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

Key recommendations for primary care from the 2022 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) update

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) was established in 1993 by the World Health Organization and the US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to improve asthma awareness, prevention and management worldwide. GINA develops and publishes evidence-based, annually updated resources for clinicians. GINA guidance is adopted by national asthma guidelines in many countries, adapted to fit local healthcare systems, practices, and resource availability. GINA is independent of industry, funded by the sale and licensing of its materials. This review summarizes key practical guidance for primary care from the 2022 GINA strategy report. It provides guidance on confirming the diagnosis of asthma using spirometry or peak expiratory flow. GINA recommends that all adults, adolescents and most children with asthma should receive inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapy to reduce the risk of severe exacerbations, either taken regularly, or (for adults and adolescents with "mild" asthma) as combination ICS-formoterol taken as needed for symptom relief. For patients with moderate-severe asthma, the preferred regimen is maintenance-and-reliever therapy (MART) with ICS-formoterol. Asthma treatment is not "one size fits all"; GINA recommends individualized assessment, adjustment, and review of treatment. As many patients with difficult-to-treat or severe asthma are not referred early for specialist review, we provide updated guidance for primary care on diagnosis, further investigation, optimization and treatment of severe asthma across secondary and tertiary care. While the GINA strategy has global relevance, we recognize that there are special considerations for its adoption in low- and middle-income countries, particularly the current poor access to inhaled medications.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics.

RESULTS

In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216).

CONCLUSIONS

This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

New Versus Old: The Impact of Changing Patterns of Inhaled Corticosteroid Prescribing and Dosing Regimens in Asthma Management

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies are the mainstay of pharmacological management of asthma. They can be administered alone or in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator, depending on asthma severity, and may also be supplemented with short-acting bronchodilators for as-needed rescue medication. Adherence to asthma therapies is generally poor and characterized by underuse of ICS therapies and over-reliance on short-acting bronchodilators, which leads to poor clinical outcomes. This article reviews efficacy versus systemic activity profiles for various dosing regimens of budesonide (BUD) and fluticasone propionate (FP). We performed a structured literature review of BUD and FP regular daily dosing, and BUD/formoterol (FOR) as-needed dosing, to explore the relationship between various dosing patterns of ICS regimens and the risk–benefit profile in terms of the extent of bronchoprotection and cortisol suppression. In addition, we explored how adherence could potentially affect the risk–benefit profile, in patients with mild, moderate, and moderate-to-severe asthma. With a specific focus on BUD or FP-containing treatments, we found that regular daily ICS and ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) dosing had a greater degree of bronchoprotection than as-needed BUD/FOR dosing or BUD/FOR maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) dosing, and still maintained low systemic activity. We also found that the benefits of regular daily ICS dosing regimens were diminished when adherence was low (50%); the shorter duration of bronchoprotection observed was similar to that seen with typical as-needed BUD/FOR usage. These findings have implications for aiding clinicians with selecting the most suitable treatment option for asthma management, and subsequent implications for the advice clinicians give their patients.

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies can be administered in a variety of ways depending on a patient’s asthma severity. Patients with mild asthma tend to experience symptom relief with as-needed or regular daily use of an ICS alone, whereas patients with more severe asthma may require regular daily use of an ICS plus a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) to experience sufficient asthma control. However, failure to correctly adhere to ICS-containing therapies or an over-reliance on short-acting bronchodilators for symptom relief hinders optimal asthma management, thus negatively affecting overall patient health and wellbeing. Understanding how different dosing regimens affect the degree of bronchoprotection (efficacy) and cortisol suppression (systemic activity) of ICS treatments would benefit physicians by helping them to prescribe the most appropriate treatment for their patient’s asthma. We performed a structured literature review of two ICS molecules—budesonide (BUD) (alone and combined with formoterol [FOR]) and fluticasone propionate (FP)—to explore the relationship between various ICS dosing regimens, and then used these findings to construct models for ICS risk–benefit profiles. Our models factored in different ICS dosing regimens—as-needed, regular daily dosing, and maintenance and reliever therapy (MART)—and various degrees of treatment adherence. We found that regular daily ICS and ICS/LABA dosing provided better bronchoprotection than as-needed BUD/FOR dosing or BUD/FOR MART dosing, but this benefit was diminished with low adherence. Regular daily dosing maintained low cortisol suppression, which indicated a fairly low risk of negative side effects. Our findings have subsequent implications for optimizing treatment in patients with asthma.

