A cautionary tale of multiple-dose drug products: Fluticasone and salmeterol combination inhaler waste

RATIONALE

Some drugs can only be dispensed in multiple-dose containers. Multiple-dose packaging may pose a problem for hospitals in terms of drug wastage and cost. Oral inhalers, such as fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination inhalers, are only available as multiple-dose formats in Canada.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to quantify the amount of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination inhaler waste and to assess possible factors that could be contributing to waste.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 189 patients was conducted. Patients were included if they had received an order for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination inhaler at one of the 12 acute hospital sites of Fraser Health Authority. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were dispensed one or more inhalers unnecessarily. The number of inhalers dispensed was compared with the number of inhalers needed to complete a patient's order duration. The chart was also reviewed for possible factors that could have contributed to extra inhalers being dispensed unnecessarily.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (19.6%) had at least one inhaler dispensed unnecessarily and thus wasted. About 17.4% of the total amount of inhalers dispensed were dispensed unnecessarily, and 76.3% of doses dispensed were wasted. The cost of inhalers wasted for our sample was $5151.12 (CAD). The most common factors that contributed to inhaler waste appeared to be loss of medication during patient transfers and storage of inhalers as wardstock.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of drugs that are only available in multiple-dose formats results in significant drug wastage and unnecessary health care expenditure. To minimize wastage of drug product, procedures could be implemented to ensure that drugs are properly transferred with the patient when a patient transfers locations in the hospital. As well, a review of wardstock inventory may minimize waste. Further assessment of multiple-dose drug product waste and evaluations of methods to mitigate waste are encouraged.

Airway Epithelial Lining Fluid and Plasma Pharmacokinetics of Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate and Salmeterol Xinafoate in Mechanically Ventilated Pigs

Background: The lower respiratory tract of the landrace pig has close anatomical and physiological similarities with that of the human, and hence, for inhalation studies this species is well suited for biopharmaceutical research. Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate pharmacokinetics in pigs following one dose of Diskus™ Seretide™ forte device, labeled 500/50 fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol xinafoate (SX), respectively. The PreciseInhale™ (PI) instrument was used to actuate the inhaler for in vitro testing and aerosol dosing to pigs. In vitro, the aerosol was characterized with a cascade impactor with respect to mass median aerodynamic diameter, geometric standard deviation, and fine particle dose. In vivo, dry powder inhalation exposure was delivered as a short bolus dose, to anesthetized and mechanically ventilated landrace pigs. In addition to plasma PK, PK assessment of airway epithelial lining fluid (ELF) was used in this study. ELF of the depth of three to fourth airway generation of the right lung was accessed using standard bronchoscopy and a synthetic absorptive matrix. Results and Conclusions: Dry powder inhalation exposures with good consistency and well characterized aerosols to the pig lung were achieved by the use of the PreciseInhale™ instrument. Drug concentrations of ELF for both FP and SX were demonstrated to be four to five orders of magnitude higher than its corresponding systemic plasma drug concentrations. Clinical PK following inhalation of the same dose was used as benchmark, and the clinical study did demonstrate similar plasma PK profiles and drug exposures of both FP and SX as the current pig study. Two factors explain the close similarity of PK (1) similiar physiology between species and (2) the consistency of dosing to animals. To conclude, our study demonstrated the utility and translational potential of conducting PK studies in pigs in the development of inhaled pharmaceuticals.

Microencapsulation of Fluticasone Propionate and Salmeterol Xinafoate in Modified Chitosan Microparticles for Release Optimization

Chitosan (CS) is a natural polysaccharide, widely studied in the past due to its unique properties such as biocompatibility, biodegradability and non-toxicity. Chemical modification of CS is an effective pathway to prepare new matrices with additional functional groups and improved properties, such as increment of hydrophilicity and swelling rate, for drug delivery purposes. In the present study, four derivatives of CS with trans-aconitic acid (t-Acon), succinic anhydride (Succ), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA) and acrylic acid (AA) were prepared, and their successful grafting was confirmed by FTIR and ¹H-NMR spectroscopies. Neat chitosan and its grafted derivatives were fabricated for the encapsulation of fluticasone propionate (FLU) and salmeterol xinafoate (SX) drugs, used for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), via the ionotropic gelation technique. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs demonstrated that round-shaped microparticles (MPs) were effectively prepared with average sizes ranging between 0.4 and 2.2 μm, as were measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS), while zeta potential verified in all cases their positive charged surface. FTIR spectroscopy showed that some interactions take place between the drugs and the polymeric matrices, while X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns exhibited that both drugs were encapsulated in MPs’ interior with a lower degree of crystallinity than the neat drugs. In vitro release studies of FLU and SX exposed a great amelioration in the drugs’ dissolution profile from all modified CS’s MPs, in comparison to those of neat drugs. The latter fact is attributed to the reduction in crystallinity of the active substances in the MPs’ interior.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per μl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

Pharmacokinetic analysis of inhaled salmeterol in asthma patients: Evidence from two dry powder inhalers

Salmeterol (SAL) is a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist, which is widely used in the therapy of asthma. The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of inhaled salmeterol in asthma patients using two different dry powder inhalers. This analysis was based on data from 45 subjects who participated in a two-sequence, four-period crossover bioequivalence (BE) study after single administration of the test (T) and reference (R) products. In order to mimic more closely the real treatment conditions, activated charcoal was not co-administered. Plasma concentration-time (C-t) data were initially analysed using classic non-compartmental PK approaches, while the main objective of the study was to apply population PK modeling. The relative fraction of the dose absorbed via the lungs (R_L ) was set as a parameter in the structural model. The plasma C-t profiles of salmeterol showed a biphasic time course indicating a parallel pulmonary and gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. A two-compartment disposition model with first order absorption from the GI and very rapid absorption from lungs (like an i.v. bolus) was found to describe successfully the C-t profiles of salmeterol. The estimated R_L value was 13% suggesting a high gut deposition of inhaled salmeterol. Women were found to exert less capability to eliminate salmeterol than men, while body weight (in allometric form) was found to be an important covariate on the peripheral volume of distribution.

