Systematic review and meta-analysis of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler

Maternal asthma during pregnancy and the likelihood of neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is the most common chronic disease during pregnancy. Maternal asthma has been associated with a multitude of unwanted pregnancy outcomes, in some studies also with neurodevelopmental disorders. Here we investigated associations between maternal asthma and neurodevelopmental disorders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied a retrospective population-based cohort of 1 271 439 mother-child pairs from singleton live births in Finland between the years 1996-2018. We used multiple high-cover registers for data collection. Adjusted unconditional Cox regression models were used to investigate associations between maternal asthma, asthma medication used during pregnancy, and offspring's neurodevelopmental disorder diagnoses.

RESULTS

We identified 106 163 mother-child pairs affected by maternal asthma. We found that maternal asthma was associated with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders, but the differences in absolute prevalence between the control and exposure groups were small. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was found in 4114 (3.9%) offspring with maternal asthma and in 32 122 (3.0%) controls (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.49; 95% CI 1.44-1.54); autism in 1617 (1.5%) offspring vs 13 701 (1.3%) controls (HR: 1.33; 95% CI 1.26-1.40); motor-developmental disorder in 1569 (1.5%) offspring vs 12 147 (1.1%) controls (HR: 1.37; 95% CI 1.30-1.45); language disorder in 3057 (2.9%) offspring vs 28 421 (2.7%) controls (HR: 1.13; 95% CI 1.08-1.17), learning disabilities in 849 (0.8%) offspring vs 6534 (0.6%) controls (HR: 1.51; 95% CI 1.41-1.62); mixed developmental disorder in 1633 (1.5%) offspring vs 14 434 (1.3%) controls (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.26); and intellectual disability in 908 (0.9%) vs 9155 (0.9%) controls (HR: 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.20). No substantial differences were found between allergic and non-allergic asthma phenotypes, and neither allergic tendency nor respiratory infection was associated with a similar likelihood of neurodevelopmental disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Maternal asthma and allergic and non-allergic phenotypes showed weak associations with the offspring's neurodevelopmental disorders. The association is concerned especially with learning disabilities, ADHD, motor development, and autism.

An evidence-based, point-of-care tool to guide completion of asthma action plans in practice

Asthma action plans (AAPs) reduce healthcare utilisation, improve quality of life and are recommended across guidelines. However, fewer than 25% of patients receive an AAP, partly due to prescribers' inability to complete “yellow zone” instructions (how to intensify therapy for acute loss of control). We sought to review best evidence to develop a practical, evidence-based tool to facilitate yellow zone guidance in adults.

We reviewed recent asthma guidelines and adult studies addressing acute loss of asthma control (January 2010 to March 2016). We developed evidence-based rules for yellow zone therapy and operational guidelines to maximise adherence and minimise errors.

We reviewed three guidelines and 11 manuscripts (2486 abstracts screened). Recommendations were comparable but some areas lacked guidance. For 15/43 asthma regimens, the commonly recommended four- to five-fold yellow zone inhaled corticosteroid dose increase was problematic due to regulatory dose limits. We identified evidence-based alternatives for 8/15 regimens. Operational guidance included increasing to a maximum of four inhalations while maintaining baseline inhaler frequency and device in the yellow zone.

We developed a practical implementation tool to facilitate AAP delivery at the point of care, addressing existing gaps and uncertainties. Our tool should be implemented as part of a multifaceted approach to augment AAP usage.