Asthma management in low- and middle-income countries: case for change

Asthma is the most common non-communicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they suffer disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality.Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times/week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS is prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting beta₂ agonist (SABA) alone, due to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries.The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death - despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches - is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Guidelines for the management of asthma in adults and adolescents: Position statement of the South African Thoracic Society - 2021 update

Asthma prevalence is increasing worldwide, and surveys indicate that most patients in developed and developing countries, including South Africa, do not receive optimal care and are therefore not well controlled. Standard management guidelines adapted to in-country realities are important to support optimal care. The South African Thoracic Society (SATS) first published a guideline for the management of chronic persistent asthma in 1992, which has subsequently been revised several times.

The main aim of the present document was to revise and update SATS’ statement on the suggested management of chronic asthma, based on the need to promote optimal care and control of asthma, together with the incorporation of new concepts and drug developments. This revised document reinforces optimal care and incorporates the following primary objectives to achieve the recent advances in asthma care:

continued emphasis on the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the foundation of asthma treatment

to reduce the reliance on short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) monotherapy for asthma symptoms

to incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of the combination of an ICS and formoterol for acute symptom relief (instead of a SABA)

to incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of as-needed ICS-long-acting beta agonists (LABA) for patients with infrequent symptoms or ‘mild’ asthma

to incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in combination with ICS-LABA; and

to incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of and management with a biologic therapy in severe asthma.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes.GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by >60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA.Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11  years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4.Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Short-acting β2-agonist prescriptions are associated with poor clinical outcomes of asthma: the multi-country, cross-sectional SABINA III study

Background

To gain a global perspective on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) prescriptions and associated asthma-related clinical outcomes in patients with asthma, we assessed primary health data across 24 countries in five continents.

Methods

SABINA III was a cross-sectional study that employed electronic case report forms at a study visit (in primary or specialist care) to record prescribed medication(s), over-the-counter (OTC) SABA purchases and clinical outcomes in asthma patients (≥12 years old) during the past 12 months. In patients with ≥1 SABA prescriptions, associations of SABA with asthma symptom control and severe exacerbations were analysed using multivariable regression models.

Results

Of 8351 patients recruited (n=6872, specialists; n=1440, primary care), 76.5% had moderate-to-severe asthma and 45.4% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbations in the past 12 months. 38% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters; 18.0% purchased OTC SABA, of whom 76.8% also received SABA prescriptions. Prescriptions of 3–5, 6–9, 10–12 and ≥13 SABA canisters (versus 1–2) were associated with increasingly lower odds of controlled or partly controlled asthma (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.53–0.78), 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.61), 0.42 (95% CI 0.34–0.51) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.25–0.45), respectively; n=4597) and higher severe exacerbation rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.40 (95% CI 1.24–1.58), 1.52 (95% CI 1.33–1.74), 1.78 (95% CI 1.57–2.02) and 1.92 (95% CI 1.61–2.29), respectively; n=4612).

Conclusions

This study indicates an association between high SABA prescriptions and poor clinical outcomes across a broad range of countries, healthcare settings and asthma severities, providing support for initiatives to improve asthma morbidity by reducing SABA overreliance.

