Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Comparison of Oral Montelukast and Intranasal Fluticasone in Patients with Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Even though the links between upper and lower airway had been of interest to clinicians since long back, it has not attracted the attention of the researchers till recent past. But the evidence is still far from conclusive, due to limited number of randomized controlled trials available on subjects with concomitant allergic rhinitis and asthma. This gap in the knowledge is even more conspicuous in Indian population.

AIM

The current study is conducted with an objective of comparing the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal Fluticasone and oral Montelukast in treatment of allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a prospective randomized, single blinded, comparative, parallel group study, with two intervention groups conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in Chennai, Southern India. One hundred and twenty patients diagnosed with concomitant diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma was randomly allocated to either Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray or oral Montelukast group.

RESULTS

Out of total 120 subjects recruited, 108 subjects were included in the final analysis. The mean reduction in asthma and rhinitis symptom scores and improvement in PEFR was higher for Group A, compared to Group B during all the follow-up periods. No statistically significant difference was observed in proportion of subjects reporting exacerbations in the current study. Both the treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Addition of intranasal Fluticasone propionate to Salmeterol plus Fluticasone is beneficial in improving asthma control, allergic rhinitis control and lung functions as compared to oral Montelukast. Thereby the use of intranasal Fluticasone Propionate in comparison to oral Montelukast in control of Allergic Rhinitis is justified as per the significant improvement in outcome measures.

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV(1) (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

[Cost effectiveness of treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone compared to montelukast for the control of persistent asthma in children]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of SFC compared with MON for the control of persistent asthma in children.

METHODS

We conducted an economic evaluation on a 12-week prospective randomized open-label parallel-group comparison of SFC versus MON in children with symptomatic asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting β2-agonists. Asthma-related medication, unscheduled physician contacts and hospitalizations were collected prospectively. The main effectiveness measure was percentage of asthma-controlled week with no short-acting β2-agonist use during the study period. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2010 unit cost prices, and only direct costs were considered, all costs are reported in US dollar. . The model was made fully probabilistic to reflect the joint uncertainty in the model parameters.

RESULTS

Over the whole treatment period, the median percentages of asthma-controlled weeks were 83.3% in the SFC group and 66.7% in the MON group (SFC-MON difference, 16.7%; 95% CI, 8.3-16.7; P < 0.001 in favor of SFC). The mean total cost of the SFC regimen was $ 2,323 compared with $ 3,230 for the MON regimen. The SFC was the dominant strategy (both more effective and less expensive) using the SFC was associated with an incremental cost per additional asthma-controlled of $ (5,467). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that, compared with MON, SFC may be cost saving from the Mexican health care perspective for the treatment of pediatric patients with asthma. SFC provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations, frequent asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of SFC because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.

A cost-of-illness study estimating the direct cost per asthma exacerbation in Turkey

OBJECTIVE

To calculate direct cost per asthma exacerbation at tertiary healthcare centers across Turkey.

METHODS

A total of 294 persistent asthma patients (mean age: 50.4±15.1 years) were included in this retrospective study upon admission with an acute asthma attack. Direct costs including drug treatment, non-drug treatment, healthcare resource utilization, emergency care, tests and consultations were calculated per asthma attack in relation to asthma attack severity.

RESULTS

The asthma attack was moderate in 57.5% of the patients. Direct cost was €214.9 (95% CI: 183.9; 245.8) per attack. The cost of severe attack €308.2 (95% CI: 258.2; 358.2)] was significantly higher than moderate [€172.6 (95% CI: 155.1; 190.2)] and mild [€128.6 (95% CI: 102.6; 154.7) attacks. It was also significantly higher for inpatient follow-up [€257.7 (95% CI: 220.4; 295)] vs. outpatient follow-up [€54.5 (95% CI: 47; 62; p<0.001)] and uncontrolled asthma [€288.2 (95% CI: 216.7; 359.6)] vs. controlled [€128.9 (95% CI: 92.1; 165.8); p<0.01] asthma.

CONCLUSION

Health policies targeting achievement of better asthma control and lower disease severity during the stable periods of the disease as well as appropriate hospitalization of patients and rational prescribing of drugs will play crucial role in the reduction of economic burden of asthma for the patient and the society.

