1
|
Mabelane T, Masekela R, Dandara C, Hadebe S. Immunogenetics and pharmacogenetics of allergic asthma in Africa. FRONTIERS IN ALLERGY 2023; 4:1165311. [PMID: 37228580 PMCID: PMC10203899 DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2023.1165311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Asthma is a common chronic condition in children and in an African setting is often highly prevalent in urban areas as compared to rural areas. Asthma is a heritable disease and the genetic risk is often exacerbated by unique localised environmental factors. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendation for the control of asthma includes inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or together with short-acting β2-agonists (SABA) or long-acting β2-agonists (LABA). While these drugs can relieve asthma symptoms, there is evidence of reduced efficacy in people of African ancestry. Whether this is due to immunogenetics, genomic variability in drug metabolising genes (pharmacogenetics) or genetics of asthma-related traits is not well defined. Pharmacogenetic evidence of first-line asthma drugs in people of African ancestry is lacking and is further compounded by the lack of representative genetic association studies in the continent. In this review, we will discuss the paucity of data related to the pharmacogenetics of asthma drugs in people of African ancestry, mainly drawing from African American data. We will further discuss how this gap can be bridged to improve asthma health outcomes in Africa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tshegofatso Mabelane
- Department of Medicine, Sefako Makgatho Health Science University, Ga-Rankuwa, South Africa
| | - Refiloe Masekela
- Department of Paediatrics, Nelson Mandela School of Medicine, Inkosi Albert Luthuli Hospital, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| | - Collet Dandara
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences and Institute of Infectious Diseases Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
- Platform for Pharmacogenomics Research and Translation, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Sabelo Hadebe
- Division of Immunology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cui S, Fang F, Cui P, Jiang Q, Xu S, Xu Z, Hu J, Li F. Associations between the use of β-adrenoceptor acting drugs and the risk of dementia in older population. Front Neurol 2022; 13:999666. [PMID: 36619918 PMCID: PMC9813664 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.999666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Age-related decline within the noradrenergic system is associated with reduced cognition. The β-adrenoceptors are widely expressed in the brain as well as in the peripheral. Medications targeting β-adrenoceptor activity have been widely used in older adults. The aim of this study was to explore the associations between β-adrenoceptor acting drugs and the risk of dementia in the older population. Methods The subjects' information was collected from the electronic medical record (EMR) database. A propensity score matching strategy was conducted to select control participants for users of β2-agonists or β-antagonists. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the risk of dementia with the use of β2-agonists or β-antagonists. Results A total of 1,429 participants in the EMR database were included in the study. The use of β2-agonists was strongly associated with a decreased risk of dementia [OR = 0.324, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.149-0.707, P = 0.005]. This decreased risk showed a statistically significant inverse time-dependent pattern (P trend = 0.014). However, the use of non-selective β-antagonists significantly correlated with an increased dementia risk (OR = 1.961, 95% CI: 1.144-3.359, P = 0.014), although no time-dependent manner was found (P trend = 0.220). There was no association between selective β1-antagonists usage and dementia risk (OR = 1.114, P = 0.625). Conclusion The use of β-adrenoceptor acting drugs seems to be associated with the risk of dementia. Pharmacological interventions modulating β2-adrenoceptor activity might be a potential target in therapeutics for dementia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shishuang Cui
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Fang Fang
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Peijing Cui
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Qianwen Jiang
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Shaoqing Xu
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhihong Xu
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Zhihong Xu ✉
| | - Jia'An Hu
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Jia'An Hu ✉
| | - Feika Li
- Department of Geriatrics, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,Medical Center on Aging, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China,*Correspondence: Feika Li ✉
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
O'Shea O, Stovold E, Cates CJ. Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD007694. [PMID: 33852162 PMCID: PMC8095067 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007694.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments. OBJECTIVES To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 24 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orlagh O'Shea
- School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Elizabeth Stovold
- Cochrane Airways, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Christopher J Cates
- Cochrane Airways, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Uncovering Outcome Disparities of β 2 Adrenergic Agonists in Blacks: A Systematic Review. J Natl Med Assoc 2020; 113:8-29. [PMID: 32732018 DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2020.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2020] [Revised: 06/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This review assessed systematic variation in β2 agonist treatment outcomes among Blacks compared to other groups. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting differential response to β2 agonists among Blacks, including studies identifying pharmacogenetic variants. RESULTS Of 3158 papers, 20 compared safety or efficacy of β2 agonists among Blacks as compared with other subgroups. Six papers evaluating efficacy of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) found similar or improved results among Blacks compared with other groups, while one small study found reduced response to SABA therapy among Blacks. Reports of safety and efficacy of long-acting β2 agonists (LABA) indicated similar results among Blacks in four papers, while four reports found reduced safety among Blacks, as compared with other groups. Four papers assessed genomic variation and relative treatment response in Blacks, with two finding significant effects of the p.Arg16Gly variant in ADRB2 on β2 agonist response and one finding significant gene-gene IL6/IL6R interaction effects on albuterol response. CONCLUSIONS Evidence suggests the potential for differences in β2 agonist outcomes among Blacks compared with other groups. This literature, however, remains small and significantly underpowered for substantive conclusions. There are notable opportunities for adequately-powered investigations exploring safety and efficacy of β2 agonists among Blacks, including pharmacogenomic modifiers of response.
Collapse
|
5
|
Roos KLT, Al-Jumaily AM. Effects of superimposed pressure oscillations on a chronic sensitized airways mouse model. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2020; 318:L900-L907. [PMID: 32101015 DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00348.2019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The hyperconstriction of airway smooth muscle (ASM) is the main driving mechanism during an asthmatic attack. The airway lumen is reduced, resistance to airflow increases, and normal breathing becomes more difficult. The tissue contraction can be temporarily relieved by using bronchodilator drugs, which induce relaxation of the constricted airways. In vitro studies indicate that relaxation of isolated, precontracted ASM is induced by mechanical oscillations in healthy subjects but not in asthmatic subjects. Further, short-term acute asthmatic subjects respond to superimposed pressure oscillations (SIPO) generated in the range of 5-15 Hz with ~50% relaxation of preconstricted sensitized airways. Mechanical oscillations, and specifically SIPO, are not widely characterized in asthmatic models. The objective of this in vivo study is to determine the effects of a range of oscillation patterns similar to our previous acute study differing from normal breathing. Both healthy and sensitized mice were observed, with their responses to SIPO treatments measured during induced bronchoconstriction resulting from acetylcholine (Ach) challenge. SIPO-generated results were compared with data from treatments using the bronchorelaxant isoproterenol (ISO). The study shows that SIPO in the range of 5-20 Hz induces relaxation in chronic sensitized airways, with significant improvements in respiratory parameters at SIPO values near 1.7 cmH2O irrespective of the frequency of generation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K L T Roos
- Institute of Biomedical Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - A M Al-Jumaily
- Institute of Biomedical Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Janjua S, Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Cates CJ. Inhaled steroids with and without regular formoterol for asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD006924. [PMID: 31553802 PMCID: PMC6760886 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006924.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). OBJECTIVES To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone. 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 as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sadia Janjua
- St George's, University of LondonCochrane Airways, Population Health Research InstituteLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Stefanie Schmidt
- UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für UrologieNestorstr. 8‐9 (1. Hof)BerlinGermany10709
| | - Montse Ferrer
- IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute)Health Services Research GroupC/ Doctor Aiguader, 88BarcelonaSpain08003
| | - Christopher J Cates
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cates CJ, Schmidt S, Ferrer M, Sayer B, Waterson S. Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12:CD006922. [PMID: 30521673 PMCID: PMC6524619 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Stefanie Schmidt
- UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für UrologieNestorstr. 8‐9 (1. Hof)BerlinGermany10709
| | | | - Ben Sayer
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Samuel Waterson
