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

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Modelling ASthma TrEatment Responses (MASTER): Effect of individual patient characteristics on the risk of exacerbation in moderate or severe asthma: A time-to-event analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

There is limited understanding of how clinical and demographic characteristics are associated with exacerbation risk in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, and how these factors correlate with symptom control and treatment response. Here we assess the relationship between baseline characteristics and exacerbation risk during regular dosing with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) monotherapy or in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in clinical trial patients with varying levels of symptom control, as assessed by the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5).

METHODS

A time-to-event model was developed using pooled patient data (N = 16 282) from nine clinical studies [Correction added on 26 July 2023, after first online publication: The N value in the preceding sentence has been corrected in this version.]. A parametric hazard function was used to describe the time-to-first exacerbation. Covariate analysis included the assessment of the effect of seasonal variation, clinical and demographic baseline characteristics on baseline hazard. Predictive performance was evaluated by standard graphical and statistical methods.

RESULTS

An exponential hazard model best described the time-to-first exacerbation in moderate-to-severe asthma patients. Body mass index, smoking status, sex, ACQ-5, % predicted forced expiratory volume over 1 s (FEV1 p) and season were identified as statistically significant covariates affecting baseline hazard irrespective of ICS or ICS/LABA use. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) combination therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the baseline hazard (30.8%) relative to FP monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Interindividual differences at baseline and seasonal variation affect the exacerbation risk independently from drug treatment. Moreover, it appears that even when a comparable level of symptom control is achieved in a group of patients, each individual may have a different exacerbation risk, depending on their baseline characteristics and time of the year. These findings highlight the importance of personalized interventions in moderate-to-severe asthma patients.

Study protocol: A comparison of mobile and clinic-based spirometry for capturing the treatment effect in moderate asthma

Several inefficiencies in drug development trial implementation may be improved by moving data collection from the clinic to mobile, allowing for more frequent measurements and therefore increased statistical power while aligning to a patient-centric approach to trial design. Sensor-based digital health technologies such as mobile spirometry (mSpirometry) are comparable to clinic spirometry for capturing outcomes, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); however, the impact of remote spirometry measurements on the detection of treatment effect has not been investigated. A protocol for a multicenter, single-arm, open-label interventional trial of long-acting beta agonist (LABA) therapy among 60 participants with uncontrolled moderate asthma is described. Participants will complete twice-daily mSpirometry at home and clinic spirometry during weekly visits, alongside continuous use of a wrist-worn wearable and regular completion of several diaries capturing asthma symptoms as well as participant- and site-reported satisfaction and ease of use of mSpirometry. The co-primary objectives of this study are (A) to quantify the treatment effect of LABA therapy among participants with moderate asthma, using both clinical spirometry (FEV1c ) and mSpirometry (FEV1m ); and (B) to investigate whether FEV1m is as accurate as FEV1c in detecting the treatment effect using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Study results will help inform whether the deployment of mSpirometry and a wrist-worn wearable for remote data collection are feasible in a multicenter setting among participants with moderate asthma, which may then be generalizable to other populations with respiratory disease.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Comparison of Two Therapies on Asthma Control in Children

Background: Childhood asthma carries significant morbidity. Aim/Objectives: Aim of the study was to compare efficacy of 2 commonly used therapies for asthma control in children with asthma. Methods: This was a 1-year, prospective cohort study at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients were referred by their primary care physicians (PCPs) for asthma control. All patients were on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) at baseline. They were either switched to medium-dose ICS (ICS group) or medium-dose ICS and long-acting beta agonist (ICS+LABA group). Results were compared over time and between both groups. Results: Our cohort included 163 children (ages 2-18 years) with mean age of 5.62 ± 3.61 years. Mean Asthma Control Test (ACT) score at baseline was 15.9 ± 5.4. Mean ACT and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second improved (P < 0.0001 for both) in both groups. Median emergency department visits, short courses of oral steroids, and unscheduled PCP visits for acute asthma significantly decreased (P < 0.001 for all) in both groups. Similarly, days/month with wheezing, nighttime cough, and missed school days significantly decreased in both groups (P < 0.001 for all). Patients in ICS group were more likely to fail to achieve asthma control compared to patients in ICS+LABA group. Conclusion: Our study suggests that in children with uncontrolled asthma on low-dose ICS, switching to either medium-dose ICS or medium-dose ICS+LABA resulted in better symptom control, ACT improvement, and less asthma exacerbations over time. ICS+LABA had the additional benefit of less risk of treatment failure when compared to medium-dose ICS.