Outcomes associated with inhaled corticosteroid use in asthma and COPD: an update

The aim of this review is to report the updates in the medical literature on the outcomes associated with inhaled corticosteroid use. This update finds that inhaled corticosteroids remain a frontline choice as controller therapy in the treatment of asthma. Adherence to medications, especially inhaled corticosteroids used as controller medications, is responsible for a decrease in hospital, emergency room and physician visits. All of these translate to reduced asthma-related healthcare costs and an increase in health-related quality of life. There is a need for further research on the role of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcomes.

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.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in comparison with placebo in previous Cochrane reviews. This increase was significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but less certain in the smaller numbers of participants in trials that included an inhaled corticosteroid in the randomised treatment regimen.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met the eligibility criteria of the review recruiting 6,163 adults and adolescents. There were seven studies (involving 5,935 adults and adolescents) comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone. All but one study administered the products as a combined inhaler, and most used formoterol 50 mcg and budesonide 400 mcg twice daily versus salmeterol 50 mcg and fluticasone 250 mcg twice daily. There were two deaths overall (one on each combination) and neither were thought to be related to asthma.There was no significant difference between treatment groups for non-fatal serious adverse events, either all-cause (Peto OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.59, I(2) = 26%) or asthma-related (Peto OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26, I(2) = 33%). Over 23 weeks the rates for all-cause serious adverse events were 2.6% on formoterol and budesonide and 2.3% on salmeterol and fluticasone, and for asthma-related serious adverse events, 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.There was one study (228 adults) comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone, but there were no deaths or hospital admissions.No studies were found in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The seven identified studies in adults did not show any significant difference in safety between formoterol and budesonide in comparison with salmeterol and fluticasone. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths. There was a single small study comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, but no serious adverse events occurred in this study. No studies were found in children.Overall there is insufficient evidence to decide whether regular formoterol and budesonide or beclomethasone have equivalent or different safety profiles from salmeterol and fluticasone.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes among omalizumab and salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy patients

BACKGROUND

Some asthma patients remain poorly controlled despite receiving care consistent with treatment guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the ability to sleep, work, and participate in leisure activities among subjects with immunoglobulin E-mediated (allergic) asthma initiating omalizumab (omalizumab start group) with subjects receiving moderate-to-high doses of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy, who continued on salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy for at least a year without adding omalizumab (salmeterol/fluticasone combination continuation group).

METHODS

Subjects completed an Internet-based screener and, if eligible, an Internet-based questionnaire. A propensity score model was utilized in the analysis. Group differences were assessed through logistic and linear regression models. Analyses were adjusted for propensity score quintile, how subjects heard about the study, and responses to retrospective single-item questions.

RESULTS

The analysis population included 86 omalizumab start group subjects and 436 salmeterol/fluticasone combination continuation subjects, recruited from June to November 2006. In the adjusted analyses, the omalizumab start group was more than twice as likely to have controlled asthma as measured by the Asthma Control Test (odds ratio, 2.62; p = 0.005). The omalizumab start group had significantly fewer sleep disturbances as measured by the Jenkins Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (least-square means difference, -1.65;p = 0.004), less activity impairment as measured by the Work Productivity Activity Impairment-Asthma Scale (least-square means difference, -13.36;p < 0.001), and less difficulty in activities as measured by the Valued Life Activities Questionnaire (least-square means difference, -0.24; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Asthma subjects who started taking omalizumab reported more improvement in asthma control, fewer sleep problems, less activity impairment, and less difficulty with activities than a similar cohort of subjects who continued taking salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Comparison of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination with FP+sustained release theophylline in moderate asthma patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product with concurrent sustained release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate in adult Japanese patients with persistent asthma.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Three hundred and eighty-three asthmatic patients receiving sustained release theophylline 200-400mg/day entered the study and were randomised to receive either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50microg/250microg+1 placebo tablet, fluticasone propionate 250microg+1 sustained release theophylline 200mg (SR-T+FP), twice daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean change morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over 8 weeks was 29.8L/min in the SFC group and 16.3L/min in the SR-T+FP group, with a treatment difference of 13.4L/min (p=0.0004). SFC improved evening PEF, FEV1, V50 and V25 at the completion of treatment to a greater extent than SR-T+FP (all p<0.05). A higher percentage of patients on SFC were symptom free (p=0.0286) and rescue free (ns) than those on SR-T+FP. There was not a statistically significant difference between treatments in symptom scores. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding that SFC was associated with greater improvements in lung function than SR-T+FP, a commonly employed treatment for asthmatic patients in Japan, suggests that SFC should be the preferred therapeutic option in these patients.

