Randomised trial of once-daily vilanterol in children with asthma on inhaled corticosteroid therapy

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Exposure of Once-Daily Indacaterol Acetate in Pediatric Asthma: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Dose-Finding Study

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol acetate (IND), a long-acting β2-agonist in combination with mometasone furoate (MF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), is being explored as a once-daily (od) treatment for asthma in children. This study examined the efficacy, safety, and systemic exposure of IND 75 µg and IND 150 µg in children with persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this Phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, pediatric patients (aged ≥ 6 to < 12 years) with persistent asthma were randomized (1:1) to receive either IND 75 µg od or IND 150 µg od via Breezhaler® in combination with ICS background therapy. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after two weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 80 patients received IND 75 µg (n = 39) or IND 150 µg (n = 41). The study met its primary endpoint; both doses demonstrated improvements in pre-dose trough FEV1 from baseline to Day 14 (mean change [Δ]: 212 mL, IND 75 µg; 171 mL, IND 150 µg). The secondary spirometry parameters (post-dose FEV1 after 1-h, post-dose forced vital capacity; morning and evening peak expiratory flow) also improved. Overall, 36.1% in IND 75 μg group and 25% patients in IND 150 μg group achieved a decrease from baseline in Pediatric Interviewer-administered Asthma Control Questionnaire score of ≥ 0.5 units. A dose-dependent increase in plasma IND concentration was noted between the two groups. Both IND doses demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily IND 75 μg and IND 150 μg via Breezhaler® in combination with background ICS therapy provided substantial bronchodilation in children with asthma and were well tolerated. Taken together, these clinical and systemic exposure findings support IND 75 μg as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in combination with MF in pediatric asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02892019; 08-Sep-2016).

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

Ultra-LABAs for the treatment of asthma

The term ultra-LABA indicates once-daily β2-AR agonists (abediterol, indacaterol, olodaterol and vilanterol) that are single enantiomers of the (R)-configuration. All have a near full-agonist profile at human β2-AR. They can be prescribed in asthmatics only when associated with an with ICS, although further confirmations need to clarify what really these agents add if used in association to ICS and in what asthmatic patients this association may have more value. They are also under development in triple inhalers that include an ultra-LABA, a LAMA and an ICS. The once-daily posology might increase adherence in long-term treatment of asthma but superiority to twice-daily LABAs has not yet been fully demonstrated. In any case, still no ultra-LABA can be recommended as preferred.

Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Estimate Meaningful Change Thresholds for Key Endpoints in Pediatric Asthma Trials

INTRODUCTION

Diary-derived symptom score and rescue medication use endpoints, such as symptom-free days (SFDs) and rescue medication-free days (RFD), are frequently used as clinical trial endpoints. Estimates of meaningful change for SFDs and RFDs have not been generated in pediatric populations. This research aimed to generate evidence supporting estimates of the individual within-patient changes that constitute an important or meaningful change in SFDs, RFDs, and updated estimates on the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) in pediatric asthma populations aged 5-11 years.

METHODS

Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with children (ages 8-11 years) who had asthma and parents/caregivers of children (4-11 years) with asthma. Before the interview (4-9 days) participants were asked to complete a morning and evening diary.

RESULTS

On average, parent/caregiver estimates of the difference in SFDs between a "very bad" and a "little bad" week for their children's asthma were largely concordant with the values reported by their children (differences of 1.8 and 1.4 SFDs, respectively). Both parents/caregivers and children were able to articulate what a meaningful level of change would be on the C-ACT at the item level. This qualitative study generated C-ACT item-level meaningful change estimates in the region of 1-3 category change, which potentially suggests that, if scaled up to represent C-ACT total score, this would lead to change estimates of 7-15 points.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both children with asthma and parents/caregivers can quantitatively estimate and to some extent qualitatively articulate meaningful change in SFDs and RFDs.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate for the once-daily treatment of asthma: design, development and place in therapy

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plays a key role in the treatment of asthmatic patients, and international guidelines have designated ICSs as an early maintenance therapy in controlling asthma symptoms. When asthmatic patients remain symptomatic on ICSs, one common option is to add a long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) to the maintenance treatment. Fixed combination inhalers that contain both an ICS and a LABA have been popular for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Historically, these inhalers have been dosed twice daily. However, currently, there is a once-daily combination therapy with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) and the LABA vilanterol trifenatate (VI) with indications for use in both COPD and asthma. This dry powder inhaler (DPI) comes in two doses of FF (100 or 200 μg) both combined with VI (25 μg). This article reviews the clinical trial data for FF, VI and FF/VI combination inhalers and documents the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled maintenance therapy by DPI in asthmatic patients.

Vilanterol and fluticasone furoate for asthma

BACKGROUND

Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta₂-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta₂ agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.