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Research InstituteCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jacobson GA, Raidal S, Hostrup M, Calzetta L, Wood-Baker R, Farber MO, Page CP, Walters EH. Long-Acting β2-Agonists in Asthma: Enantioselective Safety Studies are Needed. Drug Saf 2018; 41:441-449. [PMID: 29332144 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-017-0631-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) such as formoterol and salmeterol are used for prolonged bronchodilatation in asthma, usually in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Unexplained paradoxical asthma exacerbations and deaths have been associated with LABAs, particularly when used without ICS. LABAs clearly demonstrate effective bronchodilatation and steroid-sparing activity, but long-term treatment can lead to tolerance of their bronchodilator effects. There are also concerns with regard to the effects of LABAs on bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), where long-term use is associated with increased BHR and loss of bronchoprotection. A complicating factor is that formoterol and salmeterol are both chiral compounds, usually administered as 50:50 racemic (rac-) mixtures of two enantiomers. The chiral nature of these compounds has been largely forgotten in the debate regarding LABA safety and effects on BHR, particularly that (S)-enantiomers of β2-agonists may be deleterious to asthma control. LABAs display enantioselective pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Biological plausibility of the deleterious effects of β2-agonists (S)-enantiomers is provided by in vitro and in vivo studies from the short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) salbutamol. Supportive clinical findings include the fact that patients in emergency departments who demonstrate a blunted response to salbutamol are more likely to benefit from (R)-salbutamol than rac-salbutamol, and resistance to salbutamol appears to be a contributory mechanism in rapid asthma deaths. More effort should therefore be applied to investigating potential enantiospecific effects of LABAs on safety, specifically bronchoprotection. Safety studies directly assessing the effects of LABA (S)-enantiomers on BHR are long overdue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Glenn A Jacobson
- School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 26, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
| | - Sharanne Raidal
- School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
| | - Morten Hostrup
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Luigino Calzetta
- Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Richard Wood-Baker
- School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 26, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia
| | - Mark O Farber
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Clive P Page
- Sackler Institute of Pulmonary Pharmacology, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - E Haydn Walters
- School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 26, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee HW, Kim HJ, Lee CH. The impact of olodaterol on the risk of mortality and serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2017; 83:1166-1175. [PMID: 27957746 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2016] [Revised: 10/21/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
AIMS Olodaterol is a novel inhaled long-acting β2 -agonist (LABA) that showed efficacy as a bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. However, it is unclear whether olodaterol reduces mortality; the safety issues of olodaterol have not been fully evaluated. METHODS Randomized controlled trials comparing olodaterol with placebo for patients with COPD or asthma, which evaluated mortality or serious adverse events, were included. Eighteen trials reporting mortality and 26 trials reporting nonfatal serious adverse events were included. RESULTS Inhaled olodaterol did not reduce the risk of mortality (Peto fixed OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.90-1.89) and had no significant impacts on nonfatal serious adverse events (Peto fixed OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.15). CONCLUSIONS Inhaled olodaterol has no impact on mortality risk in clinical trials conducted on patients with COPD and asthma. However, the interpretation is limited by a high OR (1.31) and a wide CI that includes the hazardous effect. We could not find any relationship between inhaled olodaterol use and nonfatal serious adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun Woo Lee
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyung-Jun Kim
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| | - Chang-Hoon Lee
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Is the perceived placebo effect comparable between adults and children? A meta-regression analysis. Pediatr Res 2017; 81:11-17. [PMID: 27648807 DOI: 10.1038/pr.2016.181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2016] [Accepted: 07/15/2016] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A potential larger perceived placebo effect in children compared with adults could influence the detection of the treatment effect and the extrapolation of the treatment benefit from adults to children. This study aims to explore this potential difference, using a meta-epidemiological approach. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was done to identify trials included in meta-analyses evaluating a drug intervention with separate data for adults and children. The standardized mean change and the proportion of responders (binary outcomes) were used to calculate the perceived placebo effect. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to test for the difference between adults and children of the perceived placebo effect. RESULTS For binary outcomes, the perceived placebo effect was significantly more favorable in children compared with adults (β = 0.13; P = 0.001). Parallel group trials (β = -1.83; P < 0.001), subjective outcomes (β = -0.76; P < 0.001), and the disease type significantly influenced the perceived placebo effect. CONCLUSION The perceived placebo effect is different between adults and children for binary outcomes. This difference seems to be influenced by the design, the disease, and outcomes. Calibration of new studies for children should consider cautiously the placebo effect in children.
Collapse
|
11
|
Pera T, Penn RB. Bronchoprotection and bronchorelaxation in asthma: New targets, and new ways to target the old ones. Pharmacol Ther 2016; 164:82-96. [PMID: 27113408 PMCID: PMC4942340 DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2016] [Accepted: 04/07/2016] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Despite over 50years of inhaled beta-agonists and corticosteroids as the default management or rescue drugs for asthma, recent research suggests that new therapeutic options are likely to emerge. This belief stems from both an improved understanding of what causes and regulates airway smooth muscle (ASM) contraction, and the identification of new targets whose inhibition or activation can relax ASM. In this review we discuss the recent findings that provide new insight into ASM contractile regulation, a revolution in pharmacology that identifies new ways to "tune" G protein-coupled receptors to improve therapeutic efficacy, and the discovery of several novel targets/approaches capable of effecting bronchoprotection or bronchodilation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tonio Pera
- Center for Translational Medicine and Jane and Leonard Korman Lung Center, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
| | - Raymond B Penn
- Center for Translational Medicine and Jane and Leonard Korman Lung Center, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Knight JM, Mak G, Shaw J, Porter P, McDermott C, Roberts L, You R, Yuan X, Millien VO, Qian Y, Song LZ, Frazier V, Kim C, Kim JJ, Bond RA, Milner JD, Zhang Y, Mandal PK, Luong A, Kheradmand F, McMurray JS, Corry DB. Long-Acting Beta Agonists Enhance Allergic Airway Disease. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0142212. [PMID: 26605551 PMCID: PMC4659681 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2015] [Accepted: 10/19/2015] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Asthma is one of the most common of medical illnesses and is treated in part by drugs that activate the beta-2-adrenoceptor (β2-AR) to dilate obstructed airways. Such drugs include long acting beta agonists (LABAs) that are paradoxically linked to excess asthma-related mortality. Here we show that LABAs such as salmeterol and structurally related β2-AR drugs such as formoterol and carvedilol, but not short-acting agonists (SABAs) such as albuterol, promote exaggerated asthma-like allergic airway disease and enhanced airway constriction in mice. We demonstrate that salmeterol aberrantly promotes activation of the allergic disease-related transcription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6) in multiple mouse and human cells. A novel inhibitor of STAT6, PM-242H, inhibited initiation of allergic disease induced by airway fungal challenge, reversed established allergic airway disease in mice, and blocked salmeterol-dependent enhanced allergic airway disease. Thus, structurally related β2-AR ligands aberrantly activate STAT6 and promote allergic airway disease. This untoward pharmacological property likely explains adverse outcomes observed with LABAs, which may be overcome by agents that antagonize STAT6.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists/adverse effects
- Albuterol/therapeutic use
- Animals
- Anti-Asthmatic Agents/adverse effects
- Arrestins/deficiency
- Arrestins/genetics
- Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary/drug therapy
- Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary/genetics
- Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary/metabolism
- Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary/pathology
- Aspergillus niger/physiology
- Asthma/chemically induced
- Asthma/drug therapy
- Asthma/genetics
- Asthma/metabolism
- Bronchoconstriction/drug effects
- Carbazoles/adverse effects
- Carvedilol
- Disease Models, Animal
- Female
- Formoterol Fumarate/adverse effects
- Gene Expression
- Humans
- Lung/drug effects
- Lung/metabolism
- Lung/pathology
- Mice
- Mice, Knockout
- Peptidomimetics/pharmacology
- Propanolamines/adverse effects
- Receptors, Adrenergic, beta-2/deficiency
- Receptors, Adrenergic, beta-2/genetics
- STAT6 Transcription Factor/agonists
- STAT6 Transcription Factor/antagonists & inhibitors
- STAT6 Transcription Factor/genetics
- STAT6 Transcription Factor/metabolism
- Salmeterol Xinafoate/adverse effects
- beta-Arrestins
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John M Knight
- Departments of Pathology & Immunology and Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Garbo Mak
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Joanne Shaw
- Department of Otorhinolaryngolgy - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Paul Porter
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Catherine McDermott
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Luz Roberts
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Ran You
- Departments of Pathology & Immunology and Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Xiaoyi Yuan
- Departments of Pathology & Immunology and Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Valentine O Millien
- Department of Medicine and the Translational Biology and Molecular Medicine Program, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Yuping Qian
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Li-Zhen Song
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Vincent Frazier
- Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Choel Kim
- Departments of Pharmacology, and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Jeong Joo Kim
- Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Richard A Bond
- Department of Pharmacological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Joshua D Milner
- Laboratory of Allergic Diseases, National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Yuan Zhang
- Laboratory of Allergic Diseases, National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Pijus K Mandal
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Amber Luong
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Center for Immunology and Autoimmune Diseases, The Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine for the Prevention of Human Diseases, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Farrah Kheradmand
- Departments of Medicine and Pathology & Immunology, Translational Biology and Molecular Medicine Program, and the Biology of Inflammation Center, Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Center for Translational Research on Inflammatory Diseases, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - John S McMurray
- Department of Experimental Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - David B Corry
- Departments of Medicine and Pathology & Immunology, Translational Biology and Molecular Medicine Program, and the Biology of Inflammation Center, Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Center for Translational Research on Inflammatory Diseases, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Agarwal R, Dhooria S, Aggarwal AN, Maturu VN, Sehgal IS, Muthu V, Prasad KT, Yenge LB, Singh N, Behera D, Jindal SK, Gupta D, Balamugesh T, Bhalla A, Chaudhry D, Chhabra SK, Chokhani R, Chopra V, Dadhwal DS, D’Souza G, Garg M, Gaur SN, Gopal B, Ghoshal AG, Guleria R, Gupta KB, Haldar I, Jain S, Jain NK, Jain VK, Janmeja AK, Kant S, Kashyap S, Khilnani GC, Kishan J, Kumar R, Koul PA, Mahashur A, Mandal AK, Malhotra S, Mohammed S, Mohapatra PR, Patel D, Prasad R, Ray P, Samaria JK, Singh PS, Sawhney H, Shafiq N, Sharma N, Sidhu UPS, Singla R, Suri JC, Talwar D, Varma S. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of bronchial asthma: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations. Lung India 2015; 32:S3-S42. [PMID: 25948889 PMCID: PMC4405919 DOI: 10.4103/0970-2113.154517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ritesh Agarwal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Sahajal Dhooria
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Ashutosh Nath Aggarwal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Venkata N Maturu
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Inderpaul S Sehgal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Valliappan Muthu
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Kuruswamy T Prasad
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Lakshmikant B Yenge
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Navneet Singh
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Digambar Behera
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Surinder K Jindal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Dheeraj Gupta
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Thanagakunam Balamugesh
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Ashish Bhalla
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Dhruva Chaudhry
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Sunil K Chhabra
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Ramesh Chokhani
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Vishal Chopra
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Devendra S Dadhwal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - George D’Souza
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Mandeep Garg
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Shailendra N Gaur
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Bharat Gopal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Aloke G Ghoshal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Randeep Guleria
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Krishna B Gupta
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Indranil Haldar
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Sanjay Jain
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Nirmal K Jain
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Vikram K Jain
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Ashok K Janmeja
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Surya Kant
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Surender Kashyap
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Gopi C Khilnani
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Jai Kishan
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Raj Kumar
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Parvaiz A Koul
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Ashok Mahashur
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Amit K Mandal
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Samir Malhotra
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Sabir Mohammed
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Prasanta R Mohapatra
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Dharmesh Patel
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Rajendra Prasad
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Pallab Ray
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Jai K Samaria
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Potsangbam Sarat Singh
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Honey Sawhney
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Nusrat Shafiq
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Navneet Sharma
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Updesh Pal S Sidhu
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Rupak Singla
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Jagdish C Suri
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Deepak Talwar
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| | - Subhash Varma
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Hernández G, Avila M, Pont A, Garin O, Alonso J, Laforest L, Cates CJ, Ferrer M. Long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids safety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Respir Res 2014; 15:83. [PMID: 25038591 PMCID: PMC4132190 DOI: 10.1186/1465-9921-15-83] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2014] [Accepted: 07/14/2014] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Although several systematic reviews investigated the safety of long-acting beta–agonists (LABAs) in asthma, they mainly addressed randomized clinical trials while evidence from non-randomized studies has been mostly neglected. We aim to assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults and children with asthma treated with LABAs and Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICs), compared to patients treated only with ICs, from published non-randomized studies. Methods The protocol registration number was CRD42012003387 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero). Literature search for articles published since 1990 was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two authors selected studies independently for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. To assess the risk of serious adverse events, meta-analyses were performed calculating odds ratio summary estimators using random effect models when heterogeneity was found, and fixed effect models otherwise. Results Of 4,415 candidate articles, 1,759 abstracts were reviewed and 220 articles were fully read. Finally, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of them were retrospective observational cohorts. Sample sizes varied from 50 to 514,216. The meta-analyses performed (69,939-624,303 participants according to the outcome considered) showed that odds ratio of the LABAs and ICs combined treatment when compared with ICs alone was: 0.88 (95% CI 0.69-1.12) for asthma-related hospitalization; 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.84) for asthma-related emergency visits; 1.02 (95% CI 0.94-1.10) for systemic corticosteroids; and 0.95 (95% CI 0.9-1.0) for the combined outcome. Conclusions Evidence from observational studies shows that the combined treatment of LABAs and ICs is not associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events, compared to ICs alone. Major gaps identified were prospective design, paediatric population and inclusion of mortality as a primary outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Montserrat Ferrer
- Health Services Research Group, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona Biomedical Research Park, office 144, Doctor Aiguader, 88
- 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Chauhan BF, Ducharme FM. Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014:CD003137. [PMID: 24459050 PMCID: PMC10514761 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003137.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS. OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary. MAIN RESULTS We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte‐JustineClinical Research Unit on Childhood Asthma3175, Cote Sainte‐CatherineMontrealCanada
| | - Francine M Ducharme
- University of MontrealDepartment of PaediatricsMontrealQuébecCanada
- CHU Sainte‐JustineResearch CentreMontrealCanada
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Doan D, Luks AM. Wilderness and adventure travel with underlying asthma. Wilderness Environ Med 2014; 25:231-40. [PMID: 24393703 DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2013.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2013] [Revised: 07/23/2013] [Accepted: 08/23/2013] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Given the high prevalence of asthma, it is likely that providers working in a pretravel setting will be asked to provide guidance for asthma patients about how to manage their disease before and during wilderness or adventure travel, while providers working in the field setting may need to address asthma-related issues that arise during such excursions. This review aims to provide information to assist providers facing these issues. Relevant literature was identified through the MEDLINE database using a key word search of the English-language literature from 1980 to 2013 using the term "asthma" cross-referenced with "adventure travel," "trekking," "exercise," "exercise-induced bronchoconstriction," "high-altitude," "scuba," and "diving." We review data on the frequency of worsening asthma control during wilderness or adventure travel and discuss the unique aspects of wilderness travel that may affect asthma patients in the field. We then provide a general approach to evaluation and management of asthma before and during a planned sojourn and address 2 particular situations, activities at high altitude and scuba diving, which pose unique risks to asthma patients and warrant additional attention. Although wilderness and adventure travel should be avoided in individuals with poorly controlled disease or worsening control at the time of a planned trip, individuals with well-controlled asthma who undergo appropriate pretravel assessment and planning can safely engage in a wide range of wilderness and adventure-related activities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Doan