Findings from SABINA III, which included 8351 patients from 24 countries, indicate that across treatment steps and clinical care settings, high SABA prescriptions were associated with higher rates of severe exacerbations and poorer asthma controlhttps://bit.ly/2VHBISg

Overview of severe asthma, with emphasis on pediatric patients: a review for practitioners

Asthma is the most common life-threatening chronic disease in children. Although guidelines exist for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma, treatment of severe, pediatric asthma remains difficult. Limited studies in the pediatric population on new asthma therapies, complex issues with adolescence and adherence, health disparities, and unequal access to guideline-based care complicate the care of children with severe, persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of asthma, including asthma subtypes, comorbidities, and risk factors, to discuss diagnostic considerations and pitfalls and existing treatments, and then present existing and emerging therapeutic approaches to asthma management. An improved understanding of asthma heterogeneity, clinical characteristics, inflammatory patterns, and pathobiology can help further guide the management of severe asthma in children. More studies are needed in the pediatric population to understand emerging therapeutics application in children. Effective multimodal strategies tailored to individual characteristics and a commitment to address risk factors, modifiers, and health disparities may help reduce the burden of asthma in the USA.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.

New Perspectives in the Management of Mild to Moderate Asthma in Children

Mild to moderate asthma makes up the greatest proportion of all asthma severities in childhood. Children who are treated with steps 1–2 are defined as having mild asthma and step 3 as having moderate asthma, according to the guidelines. Although many studies focused on the management of severe asthma over the last decade, there have also been important changes and improvements in the management of mild to moderate asthma. In this article, new perspectives in the management of children with mild to moderate asthma will be reviewed and compared according to the two major guidelines.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries.

METHODS

A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year).

RESULTS

Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

Severe asthma: adding new evidence - Latin American Thoracic Society

This document constitutes a summary of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) prepared at the initiative of the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT). Due to new evidence in the treatment of severe asthma, it was agreed to select six clinical questions, and the corresponding recommendations are provided herein. After considering the quality of the evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable impacts and the feasibility and acceptance of procedures, the following recommendations were established. 1) We do not recommend the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus formoterol as rescue medication in the treatment of severe asthma. 2) We suggest performing many more high-quality randomised studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma. 3) Omalizumab is recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma with serum IgE levels above 30 IU. 4) Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 drugs are recommended in patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 150 cells·µL⁻¹ for mepolizumab and above 400 cells·µL⁻¹ for reslizumab). 5) Benralizumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma (cut-off values above 300 cells·µL⁻¹). 6) Dupilumab is recommended in adult patients with severe uncontrolled allergic and eosinophilic asthma and in adult patients with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

Severe #asthma: evidence @ALAToraxhttps://bit.ly/34jYhg2

Study of the beneficial role of exhaled nitric oxide in combination with GINA guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

The use of FE_NO in association with current guidelines in the treatment of asthma has not been studied thoroughly. This study aimed to evaluate the beneficial role of FE_NO in combination with GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatic children.

METHODS

It was a prospective and descriptive study. Uncontrolled asthmatic children were randomized to two groups: group 1 (followed GINA guidelines) or group 2 (followed GINA guidelines + FE_NO modification for ICS titration). The two groups were followed-up for 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients in the study was 10 ± 4 years for group 1 (n = 116) and 11 ± 5 years for group 2 (n = 108). There were 87.9% patients in group 1 and 82.4% in group 2 that had a familial allergic history. There were 58.6% of moderate asthma and 41.4% of severe asthma in group 1, versus 56.4% and 43.6% in group 2, respectively. The percentage of moderate and severe asthma was also significantly modified after 6th and 12th month versus at inclusion (43.1% and 35.3% versus 58.6%, P < 0.01 and P < 0.005; 23.2% and 12.9% versus 41.4%, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). The total daily dose of ICS in group 2 at 12th months was significantly lower than that in group 1 (3515 ± 1175 versus 4785 ± 1235 mcg; P < 0.005). The daily cost of ICS treatment in group 2 was also lower than that of group 1 (18 ± 4 versus 27 ± 3 USD; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of FE_NO in combination with GINA guidelines for ICS titration is useful in reducing the daily ICS dose and treatment cost.

