Can patients with asthma feel inhaler therapy working right away? Two clinical trials testing the effect of timing of assessment on patient perception

Fluticasone/formoterol compared with other ICS/LABAs in asthma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics.

METHODS

The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage.

CONCLUSION

FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.

Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence

Asthma is the commonest chronic disease affecting airways in humans and has an increasing global disease burden. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line therapeutic option for asthma, and addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) has been shown to improve asthma control. A combination of the two agents in a single inhaler is beneficial with regard to ease of administration and patient compliance. Various ICS-LABA formulations are available across various countries in the world, one among them being formoterol-fluticasone. Both formoterol and fluticasone have pharmacologic peculiarities which places the combination in a uniquely advantageous position when it comes to asthma therapy. The present review focuses on some of the, hitherto, less explored aspects of this combination inhaler such as real-world efficacy, impact on budget allocation, results of switch-over therapy, and potential to improve adherence to asthma treatment. It also provides practical recommendations on positioning it in real-world asthma management.

Patient experiences of as-needed budesonide-formoterol by Turbuhaler® for treatment of mild asthma; a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol, taken as-needed for symptom relief reduces exacerbation risk and is recommended for treatment of mild asthma. The NovelQ qualitative study explored patients' attitudes toward using this novel therapy.

METHODS

Adults with mild asthma using reliever-only treatment were randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler® in a multinational, 52-week open-label randomised controlled trial (NovelSTART-ACTRN12615000999538). A subgroup were interviewed to explore their attitudes to use of as-needed budesonide-formoterol after receiving it for ≥10 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until saturation, audio-recorded, and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Analysis of 35 participants (66% female; mean age 43.5 [range 18-74]; mean Asthma Control Questionnaire score 1.09 ± SD0.55) interviews identified 5 themes, each including both barriers and facilitators to therapy use. Themes were: 'Treatment effectiveness' i.e. how well symptoms were relieved and/or prevented; 'Lifestyle fit of the regimen' e.g. the extent to which the treatment regimen integrated into the patient's daily life; 'Attitudes toward medication use and safety' e.g. openness for new reliever treatments, beliefs about treatment necessity or side effects; 'Device attributes' e.g. perceived ease of use; and 'Doctor-patient relationship' e.g. impact of health professional support on new treatment acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of factors seem to drive the opinions of mild asthma patients on as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy. Many patients perceived both positive and negative treatment attributes, and their individual evaluation of these attributes determined their likelihood of using it after the study. Supportive patient-physician interactions appear key to addressing patient barriers. Recommendations for patient-centred discussions, developed from this research, are provided.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of formoterol/budesonide pMDI versus its mono-components and other LABA/ICS in patients with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) are effective drug delivery devices prescribed in obstructive airway diseases due to their convenience, portability, ease of enabling multiple doses in a single formulation, and storage in any orientation. For the management of asthma, the fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) has been recommended by Global Initiative for Asthma guideline as a preferred treatment option for patients who are uncontrolled with only ICS doses. One of the available LABA/ICS combinations is the formoterol/budesonide (FB).

AREAS COVERED

This article systematically reviews the efficacy and safety of the FB pMDI compared with the FB dry powder inhaler (DPI), individual mono-components (formoterol and budesonide) or salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) combination in the treatment of asthma among paediatric and adult patients. PubMed was searched with the string: ''((Budesonide) AND Formoterol) AND ((((pMDI) OR MDI) OR Pressurised Metered-dose inhaler) OR Metered-dose inhaler)'', in ALL fields. Screening of all the articles was done till February 2020. We have included 24 articles from the total of 142 hits received.

CONCLUSIONS

The FB pMDI is efficacious for the long-term management of asthma in patients 6 years of age and above. It has been shown to improve lung function and asthma control, and to reduce daytime and night-time symptoms, the number of rescue medication doses and asthma exacerbations. It also showed rapid onset of bronchodilatory effect with a dose-response relationship that allows patients to utilise it as a Single Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) regimen.

Patient preferences for symptom-driven or regular preventer treatment in mild to moderate asthma: findings from the PRACTICAL study, a randomised clinical trial

Symptom-driven low-dose inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol is safe and effective in mild asthma and has been recommended as one of the preferred treatment regimens at steps 1 and 2 in the 2019 update of the Global Initiative for Asthma. However, there are no data on patient preferences for this regimen.A subgroup of participants in the PRACTICAL study (ACTRN12616000377437), a randomised controlled trial comparing symptom-driven budesonide-formoterol with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline completed a survey on treatment preferences, satisfaction, beliefs and experience at their final study visit.306 (75%) out of 407 eligible participants completed the survey. Regimen preference was strongly associated with randomised treatment, as were preferences for and beliefs about preventer inhaler use. Combination preventer and reliever as-needed therapy was preferred by 135 (90%, 95% CI 85.2-94.8%) out of 150 who were randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol, and by 63 (40%, 95% CI 32.7-48.1%) out of 156 who were randomised to maintenance budesonide. By contrast, twice-daily preventer inhaler with a reliever inhaler as required was preferred by 15 (10%) out of 150 of those randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 93 (60%) out of 156 of those randomised to maintenance budesonide. Satisfaction with all study inhalers was high. Of patients randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol 92% (n=138) were confident using it as a reliever at the end of the study.Although most participants preferred the regimen to which they had been randomised, this association was much stronger for those randomised to budesonide-formoterol as needed, indicating that most patients preferred as-needed corticosteroid-formoterol therapy if they had experienced it.