New tool brings complex evidence to the point-of-care, guiding providers on how to create the best #asthmaactionplanhttp://ow.ly/rmFu30a9neW

Management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists: a review of comparative effectiveness research

The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (ICS/LABA) is well recognized in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite differences in the pharmacological properties between two well-established ICS/LABA products (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol), data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that these two products perform similarly under RCT conditions. In contrast, a few recently reported real-world comparative effectiveness studies have suggested that there are substantial differences between ICS/LABA combination treatments in terms of clinical and healthcare outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the benefits, as well as the limitations, of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the therapeutic area of asthma and COPD. We conducted a structured literature review of the current CER studies on ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD. These articles were then used to illustrate the unique challenges of CER studies, providing a summary of study results and limitations. We focus particularly on difficult biases and confounding factors that may be introduced before, during, and after the initiation of therapy. Beyond being a review of these two ICS/LABA combination treatments, this article is intended to help those who wish to assess the quality of CER published projects in asthma and COPD, or guide investigators who wish to design new CER studies for chronic respiratory disease treatments.

Clinical utility and development of the fluticasone/formoterol combination formulation (Flutiform(®)) for the treatment of asthma

Pharmacologic treatment of asthma should be done with a stepwise approach recommended in treatment guidelines. If inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone are not adequate, ICSs in combination with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) are now established and widely used as the next step in effective controller therapy. Fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations in a single device are the preferred form of delivery and improve compliance by enabling patients to get symptom relief from the LABA while receiving the anti-inflammatory benefits of ICSs. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate is one of the newest fixed-dose combinations. It has been in use in Europe in 2012, but is still under regulatory review in the US. Fluticasone is a synthetic ICS with potent anti-inflammatory effects, while formoterol is a selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation within 5-10 minutes and a 12-hour duration of action. Fluticasone/formoterol has shown superior efficacy when compared to fluticasone or formoterol alone in multiple well-designed studies. The combination has shown comparable or "noninferior" benefits in lung function, clinical symptoms, and asthma control when compared with fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently in separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol provides similar efficacy with fluticasone/salmeterol, but with more rapid symptom relief. It has been compared directly with budesonide/formoterol with comparable results. Fluticasone/formoterol is well tolerated, with no unusual or increased safety concerns versus each individual component or other available ICS/LABA combinations. Fluticasone/formoterol is the latest entry into a relatively crowded market of branded fixed-dose preparations. Upcoming generic fixed-dose combinations and once-daily agents pose significant market challenges. In clinical practice, most practitioners consider all the currently available fixed-dose preparations to be of comparable efficacy and safety.

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy versus budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVES

The inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂ agonist formoterol fumarate (formoterol) have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform(®)). This study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the combination product budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort(®) Turbohaler(®)).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, Phase 3 study comprising a 7- (± 3) day screening, 2-4-week run-in, and 12-week treatment periods. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate to severe persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months before screening and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) 50-80% predicted and ≥ 15% reversibility following salbutamol inhalation were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg twice daily (n = 140) or budesonide/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily (n = 139).

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to budesonide/formoterol with respect to the primary endpoint, change in pre-dose FEV₁ from baseline to Week 12. The LS mean treatment difference was -0.044 L, with a lower 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of -0.2 L (95% CI: -0.130, 0.043 L; p < 0.001). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated for the secondary endpoints mean change in FEV₁ from baseline (pre-dose) to 2 hours post-dose at Week 12, and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Similar results were obtained for both treatment groups for all other secondary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety profile that was comparable with budesonide/formoterol.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated comparable efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol to budesonide/formoterol in terms of the primary endpoint, change in pre-dose FEV₁ from baseline to Week 12. This was supported by comparable results for both treatments for all secondary endpoints.

Canadian Thoracic Society 2012 guideline update: diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers, children and adults

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) published a Consensus Summary for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children six years of age and older, and adults, including an updated Asthma Management Continuum. The CTS Asthma Clinical Assembly subsequently began a formal clinical practice guideline update process, focusing, in this first iteration, on topics of controversy and⁄or gaps in the previous guidelines.

METHODS

Four clinical questions were identified as a focus for the updated guideline: the role of noninvasive measurements of airway inflammation for the adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy; the initiation of adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for uncontrolled asthma; the role of a single inhaler of an ICS⁄long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination as a reliever, and as a reliever and a controller; and the escalation of controller medication for acute loss of asthma control as part of a self-management action plan. The expert panel followed an adaptation process to identify and appraise existing guidelines on the specified topics. In addition, literature searches were performed to identify relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. The panel formally assessed and graded the evidence, and made 34 recommendations.