Asthma costs and utilization in a managed care organization

BACKGROUND

Medical costs and health care utilization associated with asthma and the variation by treatment are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To compare single controller inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to other asthma drug regimens on medical costs and utilization.

METHODS

Direct medical costs and utilization were captured from administrative electronic databases from continuously enrolled members with asthma age 5 years or older with drug coverage. Asthma patients were identified during 2002, categorized into 14 asthma drug groups on the basis of 2003 prescription records, and had total medical costs and utilization determined in 2004 adjusting for demographics, insurance types, asthma risk, comorbidity, and propensity scores.

RESULTS

A total of 96,631 patients met the study eligibility criteria. Patients were (mean +/- SD) age 38 +/- 23 years and were 57% female, 14% Medicare, 4% Medicaid, and had a median family income (mean +/- SD) of $64,967 +/- $29,285. Total unadjusted direct medical costs/patient/year averaged $3745 ($3298 low asthma risk vs $6797 high asthma risk; P < .001). Adjusted total and asthma drug costs were significantly lower with single controller ICS compared with single controller leukotriene modifiers, long-acting beta-agonists, and theophylline and most combination controller regimens (P < .001 for all comparisons). In addition, single controller ICS compared with single controller leukotriene modifiers and combination controllers was associated with significantly lower asthma-related utilization.

CONCLUSION

Total direct costs and asthma-related utilizations are meaningfully less in the year after being dispensed single controller ICS compared with single controller leukotriene modifiers or most combination controllers.

A Holy Grail of asthma management: toward understanding how long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists enhance the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids

There is unequivocal evidence that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) -- i.e. glucocorticoid -- and an inhaled long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) is superior to each component administered as a monotherapy alone in the clinical management of asthma. Moreover, Calverley and colleagues (Lancet 2003, 361: 449-456; N Engl J Med 2007, 356: 775-789) reporting for the 'TRial of Inhaled STeroids ANd long-acting beta(2)-agonists (TRISTAN)' and 'TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH)' international study groups also demonstrated the superior efficacy of LABA/ICS combination therapies over ICS alone in the clinical management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This finding has been independently confirmed indicating that the therapeutic benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies is not restricted to asthma and may be extended to other chronic inflammatory diseases of the airways. Despite the unquestionable benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies, there is a vast gap in our understanding of how these two drugs given together deliver superior clinical efficacy. In this article, we review the history of LABA/ICS combination therapies and critically evaluate how these two classes of drugs might interact at the biochemical level to suppress pro-inflammatory responses. Understanding the molecular basis of this fundamental clinical observation is a Holy Grail of current respiratory diseases research as it could permit the rational exploitation of this effect with the development of new 'optimized' LABA/ICS combination therapies.

Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination inhaler in chronic asthma

OBJECTIVE

To determine where in the treatment steps recommended by the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN) Asthma Guideline it is cost-effective to use salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination inhaler (SFC) (Seretide) compared with other inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing regimens (with and without a long acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)) for chronic asthma in adults and children.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Meta-analyses of percentage symptom-free days (%SFD) were used within a cost-effectiveness model. Time spent in two asthma control health states, 'symptom-free' and 'with-symptoms' was used as the measure of differential treatment effectiveness. SFC was compared with varying doses of fluticasone propionate (FP) and beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) with or without a separate salmeterol inhaler, and with the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FORM) (Symbicort). Drug costs, non-drug costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were incorporated into the analyses. Results are presented as cost per QALY ratios and uncertainty explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with an increased dose of FP in adults, SFC either 'dominates' (i.e. cheaper and more effective) FP or the cost per QALY is 6852 pounds sterling. The cost per QALYs estimated in sensitivity analyses using BDP costs range from 5679 pounds sterling to 15,997 pounds sterling. For children the cost per QALY for SFC 50 Evohaler compared with an increased dose of FP is pound 15,739 pounds sterling. SFC is similarly clinically effective in improving %SFDs compared with FP plus salmeterol delivered in separate inhalers (mean differences for each dose comparison of -3.9 (low) (with a 95% confidence interval (CI): -12.96; 5.16); 4.10 (medium) (95% CI: -3.01; 11.21); -0.4 (high) (95% CI: -8.88; 8.08)) and BUD/FORM (mean difference of 0.40 (95% CI -3.69; 4.49)) in adults, and a cheaper SFC option is available at all doses (annual cost savings range from 18 pounds sterling-427 pounds sterling per patient). SFC was similarly effective compared with FP plus salmeterol in separate inhalers in children under 12 and also resulted in annual cost savings of between 47 pounds sterling and 77 pounds sterling. A number of other comparisons were also made and the results are available as electronic supplementary data.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SFC in chronic asthma compared with multiple comparators and based on a systematic identification of relevant trials and data on %SFDs. The findings suggest that for adults and children uncontrolled on BDP 400 microg/day or equivalent it is a cost-effective option to switch to SFC (at an equivalent ICS dose) compared with increasing the dose of ICS. For adults and children aged 12 years and over who have passed this point and are uncontrolled on BDP 800 microg/day or equivalent, switching to SFC remains a cost-effective approach. Where an adult or child requires an ICS and a LABA to be co-prescribed, SFC is a cost-effective option compared with FP or BDP plus salmeterol delivered in separate inhalers. In adults who require combination therapy, SFC is a cost-effective option compared with BUD/FORM.

