The Use of Albuterol/Budesonide as Reliever Therapy to Reduce Asthma Exacerbations

Prevention of asthma exacerbations and reduction of systemic corticosteroid burden remain unmet needs in asthma. US asthma guidelines recommend concomitant short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as an alternative reliever at step 2. The Food and Drug Administration approved a pressurized metered-dose inhaler containing albuterol and budesonide for as-needed treatment or prevention of bronchoconstriction and for reducing exacerbation risk in patients with asthma aged ≥18 years. This combination is approved for use as a reliever with or without maintenance therapy, but it is not indicated for maintenance therapy (or for single maintenance and reliever therapy). Intervening with as-needed SABA-ICS during the window of opportunity to reduce inflammation during loss of asthma control can reduce exacerbation risk, by exerting both genomic and nongenomic anti-inflammatory effects. We propose that the use of albuterol-budesonide rather than albuterol as a reliever to manage episodic symptoms driven by acute bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation can improve outcomes. This combination approach, shown to decrease asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid burden in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, represents a paradigm shift for asthma treatment in the United States. Further safety and efficacy studies should provide evidence that this type of reliever should be standard of care.

Efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth agents for the treatment of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

There remains limited agreement regarding the efficacy and safety of different antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents for the management of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). Our meta-analysis compares different anti-VEGF agents for PCV treatment. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to July 2022. We included articles comparing the efficacy and safety of different anti-VEGF agents, specifically bevacizumab (BEV), ranibizumab (RAN), aflibercept AFL), and brolucizumab (BRO), for patients with PCV. 10,440 studies were identified, 122 underwent full-text review, and seven were included. One study was a randomized trial, and six were observational studies. Ranibizumab and aflibercept were associated with a similar best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the last visit in three observational studies (P = 0.10), similar retinal thickness at the last visit in two observational studies (P = 0.85). One observational study comparing BEV versus RAN found comparable outcomes for final BCVA, retinal thickness, and polyp regression. One randomized trial on BRO versus AFL found comparable outcomes for improvement in BCVA, while anatomical outcomes favored BRO. The available evidence suggests that final BCVA is comparable across different anti-VEGF agents, however, further investigation is warranted due to paucity of evidence.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy Regimens for Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

There are no guidelines on the optimal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapy regimen for patients with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In this study, we aimed to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF monotherapy for PCV.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to May 2023 for comparative articles reporting on different treatment regimens of anti-VEGF agents in PCV. Our primary outcomes were the final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the change in BCVA from baseline. Secondary outcomes were the final retinal thickness (RT), the change in RT from baseline, the rate of polyp closure, and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 10,440 studies were screened, and seven studies reporting on 636 eyes with PCV at baseline were included in this systematic review. One RCT of 53 eyes found a similar final BCVA, change in BCVA from baseline, final RT, and complete polyp closure rate between a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen and a bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. This trial also found superiority of T&E for change in RT from baseline. One observational study of 33 eyes found a similar BCVA at last study observation between a pro re nata (PRN) regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One observational study of 42 eyes found a similar change in BCVA from baseline and complete polyp closure rate between a PRN regimen and bimonthly fixed-dosing regimen of aflibercept. One RCT of 249 eyes found a similar change in BCVA and RT from baseline, as well as polyp closure, between a T&E regimen and fixed 12-week dosing regimen of conbercept. One observational study of 30 eyes found a superiority of T&E aflibercept for change in BCVA and risk of polyp recurrence, compared to a PRN regimen.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there is a paucity of evidence comparing various treatment regimens of anti-VEGF therapy in patients with PCV. This limited evidence suggests that current treatment regimens are similarly efficacious, though T&E aflibercept achieved superior outcomes when compared to bimonthly dosing or PRN in some individual studies. Further trials are needed to confirm or refute these findings.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

Long-Term Safety and Disease Control With Ruxolitinib Cream in Atopic Dermatitis: Results From Two Phase 3 Studies

BACKGROUND

Ruxolitinib cream demonstrated safety and efficacy over 8 weeks in two double-blind phase 3 atopic dermatitis studies (NCT03745638/NCT03745651).

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate long-term safety (LTS) and disease control with ruxolitinib cream.

METHODS

Patients initially randomized to twice-daily 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream maintained their regimen during the 44-week LTS period (as-needed treatment). Patients on vehicle were rerandomized (1:1) at Week 8 to either ruxolitinib cream strength. Safety and disease control (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score 0/1 and affected body surface area [BSA]) were assessed.

RESULTS

Over 52 weeks, adverse events (AEs) were reported in 67.4%/62.6%/53.5%/57.6% of patients in 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream/vehicle to 0.75% ruxolitinib cream/vehicle to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream groups (n=426/446/101/99). Most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%/11.4%/5.9%/7.1%) and nasopharyngitis (8.9%/9.9%/7.9%/14.1%). Most AEs were considered unrelated to treatment. Application site reactions were infrequent (3.8%/1.8%/1.0%/1.0%). Disease control was achieved throughout the LTS; 74.1%-77.8% of patients had IGA 0/1 at Week 52, and mean affected BSA was low (1.4%-1.8%).