RESULTS

The updated guideline recommendations outline a role for inclusion of assessment of sputum eosinophils, in addition to standard measures of asthma control, to guide adjustment of controller therapy in adults with moderate to severe asthma. Appraisal of the evidence regarding which adjunct controller therapy to add to ICS and at what ICS dose to begin adjunct therapy in children and adults with poor asthma control supported the 2010 CTS Consensus Summary recommendations. New recommendations for the adjustment of controller medication within written action plans are provided. Finally, priority areas for future research were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The present clinical practice guideline is the first update of the CTS Asthma Guidelines following the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee's new guideline development process. Tools and strategies to support guideline implementation will be developed and the CTS will continue to regularly provide updates reflecting new evidence.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

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.

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol in the treatment of asthma, but has a more rapid onset of action: an open-label, randomized study

Background

The inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (formoterol) are being made available as a combination product (fluticasone/formoterol, flutiform^®) in a single aerosol inhaler. This 12-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the commercially available combination product fluticasone/salmeterol.

Methods

Patients aged ≥ 18 years (N = 202) with mild-to-moderate–severe, persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in the study. After a screening phase (4–10 days), eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive fluticasone/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol during the 12-week treatment period. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol, measured by pre-dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁), at week 12.

Results

Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary efficacy endpoint, mean pre-dose FEV₁ at week 12. The new combination was also comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for change from baseline to week 12 in pre-dose FEV₁, change from pre-dose FEV₁ at baseline to 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ at week 12 and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Importantly, fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone/salmeterol in time to onset of action throughout the duration of the study. The two treatments demonstrated similar results for various other secondary efficacy parameters, including other lung function tests, patient-reported outcomes, rescue medication use, asthma exacerbations and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Fluticasone/formoterol was well tolerated and had a good safety profile that was similar to fluticasone/salmeterol.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that fluticasone/formoterol is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol, and has a more rapid onset of action, reflecting the faster bronchodilatory effects of formoterol compared with those of salmeterol. If patients perceive the benefits of therapy with fluticasone/formoterol more rapidly than with fluticasone/salmeterol, this could have a positive impact on preference and adherence.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00476073

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy of asthma: a meta analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) for Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (Symbicort SMART) Turbuhaler with twice daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment, alone or in combination with a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA).

METHODS

Meta analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a fixed effects model. RCTs were included if the comparator with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief had the equivalent, or up to fourfold higher, maintenance dose of ICS. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe exacerbation (oral glucocorticosteroid treatment for > or = 3 days, emergency visit and/or hospitalisation).

RESULTS

Of the seven RCTs available six met the inclusion criteria. Risk of severe exacerbations was significantly reduced: 41% vs. higher-dose budesonide alone [relative risk (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.51-0.68, p < 0.00001]; 43% vs. equivalent dose budesonide/formoterol as maintenance twice daily (RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p < 0.00001); 24% vs. higher-dose salmeterol/fluticasone twice daily (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.90, p = 0.002); and 26% vs. higher-dose budesonide/formoterol twice daily (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.96, p = 0.02). Significant heterogeneity was not detected in the primary analyses (p > 0.1). Secondary analyses also demonstrated that budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduced the most severe exacerbations, resulting in less hospitalisations/accident and emergency visits than higher-dose budesonide, equivalent dose budesonide/formoterol and higher-dose salmeterol/fluticasone twice daily.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief is significantly more effective at reducing severe exacerbations than higher-dose ICS alone, or in combination with a LABA. This has important implications for treating uncontrolled patients at steps 2 and 3 of the joint BTS/SIGN guidelines.

