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.

Usage Patterns of Short-Acting β2-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma: A Targeted Literature Review

Despite the availability of effective asthma treatments, some patients are poorly controlled because of overreliance on short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) and underuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). To identify patient characteristics and outcomes associated with SABA overreliance and ICS underuse, we conducted a targeted literature review of the quantitative evidence on asthma medication use. Articles evaluating SABA and/or ICS use in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years), published between January 2012 and March 2018, were identified using MEDLINE and EMBASE. We observed that studies classified SABA usage as "overuse," "high use," "excess use," "extreme overuse," "suboptimal use," and "inappropriate use." Multiple thresholds were used to define overuse of SABA (≥3 to ≥12 canisters/y). SABA overreliance was prevalent, with approximately 20% of adults using 3 or more canisters per year (≥12 inhalations/wk). Similarly, inappropriate ICS use, classified as "suboptimal," "high use," "underuse," and "unlicensed use," was defined by varying thresholds. Specific patient populations, such as older adults, smokers, and patients with low income, were more susceptible to SABA overreliance and ICS underuse. Overreliance on SABAs was associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and asthma-related costs. These findings emphasize the prevalence and related burden of SABA overreliance at the potential expense of appropriate ICS use.

Daily variation in lung function in COPD patients with combined albuterol and ipratropium: results from a 4-week, randomized, crossover study

BACKGROUND

The bronchodilator response to short-acting β2-agonist and short-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies varies on a day-to-day basis within individual patients. The objective of this study was to compare daily variation in bronchodilator response to the combined use of albuterol and ipratropium with monotherapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This was a 4-week, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with COPD. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive albuterol via metered dose inhaler followed by ipratropium or vice versa during treatment Period 1 (10-14 days). The order of treatments was then reversed during treatment Period 2 (10-14 days). Pre-defined efficacy endpoints were: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), derived FEV1, inspiratory capacity (IC) and daily variability of FEV1 and IC as measured by coefficient of variation (CV).

RESULTS

Albuterol and ipratropium improved FEV1 when administered as the first bronchodilator, compared with pre-dose values (0.269 and 0.243 L, respectively). Administration of the second bronchodilator provided further improvements in lung function, but to a lesser magnitude than the first bronchodilator (0.094 L for both treatments). A statistically significant reduction in daily variability in FEV1 was observed for dual bronchodilator therapy compared with monotherapy (difference in CV = 0.007; p = 0.019) and pre-dose values (no treatment; difference in CV = 0.022; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The free combination of albuterol and ipratropium resulted in greater improvements and lower day-to-day variability in FEV1 compared with either monotherapy or no bronchodilator therapy. The reduced daily variability may be an important therapeutic advantage of using different classes of bronchodilators in COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01691482.

Effects of benralizumab on airway eosinophils in asthmatic patients with sputum eosinophilia

BACKGROUND

Many asthmatic patients exhibit sputum eosinophilia associated with exacerbations. Benralizumab targets eosinophils by binding IL-5 receptor α, inducing apoptosis through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the safety of benralizumab in adults with eosinophilic asthma and its effects on eosinophil counts in airway mucosal/submucosal biopsy specimens, sputum, bone marrow, and peripheral blood.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase I study, 13 subjects were randomized to single-dose intravenous placebo or 1 mg/kg benralizumab (day 0; cohort 1), and 14 subjects were randomized to 3 monthly subcutaneous doses of placebo or 100 or 200 mg of benralizumab (days 0, 28, and 56; cohort 2). Cohorts 1 and 2 were consecutive.

RESULTS

The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. No serious adverse events related to benralizumab occurred. In cohort 1 intravenous benralizumab produced a median decrease from baseline of 61.9% in airway mucosal eosinophil counts (day 28; placebo: +19.6%; P = .28), as well as an 18.7% decrease (day 21) in sputum and a 100% decrease (day 28) in blood counts. Eosinophils were not detectable in bone marrow of benralizumab-treated subjects (day 28, n = 4). In cohort 2 subcutaneous benralizumab demonstrated a combined (100 + 200 mg) median reduction of 95.8% in airway eosinophil counts (day 84; placebo, 46.7%; P = .06), as well as an 89.9% decrease (day 28) in sputum and a 100% decrease (day 84) in blood counts.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose intravenous and multiple-dose subcutaneous benralizumab reduced eosinophil counts in airway mucosa/submucosa and sputum and suppressed eosinophil counts in bone marrow and peripheral blood. The safety profile supports further development. Additional studies are needed to assess the clinical benefit in asthmatic patients.

Dose-ranging study of lebrikizumab in asthmatic patients not receiving inhaled steroids

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a disease with marked heterogeneity in its clinical course and response to treatment. IL-13 is central to type 2 inflammation, which contributes to many key features of asthma. Lebrikizumab is an anti-IL-13 mAb previously reported to significantly improve lung function in patients with inadequately controlled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid therapy, especially in periostin-high patients.

OBJECTIVE

This phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of IL-13 blockade with different doses of lebrikizumab in asthmatic patients not receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive 125, 250, or 500 mg of lebrikizumab or placebo subcutaneously monthly for 12 weeks with an 8-week follow-up period. The primary efficacy end point was the relative change in prebronchodilator FEV1 from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were randomized. The mean relative change in FEV1 was numerically higher in all lebrikizumab dose groups versus the placebo group, although the difference was neither statistically nor clinically significant. There were no meaningful differences in changes in FEV1 between the dose groups and the placebo group by the periostin subgroup. Lebrikizumab treatment was associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure at all doses versus placebo (P < .001), and results were similar by the periostin subgroup, with no apparent differences between doses of lebrikizumab. Lebrikizumab was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Blocking IL-13, a single cytokine, in this population of asthmatic patients is insufficient to improve lung function. There is evidence that IL-13 blockade may improve disease control, as measured by prevention of protocol-defined treatment failure in these patients.

Budesonide inhalation suspension versus montelukast in children aged 2 to 4 years with mild persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) and montelukast provide acceptable asthma control, whereas overall measures favored BIS in children aged 2 to 8 years with mild persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

We compared BIS and montelukast over a 1-year period in children aged 2 to 4 years with asthma.

METHODS

Data were derived from a 52-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter study (NCT00641472). Children with mild asthma received either BIS 0.5 mg or montelukast 4 to 5 mg once daily. Patients were stepped up to twice-daily BIS or oral corticosteroids for mild or severe asthma worsening, respectively. Primary efficacy assessment was time to first additional asthma medication for exacerbation over 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Two hundred two patients, age 2 to 4 years, received BIS (n = 105) or montelukast (n = 97). No difference was observed between the BIS and montelukast groups in median time to first additional asthma medication over 52 weeks (183 vs 86 days). Statistically significant differences were observed in favor of BIS over montelukast in the percentage of patients requiring oral steroids at 52 weeks (21.9% vs 37.1%; P = .022), the rate (number/patient/year) of additional courses of medication (1.35 vs 2.30; P = .003), the rate of additional oral steroid therapy (0.44 vs 0.88; P = .008), and caregivers' ability to manage the patient's symptoms (P = .026). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

BIS and montelukast provided acceptable asthma control in children aged 2 to 4 years with mild persistent asthma with no significant difference between treatments in the primary end point; however, several secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences (and many had numerical differences) in favor of BIS over montelukast.