Onset of bronchodilation of budesonide/formoterol vs. salmeterol/fluticasone in single inhalers

Revisiting Mild Asthma: Current Knowledge and Future Needs

Asthma is a common chronic airways disease with significant impact on patients, caregivers, and the health-care system. Although most research and novel interventions mainly have focused on patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, most patients with asthma have mild disease. Epidemiologic studies suggest that many patients with mild asthma report frequent exacerbations of the disease and uncontrolled symptoms. However, despite its impact, mild asthma does not have either a uniformly agreed on definition for or a consensus on its clinical and pathophysiologic progression. More recently, the approach to treatment of patients with mild asthma has undergone significant changes primarily based on emerging evidence that airway inflammation in this population is important. This led to clinical research studies that explored the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids along with the rescue medications that traditionally have been the mainstay of treatment. Despite some advancement in the field in recent years, many controversies and unmet needs remain. In this review, we examine the current understanding of the pathophysiologic features and management of mild asthma. In addition, we outline unmet needs for future research. We conclude that mild asthma contributes significantly to the morbidity and mortality of asthma and should be the focus of future research.

New approach to intermittent and mild asthma therapy: evolution or revolution in the GINA guidelines?

New recommendations from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) were released in a pocket guide form on April 12, 2019. These recommendations provide very important changes to the management of asthma, especially regarding the treatment of intermittent and mild asthma. Due to safety concerns, GINA experts no longer recommend treatment with a short-acting β2 agonist alone. Henceforth, all adults and adolescents (but not yet children) with mild asthma should receive either symptom-driven or daily low-dose ICS. The main goal of this new approach is to reduce the risk of serious asthma exacerbations and asthma-related deaths in the population of patients with mild asthma. Herein, the authors present the epidemiological and clinical data regarding the risks of excessive SABA use and the benefits of regular treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The authors deliver a critical review on the evolution of the changes in the GINA experts’ standpoint and provide evidence-based background for the new approach to asthma treatment. Moreover, the authors identify gaps and unmet needs still present in the current asthma management recommendations and discuss them thoroughly.

As-needed ICS-LABA in Mild Asthma: What Does the Evidence Say?

For the last three decades, the guidelines for asthma management have supported a stepwise therapeutic approach, based on the administration of controller medications (especially inhaled corticosteroids) complemented by on-demand use of rescue medication. Classically, the rescue medication recommended comprised short-acting β agonists (SABA). Some years ago, the use of Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) demonstrated the benefits of a combination of budesonide-formoterol, an inhaled corticosteroid, and a long-acting β agonist (ICS-LABA) as rescue medication in moderate and severe asthma. The results were enthusiastically received, and this therapeutic option was adopted in the guidelines for moderate to severe asthma patients. Recently, four trials (two randomised placebo control trials under the auspices of the SYGMA project and two real-life studies, Novel START, and the PRACTICAL trial) have explored the potential benefits of substituting SABA with budesonide-formoterol as rescue medication in mild asthma patients. The SYGMA 1 and 2 studies showed that the combination with formoterol-budesonide as rescue medication provides better asthma control than short-acting β-agonists alone in GINA step 2 patients, although the superiority was slight. Compared to budesonide maintenance therapy, the fixed combination of ICS-LABA on demand provides poorer asthma control. Regarding exacerbations, the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination on demand showed the same benefits for the prevention of exacerbations as chronic ICS treatment in mild asthma patients. The Novel START study, which assessed a population with milder symptoms, concluded that the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination used as needed was superior to SABA (albuterol) as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. These results in fact show that, in undertreated GINA step 2 with only SABA as needed, ICS-LABA is more effective than SABA. The authors of PRACTICAL concluded that the study provided modest evidence that the ICS-LABA combination used as-needed for symptom relief reduces the rate of severe exacerbations compared with maintenance low-dose budesonide plus terbutaline as needed, although the study was not limited to mild asthma since according to the treatment consumed, it was evident that they had recruited some moderate asthma patients. Despite this poor evidence, and ignoring the clinical histological benefits of chronic inhaled corticosteroids (especially when administered promptly), GINA 2019 recently recommended daily low dose ICS or ICS-LABA as needed as a first option for step 2 patients. For step 1, symptom-driven or as-needed treatment with ICS-LABA is recommended rather than SABA alone (the preferred option until the last GINA update). Finally, the SIENA study showed that 73% of patients with mild asthma do not have an eosinophilic phenotype and that these patients have a similar clinical response to ICS (mometasone) and antimuscarinic drugs (tiotropium), results that challenge the indication of a drug combination that incorporates ICS as a first option. Overall, we believe there is insufficient evidence for the systematic recommendation of as-needed ICS-LABA instead of SABA on request for GINA step 1 or as a replacement for chronic ICS in GINA step 2.