Combined fluticasone propionate and salmeterol reduces RSV infection more effectively than either of them alone in allergen-sensitized mice

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is the major cause of bronchiolitis in infants and is a risk factor for the development of asthma. Allergic asthmatics are more susceptible to RSV infection and viral exacerbation.

METHODS

Since the effectiveness of corticosteroids in treating RSV infection has been controversial, we tested fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol (Sal) alone versus FP plus Sal (FPS) on RSV-induced airway inflammation. Mice were sensitized and challenged with ovalbumin (OVA) and infected with RSV. Following infection they were treated with FP, Sal, or FPS intranasally and airway hyperreactivity (AHR), inflammation and RSV titers were examined.

RESULTS

The group treated with FPS showed significantly lower AHR compared to the group treated with FP or Sal alone. The group treated with FP alone showed slightly decreased (non-significant) AHR compared to controls. Treatment with FPS resulted in significant decreases in the percentage of eosinophils and neutrophils in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and in lung pathology compared to FP or Sal. FP alone decreased eosinophils but not neutrophils or lymphocytes, while Sal alone decreased eosinophils and neutrophils but not lymphocytes. FPS treatment of mice infected with RSV in the absence of allergen sensitization resulted in a 50% decrease of RSV titer in the lung and a reduction in neutrophils compared to FP or Sal.

CONCLUSION

Together, these results indicate that fluticasone in combination with salmeterol is a more effective treatment for decreasing airway hyperreactivity and inflammation than either of them alone in allergen-sensitized, RSV-infected mice.

Long-term asthma outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery in aspirin triad patients

BACKGROUND

Aspirin triad disease (ATD) is a well-known clinical entity characterized by asthma, polyposis, and aspirin intolerance. Using subjective and objective clinical data, this study examines the short- and long-term outcomes of asthma after sinus surgery in patients with ATD.

METHODS

A retrospective review and standardized survey in the setting of an academic tertiary rhinology program. Eighty-five patients with ATD who had endoscopic sinus surgery between 1986 and 1998 were identified from an internal database. Standardized surveys were sent to each patient to assess both objective and subjective improvement of their asthma.

RESULTS

The address and location of 20 of 85 patients could not be ascertained. Thirty-four of the remaining 65 patients (52.3%) with ATD who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery responded to the survey. Respondents had a mean follow-up of 10 years. Overall, 29 (94%) of 31 patients who reported asthma symptoms preoperatively noted long-term postoperative improvement. Furthermore, 21 of these 31 patients (68%) reported further improvement of their asthma beyond the first postoperative year. Emergency department visits for asthma exacerbations decreased in 17 (94%) of 18. Inpatient hospitalizations for asthma exacerbations also decreased in the first postoperative year in 10 (91%) of 11 patients. Asthma attacks declined in 12 (41%) of 27 patients the first year, whereas 24 (88.9%) of 27 patients had fewer asthma attacks in the last 12 months of follow-up. Peak flow rates improved from an average of 60% of the predicted value preoperatively to 86% at the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The asthma component of ATD continues to improve with time after endoscopic sinus surgery. Although the most dramatic decrease occurs in the first year after sinus surgery, the majority of patients noted further improvement in subsequent years.