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in adults with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

For adults with asthma that is poorly controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines suggest adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA). The LABA can be taken together with ICS in a single (combination) inhaler. Improved symptom control can be assessed in the individual; however, the long-term risk of hospital admission or death requires evidence from randomised controlled trials. Clinical trials record these safety outcomes as non-fatal and fatal serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults with asthma treated with regular maintenance formoterol or salmeterol compared with placebo, or when randomly assigned in combination with regular ICS, compared with the same dose of ICS.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews on the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a June 2013 search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We carried out a search for additional trials in September 2013 and incorporated the new data. All reviews were independently assessed for inclusion and for quality (using the AMSTAR tool). We extracted from each review data from trials recruiting adults (participants older than 12 or 18 years of age).We combined the results from reviews on formoterol and salmeterol to assess the safety of twice-daily regular LABA as a class effect, both as monotherapy versus placebo and as combination therapy versus the same dose of ICS.We did not combine the results of direct and indirect comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol, or carry out a network meta-analysis, because of concerns over transitivity assumptions that posed a threat to the validity of indirect comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six high-quality, up-to-date Cochrane reviews. Of these, four reviews (89 trials with 61,366 adults) related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol as monotherapy or combination therapy. Two reviews assessed safety from trials in which adults were randomly assigned to formoterol versus salmeterol. These included three trials with 1116 participants given monotherapy (all prescribed background ICS) and 10 trials with 8498 adults receiving combination therapy. An additional search for trials in September 2013 identified five new included studies contributing data from 693 adults with asthma treated with combination formoterol/fluticasone in comparison with the same dose of inhaled fluticasone, as well as from 447 adults for whom formoterol monotherapy was compared with placebo.No trials reported separate results in adolescents. Overall, risks of bias for the primary outcomes were assessed as low. Death of any causeNone of the reviews found a significant increase in death of any cause from direct comparisons; however, none of the reviews could exclude the possibility of a two-fold increase in mortality on regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy vs placebo or as combination therapy versus ICS) in adults with asthma. Pooled mortality results from direct comparisons were as follows: formoterol monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 84.80, 13 trials, N = 4824), salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.08, 10 trials, N = 29,128), formoterol combination (OR 3.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 16.03, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.6, 35 trials, N = 13,447). In each case, we did not detect heterogeneity, and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. Absolute differences in mortality were very small, translating into an increase of 7 per 10,000 over 26 weeks on any monotherapy (95% CI 2 less to 23 more) and 3 per 10,000 over 32 weeks on any combination therapy (95% CI 3 less to 17 more).Very few deaths were reported in the combination therapy trials, and combination therapy trial designs were different from those of monotherapy trials. Therefore we could not use indirect evidence to assess whether regular combination therapy was safer than regular monotherapy.Only one death occurred in the monotherapy trials comparing formoterol versus salmeterol, so evidence was insufficient to compare mortality. Non-fatal serious adverse events of any causeDirect evidence showed that non-fatal serious adverse events were increased in adults receiving salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.14, 95% 1.01 to 1.28, I(2) = 0%,13 trials, N = 30,196) but were not significantly increased in any of the other reviews: formoterol monotherapy (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.04, I(2) = 15%, 17 trials, N = 5758), formoterol combination (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, I(2) = 0%, 35 trials, N = 13,447). This represents an absolute increase on any monotherapy of 43 per 10,000 over 26 weeks (95% CI 6 more to 85 more) and 16 per 10,000 over 32 weeks (95% CI 22 less to 60 more) on any combination therapy.Direct comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol detected no significant differences between risks of all non-fatal events in adults (as monotherapy or as combination therapy).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from the reviews of randomised trials cannot definitively rule out an increased risk of fatal serious adverse events when regular formoterol or salmeterol was added to an inhaled corticosteroid (as background or as randomly assigned treatment) in adults or adolescents with asthma.An increase in non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause was found with salmeterol monotherapy, and the same increase cannot be ruled out when formoterol or salmeterol was used in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid, although possible increases are small in absolute terms.However, if the addition of formoterol or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid is found to improve symptomatic control, it is safer to give formoterol or salmeterol in the form of a combination inhaler (as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). This prevents the substitution of LABA for an inhaled corticosteroid if symptom control is improved on LABA.The results of three large ongoing trials in adults and adolescents are awaited; these will provide more information on the safety of combination therapy under less supervised conditions and will report separate results for the adolescents included.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing budesonide plus formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality.Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I(2) = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate.There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid.Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV(1) improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations.More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.