Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (50/100 microg) in combination in a Diskus inhaler (Seretide) is effective and safe in children with asthma

Drug combinations for inhalation: Current products and future development addressing disease control and patient compliance

Pulmonary delivery is an alternative route of administration with numerous advantages over conventional routes of administration. It provides low enzymatic exposure, fewer systemic side effects, no first-pass metabolism, and concentrated drug amounts at the site of the disease, making it an ideal route for the treatment of pulmonary diseases. Owing to the thin alveolar-capillary barrier, and large surface area that facilitates rapid absorption to the bloodstream in the lung, systemic delivery can be achieved as well. Administration of multiple drugs at one time became urgent to control chronic pulmonary diseases such as asthma and COPD, thus, development of drug combinations was proposed. Administration of medications with variable dosages from different inhalers leads to overburdening the patient and may cause low therapeutic intervention. Therefore, products that contain combined drugs to be delivered via a single inhaler have been developed to improve patient compliance, reduce different dose regimens, achieve higher disease control, and boost therapeutic effectiveness in some cases. This comprehensive review aimed to highlight the growth of drug combinations by inhalation over time, obstacles and challenges, and the possible progress to broaden the current options or to cover new indications in the future. Moreover, various pharmaceutical technologies in terms of formulation and device in correlation with inhaled combinations were discussed in this review. Hence, inhaled combination therapy is driven by the need to maintain and improve the quality of life for patients with chronic respiratory diseases; promoting drug combinations by inhalation to a higher level is a necessity.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

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.

Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination or Separate Inhaler as Step-Up Therapy for Children with Uncontrolled Asthma Receiving Inhaled Corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Adding a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) using a fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler is the UK guideline recommendation for children aged more than 4 years with uncontrolled asthma. The evidence of benefit of adding an FDC inhaler over a separate LABA inhaler is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a LABA added as an FDC inhaler, and as a separate inhaler, in children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Two UK primary care databases were used to create a matched cohort study with a 2-year follow-up period. We included children prescribed their first step-up from ICS monotherapy. Two cohorts were formed for children receiving an add-on LABA as an FDC inhaler, or a separate LABA inhaler. Matching variables and confounders were identified by comparing characteristics during a baseline year of follow-up. Outcomes were examined during the subsequent year. The primary outcome was an adjusted odds ratio for overall asthma control (defined as follows: no asthma-related hospital admission or emergency room visit, prescription for oral corticosteroids or antibiotic with evidence of respiratory consultation, and ≤2 puffs of short-acting β-agonist daily).

RESULTS

The final study consisted of 1330 children in each cohort (mean age 9 years; 59% male). In the separate ICS+LABA cohort, the odds of achieving overall asthma control were lower (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.91]; P = .001) compared with the FDC cohort.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates a small but significant benefit in achieving asthma control from an add-on LABA as an FDC, compared with a separate inhaler and this supports current guideline recommendations.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 μg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 μg (80 μg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations.

RESULTS

Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide at 160 μg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

Real-world research and its importance in respiratory medicine

EDUCATIONAL AIMS

To improve understanding of: The relative benefits and limitations of evidence derived from different study designs and the role that real-life asthma studies can play in addressing limitations in the classical randomised controlled trial (cRCT) evidence base.The importance of guideline recommendations being modified to fit the populations studied and the model of care provided in their reference studies.

KEY POINTS

Classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) show results from a narrow patient group with a constrained ecology of care.Patients with "real-life" co-morbidities and lifestyle factors receiving usual care often have different responses to medication which will not be captured by cRCTs if they are excluded by strict selection criteria.Meta-analyses, used to direct guidelines, contain an inherent meta-bias based on patient selection and artificial patient care.Guideline recommendations should clarify where they related to cRCT ideals (in terms of patient populations, medical resources and care received) and could be enhanced through inclusion of evidence from studies designed to better model the populations and care approaches present in routine care.