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Andrew M Luks
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Kew KM, Karner C, Mindus SM, Ferrara G. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD009019. [PMID: 24343671 PMCID: PMC8949777 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009019.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality). MAIN RESULTS Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kayleigh M Kew
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Sciences and EducationCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | | - Stephanie M Mindus
- Karolinska University Hospital SolnaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and AllergyStockholmSwedenSE‐171 76
| | - Giovanni Ferrara
- Karolinska University Hospital SolnaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and AllergyStockholmSwedenSE‐171 76
- Karolinska InstitutetRespiratory Medicine Unit, Department of MedicineStockholmSweden
- University of PerugiaSection of Respiratory Diseases, Department of Internal MedicinePerugiaItaly
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Nannini LJ, Poole P, Milan SJ, Holmes R, Normansell R. Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013:CD003794. [PMID: 24214176 PMCID: PMC6485527 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003794.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Both long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their coadministration in a combination inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens and improve efficacy. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of combined ICS and LABA for stable COPD in comparison with placebo. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registries. The date of the most recent search was June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised and double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration. Eligible studies compared combined ICS and LABA preparations with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous data as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria (with 10,400 participants randomly assigned, lasting between 4 and 156 weeks, mean 42 weeks). Studies used three different combined preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol, budesonide/formoterol or mometasone/formoterol). The studies were generally at low risk of bias for blinding but at unclear or high risk for attrition bias because of participant dropouts. Compared with placebo, both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol reduced the rate of exacerbations. Mometasone/formoterol reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbation. Pooled analysis of the combined therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo (Rate Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.78, 7 studies, 7495 participants); the quality of this evidence when GRADE criteria were applied was rated as moderate. Participants included in these trials had on average one or two exacerbations per year, which means that treatment with combined therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. An overall reduction in mortality was seen, but this outcome was dominated by the results of one study (TORCH) of fluticasone/salmeterol. Generally, deaths in the smaller, shorter studies were too few to contribute to the overall estimate. Further longer studies on budesonide/formoterol and mometasone/formoterol are required to clarify whether this is seen more widely. When a baseline risk of death of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH was used, the three-year number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with fluticasone/salmeterol to prevent one extra death was 42 (95% CI 24 to 775). All three combined treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the mean differences observed are relatively small in relation to the minimum clinically important difference. Furthermore, symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combined treatments. An increase in the risk of pneumonia was noted with combined inhalers compared with placebo treatment (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94), and the quality of this evidence was rated as moderate, but no dose effect was seen. The three-year NNTH for one extra case of pneumonia was 17, based on a 12.3% risk of pneumonia in the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from the combined treatment arms for adverse events or lack of efficacy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Combined inhaler therapy led to around a quarter fewer COPD exacerbations than were seen with placebo. A significant reduction in all-cause mortality was noted, but this outcome was dominated by one trial (TORCH), emphasising the need for further trials of longer duration. Increased risk of pneumonia is a concern; however, this did not translate into increased exacerbations, hospitalisations or deaths. Current evidence does not suggest any major differences between inhalers in terms of effects, but nor is the evidence strong enough to demonstrate that all are equivalent. To permit firmer conclusions about the effects of combined therapy, more data are needed, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different formulations and doses of inhaled ICS. Head-to-head comparisons are necessary to determine whether one combined inhaler is better than the others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Javier Nannini
- Hospital E PeronPulmonary SectionRuta 11 Y Jm EstradaG. BaigorriaSanta Fe ‐ RosarioArgentina2152
| | - Phillippa Poole
- University of AucklandDepartment of MedicinePrivate Bag 92019AucklandNew Zealand
| | | | - Rebecca Holmes
- St George's, University of LondonPopulation Health Sciences and EducationLondonUK
| | - Rebecca Normansell
- St George's, University of LondonCochrane Airways, Population Health Research InstituteLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Cates CJ, Jaeschke R, Schmidt S, Ferrer M. Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD006924. [PMID: 23744625 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006924.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. SEARCH METHODS Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Cates CJ, Karner C. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD007313. [PMID: 23633340 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007313.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT). OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded.In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias).Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence).One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm).The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials.Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT.Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Cates CJ, Jaeschke R, Schmidt S, Ferrer M. Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD006922. [PMID: 23543548 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006922.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Factors related to under-diagnosis and under-treatment of childhood asthma in metropolitan France. Multidiscip Respir Med 2012; 7:24. [PMID: 22958936 PMCID: PMC3436684 DOI: 10.1186/2049-6958-7-24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2012] [Accepted: 07/20/2012] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Under-diagnosis and under-treatment of childhood asthma were investigated in France using data collected during the 6 Cities Study, the French contribution to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood. METHODS 7,781 schoolchildren aged between 9 and 10 years underwent a medical visit including skin prick tests to common allergens and exercise test for Exercise-Induced Asthma (EIA) and their parents filled in a standardized questionnaire on asthma, management, treatment and potential risk factors. RESULTS 903 children reported asthma (11.6%), 377 without a doctor's diagnosis. Of the 526 participants with a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by a doctor (58.2%), 353 were treated and 76 were not treated during the year preceding the investigation despite their diagnosis. The information on the treatment was missing for the rest of individuals diagnosed with asthma (n = 97). Having a treatment was significantly associated with severe asthma and with the presence of other respiratory and allergic stigmata (atopic eczema, rhinitis, positive skin allergy tests, and EIA). In addition, having a treatment did not correspond to a good control of the disease. Similarly, children with asthma-like symptoms but without doctor-diagnosed asthma had asthma less well controlled than children with diagnosed asthma. They were also more exposed to passive smoking and traffic but had fewer pets. In contrast, diagnosed children reported more frequently a small weight at birth and a preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS In France, childhood asthma is still under-diagnosed and under-treated and environmental factors play a role in these phenomena.
Collapse
|
23
|
Anagnostou K, Harrison B, Iles R, Nasser S. Risk factors for childhood asthma deaths from the UK Eastern Region Confidential Enquiry 2001-2006. PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL : JOURNAL OF THE GENERAL PRACTICE AIRWAYS GROUP 2012; 21:71-7. [PMID: 22218820 DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2011.00097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Confidential enquiries into asthma deaths can identify inadequacies in medical management and factors which contribute to patients' death. AIMS To identify risk factors for paediatric asthma deaths over a 6-year period. METHODS Observational case-series study of paediatric asthma deaths between 2001-2006 in the UK Eastern Region. Hospital, primary care and post-mortem data were obtained for every child (≤17 yrs) with asthma recorded on the death certificate, and a detailed questionnaire was completed. Information was obtained on asthma severity, medications, hospital admissions, GP and hospital follow-up, adherence, psychosocial / behavioural factors, allergies, details of the terminal attack and precipitating factors. RESULTS 20 children (10 male; 8-17 yrs; median: 11.5 yrs) died of asthma between 2001-2006. 9/20 had mild to moderate asthma (BTS/ SIGN criteria), 10/20 had severe asthma and 1 child was not known to have asthma. 13/20 were clinically atopic. Only 3 had undergone allergy assessment. 10/20 died between June and August. 12/20 children had adverse psychosocial and behavioural factors. 7/20 children were on non-combination long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) treatment without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). CONCLUSIONS Almost half the deaths occurred in children with mild/moderate asthma. We recommend that allergic factors and seasonal allergy should be identified early, non-combination LABAs avoided, and speculate that overuse of short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) may indicate non-adherence with ICS. Asthma deaths in children can be avoided if risk factors are identified early.