Many continuous variables should be analyzed using the relative scale: a case study of β2-agonists for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND

The relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β₂-agonists on exercise-induced decline in forced-expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV₁).

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV₁ decline after exercise was modeled as a mean uniform percentage point (pp) change (absolute effect) or average percent change (relative effect) using either intercept-only or slope-only, respectively, linear mixed-effect models. We also calculated the pooled relative effect estimates using standard random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis using study-level mean effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β₂-agonists decreased the exercise-induced FEV₁ decline by 28 pp., and on the relative scale, they decreased the FEV₁ decline by 90%. The fit of the statistical model was significantly better with the relative 90% estimate compared with the absolute 28 pp. estimate. Furthermore, the median residuals (5.8 vs. 10.8 pp) were substantially smaller in the relative effect model than in the absolute effect model. Using standard study-level meta-analysis of the same 14 studies, β₂-agonists reduced exercise-induced FEV₁ decline on the relative scale by a similar amount: 83% or 90%, depending on the method of calculating the relative effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β₂-agonists on exercise-induced FEV₁-declines. The absolute scale has been used in the analysis of FEV₁ changes and may have led to sub-optimal statistical analysis in some cases. The choice between the absolute and relative scale should be determined based on biological reasoning and empirical testing to identify the scale that leads to lower heterogeneity.

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

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.

Does a Patient-Directed Financial Incentive Affect Patient Choices About Controller Medicines for Asthma? A Discrete Choice Experiment and Financial Impact Analysis

BACKGROUND

In Australia, many patients who are initiated on asthma controller inhalers receive combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) despite having asthma of sufficiently low severity that ICS-alone would be equally effective and less costly for the government.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a nationally representative sample of adults (n = 792) and parents of children (n = 609) with asthma. Mixed multinomial models were estimated and calibrated to reflect the estimated market shares of ICS-alone, ICS/LABA and no controller. We then simulated the impact of varying patient co-payment on demand and the financial impact on government pharmaceutical expenditure.

RESULTS

Preference for inhaler decreased with increasing costs to the patient or government, increasing chance of a repeat visit to the doctor, and if fewer symptoms were present. Adults preferred high-strength controllers, but parents preferred low-strength inhalers for children (general beneficiaries only). The DCE predicted a higher proportion choosing controller treatment (89%) compared to current levels (57%) at the current co-payment level, with proportionately higher uptake of ICS-alone and a lower average cost per patient [32.73 Australian dollars (AU$) c.f. AU$38.54]. Reducing the co-payment on ICS-alone by 50% would increase its market share to 50%, whilst completely removing the co-payment would only have a small marginal impact on market share, but increased average cost of treatment to the government to AU$41.04 per person.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-directed financial incentives are unlikely to encourage much switching of medicines, and current levels of under-treatment are not explained by patient preferences. Interventions directed at prescribers are more likely to promote better use of asthma medicines.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Long-term treatment in pediatric asthma: an update on chemical pharmacotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood, affecting approximately 10% of all children, and is the leading cause of hospitalization in developed countries. In this paper we aimed to review the evidence on chemical pharmacotherapy for long-term treatment of pediatric asthma, according to the latest updates. Area covered: Long-term treatment, essential for controlling symptoms and reducing future risks including exacerbations and decline in lung function, includes control agents such as inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists, and leukotriene modifiers. More recent strategies based on the use of a biological drug such as omalizumab, which is a monoclonal antibody directed against immunoglobulin E (IgE), can be considered in selected patients with severe asthma. Expert opinion: In the near future, the challenge of childhood asthma treatment will be to improve the chemical drugs that already exist as well as to carefully characterize the several different asthma subtypes, with special regard to children with severe disease. A better definition of patient features, made possible by the current advanced knowledge of the pathobiology of severe asthma, can ultimately allow the identification of specific phenotypes and endotypes of severe asthma, aimed to personalize pharmacological treatment.