LIMITATIONS

LTS had no control treatment.

CONCLUSION

During 44 weeks of as-needed treatment, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated effective disease control and tolerability; low ruxolitinib plasma concentrations alongside safety findings reflecting known risk factors suggest physiologically meaningful systemic Janus kinase inhibition is highly unlikely.

Pharmacology Versus Convenience: A Benefit/Risk Analysis of Regular Maintenance Versus Infrequent or As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Mild Asthma

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma.

METHODS

A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI).

RESULTS

The model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 μg to twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Efficacy and Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Adolescents with Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is challenging for adolescents. In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol (BUD-FORM) reduces severe exacerbations compared with as-needed short-acting beta₂-agonists, similar to the reduction with maintenance budesonide.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc pooled analysis of Symbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 and 2 assessed the efficacy and safety of as-needed BUD-FORM in adolescents.

METHODS

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind studies (NCT022149199; NCT02224157) in patients 12 years or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomized to twice-daily placebo + as-needed BUD-FORM 200/6 μg, twice-daily BUD 200 μg + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or twice-daily placebo + as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Annualized severe exacerbation rates, maintenance treatment adherence, and safety (including change in height) were compared between treatment groups in adolescents (aged ≥12 to <18 years).

RESULTS

Severe exacerbation rate was similar with as-needed BUD-FORM and BUD maintenance (pooled analysis: 0.08 vs 0.07/y; P = .634), and was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM versus as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1: 0.04 vs 0.17/y; P = .005). Median adherence was 73% in SYGMA 1 and 51% in SYGMA 2. Change in height from baseline in adolescents aged ≥12 years to <14 years was significantly greater with as-needed BUD-FORM (4.8 cm) versus BUD maintenance (3.9 cm) (pooled: P < .046), and was similar between as-needed BUD-FORM (4.5 cm) and as-needed terbutaline (4.1 cm) (SYGMA 1: P = .500). No new or unexpected safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents with mild asthma, as-needed BUD-FORM was superior to as-needed terbutaline for severe exacerbation reduction, with similar efficacy to BUD maintenance. As-needed BUD-FORM provides an alternative treatment option for adolescents with mild asthma, without needing daily treatment.

A Pragmatic Trial of Symptom-Based Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in African-American Children with Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

Symptom-based adjustment (SBA) of inhaled corticosteroids may be an alternative patient-centered approach in which day-to-day inhaled corticosteroid use is adjusted by symptoms and short-acting β-agonist need.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of SBA in the primary care setting.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, pragmatic equivalence trial in African-American children (6-17 years old) with mild asthma managed by 12 primary care providers (PCPs). A total of 206 participants were randomized to SBA (as-needed beclomethasone 80 μg with rescue short-acting β-agonist) or provider-based guideline-directed adjustment (PBA): maintenance beclomethasone 80 μg/d (6-11 years old), 160 μg/d (12-17 years old), with subsequent guideline-based dose adjustment by PCPs. PCPs implemented both treatment assignments, with outcomes measured by blinded staff. All participants received symptom recognition and albuterol use education from peer educators. Primary outcome was change in asthma control (measured by Asthma Control Test [ACT]/childhood ACT [cACT]) over 12 months.

RESULTS

Participants had adequately controlled asthma (mean ACT or cACT score = 21.6 ± 2.8) at baseline. After 1 year, there was no significant between-group difference in change in ACT scores (SBA - PBA): ACT: -0.88 (95% CI, -2.19 to 0.42), cACT: -0.73 (-2.09 to 0.62), or combined ACT and cACT (P = .10), and was within the predefined statistical clinical equivalence. The proportion with an exacerbation and measures of lung function were similar between groups. Compared with PBA, SBA led to less beclomethasone use (SBA: 526 μg/mo [95% CI, 412-639 μg] vs PBA: 1961 μg/mo [95% CI, 1681-2241]; P < .0001). More parents in the SBA arm felt they were managing their child's asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

SBA in African-American children with mild asthma was similar to PBA in asthma control and events when implemented by PCPs with lower inhaled corticosteroid exposure.

The SYGMA programme of phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol given 'as needed' in mild asthma: study protocols for two randomised controlled trials

Background

In many patients with mild asthma, the low frequency of symptoms and the episodic nature of exacerbations make adherence to regular maintenance treatment difficult. This often leads to over-reliance on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) reliever medication and under-treatment of the underlying inflammation, with poor control of asthma symptoms and increased risk of exacerbations. The use of budesonide/formoterol ‘as needed’ in response to symptoms may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with mild asthma.

Methods/design

The SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) programme consists of two 52-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma for at least 6 months, who would qualify for treatment with regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). SYGMA1 aims to recruit 3750 patients who will be randomised to placebo twice daily (bid) plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg, placebo bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg, or budesonide 200 μg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over as-needed terbutaline for asthma control, as measured by well-controlled asthma weeks; a secondary objective is to establish the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline using the same outcome measure. SYGMA2 aims to recruit 4114 patients who will be randomised to placebo bid plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg, or budesonide 200 μg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over budesonide bid plus as-needed terbutaline as measured by the annualised severe exacerbation rate. In both studies, use of all blinded study inhalers will be recorded electronically using Turbuhaler® Usage Monitors.