Collapse
|
24
|
Jacobs TS, Jones BL, MacGinnitie AJ. Long-acting beta-agonists and the risk of intensive care unit admission in children. J Asthma 2012; 49:450-5. [PMID: 22540879 DOI: 10.3109/02770903.2012.677894] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A possible association between long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and severe asthma exacerbations including death remains controversial. We examined whether LABA in the setting of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) increase the risk of near-fatal asthma in children using a case-control study design. METHODS Medical records from admissions for asthma exacerbations in children 4-18 years of age during the 2005 calendar year at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC were reviewed. Cases and controls were determined by pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and floor admission, respectively. Exposure was defined by LABA use in combination with ICS versus ICS alone. RESULTS Records from 85 PICU and 96 pediatric floor admissions were reviewed. LABA use in combination with ICS did not increase the risk of PICU admission (odds ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.46-2.52) compared to ICS only without LABA. After adjusting for demographics, asthma severity, history of PICU admissions, and concurrent infection, LABA/ICS use still did not increase the risk of PICU admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.26-2.76) compared to ICS alone. There were no deaths and five intubations within the study period. CONCLUSIONS The combination of LABA and ICS did not appear to increase the risk of near-fatal asthma in children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tammy S Jacobs
- Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in 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 formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists. SEARCH METHODS We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3:CD007695. [PMID: 22419326 PMCID: PMC4015850 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007695.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews. OBJECTIVES We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol. SEARCH METHODS We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers' websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled, parallel-design clinical trials on patients of any age and with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors. MAIN RESULTS The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s University of London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Lasserson TJ, Ferrara G, Casali L. Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD004106. [PMID: 22161385 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004106.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice. OBJECTIVES To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby J Lasserson
- Cochrane Editorial Unit, The Cochrane Collaboration, 13 Cavendish Square, London, UK, W1G 0AN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Bernstein DI, Hébert J, Cheema A, Murphy KR, Chérrez-Ojeda I, Matiz-Bueno CE, Kuo WL, Nolte H. Efficacy and onset of action of mometasone furoate/formoterol and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination treatment in subjects with persistent asthma. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2011; 7:21. [PMID: 22152089 PMCID: PMC3298511 DOI: 10.1186/1710-1492-7-21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2011] [Accepted: 12/07/2011] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) is a novel combination therapy for treatment of persistent asthma. This noninferiority trial compared the effects of MF/F and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination therapies on pulmonary function and onset of action in subjects with persistent asthma. Methods Following a 2- to 4-week run-in period with MF administered via a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) 200 μg (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF-MDI 100 μg) twice daily (BID), subjects (aged ≥12 y) were randomized to MF/F-MDI 200/10 μg BID (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF/F-MDI 100/5 μg) or FP/S administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) 250/50 μg (delivered as 1 inhalation) BID for 12 weeks. The primary assessment was change from baseline to week 12 in area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured serially for 0-12 hours postdose (FEV1 AUC0-12 h). Secondary assessments included onset of action (change from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1) and patient-reported outcomes. Results 722 subjects were randomized to MF/F-MDI (n = 371) or FP/S-DPI (n = 351). Mean FEV1 AUC0-12 h change from baseline at week 12 for MF/F-MDI and FP/S-DPI was 3.43 and 3.24 L × h, respectively (95% CI, -0.40 to 0.76). MF/F-MDI was associated with a 200-mL mean increase from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1, which was significantly larger than the 90-mL increase for FP/S-DPI (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period that were considered related to study therapy was similar in both groups (MF/F-MDI, 7.8% [n = 29]; FP/S-DPI, 8.3% [n = 29]). Conclusions The results of this 12-week study indicated that MF/F improves pulmonary function and asthma control similar to FP/S with a superior onset of action compared with FP/S. Both drugs were safe, improved asthma control, and demonstrated similar results for other secondary study endpoints. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00424008
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David I Bernstein
- Division of Immunology, Allergy and Rheumatology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Ducharme FM, Lasserson TJ, Cates CJ. Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD003137. [PMID: 21563136 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003137.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS. OBJECTIVES We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary. MAIN RESULTS We included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta(2)-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Room number 7939, 3175 Cote Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Québec, Canada, H3T 1C5
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid as maintenance and reliever therapy versus higher dose combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2011. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
31
|
Bailey CD, Wagland R, Dabbour R, Caress A, Smith J, Molassiotis A. An integrative review of systematic reviews related to the management of breathlessness in respiratory illnesses. BMC Pulm Med 2010; 10:63. [PMID: 21143887 PMCID: PMC3016307 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-10-63] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2010] [Accepted: 12/09/2010] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breathlessness is a debilitating and distressing symptom in a wide variety of diseases and still a difficult symptom to manage. An integrative review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in non-malignant disease was undertaken to identify the current state of clinical understanding of the management of breathlessness and highlight promising interventions that merit further investigation. METHODS Systematic reviews were identified via electronic databases between July 2007 and September 2009. Reviews were included within the study if they reported research on adult participants using either a measure of breathlessness or some other measure of respiratory symptoms. RESULTS In total 219 systematic reviews were identified and 153 included within the final review, of these 59 addressed non-pharmacological interventions and 94 addressed pharmacological interventions. The reviews covered in excess of 2000 trials. The majority of systematic reviews were conducted on interventions for asthma and COPD, and mainly focussed upon a small number of pharmacological interventions such as corticosteroids and bronchodilators, including beta-agonists. In contrast, other conditions involving breathlessness have received little or no attention and studies continue to focus upon pharmacological approaches. Moreover, although there are a number of non-pharmacological studies that have shown some promise, particularly for COPD, their conclusions are limited by a lack of good quality evidence from RCTs, small sample sizes and limited replication. CONCLUSIONS More research should focus in the future on the management of breathlessness in respiratory diseases other than asthma and COPD. In addition, pharmacological treatments do not completely manage breathlessness and have an added burden of side effects. It is therefore important to focus more research on promising non-pharmacological interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris D Bailey
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | - Richard Wagland
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | - Rasha Dabbour
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Ann Caress
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Jaclyn Smith
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK & Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center, Boston, USA
| | - Alex Molassiotis
- School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Welsh EJ, Cates CJ. Formoterol versus short-acting beta-agonists as relief medication for adults and children with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2010:CD008418. [PMID: 20824877 PMCID: PMC4034434 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008418.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Formoterol is a long-acting beta(2)-agonist but because it has a fast onset of action it can also be used as a relief medication. OBJECTIVES To asses the efficacy and safety of formoterol as reliever therapy in comparison to short-acting beta(2)-agonists in adults and children with asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and websites of clinical trial registers (for unpublished trial data), and we checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised, parallel-arm trials of at least 12 weeks duration in patients of any age and severity of asthma. Studies randomised patients to any dose of as-needed formoterol versus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or other maintenance medication was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. We sought unpublished data on primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS This review includes eight studies conducted in 22,604 participants (mostly adults). Six studies compared formoterol as-needed to terbutaline whilst two studies compared formoterol with salbutamol as-needed. Background maintenance therapy varied across the trials. Asthma exacerbations and serious adverse events showed a direction of treatment effect favouring formoterol, of which one outcome reached statistical significance (exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids). In patients on short-acting beta(2)-agonists, 117 people out of 1000 had exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over 30 weeks, compared to 101 (95% CI 93 to 108) out of 1000 for patients on formoterol as-needed. In patients on maintenance inhaled corticosteroids there were also significantly fewer exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids on formoterol as-needed (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91). There was one death per 1000 people on formoterol or on short-acting beta(2)-agonists. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In adults, formoterol was similar to short-acting beta(2)-agonists when used as a reliever, and showed a reduction in the number of exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids. Clinicians should weigh the relatively modest benefits of formoterol as-needed against the benefits of single inhaler therapy and the potential danger of long-term use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists in some patients. We did not find evidence to recommend changes to guidelines that suggest that long-acting beta(2)-agonists should be given only to patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids.There was insufficient information reported from children in the included trials to come to any conclusion on the safety or efficacy of formoterol as relief medication for children with asthma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma J Welsh