The use of inhaled corticosteroids in pediatric asthma: update

Despite the availability of several formulations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and delivery devices for treatment of childhood asthma and despite the development of evidence-based guidelines, childhood asthma control remains suboptimal. Improving uptake of asthma management plans, both by families and practitioners, is needed. Adherence to daily ICS therapy is a key determinant of asthma control and this mandates that asthma education follow a repetitive pattern and involve literal explanation and physical demonstration of the optimal use of inhaler devices. The potential adverse effects of ICS need to be weighed against the benefit of these drugs to control persistent asthma especially that its safety profile is markedly better than oral glucocorticoids. This article reviews the key mechanisms of inhaled corticosteroid action; recommendations on dosage and therapeutic regimens; potential optimization of effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence to therapy; and updated knowledge on the real magnitude of adverse events.

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.

A randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of a combination of formoterol and ciclesonide with ciclesonide alone in asthma subjects with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation

CONTEXT

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) is widely used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma uncontrolled by ICS alone.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new ICS-LABA combination inhaler containing Formoterol (F) and Ciclesonide (C).

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group fashion, multi-centric study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 169 asthma patients received Ciclesonide 80 μg once daily during a 4-week run-in period, after which, they were randomized to receive either C (80 μg) or a combination of F (4.5 μg) and C (80 μg) (FC) both delivered through a hydro-fluro-alkane pressurized-metered-dose inhaler as 1 puff twice daily, for 6 weeks.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Inter-group differences were compared using t-test for independent samples at a significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

From baseline, the improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s at 1, 3, and 6 weeks was significantly higher in the FC group compared to Group C (110 ml vs. 40 ml, 140 ml vs. 20 ml, and 110 ml vs. 40 ml, respectively, all P < 0.05). From baseline, the improvements in mean morning peak expiratory flow at 1, 3, and 6 weeks was significantly higher in the FC group compared to Group C (17 L/min vs.-3 L/min, 22 L/min vs. 3 L/min, and 30 ml vs. 8 L/min respectively, all P < 0.05). The changes in symptom scores were similar in both the groups. The adverse events in the FC group were not significantly different from those in the C group.

CONCLUSIONS

FC provides better improvement than C alone in terms of lung function and symptoms without increased risk of adverse events in asthma patients.

The combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate in the management of asthma: clinical trial evidence and experience

The treatment of persistent asthma has been aided by the recent approval of new medications. The combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) powder inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol trifenatate (VI) is one of these new agents, which was recently approved as a maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This once-daily ICS/LABA inhaler has previously been approved and used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a maintenance therapy. Both FF and VI individually have been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of persistent asthma; the combination of FF/VI at the dose of 100/25 μg daily improves trough peak expiratory flows and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. It also reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The once-daily dosing is well tolerated, with limited clinically significant adverse events; the once-daily inhaled dosing regimen should also improve medication adherence. The data supporting the use of the FF/VI inhaler in persistent asthma are reviewed. The dry powder inhaler of FF/VI (100/25 μg) is an effective and well tolerated once-daily maintenance treatment for patients with persistent asthma.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Pharmacotherapy of critical asthma syndrome: current and emerging therapies

The critical asthma syndrome (CAS) encompasses the most severe, persistent, refractory asthma patients for the clinician to manage. Personalized pharmacotherapy is necessary to prevent the next acute severe asthma exacerbation, not just the control of symptoms. The 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel 3 provides guidelines for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma. The patient's response to recommended pharmacotherapy is highly variable which risks poor asthma control leading to frequent exacerbations that can deteriorate into CAS. Controlling asthma symptoms and preventing acute exacerbations may be two separate clinical activities with their own unique demands. Clinicians must be prepared to use the entire spectrum of asthma medications available but must concurrently be aware of potential drug toxicities some of which can paradoxically worsen asthma control. Medications normally prescribed for COPD can potentially be useful in the CAS patient, particularly those with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. Immunomodulation with drugs like omalizumab in IgE-mediated asthma syndromes is one important approach. New and emerging drugs address unique aspects of airway inflammation and biology but at a significant financial cost. The pharmacology and toxicities of the agents that may be used in the treatment of CAS to control asthma symptoms and prevent severe exacerbations are reviewed.

Combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists for children and adults with bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a major contributor to chronic respiratory morbidity and mortality worldwide. Wheeze and other asthma-like symptoms and bronchial hyperreactivity may occur in people with bronchiectasis. Physicians often use asthma treatments in patients with bronchiectasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adults with bronchiectasis during (1) acute exacerbations and (2) stable state.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Airways Group searched the the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which includes records identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases. The Cochrane Airways Group performed the latest searches in October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of combined ICS and LABA compared with a control (placebo, no treatment, ICS as monotherapy) in children and adults with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis (CF).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently using standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs comparing ICS and LABA combination with either placebo or usual care. We included one RCT that compared combined ICS and LABA with high-dose ICS in 40 adults with non-CF bronchiectasis without co-existent asthma. All participants received three months of high-dose budesonide dipropionate treatment (1600 micrograms). After three months, participants were randomly assigned to receive either high-dose budesonide dipropionate (1600 micrograms per day) or a combination of budesonide with formoterol (640 micrograms of budesonide and 18 micrograms of formoterol) for three months. The study was not blinded. We assessed it to be an RCT with overall high risk of bias. Data analysed in this review showed that those who received combined ICS-LABA (in stable state) had a significantly better transition dyspnoea index (mean difference (MD) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 2.18) and cough-free days (MD 12.30, 95% CI 2.38 to 22.2) compared with those receiving ICS after three months of treatment. No significant difference was noted between groups in quality of life (MD -4.57, 95% CI -12.38 to 3.24), number of hospitalisations (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.79) or lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)). Investigators reported 37 adverse events in the ICS group versus 12 events in the ICS-LABA group but did not mention the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. Hence differences between groups were not included in the analyses. We assessed the overall evidence to be low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with bronchiectasis without co-existent asthma, during stable state, a small single trial with a high risk of bias suggests that combined ICS-LABA may improve dyspnoea and increase cough-free days in comparison with high-dose ICS. No data are provided for or against, the use of combined ICS-LABA in adults with bronchiectasis during an acute exacerbation, or in children with bronchiectasis in a stable or acute state. The absence of high quality evidence means that decisions to use or discontinue combined ICS-LABA in people with bronchiectasis may need to take account of the presence or absence of co-existing airway hyper-responsiveness and consideration of adverse events associated with combined ICS-LABA.

Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of current maintenance strategies in preventing exacerbations of asthma.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane systematic reviews on chronic asthma, complemented by an updated search when appropriate. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TRIALS OF Adults with asthma randomised to maintenance treatments of at least 24 weeks duration and that reported on asthma exacerbations in full text. Low dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment was the comparator strategy. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations. The secondary outcome was the composite of moderate or severe exacerbations. The rate of withdrawal was analysed as a safety outcome.

RESULTS

64 trials with 59,622 patient years of follow-up comparing 15 strategies and placebo were included. For prevention of severe exacerbations, combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists as maintenance and reliever treatment and combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists in a fixed daily dose performed equally well and were ranked first for effectiveness. The rate ratios compared with low dose inhaled corticosteroids were 0.44 (95% credible interval 0.29 to 0.66) and 0.51 (0.35 to 0.77), respectively. Other combined strategies were not superior to inhaled corticosteroids and all single drug treatments were inferior to single low dose inhaled corticosteroids. Safety was best for conventional best (guideline based) practice and combined maintenance and reliever therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies with combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists are most effective and safe in preventing severe exacerbations of asthma, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate alone or combined with vilanterol in persistent asthma

The inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) and the long-acting β₂ agonist vilanterol (VI) are in development as a combined once-daily therapy for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Our study objectives were to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily FF/VI with FF alone and twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients aged ≥12 years with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. Patients (n=586) received FF/VI 200/25 μg or FF 200 μg once-daily (evening dosing), or FP 500 μg twice-daily for 24 weeks. Co-primary end-points were change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) weighted mean (wm) 0-24 h serial FEV1. Secondary end-points included change from baseline in percentage of rescue-free 24-h periods, percentage of symptom-free 24-h periods and total Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Safety assessments included adverse events, 24-h urinary cortisol excretion, vital signs and ECG. FF/VI significantly improved trough FEV1 and wmFEV₁ versus FF and FP. Significantly more rescue-free and symptom-free 24-h periods were reported with FF/VI versus FF. Treatment differences for AQLQ were not significant. Incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. No clinically significant differences were seen for 24-h urinary cortisol excretion, vital signs or ECG. FF/VI resulted in statistically greater improvements in lung function and symptomatic end-points versus FF, and was well tolerated in this asthma population.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

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.

Childhood asthma management pre- and post-incident asthma hospitalization

Many hospitalizations for asthma could potentially be avoided with appropriate management. The aim of this study was to analyze data on disease management of a paediatric population with a hospitalization for asthma. The study population comprised 6–17 year old subjects belonging to three local health units of the Lombardy Region, northern Italy. Regional administrative databases were used to collect data on: the number of children with an incident hospitalization for asthma during the 2004–2006 period, anti-asthma therapy, specialist visit referrals, and claims for spirometry, released in the 12 months before and after hospitalization. Each patient’s asthma management profile was compared with GINA guideline recommendations. Among the 183 hospitalized subjects, 101 (55%) received therapy before hospitalization and 82 (45%) did not. 10% did not receive any therapy either before or after hospital admission and in 13% the therapy was discontinued afterward. Based on GINA guidelines, asthma management adhered to recommendations only for 55% of subjects. Results may suggest that for half of hospitalized subjects, inaccurate diagnosis, under-treatment/scarce compliance with asthma guidelines by physicians, and/or scarce compliance to therapy by patients/their parents occurred. In all these cases, hospitalization would be a proxy indicator of preventable poor control of disease, rather than a proxy indicator of severity.

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

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.

Loss of asthma control in pediatric patients after discontinuation of long-acting Beta-agonists

Recent asthma recommendations advocate the use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in uncontrolled asthma, but also stress the importance of stepping down this therapy once asthma control has been achieved. The objective of this study was to evaluate downtitration of LABA therapy in pediatric patients who are well-controlled on combination-inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapy. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were studied in children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma after switching from combination (ICS/LABA) to monotherapy with ICS. Of the 54 patients, 34 (63%) were determined to have stable asthma after the switch, with a mean followup of 10.7 weeks. Twenty (37%) had loss of asthma control leading to addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists, increased ICS, or restarting LABA. There were 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic steroids. In patients with loss of control, there was a statistically significant decline in FEV(1) (-8% versus -1.9%, P = 0.03) and asthma control test (-3.2 versus -0.5, P = 0.03). This did not approach significance for FEF(25-75%), exhaled nitric oxide, lung volumes or airway reactivity. No demographic, asthma control measures, or lung function variables predicted loss of control. Pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma who discontinue LABA therapy have a 37% chance of losing asthma control resulting in augmented maintenance therapies. Recent recommendations of discontinuing LABA therapy as soon as control is achieved should be evaluated in a prospective long-term study.

Cost considerations of therapeutic options for children with asthma

Asthma is a prevalent health condition in children, with economic implications for the individual and their family, as well as for societies with nationalized healthcare. Pharmaceutical cost is the main driver of healthcare expenditure in asthma. Existent explicit guidelines are meant to guide asthma management across all age groups, but they are failing. Pharmacologic management of asthma consists of a stepwise treatment approach to achieve symptom control. Various studies suggest a significant number of medical practitioners are prescribing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combination inhalers inappropriately, including prescribing high doses of ICS without specialist consultation. ICS/LABA combination inhalers should only be used in persistent asthmatics, which account for approximately 5% of all children with asthma. Despite this, there is an increase in prescribing rates of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in the context of a decrease in the prevalence of asthma. Furthermore, there is inappropriate prescribing of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in children under 5 years of age, and initiation of relatively more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers in patients who have not previously been prescribed ICS. There is evidence to suggest that cost is a significant barrier to asthma management, especially for the more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers. Hence, prescribing cost-effective asthma medications appropriately is one of the most important strategies in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with asthma. It is incumbent on every medical practitioner to not prescribe expensive medications if not indicated, both for the sake of the patient and for society.

