the long-term anti-inflammatory effects of these 2 inhalers are limited.

METHODS

Patients with moderate persistent adult asthma who had received SFC 50/250μg bid with well-control status were recruited. After switching to 8-week therapy with fixed-dose BUD/FM 4 puffs (640/18μg) (phase-1), patients chose either SFC or BUD/FM. FeNO and ACT score were evaluated every 8 weeks until the end of the 52-week treatment period for both treatment groups (phase-2).

RESULTS

In total, 103 patients were examined: BUD/FM was chosen by 34 patients (BUD/FM group), while SFC was chosen by 23 (SFC group). Thirty-six received SFC consistently from the beginning of the study (control). Patients in the BUD/FM and SFC groups showed significant improvements in ACT scores and FeNO levels in phase-1; these beneficial effects persisted for 52 weeks in the BUD/FM group. On the other hand, in the SFC group, although the FeNO level decreased from 54.3 ± 26.4 ppb to 41.9 ± 18.3 ppb in phase-1, it increased to 54.5 ± 26.2 ppb, a level similar to the baseline prior to the beginning of BUD/FM therapy, at 8 weeks in phase-2, and remained at 50-odd ppb thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that maintenance therapy with fixed-dose BUD/FM is a useful treatment option exerting an airway anti-inflammatory effect for a period as long as 1 year, even for asthmatics who could not accomplish total control with SFC.

Comparison of the effects of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment on airway inflammation and small airway impairment in patients who need to step-up from inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy

BACKGROUND

If asthma patients fail to achieve symptom control using a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone, adding a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) is the preferred treatment. We aimed to compare the effect of two widely available ICS/LABA combinations in these patients in real-life conditions: budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM; Symbicort(®)) for maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) and a fixed dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SM).

METHODS

Inadequately controlled asthma patients treated with a medium dose of ICS alone, with an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score >0.75 and using a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) 2-6 occasions/week, were enrolled. Patients were randomized into two groups and treated with two inhalation twice-daily BUD/FM 160/4.5 μg plus as-needed BUD/FM (SMART group, n = 15) or one inhalation twice-daily FP/SM 250/50 μg plus as-needed procaterol (FP/SM group, n = 15) for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvement in airway inflammation, pulmonary functions and symptoms from baseline. The SMART group showed significant improvement in the fraction of nitric oxide, ACQ score, rescue medication use and small airway parameter R5-R20 measured by impulse oscillometry compared with the FP/SM group.

CONCLUSION

For stepping up treatment from ICS alone to an ICS/LABA combination, SMART is preferable for controlling asthma symptoms by suppressing airway inflammation and improving small airway impairment compared with a fixed dose of FP/SM. It may be achieved by the property of BUD/FM itself and as-needed use, but the degree of each contribution must be investigated further.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Real-life effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma patients across Asia: SMARTASIA study

BACKGROUND

The use of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for both maintenance and reliever therapy is a recommended option for treatment of persistent asthma not responding well to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre open-label study on patients whose asthma condition remained inadequately controlled by various asthma treatments other than budesonide/formoterol. After a 2-week run-in period, eligible patients underwent a 12-week treatment period with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort SMART(®), 160/4.5 μg) twice daily plus as needed. Patient's asthma control and quality of life were assessed using the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) and the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 862 eligible asthma patients who have had asthma for a mean duration of 10.73 ± 12.03 years entered a 12-week treatment with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. During treatment, ACQ-5 score improved significantly by 0.58 ± 0.93 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.64, P < 0.0001) from the baseline level of 1.62 ± 1.00. AQLQ(S) score improved by 0.70 ± 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.76, P < 0.0001) from baseline. Asthma symptom score was also reduced significantly (P < 0.0001); between run-in and treatment periods, night- and day-time symptom scores were reduced by 0.32 ± 0.54 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.35) and 0.30 ± 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.34), respectively. The percentage of nights with awakenings due to asthma symptoms was reduced by 11.09 ± 26.13% (95% CI, 9.34 to 12.85%), while the percentage of asthma-control and symptom-free days increased by 20.90 ± 34.40% (95% CI, 18.59 to 23.21%) and 23.89 ± 34.62% (95% CI, 21.56 to 26.21%), respectively (P < 0.0001). Together with the improvement in asthma control, the number of night- and day-time inhalations of as-needed reliever medication decreased by 0.30 ± 0.82 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.35) inhalations and 0.30 ± 0.97 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.36) inhalations, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

During treatment of inadequately controlled asthmatic patients with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, significant improvement in patients' asthma control and reductions in asthma symptoms and as-needed medication use was observed. Patients' quality of life was improved and the treatment was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov: (NCT00939341).