SUMMARY

Clinical practice requires a complex interplay between experience and training, research, guidelines and judgement, and must not only draw on data from traditional or classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), but also from pragmatically designed studies that better reflect real-life clinical practice. To minimise extraneous variables and to optimise their internal validity, cRCTs exclude patients, clinical characteristics and variations in care that could potentially confound outcomes. The result is that respiratory cRCTs often enrol a small, non-representative subset of patients and overlook the important interplay and interactions between patients and the real world, which can effect treatment outcomes. Evidence from real-life studies (e.g. naturalistic or pragmatic clinical trials and observational studies encompassing healthcare database studies and cohort studies) can be combined with cRCT evidence to provide a fuller picture of intervention effectiveness and realistic treatment outcomes, and can provide useful insights into alternative management approaches in more challenging asthma patients. The Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG), in collaboration with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), is developing quality appraisal tools and methods for integrating different sources of evidence. A REG/EAACI taskforce aims to help support future guideline developers to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to recommendations and to tailor the conclusions of their meta-analyses to the populations under consideration.

Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents

Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics.

Management of asthma: the current US and European guidelines

Asthma management guidelines aim to improve the implementation of current knowledge into daily clinical practice by establishing a consensus of scientific practices for the management of asthma. Initial guidelines were based on consensus of expert opinion in order to employ a severity-based classification system as a guide to treatment. However, advances in asthma research led to the development of evidence-based guidelines and a major paradigm shift to control-based asthma management. Control-based management is central to the published guidelines developed by The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and The British Thoracic Society (BTS), each one using the same volume of evidence but emphasizing aspects particular to their specific patient populations and socioeconomic needs. This chapter summarizes the evolution of these guidelines and summarizes the key points and evidence used in the recommendations for the assessment, monitoring, and management of asthma in all ages, with particular emphasis on the NHLBI guidelines.

Management of Asthma in School age Children On Therapy (MASCOT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects one in eight children in the UK. National management guidelines have been available for many years but, unlike in adults, studies in children have been few, with their methodologies often based on inappropriate adult models. Sound medical evidence in support of the national guidelines for asthma management in children is lacking. The MASCOT study has been developed to address this need.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 4-week run-in period on a fluticasone propionate inhaler (100 µg twice daily) with inhaler technique correction. Patients who met the post run-in period eligibility criteria were randomised in the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 and were followed for 48 weeks.

SETTING

Secondary care hospitals based in England and Scotland with recruitment from primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 6-14 years with asthma requiring frequent short-acting beta-2 agonist relief, with symptoms of asthma resulting in nocturnal wakening and/or asthma that has interfered with usual activities.

INTERVENTIONS

Three groups were compared: (1) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus placebo tablet once daily; (2) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg and salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (combination inhaler) plus placebo tablet once daily; and (3) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus montelukast 5-mg tablet once daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids over 48 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life as measured by the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities [PAQLQ(S)] and the Paediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ); time from randomisation to first exacerbation requiring treatment with a short course of oral corticosteroids; school attendance; hospital admissions; amount of rescue beta-2 agonist therapy prescribed; time from randomisation to treatment withdrawal (because of lack of efficacy or side effects); lung function at 48 weeks (as assessed by spirometry); cost-effectiveness; adverse events.

RESULTS

The study was closed prematurely because of poor recruitment and the target sample size of 450 was not achieved. In total, 898 children were screened to enter the trial, 166 were registered for the 4-week run-in period and 63 were randomised (group 1: 19, group 2: 23, group 3: 21), with 38 contributing data for the primary outcome analysis. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the outcomes. Adverse events were similar between the groups except for nervous system disorders, which were more frequently reported on fluticasone plus montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the MASCOT study it is not possible to conclude whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to ICSs can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03556343.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Efficacy and Safety of Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate Combination Delivered by the Diskustrade mark or Pressurised Metered-Dose Inhaler in Children with Asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate are well established in the treatment of childhood asthma, and their combination is effective in children aged 4-11 years. Asthma guidelines recommend that the inhaler device best suited to the individual should be used to administer asthma treatment. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) delivered by the Diskustrade mark (50/100mug, one inhalation twice daily) and compare it with that observed when SFC is delivered by a chlorofluorocarbon-free pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) [25/50mug, two inhalations twice daily] in children aged 4-11 years with persistent asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This equivalence study had a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group design and comprised asthmatic children aged 4-11 years who required beclometasone (beclomethasone dipropionate) </=500 mug/day (or equivalent). After a 2-week run-in using existing inhaled corticosteroid therapy, patients were randomised to receive SFC via Diskustrade mark (n = 213) or pMDI (n = 215, with 82% using a spacer) for 12 weeks. Salbutamol (Ventolin((R))) was provided for symptomatic relief. The primary endpoint was mean morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) recorded by patients during weeks 1-12. Secondary endpoints included other lung function parameters, day- and night-time symptoms, use of rescue medication and percentage of symptom- and salbutamol-free days. Adverse events and 12-hour overnight urinary cortisol concentrations were monitored to assess safety.