Effects of a short course of inhaled corticosteroids in noneosinophilic asthmatic subjects

BACKGROUND

Noneosinophilic asthma has been regarded as a distinct phenotype characterized by a poor response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether noneosinophilic, steroid-naive asthmatic subjects show an improvement in asthma control, asthma symptoms and spirometry after four weeks of treatment with ICS, and whether they further benefit from the addition of a long-acting beta-2 agonists to ICS.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study comparing the efficacy of placebo versus inhaled fluticasone propionate 250 mcg twice daily for four weeks in mildly uncontrolled, steroid-naive asthmatic subjects with a sputum eosinophil count of 2% or less. This was followed by an open-label, four-week treatment period with fluticasone propionate 250 mcg⁄salmeterol 50 mcg, twice daily for all subjects.

RESULTS

After four weeks of double-blind treatment, there was a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in the mean (± SD) Asthma Control Questionnaire score in the ICS-treated group (n = 6) (decrease of 1.0 ± 0.5) compared with the placebo group (n = 6) (decrease of 0.09 ± 0.4) (P = 0.008). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s declined in the placebo group (-0.2 ± 0.2 L) and did not change in the ICS group (0.04 ± 0.1 L) after four weeks of treatment (P = 0.02). The open-label treatment with fluticasone propionate 250 mcg⁄salmeterol 50 mcg did not produce additional improvements in those who were previously treated for four weeks with inhaled fluticasone alone.

CONCLUSION

A clinically important and statistically significant response to ICS was observed in mildly uncontrolled noneosinophilic asthmatic subjects.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

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.

Pragmatic research and outcomes in asthma and COPD

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases which cause patients and society considerable difficulties. These are costly diseases which cause substantial morbidity and death. Health care policy makers have made improving outcomes in asthma and COPD a priority. Application of guideline recommended approaches to asthma and COPD care in the real-life setting has been emphasized but outcomes have not improved. Failure to improve outcomes may not be because of inconsistent applications of guideline recommendations, but rather because there are difficulties implementing the Expert Panel Report III (EPR 3) method for categorizing asthma severity and the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) method for diagnosing COPD. As these serve as the foundation for treatment recommendations for these diseases, alternative approaches should be considered for categorizing asthma severity and identifying COPD patients. Claims-based algorithms provide an intriguing option for identifying persistent asthma patients and symptomatic COPD patients in administrative databases. These methods could be used as the basis for pragmatic research, both retrospective and prospective, on assessing outcomes of guideline recommended treatment approaches in asthma and COPD. Important questions urgently need to be answered about how guideline recommended approaches regarding use of long-acting inhaled β-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) in asthma and long-acting inhaled anti-muscarinic agent (LAMA) and LABA/ICS in COPD affect outcomes in real-life situations.

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol 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 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.

Bronchiolite e asma

La letteratura internazionale ha recentemente riconosciuto la mancanza di confini netti fra bronchiolite (BR), wheezing (WH), o respiro sibilante, e asma.

Anti-asthma medication prescribing to children in the Lombardy Region of Italy: chronic versus new users

Background

Although anti-asthma medications are amongst those most frequently under or over prescribed it is generally accepted that prescriptions for such agents can be used as a proxy for disease prevalence. The aims of this study were to estimate prevalence and incidence of childhood asthma in a representative Italian area by analysing three years of anti-asthmatic prescriptions and hospitalizations of subjects with chronic or first time treatment, and to underline appropriateness of therapeutic choices.

Methods

The analysis involved prescriptions given to 6-17 year olds between 2003 and 2005 in Italy's Lombardy Region. The youths were classified as potential asthmatics, based on the different degree of drug utilization: occasional, low or high users, and grouped as 'new onset' or 'chronic' cases based on the duration of therapy dispensed. The analysis of prescriptions and hospitalization rate of these groups provided an estimate of the 2005 asthma prevalence and incidence and allowed an estimation of the level of appropriateness of treatments.