- St George's University of LondonPopulation Health Sciences and EducationCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | - Christopher J Cates
- St George's University of LondonPopulation Health Sciences and EducationCranmer TerraceLondonUKSW17 0RE
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Aalbers R. Fixed or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in asthma patients aged >or=16 years: post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study. Clin Drug Investig 2010; 30:439-51. [PMID: 20528000 DOI: 10.2165/11533420-000000000-00000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) combinations are the preferred maintenance therapy for adult asthma patients uncontrolled by ICS alone. Supporting data are largely from mixed populations of adolescents and adults, although ICS/LABA combinations are not approved for adolescents in all countries. This analysis evaluates overall asthma control in asthma patients aged >or=16 years receiving ICS/LABA combinations. METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of asthma patients aged >or=16 years in a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study. Patients received fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler), fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair Diskus) or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol. Patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for as-needed reliever medication. The primary efficacy variable was the odds of having a well controlled asthma week during the randomized treatment period. RESULTS ICS/LABA regimens were well tolerated and efficacious, and the odds for achieving a well controlled asthma week did not differ between groups in this sub-analysis. The number of exacerbations was similar between fixed-dose regimens; however, there were trends toward fewer exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room treatment in the fixed- and adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol groups (three and two events, respectively) than in the fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (eight events). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) were small but significantly greater with fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol versus fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. CONCLUSIONS This post hoc analysis supports the use of ICS/LABA combinations in adults aged >or=16 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- René Aalbers
- Department of Pulmonology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. J Pediatr 2010; 157:322-330.e17. [PMID: 20434730 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.02.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2009] [Revised: 01/15/2010] [Accepted: 02/09/2010] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. STUDY DESIGN We identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2007) meta-analyses with data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized trial with binary primary efficacy outcome. For each meta-analysis, we calculated the summary odds ratio of the adult trials and the pediatric trials, respectively; the relative odds ratio (ROR) of the adult versus pediatric odds ratios per meta-analysis; and the summary ROR across all meta-analyses. ROR <1 means that the experimental intervention is more unfavorable in children than adults. RESULTS Across 128 eligible meta-analyses (1051 adult and 343 pediatric trials), the summary ROR did not show a statistically significant difference between adults and children (0.96; 95% confidence intervals, 0.86 to 1.08). However, in all meta-analyses except for 1, the individual ROR's 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in efficacy over 20%. In two-thirds, the relative difference in observed point estimates exceeded 50%. Nine statistically significant discrepancies were identified; 4 of them were also clinically important. CONCLUSIONS Treatment effects are on average similar in adults and children, but available evidence leaves large uncertainty about their relative efficacy. Clinically important discrepancies may occur.
Collapse
|
35
|
A human surfactant peptide-elastase inhibitor construct as a treatment for emphysema. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:10661-6. [PMID: 20534582 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1001349107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Two million Americans suffer from pulmonary emphysema, costing $2.5 billion/year and contributing to 100,000 deaths/year. Emphysema is thought to result from an imbalance between elastase and endogenous inhibitors of elastase, leading to tissue destruction and a loss of alveoli. Decades of research have still not resulted in an effective treatment other than stopping cigarette smoking, a highly addictive behavior. On the basis of our previous work, we hypothesize that small molecule inhibitors of human neutrophil elastase are ineffective because of rapid clearance from the lungs. To develop a long-acting elastase inhibitor with a lung pharmacodynamic profile that has minimal immunogenicity, we covalently linked an elastase inhibitor, similar to a trifluoro inhibitor that was used in clinical trials, to a 25-amino-acid fragment of human surfactant peptide B. We used this construct to prevent human neutrophil elastase-induced emphysema in a rodent model. The elastase inhibitor alone, although in a 70-fold molar excess to elastase in a mixture with <0.6% residual elastase activity, provided no protection from elastase-induced emphysema. Covalently combining an endogenous peptide from the target organ with a synthetic small molecule inhibitor is a unique way of endowing an active compound with the pharmacodynamic profile needed to create in vivo efficacy.
Collapse
|
36
|
Ducharme FM, Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ. Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD005535. [PMID: 20464739 PMCID: PMC4169792 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005535.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | | | | | - Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007694. [PMID: 20091646 PMCID: PMC4015852 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007694.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in comparison with placebo in previous Cochrane reviews. This increase was significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but less certain in the smaller numbers of participants in trials that included an inhaled corticosteroid in the randomised treatment regimen. OBJECTIVES We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors. MAIN RESULTS Eight studies met the eligibility criteria of the review recruiting 6,163 adults and adolescents. There were seven studies (involving 5,935 adults and adolescents) comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone. All but one study administered the products as a combined inhaler, and most used formoterol 50 mcg and budesonide 400 mcg twice daily versus salmeterol 50 mcg and fluticasone 250 mcg twice daily. There were two deaths overall (one on each combination) and neither were thought to be related to asthma.There was no significant difference between treatment groups for non-fatal serious adverse events, either all-cause (Peto OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.59, I(2) = 26%) or asthma-related (Peto OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26, I(2) = 33%). Over 23 weeks the rates for all-cause serious adverse events were 2.6% on formoterol and budesonide and 2.3% on salmeterol and fluticasone, and for asthma-related serious adverse events, 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.There was one study (228 adults) comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone, but there were no deaths or hospital admissions.No studies were found in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The seven identified studies in adults did not show any significant difference in safety between formoterol and budesonide in comparison with salmeterol and fluticasone. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths. There was a single small study comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, but no serious adverse events occurred in this study. No studies were found in children.Overall there is insufficient evidence to decide whether regular formoterol and budesonide or beclomethasone have equivalent or different safety profiles from salmeterol and fluticasone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Population Health Sciences and Education, St George’s University of London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Cekici L, Valipour A, Kohansal R, Burghuber OC. Short-term effects of inhaled salbutamol on autonomic cardiovascular control in healthy subjects: a placebo-controlled study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67:394-402. [PMID: 19371312 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03377.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS To investigate short-term effects of inhaled salbutamol on haemodynamic changes and cardiovascular autonomic control. METHODS A randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study of 0.2 mg of inhaled salbutamol was conducted on 12 healthy nonsmoking volunteers with a mean age of 24 +/- 2 years at two different testing sessions. Non-invasively obtained continuous haemodynamic measurements of cardiac output, beat-to-beat arterial blood pressure, and total peripheral resistance were recorded prior to and for a total of 120 min after inhalation of the respective study drug. Continuous cardiovascular autonomic tone was recorded using power spectral analysis of heart rate and blood pressure variability. Spontaneous baroreceptor activity was assessed by the sequence method. RESULTS There were no significant changes in any of the baseline parameters between the different testing sessions. Inhalation of salbutamol caused a significant increase in cardiac output from 6.7 +/- 1.3 to 7.7 +/- 1.4 l min(-1) (P < 0.05), and a decrease in total peripheral resistance from 1076 +/- 192 to 905 +/- 172 dyne s(-1) cm(-5) (P < 0.05) within 15 min after inhalation. Moreover, salbutamol significantly increased sympathetically mediated low-frequency heart rate variability (P < 0.01), whereas parasympathetically mediated high-frequency heart rate variability decreased (P < 0.01). All changes persisted for approximately 30 min and were fully reversible at 120 min. There were no significant changes in systolic blood pressure variability or spontaneous baroreceptor activity. CONCLUSIONS Inhalation of therapeutic doses of salbutamol in healthy subjects resulted in significant haemodynamic changes and a shift of sympathovagal balance towards increased sympathetic tone in the absence of baroreceptor activation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leyla Cekici