RESULTS

Treatment with SFC, delivered by either device, was highly effective in improving patients' morning PEF and asthma symptoms. Over the whole study period, morning PEF (mean +/- standard error) improved by 37.7 +/- 3.1 L/min in the Diskustrade mark group and by 38.6 +/- 3.0 L/min in the pMDI group. The -0.9 L/min difference between groups (95% CI -7.1, 5.4) was within the predefined criterion for equivalence of (i.e. -15, 15 L/min). The median percentage of symptom-free and rescue medication-free days and nights increased considerably in both groups. For all efficacy parameters assessed, improvement occurred for all age groups as early as weeks 1-4, and was sustained over the 12 weeks. Both Diskustrade mark and pMDI treatments were well tolerated and their safety profiles were comparable.

CONCLUSION

SFC delivered via Diskustrade mark or pMDI was shown to be highly effective in asthmatic children aged 4-11 years. Children as young as 4 years were able to use the Diskustrade mark and pMDI effectively. The combination is clinically equivalent when administered via either device in this patient population. This means that both Diskustrade mark and pMDI (+ spacer) are suitable for administration of SFC, which provides prescribers/users with a choice of device.

[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.

Comparison of heat-sensitive moxibustion versus fluticasone/salmeterol (seretide) combination in the treatment of chronic persistent asthma: design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a major health problem and has significant mortality around the world. Although the symptoms can be controlled by drug treatment in most patients, effective low-risk, non-drug strategies could constitute a significant advance in asthma management. An increasing number of patients with asthma are attracted by acupuncture and moxibustion. Therefore, it is of importance that scientific evidence about the efficacy of this type of therapy is regarded. Our past researches suggested heat-sensitive moxibustion might be effective in treatment of asthma. Our objective is to investigate the effectiveness of heat-sensitive moxibustion compared with conventional drug treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is comprised of a multi-centre (12 centers in China), randomized, controlled trial with two parallel arms (A: heat-sensitive moxibustion; B: conventional drug). Group A selects heat- sensitive acupoints from the rectangle region which consist of two outer lateral lines of dorsal Bladder Meridian of Foot-Taiyang, and two horizontal lines of BL13(Fei Shu) and BL17 (Ge Shu);6 inch outer the first and second rib gap of anterior chest. Group B treats with fluticasone/salmeterol (seretide). The outcome measures will be assessed over a 3-month period before each clinic visit at days 15, 30, 60, and 90. Follow-up visit will be at 3, 6 months after the last treatment session. Adverse event information will be collected at each clinic visit.

DISCUSSION

This trial will utilize high quality trial methodologies in accordance with CONSORT guidelines. It may provide evidence for the effectiveness of heat-sensitive moxibustion as a treatment for chronic moderate persistent asthma. Moreover, the result may propose a new type moxibustion to control asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at Chinese Clinical Trials Registry: ChiCTR-TRC-09000599.

Systemic bioavailability of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) formulations of fluticasone/salmeterol in healthy volunteers via pMDI alone and spacer

AIM

To compare a test version of HFA fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SM) combination inhaler (Neolab, UK) with the reference product Seretide (GlaxoSmithKline, UK).

METHODS

An in vitro Anderson cascade impactor was used to compare the fine particle dose (<4.7 microm). Two separate randomized cross-over studies were performed to compare the systemic bioavailability of test vs. reference (T vs. R) formulations of FP/SM 250/25 microg pMDI in healthy volunteers. In study 1 blood pharmacokinetic analysis using oral charcoal block was performed over 24 h following a single dose of four puffs via pMDI alone. In study 2 systemic bioactivity was measured following single doses of four and eight puffs via a spacer device: serum potassium (K(+)) to reflect SM, and overnight urinary cortisol : creatinine (OUCC) for FP. An early pharmacokinetic profile was also assessed over 120 min.