Risk factors of local oropharyngeal and laryngeal adverse effects from use of single inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists

BACKGROUND

Single inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists (ICS/LABA) are clinically effective and safe. However, if local oropharyngeal and laryngeal adverse effects (LOLAE) appear, adherence to the use of ICS is impaired. To minimize the development of adverse effects, it is essential to identify the underlying risk factors.

METHODS

The study included 481 asthmatic patients who were prescribed ICS/LABA for the first time in their life between January and September of 2010. Patients ranged in age from 14 to 86 years old and consisted of 281 never smokers and 200 smokers. All data were collected retrospectively by respirologists.

RESULTS

Seventy-three out of 481 patients suffered from one or more adverse effects, with 54 of these exhibiting LOLAE. Patients with LOLAE (51.4 ± 16.2 yrs) were significantly older than those without LOLAE (43.7 ± 15.9 yrs) (p = 0.0011) and were also prescribed a significantly higher dose of ICS. The pack-years of patients with LOLAE (2.1 ± 4.9) were significantly lower than those without LOLAE (6.0 ± 13.0) (p = 0.0087). The type of administered ICS was also significantly associated with a risk of developing LOLAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey indicated that a greater age, a higher dose of ICS, and the type of ICS were potential risk factors of LOLAE. The identified factors should be considered in a clinical setting in order to prevent the development of LOLAE and provide optimal treatment to patients.

Inhalation of budesonide/formoterol increases diaphragm muscle contractility

BACKGROUND

Although budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) is used clinically as a steroid/β(2)-agonist single inhaler, it has not yet been clarified whether BUD/FORM has inotropic effects on diaphragm muscles after inhalation.

METHODS

We examined the effects of BUD/FORM inhalation, endotoxin injection, and BUD/FORM inhalation plus endotoxin injection on diaphragm contractile properties and nitric oxide (NO) production. After these three treatments, the diaphragm muscle was dissected, and its contractile properties were measured. Histochemistry for the reduced form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate diaphorase was performed for each muscle to assess NO production.

RESULTS

The force-frequency curves showed an upward shift 1 h after inhalation (p < 0.05) in the BUD/FORM inhalation only group. The force-frequency curves showed a downward shift 4 h after injection (p < 0.001) in the endotoxin injection groups. In the BUD/FORM inhalation plus endotoxin injection groups, a downward shift in the force-frequency curves at 4 h after endotoxin injection was prevented. NO production was inhibited in the BUD/FORM inhalation plus endotoxin injection group compared with that of the endotoxin injection only groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BUD/FORM inhalation has an inotropic effect on diaphragm muscle, protects diaphragm muscle deterioration after endotoxin injection, and inhibits NO production. Increments in muscle contractility with BUD/FORM inhalation are induced through a synergistic effect of an anti-inflammatory agent and β(2)-agonist.

Effects of budesonide/formoterol combination therapy versus budesonide alone on airway dimensions in asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β(2)-agonists results in improved asthma symptom control compared with the use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. However, the effects of combination therapy on structural changes and inflammation of the airways are still unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of budesonide/formoterol with those of budesonide alone on airway dimensions and inflammation in individuals with asthma.