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for COPD, Otto-Wagner Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Ni Chroinin M, Greenstone I, Lasserson TJ, Ducharme FM. Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD005307. [PMID: 19821344 PMCID: PMC4170786 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005307.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Francine M Ducharme
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Ni Chroinin M, Lasserson TJ, Greenstone I, Ducharme FM. Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007949. [PMID: 19588447 PMCID: PMC4167878 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children. OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals. 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. MAIN RESULTS A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Francine M Ducharme
- Research Centre, CHU Sainte-Justine and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD007313. [PMID: 19370682 PMCID: PMC4053857 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007313.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has been considered as preventer and reliever therapy. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in a single inhaler introduces the possibility of using a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy). OBJECTIVES The aim of this review is to compare formoterol and corticosteroid in single inhaler for maintenance and relief of symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids for maintenance and a separate reliever inhaler. SEARCH STRATEGY We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in September 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with chronic asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS Five studies on 5,378 adults compared single inhaler therapy with current best practice, and did not show a significant reduction in participants with exacerbations causing hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.45) or treated with oral steroids (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). Three of these studies on 4281 adults did not show a significant reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07). These trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids with single inhaler therapy (mean reduction ranged from 107 to 267 micrograms/day, but the trial results were not combined due to heterogeneity). The full results from four further studies on 4,600 adults comparing single inhaler therapy with current best practice are awaited.Three studies including 4,209 adults compared single inhaler therapy with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. No significant reduction was found with single inhaler therapy in the risk of patients suffering an asthma exacerbation leading to hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09), but fewer patients on single inhaler therapy needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64). These results translate into an eleven month number needed to treat of 14 (95% CI 12 to 18), to prevent one patient being treated with oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of long-acting beta(2)-agonists, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in.One study included children (N = 224), in which single inhaler therapy was compared to higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with single inhaler therapy, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the single inhaler therapy group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the single inhaler therapy group, [95% CI 0.3 to 1.7 cm].There was no significant difference found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroids. Guidelines and common best practice suggest the addition of regular long-acting beta(2)-agonist to inhaled corticosteroids for uncontrolled asthma, and single inhaler therapy has not been demonstrated to significantly reduce exacerbations in comparison with current best practice, although results of five large trials are awaiting full publication. Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Dal Negro RW, Borderias L, Zhang Q, Fan T, Sazonov V, Guilera M, Taylor SD. Rates of asthma attacks in patients with previously inadequately controlled mild asthma treated in clinical practice with combination drug therapy: an exploratory post-hoc analysis. BMC Pulm Med 2009; 9:10. [PMID: 19331689 PMCID: PMC2678072 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-9-10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2008] [Accepted: 03/30/2009] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Differences could exist in the likelihood of asthma attacks in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), and montelukast (MON) (ICS/LABA/MON) and patients treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and montelukast (MON) (ICS/MON). Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of a pretest-posttest retrospective cohort study. Patients with mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, who were taking an ICS either alone or in combination with a LABA, started concomitant MON treatment as part of their routine care. Rates of asthma- and allergic rhinitis-related medical resource use in the 12-months after the initial (index) MON prescription were compared in the ICS/MON and ICS/LABA/MON groups. An asthma attack was defined as an asthma-related hospitalization, ER visit, or use of an oral corticosteroid. Results Of the total of 344 patients, 181 (53%) received ICS/MON and 163 (47%) received ICS/LABA/MON in the post-index period for means of 10.5 and 11.4 months, respectively, (P < 0.05). Short-acting beta-agonists were used by 74.6% in the ICS/MON and 71.8% in the ICS/LABA/MON groups (P > 0.05). An asthma attack occurred in 4.4% of the ICS/MON group and 6.8% of the ICS/LABA/MON group (P > 0.05). The adjusted odds of an asthma attack in the post-index period in the ICS/LABA/MON group relative to the ICS/MON group was 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.35–4.44. Conclusion In this observational study of combination drug treatment of mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, no difference was observed between LABA/ICS/MON combination therapy and the ICS/MON combination without LABA use, for the rate of asthma attacks over one year.
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
Management decisions for pediatric asthma (in patients younger than 12 years of age) based on extrapolation from available evidence in adolescents and adults (age 12 years and older) is common but rarely appropriate. This article addresses the disparity in response between the two age groups, presents the available pediatric evidence, and highlights the important areas in which further research is required. Evidence-based recommendations for acute and interval management of pediatric asthma are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul D Robinson
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
| | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Cates CJ, Lasserson TJ. Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid versus beta2-agonist as relief medication for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 2009:CD007085. [PMID: 19160317 PMCID: PMC4023854 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007085.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Formoterol has a fast onset of action and can therefore be used to relieve symptoms of asthma. A combination inhaler can deliver formoterol with different doses of inhaled corticosteroid; when used as a reliever both drugs will be delivered more frequently when asthma symptoms increase. This has the potential to treat both bronchoconstriction and inflammation in the early stages of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of combined inhalers containing both formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid when used for reliever therapy in adults and children with chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in April 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials in adults and children with chronic asthma, where a combination inhaler containing formoterol and inhaled corticosteroid is compared with fast-acting beta2-agonist alone for the relief of asthma symptoms. This should be the only planned difference between the trial arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS Three trials involving 5905 participants were included. In patients with mild asthma who do not need maintenance treatment, no clinically important advantages of budesonide/formoterol as reliever were found in comparison to formoterol as reliever.Two studies enrolled patients with more severe asthma who were not controlled on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (around 700 mcg/day in adults), and had suffered a clinically important asthma exacerbation in the past year. Hospitalisations related to asthma in the two studies comparing budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with the same dose of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance with terbutaline for relief yielded an odds ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.16), which was not a statistically significant reduction. One adult study found a reduction in exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids compared to terbutaline, odds ratio 0.56 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and the study in children found less serious adverse events with budesonide/formoterol used for maintenance and relief. There was no significant difference in annual growth in children using budesonide/formoterol reliever in comparison to terbutaline. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In mild asthma it is not yet known whether patients who use a budesonide/formoterol inhaler for relief of asthma symptoms derive any clinically important benefits. In more severe asthma, one study that enrolled patients who were not controlled on quite high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and had suffered an exacerbation in the previous year, demonstrated a reduction in the risk of exacerbations that require oral corticosteroids with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in comparison with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and terbutaline or formoterol for relief. The incidence of serious adverse events in children was also less using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in one study, which similarly enrolled children who were not controlled on medium to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and compared to terbutaline relief with an explorative maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol that is not approved for treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Plint AC, Russell K, Bjornson CL, Rowe BH. The Cochrane Libraryand Long-Acting Beta-agonist Treatment for Childhood Asthma: An Overview of Reviews. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2008. [DOI: 10.1002/ebch.282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