RESULTS

The in vitro fine particle dose was similar for test vs. reference pMDI alone and via spacer. The results of both studies were consistent: No significant differences between formulations were seen in terms of FP kinetics. Analysis of SM kinetics revealed superiority of the test product. No significant dose-response or difference in T : R ratio was noted for OUCC. Fall in K(+) revealed a significant dose-response with a non-significant T : R ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

The in vitro fine particle dose may not predict pharmacokinetic and systemic pharmacodynamic outcomes. Single dosing studies with fluticasone/salmeterol 250/25 microg via pMDI or with spacer showed pharmacokinetic equivalence with FP, but not SM. No significant difference between formulations was seen with either adrenal suppression or hypokalaemia.

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

Use and safety of long-acting β2-agonists for pediatric asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as the preferred add-on therapy for adults and children over 5 years of age when asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone. It has been suggested that LABA use may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, this view is controversial since study findings have been inconsistent. While the safety profile of LABA monotherapy has been questioned, the value of concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to eliminate possible risks remains unproven. There is a paucity of efficacy and safety data for LABA use in children, and existing evidence is not sufficiently convincing to demonstrate a clear position for LABAs in the management of childhood asthma. The main aims of this article are to place LABAs in context in the management of childhood asthma and evaluate the current evidence for safety and efficacy.

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.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

Current trends in the treatment of asthma: focus on the simultaneous administration of salmeterol/fluticasone

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airways that affects over 20 million people in the United States. It is a complex disease that involves airway infiltration by different types of cells and cell mediators causing chronic inflammation of the airway as well as hyper-responsiveness and edema. Management of asthma symptoms often requires combination therapy with multiple medications. Long-acting beta-2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have become key medications in the prevention of asthma exacerbations. The bronchodilatory effects of the beta-2 agonists coupled with the anti-inflammatory action of the corticosteroids combat the multi-factorial causes of asthma. The combination inhaler containing salmeterol and fluticasone is one such product that has been proven safe and effective for asthma therapy.

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.

[When and how to modify the management of asthma in children over the age of 4]

The treatment of asthma in children should not be fixed but rather must be regularly adapted to keep the condition under control defined according to clinical and functional criteria. In a child whose asthma is controlled, a step down in therapy should be carried out every 3 to 6 months to achieve the minimal effective level of treatment. In a child whose asthma appears not to be controlled, it is necessary initially to evaluate compliance with therapy and to seek aggravating factors which may include allergic rhinitis, multiple sensitisation, tobacco exposure, psychological factors, obesity, gastro- oesophageal reflux and infection. Where control of asthma is poor the main therapeutic strategy rests on an increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid and on the addition of other anti-asthmatic treatments--inhaled long--acting beta 2 agonists and oral leukotriene antagonists.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate vs. double dose fluticasone propionate on lung function and asthma control in children

There is a large body of data to support the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist vs. increasing the dose of ICS in adults, but less data in children. This double-blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared lung function and asthma control, based on Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, in children receiving either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) 50/100 microg bd (n = 160) or fluticasone propionate (FP) 200 microg bd (n = 161) for 12 wks. Change from baseline in mean morning peak expiratory flow increased following both treatments, but was significantly greater in the SFC group compared with FP [Adjusted mean change (s.e.) (l/min): SFC: 26.9 (2.13), FP: 19.3 (2.12); treatment difference: 7.6 (3.01); 95% CI: 1.7, 13.5; p = 0.012)]. Asthma control improved over time in both groups. Mean pre-bronchodilator maximal-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity and percentage rescue-free days showed significantly greater improvements in the SFC group compared with FP. All other efficacy indices showed comparable improvements in each group. Treatment with SFC 50/100 microg bd compared with twice the steroid dose of FP (200 microg bd), was at least as effective in improving individual clinical outcomes and overall asthma control, in asthmatic children previously uncontrolled on low doses of ICS.

Add-on salmeterol compared to double dose fluticasone in pediatric asthma: a double-blind, randomized trial (VIAPAED)

RATIONALE

In asthmatic children whose symptoms are uncontrolled on standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines recommend to either increase the ICS dose or to add further controller medication, e.g. a long acting ss2-agonist (LABA). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of ICS (fluticasone proprionate FP 200 microg twice daily) with adding a long-acting beta-2 agonist to the ICS (SFC, salmeterol 50 microg/ FP 100 microg twice daily) in children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Children between 4 and 16 years of age were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel-group study. During a 14-day run-in phase, all children inhaled FP 100 microg b.i.d. Patients with persistent symptoms on > or =7 of 14 days were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with a Diskus(R) containing either SFC 50 microg/100 microg b.i.d. or FP 200 microg b.i.d.. The primary endpoint was the mean change in morning (a.m.) PEF from baseline. The initial statistical hypothesis of non-inferiority of SFC vs. FP was confirmed in an adaptive interim analysis, so that the study was terminated prematurely.

