Early achievement and maintenance of stable asthma control using initially higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids as part of combination therapy: an open-label pilot study

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma control: acute, dose-related effects and real-life effectiveness

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (BFMRT) in asthma control is well documented in large randomized controlled trials. However, the acute reliever effects and real-life effectiveness are seldom reported.

METHODS

This multicenter trial enrolled steroid-naïve, symptomatic asthmatics with baseline exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) of ≥ 40 ppb. There were 120 eligible patients who were randomized and received a dose of inhaled budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg (lower dose budesonide/formoterol), 640/18 μg (higher dose budesonide/formoterol (HDBF)), or terbutaline (TERB) 1 mg. Inflammatory cells and mediators in induced sputum, eNO and lung function were measured at baseline and 6 h (acute phase). Subsequently, all patients used BFMRT as real-life practice for 24 weeks (maintenance phase).

RESULTS

In the acute phase, the degree of post-treatment reduction in total eosinophil counts, interleukin-8 and matrix metalloproteinase-9 in induced sputum were significantly greater in group HDBF (vs TERB, P < 0.05). The increase in forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1 ) in group HDBF was significantly higher (vs LDBF and TERB, P < 0.05) 3 h after dosing. In the maintenance phase, significant improvement of asthma control (presented by eNO, FEV1 and a five-item asthma control questionnaire) in real-life settings was observed at 4 weeks and sustained to the end of study. The rate of patients who followed scheduled visits declined over time (87% at week 4 and 42% at week 24).

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol as reliever exerts acute, dose-related anti-inflammatory effects and FEV1 improvement in symptomatic asthmatics. BFMRT is effective in asthma control. However, the decrease in long-term follow-up rate remains an issue to overcome in real-life settings.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.