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

Equivalent bronchodilation with budesonide/formoterol combination via Easyhaler and Turbuhaler in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic equivalence of Budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler compared to Symbicort Turbuhaler has been previously demonstrated with in vitro and pharmacokinetic studies. This study was performed to confirm equivalent bronchodilator efficacy of the products in asthmatic patients.

METHODS

A randomised, single-dose, 4-period crossover study was carried out in a double-blind, double-dummy manner in 11 study sites. The studied doses were 320/9 μg and 1280/36 μg of budesonide/formoterol delivered by Easyhaler and Turbuhaler. Spirometry was performed before and 10 min, 20 min and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after administration of the study treatments. The primary efficacy endpoint was average 12-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁). The secondary efficacy endpoints were maximum FEV₁ and FEV₁ at 12 h post-dose.

RESULTS

72 asthma patients with reversible airway obstruction were randomised to receive study treatments. 53 patients completed all study periods according to the protocol and had sufficient data available to calculate the primary endpoint. They were included in the per-protocol analyses. The assay sensitivity of the study was shown as the common slope of average 12-h FEV₁ between doses was 0.063 (95% CI 0.032-0.093) and showed statistical significance (p < 0.001). In equivalence testing, the difference in average 12-h FEV₁ between the treatments (Easyhaler-Turbuhaler) was 0.013 l at the lower dose and -0.028 l at the higher dose, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (-0.047 to 0.073 and -0.087 to 0.032, respectively) fell within the range of a clinically non-relevant difference. The results of the secondary efficacy endpoints were in line with the results of the primary endpoint. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm equivalent bronchodilator efficacy of Budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler compared to Symbicort Turbuhaler.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02308098.

A Comparison of Short-Term Growth During Treatment with Two Dry Powder Combinations of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting β₂-Agonists

BACKGROUND

A combination of the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide and the long-acting β2-agonist formoterol has been formulated in a novel dry powder inhaler, Spiromax(®). The objective was to compare lower leg growth in children with asthma treated with inhaled budesonide+formoterol (BF) delivered from the Spiromax inhaler with BF from the Symbicort Turbohaler(®).

METHODS

Prepubescent children with persistent asthma (n=75, aged 6-11 years) were included in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study with active treatment and placebo periods of 2 weeks duration. Lower leg length was measured every second week. As a secondary outcome parameter, 24-hr urine was collected for assessment of free cortisol. Interventions were dry powder BF 160+9 μg twice daily (b.i.d.; delivered dose) from the Spiromax inhaler and dry powder BF 200+12 μg b.i.d. (metered dose) from the Symbicort Turbohaler.

RESULTS

The least squares mean difference in lower leg growth rates (LLGR) between BF Spiromax and Symbicort Turbohaler was -0.086 mm/week [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.203, 0.032]. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -0.200 mm/week, so the lower limit of the 95% CI was just outside this margin. The difference between BF Spiromax and placebo was -0.20 mm/week (95% CI: -0.322, 0.086); p<0.001), between Symbicort Turbohaler and placebo -0.118 mm/week (95% CI: -0.236, -0.001; p=0.048). No statistically significant differences were seen in urine free cortisol assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

As the lower limit of the CI of LLGR was marginally outside of the pre-specified non-inferiority margin between BF Spiromax 160+9 μg b.i.d. and Symbicort Turbohaler 200+12 μg b.i.d., non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. Further studies may be needed for comparison of systemic activity of BF Spiromax and Symbicort Turbohaler in children before firm conclusions about their comparability may be drawn.