RESULTS

441 patients from 39 centers entered the run-in phase, and 64% of these were randomized to treatment (N = 138 to SFC and N = 145 to FP). After 8 weeks, patients on SFC had significantly better results for primary and secondary endpoints: The mean increase in morning PEF was 30.4 +/- 34.1 L/min in the SFC group and 16.7 +/- 35.8 L/min in the fluticasone group, and the mean (95% CI) improvement from baseline a.m. PEF in the ITT group was significantly larger after SFC (+8.6 L/min, CI: [1.3; infinity]). Patients in the SFC group experienced 8.7% (CI: [1.2;16.3]) more days without asthma symptoms and 8.0% (CI: [0.6;15.3]) more days without salbutamol than patients receiving FP. Good asthma control was achieved for a longer period in the SFC (3.4 +/- 2.7 weeks) group than in the FP group (2.7 +/- 2.7, P = 0.02). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Asthma exacerbations were recorded in 3 and 6 and SAEs in 2 and 1 patients from the SFC and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on low dose ICS alone, adding a long acting beta-2-agonist to ICS in a single inhaler was more effective than doubling the ICS dose. These results support recommendations of adding LABA to low-dose ICS as the preferred controller option for children older than 4 years with symptomatic asthma.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased 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 salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

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 salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 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 salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Pharmaceutical treatment strategies for childhood asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although great improvement has been obtained in quality of life and mastering of illness by asthmatic children over recent decades, controversies still exist related to asthma treatment. The objective of the present article is to discuss such controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Results from recent publications related to childhood asthma treatment question existing dogmas. Important for prescribing correct treatment to children is correct diagnosis. Phenotypes of childhood asthma related to treatment decisions are discussed. Early use of inhaled steroids in young children is still debated as well as the preference of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists versus leukotriene receptor antagonists as add on to inhaled steroids. When present, both allergic rhinitis and asthma should be treated to obtain improved control. Also as regards the treatment of exercise-induced asthma in children, new results concerning use of leukotriene receptor antagonists is discussed as well as the acute treatment in infants with bronchial obstruction.

SUMMARY

There are still several controversies regarding treatment of the asthmatic child. New studies designed specifically for children are needed to solve these questions. One cannot rely on studies performed in adults for treatment in children. New studies designed for childhood asthma are needed to solve these controversies.

Lung function and asthma control with beclomethasone and formoterol in a single inhaler

BACKGROUND

Lung deposition is crucial for asthma treatment. However, there is no study comparing the potential role of lung co-deposition of combination therapy (inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 agonist) in the same inhaler. In moderate to severe asthmatics, an extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane combination of beclomethasone dipropionate and formoterol given via a single pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) was compared with beclomethasone dipropionate chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pMDI and formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) given via separate inhalers.

METHODS

In a double-blind, double-dummy, 24-week randomised clinical trial, 645 patients with moderate to severe asthma uncontrolled by regular treatment with inhaled corticosteroids received regular treatment with extra-fine fixed combination beclomethasone dipropionate 200 microg/formoterol 12 microg bid, or beclomethasone dipropionate (500 microg bid) via CFC pMDI and formoterol (12 microg bid) via DPI, or beclomethasone dipropionate (500 microg bid) via CFC pMDI. The primary outcome was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary outcomes included lung function measured at clinic, asthma symptoms and control, exacerbations.

RESULTS

Beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol combination via single inhaler or via separate inhalers improved morning PEF. However, the combination via single inhaler was more effective than given via separate inhalers for asthma control. Both combination treatments were superior to beclomethasone dipropionate alone in improving lung function and asthma control. All treatments were well tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with moderate to severe asthma, beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol in a single inhaler was as effective as beclomethasone dipropionate plus formoterol and superior to beclomethasone dipropionate alone in improving lung function. For the first time with a single inhaler, beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol was significantly superior to separate components for asthma control.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate via Diskus once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in patients with mild asthma not previously receiving maintenance corticosteroids