Section 3. A discussion of flexible dosing and patient-centered therapy: highlights of the asthma summit 2009: beyond the guidelines

Despite positive clinical experience and the published clinical benefits of monotherapy with low-or medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids or combination therapy with ICS + long-acting beta-agonist to treat asthma, many patients remain suboptimally controlled. Alternative approaches are needed, and 3 options that have had some success are: 1) using the patient's level of inflammation by established biomarkers to set treatment; 2) self-management incorporating flexible dosing; and 3) using a single inhaler for rescue and maintenance therapy. Which strategy for which patient depends ultimately on the individual patient's disease burden, life-style, comorbidities, preferences, and his or her ability to self-manage the disease, including assessing symptoms and adhering with therapy.

A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany

AIMS

This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting.

METHODS

Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting beta(2)-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as >or=1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n = 1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n = 982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (-33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (-31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.

Acute care among asthma patients using budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists has become the standard therapy for many patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. Whether the differences between budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol translate into differences in treatment outcomes in a real life setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the use of healthcare services between new users of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol in a single inhaler between 2002 and 2004.

METHODS

A 12-month population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health care databases was conducted. Asthma patients 16-65 years of age using budesonide/formoterol were matched according to age and markers of asthma severity to patients using fluticasone/salmeterol. The rate of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma, hospitalizations for asthma, claims for oral corticosteroids, and visits to a respiratory specialist were compared between the two groups using Poisson regression models. The mean number of doses of short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists (SABA) per week was compared between the two groups using a linear regression model.

RESULTS

Users of budesonide/formoterol were found to be less likely to have an ED visit for asthma (adjusted RR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.96), a hospitalization for asthma (adjusted RR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.25-0.99), a claim for oral corticosteroids (adjusted RR=0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.95), and use SABA (adjusted mean difference=-1.1 dose per week; 95% CI: -1.7; -0.5) than patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol.

CONCLUSION

Our study has found that subjects initiating ICS/LABA treatment with budesonide/formoterol had better outcomes than those initiating treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol.

Differences in the pharmacodynamics of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone reflect differences in their therapeutic usefulness in asthma

Although the available inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta( 2)-agonist (LABA) combinations principally work in a similar fashion, they differ in several important ways, leading to different efficacy. The ICS/LABA combination product budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and reliever therapy, providing a fixed maintenance dose, which does not change, and replacing short-acting beta(2)-agonists as relievers thereby allowing intervention to address the underlying inflammation at the earliest sign of symptomatic worsening. This approach is not suitable for other combination products such as salmeterol/fluticasone. Here we review the pharmacological differences of budesonide/ formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone that permit the use of budesonide/formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in uncontrolled asthma vs. high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone

BACKGROUND

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART) improves asthma control compared with fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) regimens, but its efficacy has not been assessed in comparison with sustained high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide) plus a short-acting beta(2)-agonist (SABA).

METHODS

Patients (N=2309) with symptomatic asthma (aged 12 years; forced expiratory volume in 1s 50% predicted), who had experienced an asthma exacerbation in the previous year, were randomised to receive budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg two inhalations twice daily and as needed, or one inhalation of salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 microg twice daily plus terbutaline as needed, for 6 months.

RESULTS

Time to first severe exacerbation, the pre-specified primary outcome, was not significantly prolonged (risk ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.63, 1.05). Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduced total exacerbations from 31 to 25 events/100 patients/year (P=0.039), and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency room (ER) treatment from 13 to 9 events/100 patients/year (P=0.046). The treatments showed no difference in measures of lung function or asthma symptoms. The mean dose of ICS received was lower using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (792 microg/day budesonide [1238 microg/day beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent] versus 1000 microg/day fluticasone [2000 microg/day BDP equivalent] with salmeterol/fluticasone therapy; P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of uncontrolled asthma, budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations and hospitalisation/ER treatment with similar daily symptom control compared with sustained high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone plus SABA. This benefit is achieved with substantially less ICS exposure.