Revising old principles of inhaled treatment in new fixed combinations for asthma

The major influencing factors on persistent asthma control are the selected treatment(s), the drug delivery route and patient's adherence to therapy, together with the influence of lifestyle (i.e. sedentary habit), comorbid conditions and specific asthma phenotypes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) are the gold standard for management of persistent asthma, with maximal local targeting and minimal systemic side effects. Several innovative inhaler devices have been developed for effective local drug administration and good patient compliance to therapy. Recently, a new ICS/LABA fixed combination, formulated with fluticasone propionate (FP) and formoterol fumarate (FF), has been proposed for maintenance treatment of asthma in adults and adolescent patients. FP/FF combines the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilating properties of powerful compounds in a single inhaler. Its pharmacological characteristics allow rapid speed of onset and dosage flexibility required for step-up and step-down strategies, improving adherence to treatment of asthmatic patients. The efficacy of the FP/FF fixed combination at all dosages in controlling asthma symptoms and the reduced rate of discontinuation have been demonstrated by all randomized trials conducted so far.

Efficacy of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in the treatment of asthma: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate have been combined in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) for the maintenance treatment of asthma. This pooled analysis assessed the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone in patients who previously received inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Data were pooled from five randomised studies in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years) treated for 8 or 12 weeks with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10, 250/10 or 500/20 μg b.i.d.; n = 528 delivered via pMDI) or fluticasone alone (100, 250 or 500 μg b.i.d.; n = 527).

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol provided significantly greater increases than fluticasone alone in mean morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at study end (least-squares mean [LSM] treatment difference: 0.146L; p < 0.001) and in pre-dose FEV1 from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 0.048 L; p = 0.043). Compared with fluticasone, fluticasone/formoterol provided greater increases in the percentage of asthma control days (no symptoms, no rescue medication use and no sleep disturbance due to asthma) from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 8.6%; p < 0.001), and was associated with a lower annualised rate of exacerbations (rate ratio: 0.71; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, fluticasone/formoterol provides clinically significant improvements in lung function and asthma control measures, with a lower incidence of exacerbations than fluticasone alone.

Fluticasone/formoterol: a new single-aerosol combination therapy for patients with asthma

International asthma management guidelines recommend a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy. Treatment with a single inhaler containing an ICS/LABA combination is advocated because it may facilitate adherence to a regimen. When prescribing ICS/LABA combination therapy, the potency of the ICS and the speed of onset of the LABA are considered important factors; therefore, an inhaled therapy containing components with these properties may be valued by physicians. The ICS fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) has potent and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, and the LABA formoterol fumarate (formoterol) provides rapid bronchodilation; the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents have been well established in clinical practice. Fluticasone and formoterol have been combined, for the first time, in a single hydrofluoroalkane-based aerosol (flutiform®; fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate). Here, we review data from the published randomized, controlled, clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of this product. It has been shown that fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently via separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol, but with the additional benefit of more rapid bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol.

Onset of bronchodilation with fluticasone/formoterol combination versus fluticasone/salmeterol in an open-label, randomized study

INTRODUCTION

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (fluticasone), and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist, formoterol fumarate (formoterol), have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol). In a randomized, open-label study, fluticasone/formoterol showed similar efficacy to fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared the onset of bronchodilation with the two treatments.

METHODS

Adults with mild-to-moderate-severe persistent asthma were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 or 250/10 μg twice daily [b.i.d.]) or fluticasone/salmeterol (100/50 or 250/50 μg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. The onset of bronchodilation (the first post-dose time point at which the forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] was ≥12% greater than the pre-dose value), responder rates (the proportion of patients achieving bronchodilation), and changes in FEV(1) were assessed at days 0 (baseline) and 84.

