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

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

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Real-Life Clinical Use of Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy for Asthmatic Patients in Korea

The aim of this study was to examine the daily practice patterns of Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) in Korean asthmatic patients and to analyze clinical signs related to overuse. This study used an observational, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective, uncontrolled design for examining asthmatic patients prescribed SMART to assess the frequency and pattern of Symbicort® usage as a maintenance and reliever medication. The characteristics of patients showing signs of overuse (frequency of inhalation: 8 or more times per day) were also analyzed. Among the 1,518 patients analyzed, 1,292 (85.1%) completed the trial. The number of mean inhalations per day was 2.14±1.15; the number of patients who had at least 1 as needed usage (PRN) inhalation per day was 843 (55.5%); the mean frequency of PRN use was 0.25±0.67 inhalations per day. The number of patients who overused for at least 1 day was 260 (17.1%). In particular, young patients, patients with limited physical activity, and patients with nocturnal symptoms demonstrated high frequency of overuse. The frequency of overuse during SMART was not high in Korean asthmatic patients and the asthma status of follow-up outpatients improved overall. However, there is a need for careful education targeted toward younger patients, patients with limited physical activity, and patients with nocturnal symptoms owing to their tendency to frequently overuse.

Turning a molecule into a medicine: the development of indacaterol as a novel once-daily bronchodilator treatment for patients with COPD

Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Indacaterol was developed using a combination of informed drug design and molecular chemistry to generate a β2-adrenergic agonist with a fast onset and long duration of action, enabling once-daily dosing with an acceptable safety profile. Early preclinical studies with indacaterol demonstrated these characteristics, and this promising molecule was taken into clinical development, originally for asthma treatment. Subsequent safety concerns over LABA monotherapy in patients with asthma redirected indacaterol's development to centre on COPD, where a good evidence base and guideline recommendations for bronchodilator monotherapy existed. Clinical development was initially complicated by different inhaler devices and differing doses of indacaterol. Using a phase III innovative adaptive-design clinical trial (INHANCE), indacaterol 150 and 300 μg once-daily doses were selected to be taken forward into the phase III INERGIZE programme. This programme delivered placebo-controlled and active-comparator data, including comparisons with formoterol, tiotropium and salmeterol/fluticasone, as well as the use of indacaterol in combination with tiotropium. Together, these studies provided a comprehensive assessment of the benefit-risk profile of indacaterol, allowing for regulatory submission. Indacaterol was first approved at once-daily doses of 150 and 300 μg in the European Union in 2009, followed by 150 µg in Japan (2011) and China (2012), and 75 μg in the United States (2011). To date, indacaterol is approved and marketed in more than 100 countries worldwide for once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of formoterol versus salmeterol in the treatment of patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Formoterol and salmeterol are two long-acting β2-agonists given by inhalation, with bronchodilating effects lasting for at least 12 h after a single administration. Formoterol has a faster onset of action compared with salmeterol. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the data published from previous review in order to calculate pooled estimates of effectiveness and safety assessment of formoterol and salmeterol in treatment of patients with asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we conducted an electronic search for medical citation databases including Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and IranMedex. Besides manual search of the databases that record randomized clinical trials, conference proceedings, and journals related to asthma were included. Studies were evaluated by two independent people based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the common outcomes of studies were entered into the RevMan 5.0.1 software, after evaluation of studies and extraction of data from them; and in cases where there were homogeneous studies, meta-analysis was performed, and for heterogeneous studies, the results were reported qualitatively.

RESULTS

Of the 1539 studies initially found, 13 were included in the study. According to the meta-analysis conducted, no significant difference was found between the inhalation of formoterol 12 μg and salmeterol 50 μg in the two outcomes of mean forced expiratory volume 1 s (FEV1), 12 h after inhalation of medication and Borg score (A frequently used scale for quantifying breathlessness) after inhalation of medication. In addition, salmeterol was more effective than formoterol in the two outcomes of percent decrease in FEV1 after inhalation of methacholine and the number of days without an attack. Since the two outcomes of FEV1 30-60 min after inhalation of medication and morning peak expiratory flow after inhalation of medication were heterogeneous, they had no meta-analysis capabilities, and its results were reported qualitatively.

CONCLUSION

The data from included studies shows that, more efficacy has been achieved with Salmeterol, especially in some outcomes such as the percent decrease in FEV1 after inhalation of Methacholine, and the number of days without an attack; and therefore, the administration of Salmeterol seems to be beneficial for patients, compared with Formoterol.