Two Sides of the Same Coin?-Treatment of Chronic Asthma in Children and Adults

Globally, asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions that affect individuals of all ages. When poorly controlled, it negatively impacts patient's ability to enjoy life and work. At the population level, effective use of recommended strategies in children and adults can reduce symptom burden, improve quality of life and significantly reduce the risk of exacerbation, decline of lung function and asthma-related death. Inhaled corticosteroid as the initial maintenance therapy, ideally started within 2 years of symptom onset, is highly effective in both children and adults and across various degrees of asthma severity. If asthma is not controlled, the choice of subsequent add-on therapies differs between children and adults. Evidence supporting pharmacological approach to asthma management, especially for those with more severe disease, is more robust in adults compared to children. This is, in part, due to various challenges in the diagnosis of asthma, in the recruitment into clinical trials and in the lack of objective outcomes in children, especially those in the preschool age group. Nevertheless, where evidence is emerging for younger children, it seems to mirror the observations in adults. Clinicians need to develop strategies to implement guideline-based recommendations while taking into consideration individual variations in asthma clinical phenotypes, pathophysiology and treatment responses at different ages.

Protective Effects of Astragaloside IV Combined with Budesonide in Bronchitis in Rats by Regulation of Nrf2/Keap1 Pathway

BACKGROUND This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of astragaloside IV and budesonide on bronchitis in rats and to explore the mechanism involved. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighty Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were randomly divided into 5 groups, including a Bronchitis model group (BM), a Budesonide group (BG), an Astragaloside IV group (AG), an Astragaloside IV combined with Budesonide group (CG), and a blank control group (BC). Lung tissue was stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The activity of catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and malondialdehyde (MDA) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The nuclear factor erythroid 2 [NF-E2]-related factor 2 (Nrf2), Kelch-like erythroid cell-derived protein with CNC homology [ECH]-associated protein 1 (Keap1), BTB and CNC homology 1 (Bach1), B-cell lymphoma-2(Bcl-2), and BCl-2-associated X protein (Bax) mRNA and protein were examined by RT-PCR and Western blot, respectively. RESULTS Compared with the Bronchitis model group, the lung tissue lesions in the Budesonide group, Astragaloside IV group, and Astragaloside IV combined with Budesonide group were effectively ameliorated and the airway resistance was significantly decreased. The activities of SOD, GSH-Px, and CAT were increased after treatment with drugs, while the content of MDA was decreased. The levels of Nrf2, Keap1, and Bcl-2 proteins were increased and the levels of Bach1 and Bax were decreased after treatment with Budesonide and Astragaloside IV. CONCLUSIONS Astragaloside IV combined with budesonide can ameliorate the lesions caused by bronchitis in rats through activating the Nrf2/Keap1 pathway, which plays a protective role on anti-oxidative stress injury.

Corticosteroid plus β2-agonist in a single inhaler as reliever therapy in intermittent and mild asthma: a proof-of-concept systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) regimen for moderate to severe asthma. However, evidence for the inhaled corticosteroid plus fast-onset-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/FABA) as reliever therapy in management of intermittent and mild asthma patients is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically explore efficacy and safety of the proof-of-concept of the ICS plus FABA regimen in a single inhaler as reliever therapy across children and adults with intermittent and mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

We searched online bibliographic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the as-needed use of ICS/FABA as monotherapy in intermittent or mild asthma patients. The primary outcomes were exacerbations and the hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first exacerbation.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (n = 1300) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the as-needed FABA regimen, the as-needed use of ICS/FABA as monotherapy statistically reduced exacerbations (RR = 0.56, P = 0.001). Compared with regular ICS regimen, the as-needed ICS/FABA therapy had slightly higher risk of exacerbations (RR = 1.39, P = 0.011). The HR for time to first exacerbations in the ICS/FABA regimen was significant lower when compared with FABA regimen (HR = 0.52, P = 0.002) but had no difference when compared with ICS regimen (HR = 1.30, P = 0.286). The corticosteroid exposure in the daily ICS regimen was 2- to 5-fold compared with as-needed use of ICS/FABA regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that the ICS/FABA as a symptom-driven therapy may be a promising alternative regimen for the patients with intermittent or mild asthma, but it needs further real-world RCTs to confirm these findings.