METHODS

Fifty asthmatic patients were randomized to treatment with budesonide/formoterol (200/6 µg, two inhalations bd) or budesonide (200 µg, two inhalations bd) for 24 weeks. Airway dimensions were assessed using a validated computed tomography technique, and airway wall area (WA) corrected for body surface area (BSA), percentage WA (WA%), wall thickness/Ösquare root BSA, and luminal area (Ai)/BSA at the right apical segmental bronchus, were measured. The percentage of eosinophils in induced sputum, pulmonary function, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaires (AQLQ) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There were significantly greater decreases in WA/BSA (P < 0.05), WA% (P < 0.001) and wall thickness/square root BSA (P < 0.05), and increases in Ai/BSA (P < 0.05), in subjects treated with budesonide/formoterol compared with those treated with budesonide. The reduction in sputum eosinophils and increase in per cent of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1) %) were greater for subjects treated with budesonide/formoterol compared with those treated with budesonide alone. In the budesonide/formoterol group, the changes in WA% were significantly correlated with changes in sputum eosinophils and FEV(1%) (r = 0.84 and r = 0.64, respectively). There were improvements in the AQLQ scores after treatment with budesonide/formoterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol combination therapy is more effective than budesonide alone for reducing airway wall thickness and inflammation in individuals with asthma.

Co-deposition of a triple therapy drug formulation for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using solution-based pressurised metered dose inhalers

OBJECTIVES

The formulation of multi-drug pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) opens up exciting therapeutic opportunities for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We have investigated the formulation of a solution-based triple therapy pMDI containing ipratropium, formoterol, budesonide and ethanol as co-solvent.

METHODS

This system was characterised for in-vitro performance and compared with marketed pMDIs (Atrovent and Symbicort).

KEY FINDINGS

No significant difference was found in the stage deposition of each drug from the triple therapy formulation, suggesting that the droplets contained a fixed ratio of the three components used. Stage deposition of formoterol and budesonide from the suspension-based marketed Symbicort were significantly different, suggesting that the two drugs were deposited as separate entities. Calculation of the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) of each formulation suggested Atrovent (ipratropium, MMAD = 0.9 ± 0.0 µm) to have a small particle size, similar to the triple therapy formulation. Atrovent, like the triple therapy formulation was solution based and it contained ethanol as a co-solvent (triple therapy formulation, MMAD = 1.3 ± 0.0 µm).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility of formulating a solution-based pMDI containing a triple therapy with identical deposition pattern for the treatment of several respiratory diseases where multi-drug cell targeting is required.

Asthma control in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist fixed combinations. A real-life study comparing dry powder inhalers and a pressurized metered dose inhaler extrafine formulation

Background

Although patients have more problems using metered dose inhalers, clinical comparisons suggest they provide similar control to dry powder inhalers. Using real-life situations this study was designed to evaluate asthma control in outpatients with moderate to severe persistent asthma and to compare efficacy of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA).

Methods

This real-life study had a cross-sectional design. Patients using fixed combinations of ICS and LABA had their asthma control and spirometry assessed during regular visits.

Results

111 patients were analyzed: 53 (47.7%) received maintenance therapy of extrafine beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP/F) pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), 25 (22.5%) fluticasone-salmeterol (FP/S) dry powder inhaler (DPI), and 33 (29.7%) budesonide-formoterol (BUD/F) DPI. Severity of asthma at time of diagnosis, assessed by the treating physician, was comparable among groups. Asthma control was achieved by 45.9% of patients; 38.7% were partially controlled and 15.3% were uncontrolled. In the extrafine BDF/F group, asthma control total score, daytime symptom score and rescue medication use score were significantly better than those using fixed DPI combinations (5.8 ± 6.2 vs. 8.5 ± 6.8; 1.4 ± 1.8 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1; 1.8 ± 2.2 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.0160; p = 0.012 and p = 0.025, respectively) and the mean daily ICS dose were significantly lower.

Conclusions

pMDI extrafine BDP/F combination demonstrated better asthma control compared to DPIs formulated with larger particles. This could be due to the improved lung deposition of the dose or less reliance on the optimal inhalation technique or both.

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

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

Comparison of budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler with fluticasone/salmeterol Diskus for treatment effects on small airway impairment and airway inflammation in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

A course of combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β(2) agonist (LABA) for asthma can improve lung function, asthma symptoms and reduce exacerbations. Because both medicinal substance and inhalation devices are associated with clinical efficacy, each ICS/LABA combination may have different features. This study aimed to compare the effects of two widely available formulations, budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) delivered by a Turbuhaler(®), and fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SM) delivered by a Diskus(®), on small airway function and airway inflammation.