[A new fixed dose combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler for the treatment of asthma]

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting beta-2 agonist is indicated for the regular treatment of persistent moderate-to-severe asthmatics whose asthma is not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and the occasional use of a short acting beta-2 agonist. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the rationale of combining formoterol and fluticasone and to analyze the clinical data concerning a new fixed combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler with a dose counter (Flutiform(®)) that was approved for the treatment of asthma in France in 2013. The clinical studies provide evidence that combined fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone (Flixotide(®)) and formoterol (Foradil(®)) administered concurrently. The combination of fluticasone/formoterol gave a more rapid bronchodilatation than the combination fluticasone/salmeterol. As a whole, the combination of fluticasone/formoterol had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to the combinations of either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol.

Real-world effects of two inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

There are several inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations currently used to treat asthmatic patients, but the differences in the clinical effects of these ICS/LABAs are currently unknown. We herein evaluated the effects of two currently available ICS/LABA combinations in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combined Discus inhaler (FP/SM; 250/50 μg bid) was switched to a budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler inhaler (BUD/FM; 160/4.5 μg two inhalations bid) and FP/SM (500/50 μg bid) was also switched to BUD/FM (160/4.5 μg four inhalations bid) in symptomatic asthmatic patients treated with FP/SM over 20 years of age.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in this study, and the scores of the asthma control test (ACT) and asthma control questionnaire-5 item version (ACQ5) were significantly improved 4 and 8 weeks after the switch to ICS/LABA treatments, and well-controlled asthma (ACQ5 score <0.75) and good control (ACT score >20) was achieved in 54 (90%) and 40 (66.7%) patients, respectively, at 8 weeks. The spirometric analysis revealed significant improvements of the values of the peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after switching from FP/SM to BUD/FM, and significantly improved small airway impairments ([Formula: see text]50 and [Formula: see text]25) were observed in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA. These subjective and objective improvements were also seen in patients aged over 65 years old.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrated that changing the combined ICS/LABA inhaler from FP/SM to BUD/FM can lead to more effective management of symptomatic patients with asthma, especially in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA.

Fluticasone/Formoterol combination therapy compared with monotherapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild to moderate asthma

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol)*, administered twice daily (BID) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) or formoterol fumarate (formoterol) administered alone, in patients with mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥12 years were evenly randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 µg BID), fluticasone (100 µg BID), or formoterol (10 µg BID), in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, study. The 2 coprimary end points were: (1) change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from morning predose at baseline to predose at week 12 for the comparison of the combination product with formoterol alone; and (2) change in FEV(1) from morning predose at baseline to 2 hours postdose at week 12 for the comparison of the combination product with fluticasone alone. The secondary objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol using other pulmonary function tests and clinical end points. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for the 2 coprimary end points. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in predose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (least squares [LS] mean treatment difference, 0.118 L [95% CI, 0.034-0.201; P = 0.006]) and the change in predose compared with 2 hours postdose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference, 0.122 L [95% CI, 0.040-0.204; P = 0.004]). Statistical analyses of the secondary efficacy endpoints revealed that evaluations of lung function, asthma exacerbations, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and asthma control were supportive overall of the superior efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared with its individual components; were supportive overall of the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared with its individual components. Since the secondary endpoints were analyzed using the sequential gatekeeper approach, only the mean change from baseline to final week in morning peak expiratory flow rate between the combination-therapy and formoterol groups returned statistically significant results (least squares mean difference, 20.05 [95% CI, 7.631-32.472; P = 0.002]). The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good tolerability profile over the 12-week treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the two co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone or formoterol, in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00394199.

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.