Cost-effectiveness of including salmeterol in asthma therapy in a primary care setting in Japan

To discuss and estimate the clinical and economic benefits obtained during combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus salmeterol (SLM) for Japanese patients with asthma on the basis of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Guidelines. Fifty-four cases aged>16 years with either moderate persistent asthma (step 3) or severe persistent asthma (step 4) were assessed in a retrospective survey. Participants must have been a patient at the author's clinic continuously from June 2001 and been users of SLM for more than one year. Signed informed consent was obtained. Both clinical and economic components of SLM use in asthma therapy over the past two years were evaluated. Cost analyses revealed that SLM use significantly reduced medical costs of leukotriene receptor antagonist and short-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists. Moreover, clinical outcomes (e.g. symptom-free day) were significantly improved after initiation of SLM. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that use of SLM is cost-effective. Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and SLM on the basis of GINA guidelines appears to be efficacious and cost effective for the treatment of moderate or severe persistent asthma in Japanese patients.

Impact of omalizumab on quality-of-life outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Moderate-to-severe allergic asthma has a substantial impact on patients' quality of life (QOL). Despite care consistent with treatment guidelines, many patients with moderate-to-severe asthma still experience variability in asthma control, signaling an unmet need within this population. Omalizumab has recently demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in treating IgE-mediated asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize asthma-related QOL outcomes associated with omalizumab therapy in moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of asthma-related QOL on data from published clinical trials and unpublished clinical study reports were conducted on omalizumab. The Juniper Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) measured asthma-related QOL.

RESULTS

Statistically significant results for asthma-related QOL end points consistently favored omalizumab over placebo. Moderate to large effect sizes in the omalizumab groups were observed across the clinical trials and during study extension phases. A meta-analysis indicated a 1.6- to 2-fold increase in moderate (> or = 1 point) and a 1.8- to 2.1-fold increase in large (> or = 1.5 point) improvements in AQLQ overall scores in the omalizumab-treated group compared with placebo during the steroid-stabilization and steroid-reduction phases of the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences and large effect sizes favoring omalizumab were observed despite the control group receiving active, guideline-consistent treatment. The meta-analysis findings demonstrate that omalizumab treatment provides QOL benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, administered twice daily via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Seretide/Advair Diskus), Seretide Accuhaler or metered-dose hydrofluoroalkane (chlorofluorocarbon-free) inhaler (Seretide Evohaler), is a combination of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (beta(2)-agonist) [LABA] salmeterol and the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. Maintenance therapy with combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is at least as effective in improving lung function and symptoms and is as well tolerated in patients with asthma as concurrent salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate. In patients previously receiving as-required short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was significantly more effective in providing asthma control than fluticasone propionate and in improving lung function and asthma symptoms than inhaled corticosteroids (at equivalent or higher dosages), salmeterol or montelukast (as monotherapy or in combination with fluticasone propionate). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective in improving asthma symptoms than adjusted-dose budesonide/formoterol in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA in a well designed 1-year study. In pharmacoeconomic analyses, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compared favourably with inhaled corticosteroids and mono- or combination therapy with oral montelukast. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is, therefore, an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus placebo in addition to inhaled corticosteroids in children and adults with chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled beta2-adrenergic agonists are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids 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 long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and other measures of asthma control.

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 April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids alone for asthma therapy in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptom scores, adverse events and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 594 identified citations, 49 trials met the inclusion criteria: 27 full-text publications, one unpublished full-text report and 21 abstracts. Twenty-three citations (21 abstracts and two full-text publications) provided data in insufficient detail, 26 trials contributed to this systematic review. All but three trials were of high methodological quality. Most interventions (N = 26) were of four-month duration or less. Eight trials focused on children and 18 on adults, with participants generally symptomatic with moderate airway obstruction despite their current inhaled steroid regimen. If a trial had more than one intervention or control group, additional control to intervention comparisons were considered separately. Formoterol (N = 17) or salmeterol (N = 14) were most frequently added to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent). The addition of a daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids by 19% (relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.90). The number needed to treat for one extra patient to be free from exacerbation for one year was 18 (95% CI 13 to 33). The addition of LABA significantly improved FEV1 (weighted mean difference (WMD) 170 mL, 95% CI 110 to 240) using a random-effects model, increased the proportion of symptom-free days (WMD 17%, 95% CI 12 to 22, N = 6 trials) and rescue-free days (WMD 19%, 95% CI 12 to 26, N = 2 trials). The group treated with LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid showed a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists (WMD -0.7 puffs/day, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2), experienced less withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7) and less withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.98), using a random-effects model. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75) or specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are symptomatic on low to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, improves lung function, symptoms and use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists. The similar number of serious adverse events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of long-acting beta2-agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids.