The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research

BACKGROUND

There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007-2011.

METHODS

We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).

RESULTS

A total of 1,502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR-funded CRGs between 2007 and 2011. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance: 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example, safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document, and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use.

CONCLUSIONS

Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact, and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.

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.

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in adults with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

For adults with asthma that is poorly controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines suggest adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA). The LABA can be taken together with ICS in a single (combination) inhaler. Improved symptom control can be assessed in the individual; however, the long-term risk of hospital admission or death requires evidence from randomised controlled trials. Clinical trials record these safety outcomes as non-fatal and fatal serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of serious adverse events in adults with asthma treated with regular maintenance formoterol or salmeterol compared with placebo, or when randomly assigned in combination with regular ICS, compared with the same dose of ICS.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews on the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a June 2013 search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We carried out a search for additional trials in September 2013 and incorporated the new data. All reviews were independently assessed for inclusion and for quality (using the AMSTAR tool). We extracted from each review data from trials recruiting adults (participants older than 12 or 18 years of age).We combined the results from reviews on formoterol and salmeterol to assess the safety of twice-daily regular LABA as a class effect, both as monotherapy versus placebo and as combination therapy versus the same dose of ICS.We did not combine the results of direct and indirect comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol, or carry out a network meta-analysis, because of concerns over transitivity assumptions that posed a threat to the validity of indirect comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six high-quality, up-to-date Cochrane reviews. Of these, four reviews (89 trials with 61,366 adults) related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol as monotherapy or combination therapy. Two reviews assessed safety from trials in which adults were randomly assigned to formoterol versus salmeterol. These included three trials with 1116 participants given monotherapy (all prescribed background ICS) and 10 trials with 8498 adults receiving combination therapy. An additional search for trials in September 2013 identified five new included studies contributing data from 693 adults with asthma treated with combination formoterol/fluticasone in comparison with the same dose of inhaled fluticasone, as well as from 447 adults for whom formoterol monotherapy was compared with placebo.No trials reported separate results in adolescents. Overall, risks of bias for the primary outcomes were assessed as low. Death of any causeNone of the reviews found a significant increase in death of any cause from direct comparisons; however, none of the reviews could exclude the possibility of a two-fold increase in mortality on regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy vs placebo or as combination therapy versus ICS) in adults with asthma. Pooled mortality results from direct comparisons were as follows: formoterol monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 84.80, 13 trials, N = 4824), salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.08, 10 trials, N = 29,128), formoterol combination (OR 3.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 16.03, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.6, 35 trials, N = 13,447). In each case, we did not detect heterogeneity, and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. Absolute differences in mortality were very small, translating into an increase of 7 per 10,000 over 26 weeks on any monotherapy (95% CI 2 less to 23 more) and 3 per 10,000 over 32 weeks on any combination therapy (95% CI 3 less to 17 more).Very few deaths were reported in the combination therapy trials, and combination therapy trial designs were different from those of monotherapy trials. Therefore we could not use indirect evidence to assess whether regular combination therapy was safer than regular monotherapy.Only one death occurred in the monotherapy trials comparing formoterol versus salmeterol, so evidence was insufficient to compare mortality. Non-fatal serious adverse events of any causeDirect evidence showed that non-fatal serious adverse events were increased in adults receiving salmeterol monotherapy (OR 1.14, 95% 1.01 to 1.28, I(2) = 0%,13 trials, N = 30,196) but were not significantly increased in any of the other reviews: formoterol monotherapy (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.04, I(2) = 15%, 17 trials, N = 5758), formoterol combination (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 25 trials, N = 11,271) and salmeterol combination (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, I(2) = 0%, 35 trials, N = 13,447). This represents an absolute increase on any monotherapy of 43 per 10,000 over 26 weeks (95% CI 6 more to 85 more) and 16 per 10,000 over 32 weeks (95% CI 22 less to 60 more) on any combination therapy.Direct comparisons of formoterol and salmeterol detected no significant differences between risks of all non-fatal events in adults (as monotherapy or as combination therapy).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from the reviews of randomised trials cannot definitively rule out an increased risk of fatal serious adverse events when regular formoterol or salmeterol was added to an inhaled corticosteroid (as background or as randomly assigned treatment) in adults or adolescents with asthma.An increase in non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause was found with salmeterol monotherapy, and the same increase cannot be ruled out when formoterol or salmeterol was used in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid, although possible increases are small in absolute terms.However, if the addition of formoterol or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid is found to improve symptomatic control, it is safer to give formoterol or salmeterol in the form of a combination inhaler (as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). This prevents the substitution of LABA for an inhaled corticosteroid if symptom control is improved on LABA.The results of three large ongoing trials in adults and adolescents are awaited; these will provide more information on the safety of combination therapy under less supervised conditions and will report separate results for the adolescents included.