The effects of long-acting β2-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids for early reversibility in patients with airway obstruction

BACKGROUND

Salbutamol, as a short-acting β2-agonist, was popularly used in the past for detection of reversibility in patients with airway obstruction when it was the only drug available in the treatment of airway obstruction. Today, the combination of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled glucocorticoids are the first choice of therapy, with or without the presence of reversibility, in patients with airway obstruction. We aimed to compare the efficacy of salbutamol and long acting β2-agonists plus inhaled glucocorticoids for early reversibility test in patients with airway obstruction.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients (cough, dyspnea, and/or wheezing) with airway obstruction according to pulmonary function testing (FEV1/FVC value less than 70% of expected) who had never used bronchodilators before or had not received short- or long-acting inhaled bronchodilator therapy within the most recent 12 hours were evaluated. Reversibility measurements were made by administering the combination of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled glucocorticoids after 15 minutes.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 57.3±17.7 (range, 8-88) years and the male-to-female ratio was 69/21. The baseline pulmonary function test results were mean FVC; 2,747±1,181 mL and 74.7%±21.4%, mean FEV1; 1,716±825 mL and 57.5%±19.0%, mean FEV1/FVC; 61.4%±7.4%. The bronchodilator drugs given before reversibility testing were as salmeterol/fluticasone (FTC/SAL), formoterol/budesonide (BUD/FOR), beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol (BDP/FOR) and salbutamol (SLB) in 24, 22, 24 and 20 patients, respectively. The reversibility was positive in 33 (36.7%) patients. The absolute change and percentage of change in mean FEV1 were 206±252 mL, 13.2%±16.6% for FTC/SAL group, 273±201 mL, 14%±8% for BUD/FOR group, 240±151 mL, 18.7%±15.9% for BUD/FOR groupand 171±116 mL, 13.3%±11.8% for SLB group. There was no statistically significant for reversibilty results between LABAs/inhaledsteroids and SLB group. And the patients with positivere versibility test were significantly higher in both of BUD/FOR and BDP/FOR groups than SLB group.

CONCLUSIONS

We think that performance of an early reversibility test using the combination of a LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid for treatment would enhance both the education of the patient in using the device and the reliability of the drug. And, we suggest that: "you should make the reversibility test with Long-Acting β2-Agonists plus Inhaled Corticosteroids which used in treatment of obstructive lung diseases".

Effects of two inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combinations on small-airway dysfunction in mild asthmatics measured by impulse oscillometry

Background

We previously showed that the long-acting beta agonist (LABA) salmeterol as inhalation powder or metered-dose inhaler improves lung-function parameters assessed by impulse oscillometry (IOS) in 2- to 5-year-old children with reversible-airway disease within 15 minutes.

Objective

We studied 12- to 45-year-olds with mild persistent asthma in order to compare the onset and extent of peripheral airway effects following the first dose and after 4 weeks dosing with two inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA combinations: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 115/21 and budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5.

Methods

Thirty subjects with mild persistent asthma using only an as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (albuterol) who had at least a 40% change in integrated low-frequency reactance postalbuterol were selected and randomized to receive either fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol (15 subjects each). We collected three to six IOS replicates at baseline, at 5, 20, 40, 60, 120, and 240 minutes postdose at randomization, and after 4 weeks of twice-daily dosing. Blinded investigators calculated IOS frequency-dependent resistance and reactance (R5–R20 and AX), indicative of small-airway dysfunction, and also estimated the peripheral airway resistance (R_p) and peripheral airway compliance (C_p), using a respiratory-impedance model.

Results

At randomization visits, onset of action was detected as early as 5 minutes (t-test, P < 0.05) after fluticasone propionate/salmeterol by C_p, and within 5 minutes after budesonide/formoterol by R5–R20, AX, R_p, and C_p. However, after 4 weeks of dosing, only R_p was significantly different (from 60 to 120 minutes) after fluticasone propionate/salmeterol, while R5–R20, AX, R_p, and C_p were not significantly different within 240 minutes after budesonide/formoterol.

Conclusion

These two ICS/LABA combinations initially improved the peripheral airway function of 12- to 45-year-old asthmatics significantly in about 5 minutes or less, as measured by R5–R20, AX, R_p, and/or C_p. After regular dosing for 4 weeks, pre- to postdose differences in these parameters had diminished significantly due to improved predose status of peripheral airways. Single dosing with ICS/LABA combinations in mild persistent asthma improves small-airway function, and the effect is maintained over a 12-hour interval by regular use for 4 weeks.

