Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

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 We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol.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.

Routine Use of Budesonide/Formoterol Fixed Dose Combination in Elderly Asthmatic Patients: Practical Considerations

Asthma has been demonstrated to be as common in the elderly as in younger age groups. Although no specific recommendations exist to manage the disease differently in older individuals, functional features and clinical presentations may be affected by age per se, and by age-related conditions, such as comorbidities and polypharmacy. In this review article, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety in elderly asthmatic patients of one of the most currently used inhaled treatments for asthma, that is, the fixed-dose combination of budesonide/formoterol. We attempted to address some practical questions that are relevant to the daily practice of clinicians. We focused on the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-adrenergic bronchodilators (ICS/LABA) as treatment in the elderly population, since data are extrapolated from younger populations. We investigated whether a maintenance and reliever therapy approach is more effective in the elderly as opposed to maintenance regimens, from both the general practitioner's and the pulmonologist's perspective. To address these questions, we scanned electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar) from the date of inception up to October 2016 with a cross-search using the following keywords: 'asthma', 'elderly', 'SMART therapy', 'MART therapy', 'Turbuhaler', and 'budesonide/formoterol'. The available literature on the topic confirms that when the age-associated changes are properly managed in clinical practice, asthma in older populations can be optimally controlled with inhaled treatment including ICS/LABA. This also applies for the budesonide/formoterol fixed combination, thus allowing for the maintenance and reliever therapy approach.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Efficacy and safety of the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol in patients with persistent asthma: a non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE:

Fluticasone and formoterol are effective in the treatment of asthma. When a corticosteroid alone fails to control asthma, combination therapy is the treatment of choice. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of formulations containing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR), fluticasone alone (FLU), and the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol (FLU/FOR) on lung function in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS:

This was a randomized, multicenter, open phase III trial conducted in Brazil. The primary efficacy analysis was the assessment of non-inferiority between FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR combinations regarding FEV₁ (in L) at the final visit. The secondary analyses were PEF, level of asthma control, serum cortisol levels, frequency of adverse events, adherence to treatment, and appropriate inhaler use.

RESULTS:

We randomized 243 patients to three groups: FLU/FOR (n = 79), BUD/FOR (n = 83), and FLU (n = 81). In terms of the mean FEV₁ after 12 weeks of treatment, the difference between the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups was 0.22 L (95% CI: −0.06 to 0.49), whereas the difference between the FLU/FOR and FLU groups was 0.26 L (95% CI: −0.002 to 0.52). Non-inferiority was demonstrated by the difference between the lower limits of the two 95% CIs (−0.06 vs. −0.002). The level of asthma control and PEF were significantly greater in the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups than in the FLU group. There were no significant differences among the groups regarding patient adherence, patient inhaler use, or safety profile of the formulations.

CONCLUSIONS:

The single-capsule combination of FLU/FOR showed non-inferiority to the BUD/FOR and FLU formulations regarding efficacy and safety, making it a new treatment option for persistent asthma.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children

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.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

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.

Long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol combination for treatment of patients with persistent asthma

Objective: The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonist is recommended for treatment of patients with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on ICS monotherapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) administered through metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with persistent asthma previously on medium- to high-dose ICS. Methods: This was a 52-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, evaluator-blinded study. At baseline, 404 patients (aged >12 years) were stratified according to their previous ICS dose (medium or high), then randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily treatment of MF/F (200/10 or 400/10 μg) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S; 250/50 or 500/50 μg). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients reporting any adverse event (AE). Additional safety evaluations included plasma cortisol 24-hour area under the curve (AUC_0–24h) and ocular changes. Pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and use of rescue medication were monitored. Results: The incidence of >1 treatment-emergent AE was similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 77.3% [n = 109]; FP/S 250/50 μg, 82.4% [n = 56]; MF/F 400/10 μg, 79.2% [n = 103]; FP/S 500/50 μg, 76.9% [n = 50]). Rates of treatment-related AEs were also similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 28.4%; FP/S 250/50 μg, 23.5%; MF/F 400/10 μg, 23.1%; FP/S 500/50 μg, 20.0%). Headache (3.7%) and dysphonia (2.7%) were the most common treatment-related AEs overall. The nature and frequency of AEs and the decreases in plasma cortisol AUC_{0–24 h} observed with MF/F treatment were similar to those observed with FP/S treatment. Ocular events were rare (2–6% overall incidence among treatment groups); in particular, no posterior subcapsular cataracts were reported. Only three patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related ocular AEs (two for lens disorders in the MF/F 400/10 μg group; one for reduced visual acuity in the FP/S 250/50 μg group) and no asthma-related deaths occurred. Furthermore, MF/F showed numerical improvement in lung function and clinical benefits by reducing asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Conclusions: One-year treatment with the new combination therapies -twice-daily MF/F-MDI 200/10 and 400/10 μg — is safe and well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

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.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in asthmatic children: a comparative systematic review of the available treatment options