The frequency of asthma exacerbations and healthcare utilization in patients with asthma from the UK and USA

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations are frequent in patients with severe disease. This report describes results from two retrospective cohort studies describing exacerbation frequency and risk, emergency department (ED)/hospital re-admissions, and asthma-related costs by asthma severity in the US and UK.

METHODS

Patients with asthma in the US-based Clinformatics™ DataMart Multiplan IMPACT (2010-2011; WEUSKOP7048) and the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2009-2011; WEUSKOP7092) databases were categorized by disease severity (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA]; Step and exacerbation history) during the 12 months pre-asthma medical code (index date). Outcomes included: frequency of exacerbations (asthma-related ED visit, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroid use with an asthma medical code recorded within ±2 weeks) 12 months post-index, asthma-related ED visits/hospitalization, and asthma-related costs 30 days post-index. Risk of a subsequent exacerbation was determined by proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Of the 222,817 and 211,807 patients with asthma included from the US and UK databases, respectively, 12.5 and 8.4% experienced ≥1 exacerbation during the follow-up period. Exacerbation frequency increased with disease severity. Among the 5,167 and 2,904 patients with an asthma-related ED visit/hospitalization in the US and UK databases, respectively, 9.2 and 4.7% had asthma-related re-admissions within 30 days. Asthma-related re-admission rates and costs increased with disease severity, approximately doubling between GINA Step 1 and 5 and in patients with ≥2 versus <2 exacerbations in the previous year. Risk of a subsequent exacerbation increased 32-35% for an exacerbation requiring ED visit/hospitalization versus oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

Increased disease severity was associated with higher exacerbation frequency, ED/hospitalization re-admission, costs and risk of subsequent exacerbation, indicating that these patients require high-intensity post-exacerbation management.

Patient- and parent-initiated oral steroids for asthma exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways affecting an estimated 334 million people worldwide. During severe exacerbations, patients may need to attend a medical centre or hospital emergency department for treatment with systemic corticosteroids, which can be administered intravenously or orally. Some people with asthma are prescribed oral corticosteroids (OCS) for self-administration (i.e. patient-initiated) or to administer to their child with asthma (i.e. parent-initiated), in the event of an exacerbation. This approach to treatment is becoming increasingly common.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of patient- or parent-initiated oral steroids for adults and children with asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR from its inception to 18 May 2016 and trial registries from their inception to 24 August 2016; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data; we excluded cross-over trials.We looked for studies where adults (aged 18 years or older) or children of school age (aged 5 years or older) with asthma were randomised to receive: (a) any patient-/parent-initiated OCS or (b) placebo, normal care, alternative active treatment, or an identical personalised asthma action plan without the patient- or parent-initiated OCS component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to identify any studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were hospital admissions for asthma, asthma symptoms at follow-up and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite comprehensive searches of electronic databases and clinical trial registries, we did not identify any studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Five potentially relevant studies were excluded for two reasons: the intervention did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review (three studies) and studies had a cross-over design (two studies). Two of the excluded studies asked the relevant clinical question. However, these studies were excluded due to their cross-over design, as per the protocol. We contacted the authors of the cross-over trials who were unable to provide data for the first treatment period (i.e. prior to cross-over).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from randomised trials (non-cross-over design) to inform the use of patient- or parent-initiated oral corticosteroids in people with asthma.