Fluticasone/formoterol: a new single-aerosol combination therapy for patients with asthma

International asthma management guidelines recommend a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy. Treatment with a single inhaler containing an ICS/LABA combination is advocated because it may facilitate adherence to a regimen. When prescribing ICS/LABA combination therapy, the potency of the ICS and the speed of onset of the LABA are considered important factors; therefore, an inhaled therapy containing components with these properties may be valued by physicians. The ICS fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) has potent and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, and the LABA formoterol fumarate (formoterol) provides rapid bronchodilation; the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents have been well established in clinical practice. Fluticasone and formoterol have been combined, for the first time, in a single hydrofluoroalkane-based aerosol (flutiform®; fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate). Here, we review data from the published randomized, controlled, clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of this product. It has been shown that fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently via separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol, but with the additional benefit of more rapid bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol.

Combination of budesonide/formoterol more effective than fluticasone/salmeterol in preventing exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PATHOS study

OBJECTIVES

Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2 -agonists (LABAs) are recommended for patients with moderate and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is not known whether different fixed combinations are equally effective. The aim of this study was to investigate exacerbation rates in primary care patients with COPD treated with budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone/salmeterol.

METHODS

Patients with physician-diagnosed COPD and a record of postdiagnosis treatment with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol were included. Data from primary care medical records were linked to those from Swedish national hospital, drug and cause of death registers. Pairwise (1 : 1) propensity score matching was carried out at the index date (first prescription) by prescribed fixed ICS/LABA combination. Exacerbations were defined as hospitalizations, emergency visits and collection of oral steroids or antibiotics for COPD. Yearly event rates were compared using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Matching of 9893 patients (7155 budesonide/formoterol and 2738 fluticasone/salmeterol) yielded two cohorts of 2734 patients, comprising 19 170 patient-years. The exacerbation rates were 0.80 and 1.09 per patient-year in the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups, respectively (difference of 26.6%; P < 0.0001); yearly rates for COPD-related hospitalizations were 0.15 and 0.21, respectively (difference of 29.1%; P < 0.0001). All other healthcare outcomes were also significantly reduced with budesonide/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with fixed combination budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer healthcare utilization-defined exacerbations than fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with moderate and severe COPD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate, and the long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonist, formoterol fumarate, are both highly effective treatments for bronchial asthma. This study (NCT00393952/EudraCT number: 2006-005989-39) compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy (flutiform(®); 250/10 μg) administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, with the individual components (fluticasone 250 μg b.i.d.; formoterol 10 μg b.i.d.), in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre, placebocontrolled phase 3 study. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were: i) the mean change in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. formoterol), ii) the mean change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 h post-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. fluticasone), and iii) the number of patients who discontinued prematurely due to lack of treatment efficacy (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. placebo). The secondary endpoints included measures of lung function, disease control, and asthma symptoms. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Overall, 395 (70.9%) patients completed the study. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg b.i.d. was superior to the individual components and placebo for all three co-primary endpoints and demonstrated numerically greater improvements for multiple secondary efficacy analyses. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety profile over the 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy will provide clinicians with an efficacious alternative treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Onset of bronchodilation with fluticasone/formoterol combination versus fluticasone/salmeterol in an open-label, randomized study

INTRODUCTION

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (fluticasone), and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist, formoterol fumarate (formoterol), have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol). In a randomized, open-label study, fluticasone/formoterol showed similar efficacy to fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared the onset of bronchodilation with the two treatments.

METHODS

Adults with mild-to-moderate-severe persistent asthma were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 or 250/10 μg twice daily [b.i.d.]) or fluticasone/salmeterol (100/50 or 250/50 μg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. The onset of bronchodilation (the first post-dose time point at which the forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] was ≥12% greater than the pre-dose value), responder rates (the proportion of patients achieving bronchodilation), and changes in FEV(1) were assessed at days 0 (baseline) and 84.