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

BACKGROUND

Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded.In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias).Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence).One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm).The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials.Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT.Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.

Real-life effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma patients across Asia: SMARTASIA study

BACKGROUND

The use of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for both maintenance and reliever therapy is a recommended option for treatment of persistent asthma not responding well to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre open-label study on patients whose asthma condition remained inadequately controlled by various asthma treatments other than budesonide/formoterol. After a 2-week run-in period, eligible patients underwent a 12-week treatment period with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort SMART(®), 160/4.5 μg) twice daily plus as needed. Patient's asthma control and quality of life were assessed using the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) and the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 862 eligible asthma patients who have had asthma for a mean duration of 10.73 ± 12.03 years entered a 12-week treatment with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. During treatment, ACQ-5 score improved significantly by 0.58 ± 0.93 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.64, P < 0.0001) from the baseline level of 1.62 ± 1.00. AQLQ(S) score improved by 0.70 ± 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.76, P < 0.0001) from baseline. Asthma symptom score was also reduced significantly (P < 0.0001); between run-in and treatment periods, night- and day-time symptom scores were reduced by 0.32 ± 0.54 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.35) and 0.30 ± 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.34), respectively. The percentage of nights with awakenings due to asthma symptoms was reduced by 11.09 ± 26.13% (95% CI, 9.34 to 12.85%), while the percentage of asthma-control and symptom-free days increased by 20.90 ± 34.40% (95% CI, 18.59 to 23.21%) and 23.89 ± 34.62% (95% CI, 21.56 to 26.21%), respectively (P < 0.0001). Together with the improvement in asthma control, the number of night- and day-time inhalations of as-needed reliever medication decreased by 0.30 ± 0.82 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.35) inhalations and 0.30 ± 0.97 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.36) inhalations, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

During treatment of inadequately controlled asthmatic patients with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, significant improvement in patients' asthma control and reductions in asthma symptoms and as-needed medication use was observed. Patients' quality of life was improved and the treatment was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov: (NCT00939341).

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I(2) = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I(2) = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta(2)-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.

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.

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.

Bronchodilatory effect of inhaled budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/salbutamol in acute asthma: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There are no published studies that have compared bronchodilatory effect of inhaled budesonide/formoterol combination with budesonide/salbutamol delivered by metered dose inhaler with a spacer in acute exacerbation of asthma in children. We, therefore, compared the bronchodilatory effects of inhaled budesonide/formoterol (dose: 200 μg and 12 μg respectively) combination with budesonide (200 μg)/salbutamol (200 μg) administered by metered dose inhaler and spacer in children of 5-15 years with mild acute exacerbation of asthma [Modified Pulmonary Index Score (MPIS) between 6-8] in this double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was FEV1 (% predicted) in the two groups at 1, 5, 15, 30, 60 min after administration of the study drug.

RESULTS

We did not observe any significant differences in the % predicted FEV1 and MPIS between formoterol and salbutamol at various time points from 1 min to 60 min post drug administration. There was significant improvement in FEV1 (% predicted) from baseline in both the groups as early as 1 min after drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Salbutamol or formoterol delivered along with inhaled corticosteroid by metered dose inhaler with spacer in children between 5-15 years of age with mild acute exacerbation of asthma had similar bronchodilatory effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00900874.

Stepping down asthma treatment: how and when

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines suggest that asthma medication should be reduced once asthma control is sustained. Moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can typically be reduced, but questions remain about the lowest effective ICS dose and the role of non-ICS controllers in treatment reduction. Long-acting beta agonist (LABA) safety concerns have created controversy about how to step down patients on ICS/LABA therapy. This review will focus on the current status of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intermittent ICS treatment, often in fixed combination with short-acting beta agonist, is an emerging strategy for control of mild asthma. Addition of leukotriene modifiers, LABAs, and omalizumab to ICS can allow for reduced ICS dosing. Doses of ICS that control symptoms may be inadequate to control exacerbations. Reducing ICS dose before discontinuing LABAs may be the more effective approach for patients on combination therapy.