Fluticasone/formoterol association favors long-lasting decrease in bronchial reactivity to methacholine and weekly PEF variability

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) association offers a better asthma control than a higher steroid dose with short-acting beta-agonists as needed. In this study, we evaluated the effect of the association on bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability, as such parameters are positively correlated with increased asthma morbidity and exacerbations. Thirty-six adult patients with mild persistent asthma were enrolled. After a 7-day run-in, they were randomly assigned to three therapy regimens for 6 weeks: Group 1, fluticasone 125 μg + formoterol 5 μg in the same device; Group 2, fluticasone 125 μg + formoterol 12 μg as needed; Group 3, fluticasone 250 μg + formoterol 12 μg as needed. We evaluated changes induced in weekly PEF variability (measured during the entire study and 4 weeks of follow-up) and pre- and post-study PD20 methacholine (MCH). Weekly PEF variability decreased in all groups during treatment with the greatest reduction in Group 1, followed by Group 3, and finally Group 2. During the follow-up, no significant changes were detected in Group 1, whereas a trend towards an increased variability was found in Groups 2 and 3. Post-treatment PD20 MCH was significantly higher versus the pre-treatment. The increase observed in Group 1 was significantly higher compared to Groups 2 and 3 and that observed in Group 3 in respect to Group 2. The study proves that both BHR and PEF variability are influenced by ICS. This effect was greater with fluticasone/formoterol association compared to fluticasone alone with formoterol as needed even at higher steroid dose.

Korean Asthma Guideline 2014: Summary of Major Updates to the Korean Asthma Guideline 2014

Asthma is a prevalent and serious health problem in Korea. Recently, the Korean Asthma Guideline has been updated by The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (KATRD) in an effort to improve the clinical management of asthma. This guideline focuses on adult patients with asthma and aims to deliver up to date scientific evidence and recommendations to general physicians for the management of asthma. For this purpose, this guideline was updated following systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies and adapting some points of international guidelines (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] report 2014, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program [NAEPP] 2007, British Thoracic Society [BTS/SIGN] asthma guideline 2012, and Canadian asthma guideline 2012). Updated issues include recommendations derived using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) model, which produced 20 clinical questions on the management of asthma. It also covers a new definition of asthma, the importance of confirming various airflow limitations with spirometry, the epidemiology and the diagnostic flow of asthma in Korea, the importance and evidence for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ICS/formoterol as a single maintenance and acute therapy in the stepwise management of asthma, assessment of severity of asthma and management of exacerbation, and an action plan to cope with exacerbation. This guideline includes clinical assessments, and treatment of asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome, management of asthma in specific conditions including severe asthma, elderly asthma, cough variant asthma, exercise-induced bronchial contraction, etc. The revised Korean Asthma Guideline is expected to be a useful resource in the management of asthma.

Budesonide + formoterol fumarate dihydrate for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

One of the most widely used fixed combinations in asthma management is dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate which is commercially available as Symbicort Turbuhaler(®) (and generic products), Easyhaler Bufomix(®) and DuoRespSpiromax(®) inhaler. The aim of this paper was to review the fixed dry powder combination of inhaled budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate for asthma treatment in adolescents and adults.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search using relevant search terms, reference lists for reviews and meta-analyses was performed.

EXPERT OPINION

In symptomatic adolescent and adult patients with asthma maintenance and reliever therapy with a single-inhaler fixed combination of dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate is an evidenced option. The combination treatment is convenient to patients. It reduces the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids. In some patients the strategy may also reduce the total intake of inhaled corticosteroids over time. Whether important outcome measures of asthma treatment, such as hospital admission and emergency room visit rates, may be reduced is less well documented since the published studies may have been influenced by publication bias. Non-pharmaceutical company-sponsored research evaluating such measures is needed. There is no evidence for the use of single inhaler fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids+long-acting β(2)-agonists in children (<12 years of age), and budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate should not be prescribed to the age group.