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol (n = 101) provided more rapid onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol (n = 101) over the first 120 min post-dose on days 0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.05-2.05]) and 84 (HR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.14-2.73]). The odds of a patient achieving bronchodilation within 5 min of dosing were almost four-times higher with fluticasone/formoterol than with fluticasone/salmeterol on day 0 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.97 [95% CI 1.96-8.03]) and almost 10-times higher on day 84 (OR = 9.58 [95% CI 2.14-42.90]); the odds of achieving bronchodilation within 120 min post-dose were approximately twofold higher with fluticasone/formoterol on both days. The overall percentage increase in least-squares (LS) mean FEV1 during the 120-min post-dose period was significantly greater with fluticasone/formoterol than fluticasone/salmeterol on days 0 (LS mean treatment difference: 4.70% [95% CI 1.57-7.83]; P = 0.003) and 84 (2.79% [95% CI 0.65-4.93]; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

These analyses showed that fluticasone/formoterol provided a faster onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol, which was maintained over 12 weeks of treatment. This benefit may facilitate treatment adherence among patients with asthma.

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy versus budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVES

The inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂ agonist formoterol fumarate (formoterol) have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform(®)). This study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the combination product budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort(®) Turbohaler(®)).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, Phase 3 study comprising a 7- (± 3) day screening, 2-4-week run-in, and 12-week treatment periods. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate to severe persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months before screening and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) 50-80% predicted and ≥ 15% reversibility following salbutamol inhalation were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg twice daily (n = 140) or budesonide/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily (n = 139).

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to budesonide/formoterol with respect to the primary endpoint, change in pre-dose FEV₁ from baseline to Week 12. The LS mean treatment difference was -0.044 L, with a lower 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of -0.2 L (95% CI: -0.130, 0.043 L; p < 0.001). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated for the secondary endpoints mean change in FEV₁ from baseline (pre-dose) to 2 hours post-dose at Week 12, and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Similar results were obtained for both treatment groups for all other secondary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety profile that was comparable with budesonide/formoterol.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated comparable efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol to budesonide/formoterol in terms of the primary endpoint, change in pre-dose FEV₁ from baseline to Week 12. This was supported by comparable results for both treatments for all secondary endpoints.

Long-term safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in asthma

BACKGROUND

The long-term safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) was assessed.

METHOD

In an open-label study, mild to moderate-severe asthmatics (≥12 years; N=472) were treated twice daily with fluticasone/formoterol 100/10 μg (n=224) or 250/10 μg (n=248) for 6 months (n=256) or 12 months (n=216). The primary and secondary objectives were the long-term safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 413 (87.5%) patients completed the study (of which 175 participated for 12 months). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 174 patients (36.9%): 67 (29.9%) in the 100/10 μg group and 107 (43.1%) in the 250/10 μg group. The most common AEs (>2%) were nasopharyngitis, dyspnea, pharyngitis, and headache; the majority were mild to moderate. Only 18 (3.8%) patients reported AEs considered study drug-related. Five patients per group experienced 12 serious AEs; none was study medication-related. Asthma exacerbations were reported by 53 patients (11.2%): 46 mild to moderate and nine severe. Clinical laboratory tests and vital signs showed no abnormal trends or clinically important or dose-response-related changes. The efficacy analyses showed statistically significant improvements at every time point throughout the study period at both doses.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and efficacy profile over the 6- and 12-month study periods.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform®), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 μg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 μg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991.

Effect of switching from salmeterol/fluticasone to formoterol/ budesonide combinations in patients with uncontrolled asthma

BACKGROUND

Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is the mainstay of asthma management and salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) and fixed-dose formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) are currently available in Japan; however, there is nothing to choose between the two. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effect of switching from SFC to FBC in patients with asthma not adequately controlled under the former treatment regimen.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled longitudinal study in 87 adult patients with an Asthma Control Questionnaire, 5-item version (ACQ5) score of greater than 0.75 under treatment with SFC 50/250μg one inhalation twice daily (bid). SFC was switched to FBC 4.5/160μg two inhalations bid. Study outcomes included ACQ5 score, peak expiratory flow (PEF), FEV(1), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) at the end of treatment period.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients completed the study. ACQ5 scores improved and exceeded the clinically meaningful difference after 12 weeks of treatment and well-controlled asthma (ACQ5 score ≤0.75) was attained in 37 (44.6%) patients. Minimum and maximum PEF and FEV(1) values improved significantly, but not FeNO values, after switching from SFC to FBC.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching ICS/LABA combination therapy is a useful option in the management of asthma that is not optimally controlled.