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) therapy have been well established in the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma. Once-daily administration of SFC could also be appropriate in patients with mild persistent asthma. This study aimed to investigate whether once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg was at least as effective as fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 microg twice daily, and more effective than twice-daily placebo, over 52 weeks as initial maintenance therapy in patients with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study carried out in primary and secondary care. Patients aged between 12 and 79 years with a documented clinical history of asthma for > or =6 months who were currently receiving inhaled short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists only were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either once-daily inhaled SFC 50 microg/100 microg, twice-daily inhaled FP 100 microg (i.e. twice the dose of FP compared with SFC) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), as recorded by patients prior to the use of bronchodilator or study medication, and the rate of investigator-recorded asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Patients receiving twice-daily FP and once-daily SFC showed greater improvements in mean morning PEF compared with those receiving placebo (FP, difference in means 20.1 L/min; 95% CI 14.7, 25.5; p < 0.001; SFC, difference in means 14.8 L/min; 95% CI 9.4, 20.2; p < 0.001). The difference in adjusted mean PEF between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP was -5.3 L/min (95% CI -9.1, -1.6). PEF results showed that once-daily SFC was non-inferior to twice-daily FP. Over 52 weeks, there was a 35% reduction in exacerbation rates with once-daily SFC, which in this respect demonstrated superiority over placebo (p < 0.001). Non-inferiority between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP with respect to exacerbation rates was not shown. Once-daily SFC significantly improved clinic forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (difference in means 0.129 L/s; p < 0.001) and clinic PEF (difference in means 10.8 L/min; p < 0.001) compared with twice-daily FP. Both treatments were well tolerated and the safety profile of each was similar to that seen with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild persistent asthma not previously receiving maintenance therapy, once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg is an effective treatment compared with placebo, and was non-inferior to twice-daily FP 100 microg with respect to mean morning PEF. However, in this study, once-daily SFC was not as efficacious as twice-daily FP in reducing asthma exacerbation rates. This study confirms the benefits of regular maintenance treatment in patients with mild persistent asthma.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a new pressurised metered-dose inhaler formulation of budesonide/formoterol in children with asthma: a superiority and therapeutic equivalence study

AIM

This paediatric asthma study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol dry-powder inhaler (DPI).

METHODS

The study was a 12-week, multinational, double-blind trial involving children (aged 6-11 years) with symptomatic asthma on inhaled corticosteroids (375-1000 microg/day), with a history of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and peak expiratory flow (PEF) > or =50% of predicted. Patients were randomised (two inhalations twice daily) to budesonide pMDI 100 microg, budesonide/formoterol DPI 80/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning PEF.

RESULTS

Overall, 622 patients were randomised. Increases in morning PEF with budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide/formoterol DPI were therapeutically equivalent (29.5 versus 30.2l/min, respectively; 95% confidence interval: -6.0 to 4.6; P=0.78, also confirmed by per-protocol analysis). Improvements in secondary efficacy endpoints with both budesonide/formoterol formulations were not significantly different. Significantly greater improvement was achieved with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI for morning PEF (+9.6l/min; P<0.001) and other lung function parameters. The safety profile of budesonide/formoterol pMDI was favourable and similar to that of budesonide/formoterol DPI and budesonide pMDI.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol, administered via the therapeutically equivalent hydrofluoroalkane pMDI or DPI, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for children with asthma.

Duration of action of the salmeterol/fluticasone combination inhaler administered in the evening: a randomized controlled trial in childhood asthma

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

To investigate the duration of bronchodilator action of a salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) inhaler when administered in the evening to children with asthma.

METHODOLOGY

DESIGN

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.

SETTING

Hospital inpatient.

SUBJECTS

Fourteen children aged between 4 and 11 years with mild to moderate asthma (FEV(1) > 60% predicted) who exhibited a 15% increase in FEV(1) with bronchodilator.

INTERVENTIONS

SUBJECTS inhaled, in random order, either SFC (100/50 microg) or placebo, via accuhaler, at 20.00 hours on two separate occasions with at least 3 days between study days.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lung function measurements including FEV(1), PEF, specific airways conductance (sGaw) and maximum expiratory flow at 25-75% of vital capacity were measured at baseline, 2, 12, 16, 20 and 24 h.