Results

During 2005, the estimated incidence of potential asthmatics was 0.8% and the estimated prevalence was 3.5%. When viewed retrospectively for two years, records showed that 47% of potential asthmatics received prescriptions also during 2004 and 30% also during 2003. During the three years considered, 7.5%, 2.8%, and 1.5% of high, low, and occasional users, respectively, were hospitalized for asthma. The most important inappropriateness found was the prescription of long acting beta adrenergics as first time treatment.

Conclusions

This study allowed a proxy of asthma incidence, prevalence, and severity. The analyses highlighted a low compliance with the guidelines, suggesting that educational interventions are needed to obtain a more rational management of childhood asthma, especially in subjects starting therapy.

Bronchial reversibility with a short-acting β2-agonist predicts the FEV1 response to administration of a long-acting β2-agonist with inhaled corticosteroids in patients with bronchial asthma

A long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combined with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is frequently prescribed as initial therapy in steroid-naïve asthma patients because of its effective control of symptoms and improvement of pulmonary function. However, it is unclear which patients will be responsive to LABAs and whether bronchial responsiveness to LABAs is similar to that to short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) in a clinical setting. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to compare the changes in spirometric parameters after SABA (salbutamol) inhalation to those after 1-month LABA/ICS (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate) therapy. Spirometric changes were evaluated as absolute values, as the percentage of predicted normal values and as the percentage of baseline values after salbutamol inhalation or 1-month LABA/ICS therapy in 45 patients with asthma. Compared to SABA inhalation, LABA/ICS therapy produced significant improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity expired (FEF50%) from baseline (expressed as the percentage predicted) in all patients. FEV1 and the FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio after SABA or LABA/ICS therapy were inversely related to the corresponding baseline values. Analysis of spirometric changes after SABA inhalation showed that FEV1 was the best among spirometric parameters, such as PEF, correlated with responsiveness to LABA/ICS therapy. Reversibility of FEV1 with SABA inhalation predicts the spirometric response to LABA/ICS as initial therapy in patients with bronchial asthma. LABA/ICS therapy had a greater effect on bronchial reversibility in asthmatic patients, compared to SABA inhalation. This suggested that evaluation of bronchial reversibility after LABA/ICS therapy would be superior to that after SABA inhalation.

Current recommendations for the treatment of mild asthma

Patients suffering from mild asthma are divided into intermittent or persistent classes based on frequency of symptoms and reliever medication usage. Although these terms are used as descriptors, it is important to recognize the approach of focusing on asthma control in managing asthma patients. Beta-agonists are considered first-line therapy for intermittent asthmatics. If frequent use of beta-agonists occurs more than twice a week, controller therapy should be considered. For persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids are recommended in addition to reliever medication. Compliance to regular therapy can pose problems for disease management, and while intermittent controller therapy regimens have been shown to be effective, it is imperative to stress the value of regular therapy especially if an exacerbation occurs. It is also important when such an approach is adopted that there is regular re-evaluations of asthma control. This is because regular anti-inflammatory therapy may become necessary if symptoms become more persistent. Other therapies are seldom needed. Antileukotrienes can be considered an option for mild asthma; however, studies have shown that they are not as effective as inhaled corticosteroids. Aside from therapy, patient education, which includes a written action plan, should be a component of the patient's strategy for disease management.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Management Continuum--2010 Consensus Summary for children six years of age and over, and adults

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To integrate new evidence into the Canadian Asthma Management Continuum diagram, encompassing both pediatric and adult asthma.

METHODS

The Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Committee members, comprised of experts in pediatric and adult respirology, allergy and immunology, emergency medicine, general pediatrics, family medicine, pharmacoepidemiology and evidence-based medicine, updated the continuum diagram, based primarily on the 2008 Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, and performed a focused review of literature pertaining to key aspects of asthma diagnosis and management in children six years of age and over, and adults.