The future of combining inhaled drugs for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and its prevalence is projected to continue to increase owing to trends in smoking. Treatment of COPD has evolved from the initial adaptations of drugs and treatment strategies successfully used in asthma into more specific pharmacological strategies following global guidelines. Bronchodilating anticholinergic and beta-2-stimulating agents and anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drugs delivered by inhalators are the mainstay of COPD treatment. Despite significant progress, current pharmacotherapies neither fully alleviate the airway obstruction in COPD, nor reverse the progressive nature of the disease. This review discusses inhalation therapies which have recently become clinically available or are being developed, with focus on combination therapies. There is accumulating evidence that the combination of two or all three drug classes, triple therapy, is superior to single drug therapy. Several fixed combinations of both currently available and novel molecules will be launched for clinical use within the next few years. Also, improved understanding of subgroups within the clinical spectrum of COPD, is likely to offer new potentials to improve COPD care.

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.

Towards the Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system: methods and results of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines for clinical practice are expected to gather evidence-based recommendations to support optimal medical behaviours. The aim of the current review is to explore how currently available research regarding the strategy of using budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) as maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART) covers the items considered by the Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, through a comparative analysis of methodological approaches, clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes and costs, in order to highlight uncovered areas.

RECENT FINDINGS

Thirteen trials providing data on 21 095 analysed patients were available. No serious limits in methodological study features were found. Evaluation of the clinical outcome was consistent with the efficacy of BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy. As the time to first exacerbation was the primary outcome in most of the studies, conclusive indications cannot be drawn regarding other clinical outcomes or patient-reported outcomes, which were investigated as secondary outcomes. A comprehensive systematic review exploring all critical and important outcomes is desirable, but further research concerning the safety issues of Long Acting β2 Agonists (LABA) and patients' reported outcomes about the SMART in respect to alternative strategies is likely to affect a clear recommendation in the near future.

SUMMARY

The efficacy of BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy in extending the time to first exacerbation appears consistent between studies. Further studies exploring all patients' important outcomes are needed. Clinical and economic assessments are worthy of being investigated to verify the directness of the evidence in respect to real life patients and different geographical realities.

A smarter way to manage asthma with a combination of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid

Symbicort SMART® (Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) represents a new and unique way of treating patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, ie, those patients who require combination treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist. Symbicort SMART enables patients to use only one inhaler, the budesonide-formoterol combination inhaler, for both maintenance and reliever therapy. The maintenance dose is adjustable, but should be a minimum of two doses per day which can be administered as two doses once daily or as one dose twice daily. It is important that the temporary reliever medication includes not only a bronchodilator but also an antiinflammatory drug because worsening of asthma includes not only more airway narrowing, but also an increase in airway inflammation. The Symbicort SMART concept therefore ensures that the patient gets an antiinflammatory drug at the time of the first signs of asthma worsening. Clinical results show that Symbicort SMART prolongs the time to the first severe asthma exacerbation, reduces the rate of exacerbations, and maintains day-to-day asthma control at a reduced load of corticosteroids (inhaled plus systemic) when compared with higher fixed maintenance doses of combination inhalers. Symbicort SMART consequently offers a more effective and simple approach to asthma management for physicians and patients. Symbicort SMART is also easier for the patient as only one inhaler is required. The positive results with Symbicort SMART can be explained by the early as-needed use on the inhaled corticosteroid component, which puts out the early flames of inflammation, together with the interaction between the β₂-agonist, formoterol, and the inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide.

Comparison of budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler with fluticasone/salmeterol Diskus for treatment effects on small airway impairment and airway inflammation in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

A course of combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β(2) agonist (LABA) for asthma can improve lung function, asthma symptoms and reduce exacerbations. Because both medicinal substance and inhalation devices are associated with clinical efficacy, each ICS/LABA combination may have different features. This study aimed to compare the effects of two widely available formulations, budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) delivered by a Turbuhaler(®), and fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SM) delivered by a Diskus(®), on small airway function and airway inflammation.

METHODS

Asthmatic patients (n = 40) treated twice daily with FP/SM 250/50 μg with forced expiratory volume in 1 s values controlled above 80% of the predicted normal but with suspected persistent airway inflammation and small airway impairment were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups, receiving either twice daily BUD/FM 320/9 μg or FP/SM 250/50 μg, and treatment efficacy was compared after 4 weeks. Outcomes included impulse oscillometry (IOS), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), spirometry and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores.