METHODS

Asthmatic patients (n = 40) treated twice daily with FP/SM 250/50 μg with forced expiratory volume in 1 s values controlled above 80% of the predicted normal but with suspected persistent airway inflammation and small airway impairment were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups, receiving either twice daily BUD/FM 320/9 μg or FP/SM 250/50 μg, and treatment efficacy was compared after 4 weeks. Outcomes included impulse oscillometry (IOS), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), spirometry and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores.

RESULTS

Patients in the BUD/FM group showed significant improvements in their IOS and spirometry parameters of small airway function, FeNO values and ACQ scores, compared with the FP/SM group. There were good correlations between IOS parameters, FeNO and ACQ score changes over the course of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

BUD/FM twice daily significantly improved small airway impairment and airway inflammation in asthmatic patients, leading to a reduction in asthma symptoms and achievement of good asthma control. In addition, improvement of small airway function may improve airway inflammation and/or lead to better controlled asthma.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide and formoterol are available in a combined inhaler that offers therapeutic advantages in the treatment of asthma. The rapid onset of bronchodilation seen with formoterol means that budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and relief therapy. This approach has been shown to reduce exacerbations and overcome the problem of patients who overuse short-acting &#x03B2;-agonists at the expense of inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns regarding safety of long-acting &#x03B2;-agonists have not been confirmed in studies of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler, and we believe the benefits of this medication clearly outweigh any possible small increased risk.

Comparison of heat-sensitive moxibustion versus fluticasone/salmeterol (seretide) combination in the treatment of chronic persistent asthma: design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a major health problem and has significant mortality around the world. Although the symptoms can be controlled by drug treatment in most patients, effective low-risk, non-drug strategies could constitute a significant advance in asthma management. An increasing number of patients with asthma are attracted by acupuncture and moxibustion. Therefore, it is of importance that scientific evidence about the efficacy of this type of therapy is regarded. Our past researches suggested heat-sensitive moxibustion might be effective in treatment of asthma. Our objective is to investigate the effectiveness of heat-sensitive moxibustion compared with conventional drug treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is comprised of a multi-centre (12 centers in China), randomized, controlled trial with two parallel arms (A: heat-sensitive moxibustion; B: conventional drug). Group A selects heat- sensitive acupoints from the rectangle region which consist of two outer lateral lines of dorsal Bladder Meridian of Foot-Taiyang, and two horizontal lines of BL13(Fei Shu) and BL17 (Ge Shu);6 inch outer the first and second rib gap of anterior chest. Group B treats with fluticasone/salmeterol (seretide). The outcome measures will be assessed over a 3-month period before each clinic visit at days 15, 30, 60, and 90. Follow-up visit will be at 3, 6 months after the last treatment session. Adverse event information will be collected at each clinic visit.

DISCUSSION

This trial will utilize high quality trial methodologies in accordance with CONSORT guidelines. It may provide evidence for the effectiveness of heat-sensitive moxibustion as a treatment for chronic moderate persistent asthma. Moreover, the result may propose a new type moxibustion to control asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at Chinese Clinical Trials Registry: ChiCTR-TRC-09000599.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide/formoterol is a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist available as a dry-powder inhaler for the indication of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in various countries outside of the USA and as a pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the USA for the indication of asthma. Clinical studies have shown that budesonide/formoterol is significantly more effective than an equivalent or higher dose of budesonide or fluticasone propionate alone in patients with moderate-to-severe disease, and at least as effective as its two components administered via separate inhalers in asthmatics with predominantly moderate to severe persistent disease. Budesonide/formoterol is effective when administered both once or twice daily. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol has been shown to provide equivalent or better asthma control with a significantly lower amount of study drug use compared with fixed dosing. The rapid onset of action of budesonide/formoterol, predominantly due to formoterol, as well as its favorable dose-response, has prompted budesonide/formoterol to be used as both a maintenance and reliever medication, referred to as the Symbicort maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) dosing regimen in several countries. Use of this approach has resulted in studies evaluating SMART, demonstrating significantly lower rates of exacerbations and reliever medication use compared with fixed-dosing regimens in asthma.