RESULTS

In patients six years of age and over, management of asthma begins with establishing an accurate diagnosis, typically by supplementing medical history with objective measures of lung function. All patients and caregivers should receive self-management education, including a written action plan. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the first-line controller therapy for all ages. When asthma is not controlled with a low dose of ICS, the literature supports the addition of long-acting beta2-agonists in adults, while the preferred approach in children is to increase the dose of ICS. Leukotriene receptor antagonists are acceptable as second-line monotherapy and as an alternative add-on therapy in both age groups. Antiimmunoglobulin E therapy may be of benefit in adults, and in children 12 years of age and over with difficult to control allergic asthma, despite high-dose ICS and at least one other controller.

CONCLUSIONS

The foundation of asthma management is establishing an accurate diagnosis based on objective measures (eg, spirometry) in individuals six years of age and over. Emphasis is placed on the similarities and differences between pediatric and adult asthma management approaches to achieve asthma control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol 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 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 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 January 2009.

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 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. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were included in the review (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 mug versus salmeterol 50 mug 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 OR 0.77; 95% 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 percentage with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a 3 month period the percentage of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol, and 1.3% for salmeterol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Four studies have been identified comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all subjects 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.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic asthma in adults and children where background therapy contains varied or no inhaled corticosteroid

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common respiratory disease among both adults and children and short acting inhaled beta-2 agonists are used widely for 'reliever' bronchodilator therapy. Long acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) were introduced as prospective 'symptom controllers' in addition to inhaled corticosteroid 'preventer' therapy (ICS). In this updated review we have included studies in which patients were either not on ICS as a group, or in which some patients, but not all, were on ICS to complement previous systematic reviews of studies where LABA was given in patients uniformly receiving ICS. We have focussed particularly on serious adverse events, given previous concerns about potential risks, especially of death, from regular beta-2 agonist use.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to determine the benefit or detriment on the primary outcome of asthma control with the regular use of LABA compared with placebo, in mixed populations in which only some were taking ICS and in populations not using ICS therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, most recently in October 2005. We searched bibliographies of identified RCTs for additional relevant RCTs and contacted authors of identified RCTs for other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies of at least four weeks duration, comparing a LABA given twice daily with a placebo, in chronic asthma. Selection criteria to this updated review have been altered to accommodate recently published Cochrane reviews on combination and addition of LABA to ICS therapy. Studies in which all individuals were uniformly taking ICS were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers performed data extraction and study quality assessment independently. We contacted authors of studies for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies (representing 68 experimental comparisons) randomising 42,333 participants met the inclusion criteria. Salmeterol was used as long-acting agent in 50 studies and formoterol fumarate in 17. The treatment period was four to nine weeks in 29 studies, and 12 to 52 weeks in 38 studies. Twenty-four studies did not permit the use of ICS, and forty permitted either inhaled corticosteroid or cromones (in three studies this was unclear). In these studies between 22% and 92% were taking ICS, with a median of 62%. There were significant advantages to LABA treatment compared to placebo for a variety of measurements of airway calibre including morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening PEF and FEV1. They were associated with significantly fewer symptoms, less use of rescue medication and higher quality of life scores. This was true whether patients were taking LABA in combination with ICS or not. Findings from SMART (a recently published surveillance study) indicated significant increases in asthma related deaths, respiratory related deaths and combined asthma related deaths and life threatening experiences. The absolute increase in asthma-related mortality was consistent with an increase of around one per 1250 patients treated with LABA for six months, but the confidence intervals are wide (from 700 to 10,000). Post-hoc exploratory subgroups suggested that African-Americans and those not on inhaled corticosteroids were at particular risk for the primary end-point of death or life-threatening asthma event. There was also a suggestion of an increase in exacerbation rate in children. Pharmacologically predicted side effects such as headache, throat irritation, tremor and nervousness were more frequent with LABA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LABA are effective in the control of chronic asthma in the "real-life" subject groups included. However there are potential safety issues which call into question the safety of LABA, particularly in those asthmatics who are not taking ICS, and it is not clear why African-Americans were found to have significant differences in comparison to Caucasians for combined respiratory-related death and life threatening experiences, but not for asthma-related death.