Unscheduled healthcare resource use among asthma patients receiving low-dose inhaled corticosteroids maintenance treatment

This survey describes asthma control and unscheduled healthcare resource use (HCRU) among patients receiving low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone in five European countries and the USA. Physicians and patients completed forms collecting data on asthma symptoms, sudden increase in chest/respiratory symptoms, asthma-related HCRU, quality of life (QoL) and drug therapy. Fifty-seven per cent of patients on low-dose ICS alone had physician-rated moderate or severe asthma. Only 13% of patients receiving low-dose ICS alone achieved asthma control; 36% reported nocturnal wakening and 22% reported unscheduled healthcare services in the past year. Gender, symptom frequency, episodes of sudden increase in chest/respiratory symptoms and impaired QoL were all related to unscheduled healthcare resource utilisation. Many patients receiving low-dose ICS alone do not have adequate asthma control. Some patient characteristics were found to be significantly different, but not exclusive, between unscheduled healthcare resource users and non-users.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast: a cost-effective comparison for asthma

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Asthma, owing to its chronic nature, is associated with a substantial economic burden. Healthcare providers need to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative asthma treatment options to ensure that they obtain the best value for money from the resources they control. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in combination with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Direct healthcare resource data were prospectively collected during a double-blind, randomized, 12-week clinical study of inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100 microg twice daily (n = 356) and inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily plus oral montelukast 10mg daily (n = 369). Resources were costed in Dutch guilders (NLG) from the perspective of The Netherlands healthcare system using 1999/2000 prices, but have been presented in US dollars and euros. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of successfully treated weeks (based on mean morning PEF values). Secondary measures were episode-free days, symptom-free days, and symptom-free nights.

RESULTS

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast as measured by the proportion of successfully treated weeks mean 63.3% vs 39.0%; median difference 25%; p < 0.001). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was also more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast according to the secondary effectiveness measures. The mean total direct daily healthcare costs per patient were 16% higher with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast than with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate mainly due to higher drug costs in the former group (2.25 US dollars vs 1.94; 1.92 euro vs 1.66, respectively; the NLG was fixed against the euro at a rate of 1 euro = NLG2.2 on 31 December 1998; 1 US dollars = NLG1.883, June 2003; 1 US dollars= 0.848 euro, June 2003). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was dominant over fluticasone propionate plus montelukast and sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust.

CONCLUSION

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a more cost-effective treatment option than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast for patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled by ICS.

Impact of 'mild' asthma on health outcomes: findings of a systematic search of the literature

The present bibliographic review shows that patients considered to have mild asthma often suffer impairment in quality of life (QoL) and use considerable scheduled and unscheduled health care resources. I found that asthma investigators used no consistent classification scheme for asthma severity, and the level of agreement amongst specialists when categorizing patients with asthma was low. Asthma severity has been classified using a wide range of parameters including medication use, asthma symptoms, lung function, hospitalizations and incidence of exacerbations. Most studies showed a general association between asthma severity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) such that patients with severe disease suffered greater impairment. However, few patients with mild asthma enjoyed unimpaired HRQoL. Indeed depression and impaired HRQoL were reported as frequently in patients with mild asthma as in those with more severe disease. Although in general severe patients used the most health care resources, even patients with mild asthma used considerable health care resources including emergency room care and hospitalizations. In summary, the term 'mild' when applied to asthma is potentially misleading given the impaired HRQoL and avoidable health care utilization prevalent amongst such patients. The application of disease severity classification in clinical asthma management has not been validated. It may now be appropriate to examine these classifications more critically in order to determine if they have clinical or research usefulness. By contrast, the strategy of treating to achieve disease control has been validated and offers the advantage of simplicity in its application.

Paediatric asthma: overcoming barriers to an improved quality of life

Paediatric asthma has a considerable impact on both society, in terms of healthcare resources, and patients and their families, in terms of impaired quality of life. The principal goals of asthma treatment are to achieve and maintain control of symptoms. Achieving these goals may involve long-term use of appropriate medication in the form of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting ss-agonist (LABA). However, many patients with paediatric asthma are not currently achieving symptom control. The main barriers to asthma control are underuse of effective therapies, inappropriate choice of drug delivery devices and a lack of patient or parent/guardian education regarding the disease and its treatment. By addressing and overcoming these barriers to asthma control, the quality of life of patients and their families may be significantly improved.