Discussion

Given the known risks of mild asthma, and known poor adherence with regular inhaled corticosteroids, the results of the SYGMA programme will help to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide/formoterol therapy in mild asthma. Patient recruitment is complete, and completion of the phase 3 studies is planned in 2017.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02149199 SYGMA1 and NCT02224157 SYGMA2. Registered on 16 May 2014 and 19 August 2014, respectively.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1731-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and safety of ipratropium bromide/albuterol compared with albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with asthma require frequent rescue medication for acute symptoms despite appropriate controller therapies. Thus, determining the most effective relief regimen is important in the management of more severe asthma. This study's objective was to evaluate whether ipratropium bromide/albuterol metered-dose inhaler (CVT-MDI) provides more effective acute relief of bronchospasm in moderate-to-severe asthma than albuterol hydrofluoroalkaline (ALB-HFA) alone after 4 weeks.

METHODS

In this double-blind, crossover study, patients who had been diagnosed with asthma for ≥1 year were randomized to two sequences of study medication "as needed" for symptom relief (1-7 day washout before second 4-week treatment period): CVT-MDI/ALB-HFA or ALB-HFA/CVT-MDI. On days 1 and 29 of each sequence, 6-hour serial spirometry was performed after administration of the study drug. Co-primary endpoints were FEV1 area under the curve (AUC0-6) and peak (post-dose) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) response (change from test day baseline) after 4 weeks. The effects of "as needed" treatment with ALB-HFA/CVT-MDI were analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM).

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients, ≥18 years old, with inadequately controlled, moderate-to-severe asthma were randomized. The study met both co-primary endpoints demonstrating a statistically significant treatment benefit of CVT-MDI versus ALB-HFA. FEV1 AUC0-6h response was 167 ml for ALB-HFA, 252 ml for CVT-MDI (p <0.0001); peak FEV1 response was 357 ml for ALB-HFA, 434 ml for CVT-MDI (p <0.0001). Adverse events were comparable across groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CVT-MDI significantly improved acute bronchodilation over ALB-HFA alone after 4 weeks of "as-needed" use for symptom relief, with a similar safety profile. This suggests additive bronchodilator effects of β2-agonist and anticholinergic treatment in moderate-to-severe, symptomatic asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov No.: NCT00818454 ; Registered November 16, 2009.

Nalmefene and its use in alcohol dependence

Nalmefene is the first available drug approved in the E.U. to reduce alcohol use in alcohol-dependent patients. Reduction in alcohol use in heavy drinkers diminishes mortality risk and socio-economic burden. Nalmefene has shown efficacy at 6 months in alcohol-dependent patients with high or very high drinking risk levels in reducing total alcohol consumption (-7.6 g/day [95% confidence interval (CI): -11.6 to -3.5]; P = 0.0003), heavy drinking days (-2.00 days/month [95% CI: -3.00 to -1.00]; P ⟨ 0.00001) and other secondary outcome measures such as γ-glutamyl transferase, alanine aminotransferase, drinking risk level and Clinical Global Impression. It is generally well tolerated and has limited contraindications and interactions. As-needed dosage is a novel concept in the addictions field, which may overcome limitations of traditional regimens. In the pivotal trials, nalmefene was taken 52% of the days and compliance with the as-needed treatment regimen was good (above 80% of the days) in 68% of the nalmefene-treated patients. A new pharmacological approach combined with a brief psychosocial intervention for alcoholism is available and appears to be feasible, safe and efficacious.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, efficacy study of nalmefene, as-needed use, in patients with alcohol dependence

This study evaluated the efficacy of as-needed use of the opioid system modulator nalmefene in reducing alcohol consumption in patients with alcohol dependence. Seven hundred and eighteen patients (placebo=360; nalmefene=358), ≥ 18 years of age, with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, ≥ 6 heavy drinking days and an average alcohol consumption ≥ WHO medium drinking risk level in the 4 weeks preceding screening, were randomised (1:1) to 24 weeks of as-needed placebo or nalmefene 18 mg/day. The co- primary efficacy analyses showed a significantly superior effect of nalmefene compared to placebo in the change from baseline to month 6 in heavy drinking days (group difference: -1.7 days/month [95% CI -3.1; -0.4]; p=0.012) and a better but not significant effect in reducing total alcohol consumption (group difference: -5.0 g/day last month [95% CI -10.6; 0.7]; p=0.088). A subgroup analysis showed that patients who did not reduce their drinking prior to randomisation benefitted more from nalmefene. Improvements in Clinical Global Impression and reductions in liver enzymes were greater in the nalmefene group than in the placebo group. Adverse events were more common with nalmefene; the incidence of adverse events leading to dropout was similar in both groups. This study provides evidence for the efficacy of nalmefene, which constitutes a new pharmacological treatment paradigm in terms of treatment goal (reduced drinking) and dosing regimen (as-needed), in alcohol dependent patients unable to reduce alcohol consumption on their own.