Repeated dose budesonide/formoterol compared to salbutamol in adult asthma: a randomised crossover trial

The Effect of Inhaled Beta-2 Agonists on Heart Rate in Patients With Asthma: Sensor-Based Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Beta-2 agonists play an important role in the management of asthma. Inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABAs) and short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) cause bronchodilation by stimulating adrenoceptors. These receptors are also present in cardiac cells and, as a side effect, could also be stimulated by inhaled beta-2 agonists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the effect of beta-2 agonists on heart rate (HR).

METHODS

The data were retrieved from an observational study, the myAirCoach Quantification Campaign. Beta-2 agonist use was registered by self-reported monthly questionnaires and by smart inhalers. HR was monitored continuously with the Fitbit Charge HR tracker (Fitbit Inc). Patients (aged 18 years and older) were recruited if they had uncontrolled asthma and used inhalation medication. Our primary outcome was the difference in HR between LABA and non-LABA users. Secondary outcomes were the difference in HR on days SABAs were used compared to days SABAs were not used and an assessment of the timing of inhaler use during the day.

RESULTS

Patients using LABA did not have a clinically relevant higher HR (average 0.8 beats per minute difference) during the day. Around the moment of SABA inhalation itself, the HR does increase steeply, and it takes 138 minutes before it returns to the normal range.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that LABAs do not have a clinically relevant effect on HR. SABAs are instead associated with a short-term HR increase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02774772; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02774772.

The Role of ICS-Containing Rescue Therapy Versus SABA Alone in Asthma Management Today

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) monotherapy should no longer be prescribed, and that as-needed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol is the preferred reliever therapy in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. These recommendations are based on the risks of SABA monotherapy, the evidence that ICS-formoterol reliever therapy markedly decreases the occurrence of severe asthma exacerbations compared with SABA reliever therapy alone, and because ICS-formoterol reliever therapy has a favorable risk/benefit profile compared with maintenance ICS plus SABA reliever therapy. Data supporting the use of combination ICS-albuterol reliever therapy in mild asthma are more limited, but there are studies that inform its use in this population. In this review, we compare, using a pros and cons format, the (1) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-formoterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (2) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-albuterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (3) immediate bronchodilator effects of ICS-formoterol versus SABA alone, and (4) clinical and regulatory factors that may inform reliever therapy prescription decisions. By presenting the evidence of these reliever inhaler options, we hope to inform the reader while also calling for necessary future effectiveness and implementation research.

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

Single dose of budesonide/formoterol turbuhaler compared to salbutamol pMDI for speed of bronchodilator onset in asthma: a randomised cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare bronchodilator response after to salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in adults with stable asthma.

METHODS

A double-blind, cross-over, single-centre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Adults with stable asthma were randomised to different orders of two treatment regimens: two actuations of placebo via MDI and one actuation of budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg via turbuhaler; and one actuation of placebo turbuhaler and two actuations of salbutamol 100 µg via MDI. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 2 min. Secondary outcome measures included FEV1, mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score and visual analogue score for breathlessness over 30 min.

RESULTS

Forty-nine of 50 potential participants were randomised. One participant withdrew following the first intervention visit and another could not be randomised due to COVID-19 restrictions. The mean (SD) change from baseline FEV1 2 min after treatment administration for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol was 0.08 (0.14) L, n=49, and 0.17 (0.18) L, n=48, respectively, mean (95% CI) paired difference of -0.097 L (-0.147 to -0.047), p=0.07, against a non-inferiority bound of -0.06 L. In the secondary analysis, FEV1 over 30 min was lower for budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol, difference (95% CI): -0.10 (-0.12 to -0.08) L, p<0.001. There were no differences in Visual Analogue Scale score or mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score between treatments.

CONCLUSION

The results do not support the primary hypothesis of non-inferiority at the boundary of -0.06 L for the difference between budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg compared with salbutamol 200 µg for FEV1 at 2 min, and could be consistent with inferiority with a p value of 0.07. For the secondary analysis of FEV1 measurements over time, the FEV1 was higher with salbutamol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12619001387112).