Treatment of persistent asthma with Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol): an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler

OBJECTIVE

Budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol (Symbicort AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination administered twice daily via one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of persistent asthma in patients >or=12 years of age whose asthma cannot be controlled by an ICS alone. The objective was to review efficacy, safety, and pharmacogenetic data on budesonide/formoterol pMDI in the treatment of persistent asthma.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed and respiratory meeting databases to identify asthma studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Studies involving traditional and patient-reported outcomes, safety, tolerability, or pharmacogenetics were included.

RESULTS

In two 12-week pivotal trials in adolescents and adults, treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg) twice daily for moderate to severe persistent asthma or 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg) twice daily for mild to moderate persistent asthma, demonstrated greater efficacy and similar tolerability compared with placebo and the same nominal dose of its monocomponents. Comparisons with formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) for predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) and with budesonide pMDI for 12-hour mean postdose FEV(1) demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory contributions of budesonide and formoterol, respectively. Evaluations of patient-reported outcomes, including asthma-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction, further supported the clinical benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. In a 52-week tolerability study of patients aged >or=12 years, budesonide/formoterol pMDI was delivered at up to double the maximum dose (640/18 microg twice daily) and demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of budesonide (640 microg twice daily), with no unexpected pattern of abnormalities. Additional studies reported that budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 microg twice daily and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 microg twice daily have similar efficacy and tolerability, with significantly more patients achieving >or=15% improvement in FEV(1) within 15 minutes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with fluticasone/salmeterol DPI. Moreover, inheritance of the Gly16Arg polymorphism of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor does not appear to affect clinical outcomes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol pMDI administered twice daily is effective and generally well tolerated in patients whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

Use and safety of long-acting β2-agonists for pediatric asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as the preferred add-on therapy for adults and children over 5 years of age when asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone. It has been suggested that LABA use may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, this view is controversial since study findings have been inconsistent. While the safety profile of LABA monotherapy has been questioned, the value of concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to eliminate possible risks remains unproven. There is a paucity of efficacy and safety data for LABA use in children, and existing evidence is not sufficiently convincing to demonstrate a clear position for LABAs in the management of childhood asthma. The main aims of this article are to place LABAs in context in the management of childhood asthma and evaluate the current evidence for safety and efficacy.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00272753

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of formoterol in patients with asthma: combined analysis of data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist that regular long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) therapy may increase the risk of serious asthma-related events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risks of formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment by using a large asthma database.

METHODS

This analysis included all blind, parallel-arm, randomized, active-controlled and/or placebo-controlled AstraZeneca-sponsored asthma studies with formoterol-containing and non-LABA comparator arms. Serious adverse events were assessed for inclusion in all-cause death, asthma-related death, asthma-related intubation, and asthma-related hospitalization categories by using blind adjudication. Data were combined across trials; relative risk (RR) was assessed by using Mantel-Haenszel methods.

RESULTS

Data were from 13,542 formoterol-randomized and 9968 non-LABA patients 4 years or older (42 trials), of whom 93% and 89%, respectively, received inhaled corticosteroid as part of randomized treatment or allowed medication. Incidence of all-cause death was low (n=3 and n=4, respectively), with numerically lower all-cause deaths/1000 patient-treatment years in the formoterol-treated group (0.53) versus the non-LABA group (0.82) (RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-2.92). No asthma-related deaths and 1 asthma-related intubation (formoterol-treated group) occurred. Asthma-related hospitalizations/1000 patient-treatment years were lower numerically in the formoterol-treated group (12.1) versus the non-LABA group (16.4) (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-1.01), with fewer study discontinuations in the formoterol-treated group (12.7% vs 15.4%, respectively; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85). Relative to non-LABA, increasing daily formoterol dose (>/=4.5, 9, 18, 36 mug) did not increase the rate or incidence of asthma-related hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of increased risk of asthma-related hospitalization, no asthma-related deaths, and a low incidence of all-cause death and asthma-related intubation were seen with formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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