SUMMARY

Use of non-ICS controllers allows for ICS dose reduction with superior outcomes. Tapering of ICS prior to LABA discontinuation may be the favored approach for patients on ICS/LABA therapy, but an understanding of long-term outcomes and further safety data are required. The lowest ICS dose that adequately controls both asthma impairment and risk remains to be determined.

Long-acting β-agonists in asthma management: what is the current status?

Large surveillance studies or phase IV clinical studies of long-acting β-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo in asthma patients using variable (from nil to regular) doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have raised the issue of mortality risk in patients with asthma taking regular LABA. There have been a number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that have examined the risk of LABA in asthma patients, and the general conclusion is that LABA added to ICS reduces asthma-related hospitalizations compared with ICS alone and there is no statistical increase in mortality. However, LABA without ICS do increase mortality risk in asthma. All reviews and analyses show a greater number of LABA deaths, but not all are statistically significant. A recent meta-analysis found LABA with concomitant ICS had a higher mortality rate in asthma than ICS alone. The flaw in the study is the higher doses of ICS in the control arms, but the implicit message remains: the essential need for enough ICS to control airway inflammation. We suggest that the pragmatic solution is to have LABA only available in the same device as ICS for asthma treatment. We do not think that a study comparing the safety of LABA plus ICS versus ICS alone in asthma is necessary. If such a study is conducted, the measurement of morbidity from increased doses of ICS is an essential design consideration. Furthermore, the critical focus in asthma management should not be forgotten - education of health professionals and the community of the critical role of ICS, and the need for good communication between health professionals and the asthma patient to facilitate good asthma control. The same arguments apply to the asthma-with-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome in older patients. There is an urgent need to provide medical practitioners with the capability to diagnose the overlap syndrome.

Salmeterol attenuates the inflammatory response in asthma and decreases the pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion of dendritic cells

Salmeterol is a long-acting β2-agonist that activates adenylate cyclase, causing long-lasting bronchodilation and has been used for many years to control asthma. However, little information is available about the immunoregulatory effects of salmeterol. We found that salmeterol decreases the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in a model of allergen-challenged mice that expressed tumor-necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 and interleukin-6. Dendritic cells (DCs) are antigen-presenting cells and act as sentinels in the airway. We found that salmeterol (10(-5) mol/l) reduced the inflammation caused by lipopolysaccharide (0.1 µg/ml) in activated murine bone marrow-derived DCs. Moreover, western blots demonstrated that this protective effect was mediated partially by inhibiting signaling through the nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways and dramatically decreased levels of p-ERK. We suggest that salmeterol regulates the inflammation of allergen-induced asthma by modulating DCs. In conclusion, we provide evidence that DCs are the target immune cells responsible for the action of salmeterol against asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

Comparative effectiveness of asthma interventions within a practice based research network

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic lung disease that affects more than 23 million people in the United States, including 7 million children. Asthma is a difficult to manage chronic condition associated with disparities in health outcomes, poor medical compliance, and high healthcare costs. The research network coordinating this project includes hospitals, urgent care centers, and outpatient clinics within Carolinas Healthcare System that share a common electronic medical record and billing system allowing for rapid collection of clinical and demographic data. This study investigates the impact of three interventions on clinical outcomes for patients with asthma. Interventions are: an integrated approach to care that incorporates asthma management based on the chronic care model; a shared decision making intervention for asthma patients in underserved or disadvantaged populations; and a school based care approach that examines the efficacy of school-based programs to impact asthma outcomes including effectiveness of linkages between schools and the healthcare providers.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will include 95 Practices, 171 schools, and over 30,000 asthmatic patients. Five groups (A-E) will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of three interventions. Group A is the usual care control group without electronic medical record (EMR). Group B practices are a second control group that has an EMR with decision support, asthma action plans, and population reports at baseline. A time delay design during year one converts practices in Group B to group C after receiving the integrated approach to care intervention. Four practices within Group C will receive the shared decision making intervention (and become group D). Group E will receive a school based care intervention through case management within the schools. A centralized database will be created with the goal of facilitating comparative effectiveness research on asthma outcomes specifically for this study. Patient and community level analysis will include results from patient surveys, focus groups, and asthma patient density mapping. Community variables such as income and housing density will be mapped for comparison. Outcomes to be measured are reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits; improved adherence to medication; improved quality of life; reduced school absenteeism; improved self-efficacy and improved school performance.

DISCUSSION

Identifying new mechanisms that improve the delivery of asthma care is an important step towards advancing patient outcomes, avoiding preventable Emergency Department visits and hospitalizations, while simultaneously reducing overall healthcare costs.