RESULTS

For all lung function parameters SFC resulted in significantly greater bronchodilation than placebo for at least 20 h after inhalation. At 24 h, the increase in FEV(1) and PEF compared with placebo was 0.08 L (95% confidence interval: -0.18 to 0.02, P = 0.16) and 27 L/min (95% confidence interval: -47 to -6, P = 0.004), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The single administration of SFC via an accuhaler in the evening resulted in significant bronchodilation for at least 20 h in children with asthma.

Inhaled steroid/long-acting beta 2 agonist combination products provide 24 hours improvement in lung function in adult asthmatic patients

Background

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) is recommended by treatment guidelines for the treatment of persistent asthma. Two such combination products, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC, Seretide™ GSK, UK) and formoterol/budesonide (FBC, Symbicort™, AstraZeneca, UK) are commercially available.

Objectives

The purpose of these studies was to evaluate and compare the duration of bronchodilation of both combination products up to 24 hours after a single dose.

Methods

Two randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were performed. Study A was conducted in 33 asthmatic adults receiving 400–1200 mcg of budesonide or equivalent. Serial forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) was measured over 24 hours to determine the duration of effect of both SFC (50/100 mcg) and FBC (4.5/160 mcg). Study B was conducted in 75 asthmatic adults receiving 800–1200 mcg of budesonide or equivalent and comprised a 4 week run-in of 400 mcg bd Becotide™ followed by 4 weeks treatment with either SFC 50/100 mcg bd or FBC 4.5/160 mcg bd taken in a cross-over manner. Serial 24-hour FEV₁ was measured after the first dose and the last dose after each 4-weeks treatment period to determine the offset of action of each treatment.

Results

In study A, a single inhalation of SFC and FBC produced a sustained bronchodilation at 16 hours with an adjusted mean increase in FEV₁ from pre-dose of 0.22 L (95% CI 0.19, 0.35 L) for SFC and 0.25 L (95% CI 0.21, 0.37 L) for FBC, which was significantly greater than placebo for both treatments (-0.05 L; p < 0.001). In study B, the slope of decline in FEV₁ from 2–24 hours post dose was -16.0 ml/hr for SFC and -14.2 ml/hr for FBC. The weighted mean AUC over 24 hours was 0.21 Lxmin and 0.22 Lxmin and mean change from pre-dose FEV₁ at 12 hours was 0.21 L for SFC and 0.20 L for FBC respectively

Conclusion

Both SFC and FBC produced a similar sustained bronchodilator effect which was prolonged beyond 12 hours post dose and was clearly measurable at 24 h.

Combination inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists: improved clinical efficacy and dosing options in patients with asthma

Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) is a recognized treatment for adults with moderate to severe asthma. The introduction of inhalers containing both an ICS and a LABA simplifies treatment and improves asthma control. This review discusses clinical evidence that budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone are effective and well tolerated in asthma treatment. Moreover, the rapid onset of effect and long duration of action of budesonide and formoterol make once-daily dosing, adjustable maintenance dosing, and the novel treatment strategy of using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, valuable treatment options for patients with 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.

Combination of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled steroids versus higher dose of inhaled steroids in children and adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled beta2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in asthmatic patients, the effect of the combination of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, on pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children aged 2 years and older, and in adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of rescue beta2 agonists, adverse events and withdrawal rates. The meta-analysis was done with RevMan Analyses and the meta-regression, with Stata.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 593 citations identified, 30 (three pediatric; 27 adult) trials were analysed recruiting 9509 participants, including one study providing two control-intervention comparisons. Only one trial included corticosteroid-naive patients. Participants were symptomatic, generally (N=20 trials) presenting with moderate (FEV1 60-79% of predicted) rather than mild airway obstruction. Trials tested the combination of salmeterol (N=22) or formoterol (N=8) with a median of 400 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 800 to 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq. Trial duration was 24 weeks or less in all but four trials. There was no significant group difference in the rate of patients with exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [N=15, RR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.02)]. The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 [N=7, WMD=0.10 L (95% CI: 0.07, 0.12)], in symptom-free days [N=8 , WMD=11.90% (95% CI:7.37, 16.44), random effects model], and in the daytime use of rescue beta2 agonists than a higher dose of ICS [N=4, WMD= -0.99 puffs/day (95% CI: -1.41, -0.58), random effects model]. There was no significant group difference in the rate of overall adverse events [N=15, RR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.03), random effects model], or specific side effects, with the exception of a three-fold increase rate of tremor in the LABA group [N= 10, RR=2.96 (95%CI: 1.60, 5.45)]. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS [N=20, RR=0.69 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.93)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adult asthmatics, there was no significant difference between the combination of LABA and ICS and a higher dose of ICS for the prevention of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Overall, the combination therapy led to greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue beta2 agonists, (although most of the results are from trials of up to 24 weeks duration). There were less withdrawals due to poor asthma control in this group than when using a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor, the two options appear safe although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored.