The rapid effects of budesonide plus formoterol in patients with obstructive airway diseases

INTRODUCTION

The use of a combination inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol (BUD/FOR) to both maintenance and quick relief therapy has been recommended as an improved method of using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the acute effects of BUD/FOR and testing the availability of BUD/FOR for early reversibility test in patients with airway obstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on patients who were admitted to the Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Samsun Medical Park Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 48.5 ± 17.3 (range 10-75) years and the male-to-female ratio was 36:8. The pre-bronchodilator pulmonary function test results are as follows: the mean forced vital capacity, 3,025 ± 1,162 mL (76.3% ± 23.2%); mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), 1,898 ± 725 mL (59.2% ± 19.1%); mean FEV1/forced vital capacity, 62.8 ± 6.3% (range 42%-70%); mean peak expiratory flow, 3,859 ± 1,779 mL (48.0% ± 19.7%); and forced expiratory flow 25%-75%, 1,295 ± 486 mL (35.8% ± 12.3%). The reversibility was positive in 26 (59.1%) patients. The absolute change and percentage of change in FEV1 were 318 ± 228 mL and 17.7% ± 11.9%, respectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to reversibility (reversible and irreversible) and both groups were compared with changes according to spirometric results. FEV1 values were statistically different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The fixed combination of BUD/FOR has rapid bronchodilator effect, and they can be used for early reversibility test.

Primary Care of the Patient with Asthma

Obstructive lung disease includes asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Because a previous issue of Medical Clinics of North America (2012;96[4]) was devoted to COPD, this article focuses on asthma in adults, and addresses some topics about COPD not addressed previously. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease marked by variable airflow obstruction and bronchial hyperreactivity. Onset is most common in early childhood, although many people develop asthma later in life. Adult-onset asthma presents a particular challenge in the primary care clinic because of incomplete understanding of the disorder, underreporting of symptoms, underdiagnosis, inadequate treatment, and high rate of comorbidity.

A summary of the new GINA strategy: a roadmap to asthma control

Over the past 20 years, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has regularly published and annually updated a global strategy for asthma management and prevention that has formed the basis for many national guidelines. However, uptake of existing guidelines is poor. A major revision of the GINA report was published in 2014, and updated in 2015, reflecting an evolving understanding of heterogeneous airways disease, a broader evidence base, increasing interest in targeted treatment, and evidence about effective implementation approaches. During development of the report, the clinical utility of recommendations and strategies for their practical implementation were considered in parallel with the scientific evidence.This article provides a summary of key changes in the GINA report, and their rationale. The changes include a revised asthma definition; tools for assessing symptom control and risk factors for adverse outcomes; expanded indications for inhaled corticosteroid therapy; a framework for targeted treatment based on phenotype, modifiable risk factors, patient preference, and practical issues; optimisation of medication effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence; revised recommendations about written asthma action plans; diagnosis and initial treatment of the asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome; diagnosis in wheezing pre-school children; and updated strategies for adaptation and implementation of GINA recommendations.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

Empowering the child and caregiver: yellow zone Asthma Action Plan

Current guidelines, both national and international, elegantly describe evidence-based measures to attain and maintain long-term control of asthma. These strategies, typically discussed between the provider and patient, are provided in the form of written (or electronic) instructions as part of the green zone of the color-coded Asthma Action Plan. The red zone of the Asthma Action Plan has directives on when to use systemic corticosteroids and seek medical attention. The transition zone between the green zone of good control and the red zone of asthma exacerbation is the yellow zone. This zone guides the patient on self-management of exacerbations outside a medical setting. Unfortunately, the only recommendation currently available to patients per the current asthma guidelines is the repetitive use of reliever bronchodilators. This approach, while providing modest symptom relief, does not reliably prevent progression to the red zone. In this document, we present new, evidence-based, yellow zone intervention options.

Novel drug targets for asthma and COPD: lessons learned from in vitro and in vivo models

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are highly prevalent respiratory diseases characterized by airway inflammation, airway obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness. Whilst current therapies, such as β-agonists and glucocorticoids, may be effective at reducing symptoms, they do not reduce disease progression. Thus, there is a need to identify new therapeutic targets. In this review, we summarize the potential of novel targets or tools, including anti-inflammatories, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, kinase inhibitors, transient receptor potential channels, vitamin D and protease inhibitors, for the treatment of asthma and COPD.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality).

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12.