46
|
Rodrigo GJ, Moral VP, Marcos LG, Castro-Rodriguez JA. Safety of regular use of long-acting beta agonists as monotherapy or added to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. A systematic review. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2008; 22:9-19. [PMID: 19026757 DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2008.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2008] [Revised: 09/21/2008] [Accepted: 10/11/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Safety of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) has been questioned and recent evidence suggested a detrimental effect on asthma control as well as an increased risk of death. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety of regular use of LABA compared with placebo or LABA added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared with ICS in persistent asthma. METHODS Randomized studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were identified. Additionally, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and FDA clinical trials databases were searched. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations (AE) requiring systemic corticosteroids or hospitalization, life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths. RESULTS We identified 92 randomized clinical trials with 74,092 subjects. LABA (as monotherapy) reduced exacerbations requiring corticosteroids (Relative Risk [RR]=0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), without detrimental effects on hospitalizations or life-threatening episodes. Contrarily, LABA showed a significant increase in asthma-related deaths (Relative Risk=3.83; 95% CI, 1.21-12.14). Subgroup analysis suggests that children, patients receiving salmeterol, and a duration of treatment>12 weeks are associated with a higher risk of serious adverse effects; also there was a protective effect of concomitant use of ICS. On the other hand, combination of LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and hospitalizations (RR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Combined therapy was also equivalent to ICS in terms of life-threatening episodes and asthma-related deaths. Again, children and use of salmeterol were associated with an increased risk of some severe outcomes as compared with adults and formoterol users, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This review reinforced the international recommendations in terms of the use of LABA remains the preferred add-on therapy to ICS for patients whose disease cannot adequately controlled with ICS, and that LABA cannot be prescribed as a monotherapy. Nevertheless, in spite of the protective effect of the ICS, children and salmeterol use still show an increased risk of non-fatal serious adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo J Rodrigo
- Departamento de Emergencia, Hospital Central de las Fuerzas Armadas, Av. 8 de Octubre 3020, Montevideo 11600, Uruguay.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Hsu CH, Sun HL, Sheu JN, Ku MS, Hu CM, Chan Y, Lue KH. Effects of the immunomodulatory agent Cordyceps militaris on airway inflammation in a mouse asthma model. Pediatr Neonatol 2008; 49:171-8. [PMID: 19133568 DOI: 10.1016/s1875-9572(09)60004-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cordyceps militaris is a well-known fungus with immunomodulatory activity. It is generally used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat hemoptysis, bronchial or lung inflammation, and urogenital disorders. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of cultivated C. militaris on airway inflammation in a mouse asthma model. METHODS BALB/c mice were sensitized with intraperitoneal ovalbumin (OVA) on Days 0 and 14, and were then given intranasal OVA on Day 14 and Days 25-27. Randomized treatment groups of sensitized mice were administered C. militaris, prednisolone, montelukast, or placebo by gavage from Days 15-27. Airway hyperreactivity to aerosolized methacholine was determined. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and serum were analyzed to assess airway inflammation. RESULTS OVA-sensitized mice developed a significant airway inflammatory response that was inhibited by prednisolone and montelukast, whilst C. militaris reduced airway inflammation less effectively. Airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine was observed in OVA-sensitized mice and was reversed by both prednisolone and montelukast. C. militaris initially reversed airway hyperreactivity, but this effect disappeared at higher methacholine doses. CONCLUSION C. militaris can modulate airway inflammation in asthma, but it is less effective than prednisolone or montelukast. These results demonstrate that C. militaris is unable to adequately block the potent mediators of asthmatic airway inflammation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chia-Hsiu Hsu
- Division of Allergy, Asthma and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Gupta P, O'Mahony MS. Potential adverse effects of bronchodilators in the treatment of airways obstruction in older people: recommendations for prescribing. Drugs Aging 2008; 25:415-43. [PMID: 18447405 DOI: 10.2165/00002512-200825050-00005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common disorders that are associated with increasing morbidity and mortality in older people. Bronchodilators are used widely in patients with these conditions, but even when used in inhaled form can have systemic as well as local effects. Older people experience more adverse drug effects because of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes and particularly drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. Cardiovascular disease is common in older people and beta-adrenoceptor agonists (beta-agonists) have inotropic and chronotropic effects that can increase arrhythmias and cardiomyopathy. They can also worsen or induce myocardial ischaemia and cause electrolyte disturbances that contribute to arrhythmias. Tremor is a well known distressing adverse effect of beta-agonist administration. Long-term beta-agonist use can be associated with tolerance, poor disease control, sudden life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths. Functional beta2-adrenoceptors are present in osteoblasts, and chronic use of beta-agonists has been implicated in osteoporosis. Inhaled anticholinergics are usually well tolerated but may cause dry mouth, which can be troublesome in older people. Pupillary dilatation, blurred vision and acute glaucoma can occur from escape of droplets from loosely fitting nebulizer masks. Although ECG changes have not been seen in randomized controlled trials of long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, supraventricular tachycardias have been observed in a 5-year randomized controlled trial of ipratropium bromide. Paradoxical bronchoconstriction can occur with inhaled anticholinergics as well as with beta-agonists, but tolerance has not been reported with anticholinergics. Anticholinergic drugs also cause central effects, most notably impairment of cognitive function, and these effects have been noted with inhaled agents. Use of theophylline is limited by its adverse effects, which range from commonly occurring gastrointestinal symptoms to palpitations, arrhythmias and reports of myocardial infarction. Seizures have been reported, but are rare. Theophylline is metabolized primarily by the liver, and commonly interacts with other medications. Its concentration in plasma should be monitored closely, especially in older people. Although many clinical trials have been conducted on bronchodilators in obstructive airways disease, the results of these clinical trials need to be interpreted with caution as older people are often under-represented and subjects with co-morbidities actively excluded from these trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Preeti Gupta
- University Department of Geriatric Medicine, Academic Centre, Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Lasserson TJ, Cates CJ, Ferrara G, Casali L. Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD004106. [PMID: 18646100 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004106.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis. OBJECTIVES To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). MAIN RESULTS Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants). PRIMARY OUTCOMES The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). SECONDARY OUTCOMES Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby J Lasserson
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London, UK, SW17 ORE.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in 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 versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists. 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 FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2007. 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 were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data was extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events was sought. MAIN RESULTS The review includes 26 trials comparing salmeterol to placebo and 8 trials comparing with salbutamol. These included 62,630 participants with asthma (including 2,380 children). In 6 trials (2,766 patients), no serious adverse event data could be obtained. All cause mortality was higher with regular salmeterol than placebo but the increase was not significant, Odds Ratio 1.33 [95% CI: 0.85, 2.10]. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular salmeterol was compared with placebo, Odds Ratio 1.14 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.28]. One extra serious adverse event occurred over 28 weeks for every 188 people treated with regular salmeterol [95% CI: 95 to 2606]. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the risk in children is higher or lower than in adults. No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular salmeterol was compared with regular salbutamol. Individual patient data from the SNS study have been combined with the results of the SMART study; in patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids, compared to regular salbutamol or placebo, there was a significant increase in risk of asthma-related death with regular salmeterol, Odds Ratio 9.52 [95% CI: 1.24, 73.09]. The confidence interval for patients taking inhaled corticosteroids is too wide to rule out an increase in asthma mortality in this group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular salmeterol. There is also a clear increase in risk of asthma-related mortality in patients not using inhaled corticosteroids in the two large surveillance studies. Although the increase in asthma-related mortality was smaller in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids at baseline, the confidence interval is wide, so it cannot be concluded that the inhaled corticosteroids abolish the risks of regular salmeterol. The adverse effects of regular salmeterol in children remain uncertain due to the small number of children studied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cates
- Community Health Sciences, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
| | | |
Collapse
|