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol (n = 101) provided more rapid onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol (n = 101) over the first 120 min post-dose on days 0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.05-2.05]) and 84 (HR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.14-2.73]). The odds of a patient achieving bronchodilation within 5 min of dosing were almost four-times higher with fluticasone/formoterol than with fluticasone/salmeterol on day 0 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.97 [95% CI 1.96-8.03]) and almost 10-times higher on day 84 (OR = 9.58 [95% CI 2.14-42.90]); the odds of achieving bronchodilation within 120 min post-dose were approximately twofold higher with fluticasone/formoterol on both days. The overall percentage increase in least-squares (LS) mean FEV1 during the 120-min post-dose period was significantly greater with fluticasone/formoterol than fluticasone/salmeterol on days 0 (LS mean treatment difference: 4.70% [95% CI 1.57-7.83]; P = 0.003) and 84 (2.79% [95% CI 0.65-4.93]; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

These analyses showed that fluticasone/formoterol provided a faster onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol, which was maintained over 12 weeks of treatment. This benefit may facilitate treatment adherence among patients with asthma.

Long-term safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in asthma

BACKGROUND

The long-term safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) was assessed.

METHOD

In an open-label study, mild to moderate-severe asthmatics (≥12 years; N=472) were treated twice daily with fluticasone/formoterol 100/10 μg (n=224) or 250/10 μg (n=248) for 6 months (n=256) or 12 months (n=216). The primary and secondary objectives were the long-term safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 413 (87.5%) patients completed the study (of which 175 participated for 12 months). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 174 patients (36.9%): 67 (29.9%) in the 100/10 μg group and 107 (43.1%) in the 250/10 μg group. The most common AEs (>2%) were nasopharyngitis, dyspnea, pharyngitis, and headache; the majority were mild to moderate. Only 18 (3.8%) patients reported AEs considered study drug-related. Five patients per group experienced 12 serious AEs; none was study medication-related. Asthma exacerbations were reported by 53 patients (11.2%): 46 mild to moderate and nine severe. Clinical laboratory tests and vital signs showed no abnormal trends or clinically important or dose-response-related changes. The efficacy analyses showed statistically significant improvements at every time point throughout the study period at both doses.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and efficacy profile over the 6- and 12-month study periods.

Efficacy of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler alone in Hispanic adults and adolescents with asthma: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Few clinical trials in asthma have focused on Hispanic populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) with BUD in an ethnically diverse group of Hispanic participants with asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (NCT00419757) was designed to enroll Hispanic participants (self-reported) (≥12 years of age) with moderate to severe asthma requiring medium- to high-dose ICS. After a 2-week run-in period (low-dose BUD pressurized metered-dose inhaler [pMDI] 80 μg × 2 inhalations [160 μg] twice daily), participants with a symptom score greater than 0 (scale: 0-3) on 3 or more of 7 run-in days and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) 45%-85% predicted were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 160/4.5 μg × 2 inhalations (320/9 μg) twice daily or BUD pMDI 160 μg × 2 inhalations (320 μg) twice daily.

RESULTS

Randomized participants (n = 127 BUD/FM; n = 123 BUD) were predominately Mexican (51%) or Puerto Rican (21%). During low-dose ICS run-in, the mean symptom score was 1.0; however, mean predose FEV(1) improved (2.10-2.21 L). During randomized treatment, small, but not statistically significant, improvements favored BUD/FM vs BUD (am peak expiratory flow [PEF; primary efficacy variable] 25.4 vs 19.9 L/min; pm PEF 20.6 vs 15.8 L/min; predose FEV(1) 0.16 vs 0.11 L; rescue medication use -0.7 vs -0.6 inhalations/d). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in clinically relevant control end points occurred in both BUD/FM and BUD groups; both treatments were well tolerated in this Hispanic asthma population but were not significantly differentiated.

Patient-centered care and its effect on outcomes in the treatment of asthma

Patient-centered care may be pivotal in improving health outcomes for patients with asthma. In addition to increased attention in both research and clinical forums, recent legislation also highlights the importance of patient-centered outcomes research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, whether patient-centered care has been shown to improve outcomes for this population is unclear. To answer this question, we performed a systematic review of the literature that aimed to define current patient-focused management issues, characterize important patient-defined outcomes in asthma control, and identify current and emerging treatments related to patient outcomes and perspectives. We used a parallel search strategy via Medline(®), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL(®) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO(®), complemented with a reference review of key articles that resulted in a total of 133 articles; 58 were interventions that evaluated the effect on patient-centered outcomes, and 75 were descriptive studies. The majority of intervention studies demonstrated improved patient outcomes (44; "positive" results); none showed true harm (0; "negative"); and the remainder were equivocal (14; "neutral"). Key themes emerged relating to patients' desires for asthma knowledge, preferences for tailored management plans, and simplification of treatment regimens. We also found discordance between physicians and patients regarding patients' needs, beliefs, and expectations about asthma. Although some studies show promise regarding the benefits of patient-focused care, these methods require additional study on feasibility and strategies for implementation in real world settings. Further, it is imperative that future studies must be, themselves, patient-centered (eg, pragmatic comparative effectiveness studies) and applicable to a variety of patient populations and settings. Despite the need for further research, enough evidence exists that supports incorporating a patient-centered approach to asthma management, in order to achieve improved outcomes and patient health.