The aim of this article is to critically review the efficacy and safety data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), long- or short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs, SABAs), parasympatholytics and oral leukotriene receptor antagonists in the management of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children with persistent asthma (EIA). The studies with sufficient information on patient characteristics and outcomes were chosen using a MEDLINE search. Results from the individual searches were combined and repeated. Studies were also found by reviewing the reference lists of the articles not included in this review. Studies focusing solely on individuals with asthma and other allergic co-morbidities (i.e. a degree of bronchial reversibility) were considered in this review. To make the paper evidence-based, the design and the quality of different studies were assessed employing the Sign criteria (evidence level [EL] and grades of recommendation [GR]). No additional statistical analyses were performed. Most of studies included paediatric patients with underlying EIA. We need to distinguish children with recurrent asthma symptoms in whom EIB is also present (patients with EIA) from asthmatic subjects whose symptoms appear only as a result of exercise (patients with EIB). Further controller treatment is indicated in patients with EIA and further reliever treatment in patients with EIB. ICSs are the first-choice controller drugs for EIA in children with persistent asthma (Sign grade of recommendation [GR]:A). In children with EIA without complete control with ICSs, SABAs (GR:A), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) [GR:A] or LABAs (GR:A) may be added to gain control. Treatment with relievers such as SABAs (GR:A), parasympatholytics (GR:B) or, eventually, LABAs (GR:A), administered 10-15 minutes before exercise is the most preferable method of preventing EIB symptoms in children; however, not as monotherapy in children with EIA. The disadvantages and controversy relating to inhaled beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist use lie in the development of tolerance to their effect when they are used on a regular basis, and the possibility of a resulting underuse of ICSs in patients with EIA. Researchers and guidelines recommend that if any patient requires treatment with a beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist more than twice weekly, a low dose of ICSs should be administered. Inhaled parasympatholytics may be effective as preventive relievers in some children with EIB or EIA, especially among those with increased vagal activity. LTRAs have a well balanced efficacy-safety profile in preventing the occurrence of EIB symptoms in children. Compared with LABAs, LTRAs produce persistent attenuation of EIB and possess an additional effect with rescue SABA therapy in persistent asthmatic patients with EIA. A disadvantage of LTRAs is a non-response phenomenon. There are still insufficient data on the efficacy-safety profiles of ICS/LABA combination drugs in the treatment of EIA in children to recommend this treatment without caution. Safety profiles of inhaled SABAs, anticholinergics and montelukast in approved dosages seem sufficient enough to recommend use of these drugs in the prevention of EIB symptoms in children. Many researchers agree that treatment of EIA in children should always be individualized.

Treatment of moderate to severe asthma: patient perspectives on combination inhaler therapy and implications for adherence

Symptom control in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma is essential to reduce the significant morbidity associated with the disease. Poor adherence to controller medications has been identified as a major contributing factor to the high level of uncontrolled asthma. This review examines patient perspectives on, and preferences for, controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β(2)-agonist combinations [ICS/LABA]), and how this may affect adherence to therapy. Fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol, the currently available ICS/LABA combination products, have similar efficacy and tolerability based on a recent meta-analysis of asthma trials. Adherence is higher with the combination ICS/LABAs than when the components are administered separately. Investigations into patient preferences for desirable attributes of asthma medications indicate that an effective reliever with a fast onset and long duration of action is preferred and may lead to improved adherence. This rapid onset of effect was perceived and highly valued in patient surveys, and was associated with greater patient satisfaction. Thus, future research should be directed at therapy that offers both anti-inflammatory activity and a rapid onset of bronchodilator effect. To further improve patient adherence and treatment outcome, the effect of these characteristics as well as other factors on adherence should also be investigated.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children

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.

New pharmacologic perspectives in pneumology: beclomethasone-formoterol extrafine

International asthma guidelines have recently focused on the concept of «control», which is the main outcome to reach and maintain in the long term management. Asthma control is associated with several positive consequences, both in terms of quality of life and pathophysiological findings. Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting-beta2-agonists (LABA) is recommended in a large part of asthmatic subjects (those who are not controlled with low-dose ICS alone).

Recently, a new beclomethasone/formoterol combination in an extrafine HFA formulation has been developed. This new technology allows to obtain a very high fine particle fraction which reaches lower airways, while the dose which remain in the upper airways and possibly responsible for systemic side effects is very low. Therefore, this combination allows a different dose ratio between BDP and the other ICS (budesonide, fluticasone), in favour of a lower dose of BDP. Recent studies have demonstrated the equivalence of this new combination with the other ICS/LABA combination, as regards all asthma outcomes. Then, this new BDP/formoterol combination may increase the possibility to manage adequately patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany

AIMS

This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting.

METHODS

Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting beta(2)-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as >or=1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n = 1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n = 982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (-33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (-31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.

The safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids: systematic review and metaanalysis

RATIONALE

Inhaled long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), when used as monotherapy in asthma, may increase asthma-related hospitalizations, life threatening events requiring intubation/mechanical ventilation, and asthma-related deaths, but concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may modify this effect.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety of long-acting beta-agonists among patients with asthma using corticosteroids.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of parallel-group, blinded, randomized, controlled trials with at least 12 weeks of treatment addressing the impact of LABA on asthma-related and total morbidity and mortality in patients concomitantly using ICS. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, and Cochrane (Central) databases, and contacted authors and sponsors.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We used a random effects model to pool results from different studies as odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) (OR < 1.0 favors LABA). The search yielded 62 relevant studies included in this analysis. Among over 29,000 participants (15,710 taking LABA, with over 8,000 patient-years observed in the LABA groups), there were three asthma-related deaths and two asthma-related, nonfatal intubations (all in LABA groups; <or= one event per study). Differences in asthma-related hospitalizations (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03) and asthma-related serious adverse events (mostly hospitalizations; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.03) failed to reach statistical significance. The OR for total mortality was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.58-2.74), reflecting 14 deaths in LABA groups and eight deaths in control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with asthma using ICS, LABA did not increase the risk of asthma-related hospitalizations. There were very few asthma-related deaths and intubations, and events were too infrequent to establish LABA's relative effect on these outcomes.