The safety of twice-daily treatment with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in pediatric patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

For children older than 5 years with asthma who remain symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy, the preferred treatment is to add an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist vs increasing the ICS dose.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety of twice-daily treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate plus the inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist salmeterol with that of fluticasone propionate used alone in children aged 4 to 11 years with persistent asthma.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study in 203 children with persistent asthma who were symptomatic during ICS therapy. Patients received fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (100/50 microg) or fluticasone propionate (100 microg) alone twice daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The safety profile of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol was similar to that of fluticasone propionate alone. The overall incidence of adverse events was 59% for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol and 57% for fluticasone propionate. Both treatments were well tolerated. Two patients receiving fluticasone propionate-salmeterol and 5 receiving fluticasone propionate withdrew from the study because of worsening asthma. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and laboratory variables were infrequent and were similar between treatments. No patients had clinically significant abnormal electrocardiographic findings during treatment. Geometric mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment was comparable within and between groups; no patient in either group had abnormally low 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion after 12 weeks of treatment. The incidence of withdrawals due to asthma exacerbations was 2% in the fluticasone propionate-salmeterol group and 5% in the fluticasone propionate group.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients with persistent asthma, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol twice daily was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of fluticasone propionate used alone.

Formoterol used as needed in patients with intermittent or mild persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of as-needed treatment of formoterol compared with the short-acting alternative terbutaline.

METHODS

Two double-blind, 12-month, parallel-group, non-inferiority trials comparing as-needed use of formoterol (Oxis) 4.5 microg and terbutaline (Bricanyl) 0.5 mg via dry-powder inhaler (Turbuhaler), one in 675 patients with intermittent and one in 455 patients with mild persistent asthma, overall 6-87 years of age. Peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptoms, rescue medication use, exacerbations, airway responsiveness (metacholine challenge; subgroup of 127 patients), systemic effects (high single-dose test; subgroup of 87 patients), and safety (adverse events) were assessed.

RESULTS

Formoterol 4.5 microg was as effective as terbutaline 0.5 mg with regard to morning PEF (non-inferiority; lower 95% confidence interval limit above -10 L/min). Metacholine sensitivity, exacerbation rates or use of rescue medication did not differ between treatments. Formoterol 54 microg was shown to give less systemic effects than terbutaline 6 mg. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol 4.5 microg used as needed was at least as effective and safe as terbutaline 0.5 mg used as needed in intermittent and mild persistent asthma, and was associated with less systemic effects when administered as high single doses.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of initiating anti-inflammatory therapy using the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS+LABA) as compared to inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) until April 2004, bibliographies of identified RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS + LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone in steroid-naive children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by each reviewer 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), symptoms, use of other measures of asthma control, adverse events, and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria; nine (totaling 1061 adults) contributed sufficient data to be analysed. Baseline forced expiratory volume in one minute (FEV1) was less than 80% predicted value in four trials and equal to or greater than 80% in five trials. The long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) formoterol (N=2) or salmeterol (N=7) were added to a dose of at least 800 microg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in three trials and to at least 400 microg/day in the six remaining trials. Treatment with ICS plus LABA was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than ICS alone (relative risk (RR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9). FEV1 improved significantly with LABA (weighted mean difference (WMD) 210 ml; 95% CI 120 to 300), as did symptom-free days (WMD 10.74%; 95% CI 1.86 to 19.62), but the change in use of rescue fast-acting beta2-agonists was not significantly different between the groups (WMD -0.4 puff/day, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.1). There was no significant group difference in adverse events (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), withdrawals (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the initiation of inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists does not significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations over that achieved with inhaled corticosteroids alone; it does improve lung function and symptom-free days but does not reduce rescue beta2-agonist use as compared to inhaled steroids alone. Both options appear safe. There is insufficient evidence at present to recommend use of combination therapy rather than ICS alone as a first-line treatment.

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.