RESULTS

Patients in the BUD/FM group showed significant improvements in their IOS and spirometry parameters of small airway function, FeNO values and ACQ scores, compared with the FP/SM group. There were good correlations between IOS parameters, FeNO and ACQ score changes over the course of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

BUD/FM twice daily significantly improved small airway impairment and airway inflammation in asthmatic patients, leading to a reduction in asthma symptoms and achievement of good asthma control. In addition, improvement of small airway function may improve airway inflammation and/or lead to better controlled asthma.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide and formoterol are available in a combined inhaler that offers therapeutic advantages in the treatment of asthma. The rapid onset of bronchodilation seen with formoterol means that budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and relief therapy. This approach has been shown to reduce exacerbations and overcome the problem of patients who overuse short-acting &#x03B2;-agonists at the expense of inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns regarding safety of long-acting &#x03B2;-agonists have not been confirmed in studies of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler, and we believe the benefits of this medication clearly outweigh any possible small increased risk.

Audit of budesonide/formoterol prescribing for asthma in community pharmacy in the U.K

The rapid action of the long acting beta agonist formoterol allows it to be used as both a preventer and reliever in the management of asthma. The Symbicort® SMART dosing regime has been shown to reduce the number of asthma exacerbations. The aim was to determine the current prescribing of Symbicort®, the prescribing of the SMART regimen and the co-prescribing of a short acting beta agonist with this regimen by means of an audit of prescriptions dispensed in a pharmacy multiple in the U.K. Anonymised data were collected on a standard form. Symbicort® prescribing data for six months were extracted from the pharmacy Patient Medication Record (PMR). Data were stratified by age and analysed to determine adherence with Symbicort® SMART prescribing as defined by the U.K. product license. Data were received from 51 of the 118 (43.2%) pharmacies contacted. Complete information from 2484 PMRs was included in the study. 2.81% (70/2484) of patients were prescribed SMART as defined by the U.K. summary of product characteristics. Of the 18-35 year age group 7.44% (27/363) were prescribed SMART correctly. However, Symbicort® was prescribed twice a day and when required, with either the co-prescription of a SABA, or at an unlicensed dose in 2.46% (61/2484) and 0.28% (7/2484) patients respectively. The incidence of Symbicort® SMART prescribing in this study is low but may be underestimated due to unclear dosing instructions.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone and formoterol in a single pressurized metered dose inhaler

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone and formoterol are well established medications for the treatment of asthma. This study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00734318) compares the efficacy and safety of a combination of these drugs in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol) versus the individual components (fluticasone + formoterol).

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years (n=620) with a history of severe, persistent reversible asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in this randomized, double-blind study, which consisted of a screening phase of up to 5 days, a 2-week run-in phase and an 8-week treatment period.

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) was at least as effective as fluticasone + formoterol (500 μg + 24 μg, b.i.d.) with respect to the primary outcome measure: there were similar increases in mean pre-morning dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) in these two groups. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) also demonstrated similar efficacy to fluticasone + formoterol in terms of change in mean FEV(1) from baseline pre-morning dose to 2 h post-morning dose at week 8, as well as for several secondary parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) demonstrated superiority to fluticasone monotherapy (500 μg, b.i.d.) and fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg, b.i.d.) for several secondary efficacy parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol had a similar safety and tolerability profile to fluticasone + formoterol.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the fluticasone/formoterol combination is at least as effective as its components administered concurrently from separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 μg, b.i.d.) showed superior efficacy to its inhaled corticosteroid component alone and the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol was dose-dependent for several clinically important parameters.

Treatment comparison of budesonide/formoterol with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in adults aged > or =16 years with asthma: post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Three fixed maintenance-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations for the treatment of asthma are currently available: salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair) budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) and beclometasone/formoterol (Foster). All of these combinations have proven efficacy in terms of controlling symptoms, improving lung function and reducing the rate of exacerbations compared with ICSs and LABAs administered separately. Budesonide/formoterol is also approved for use as maintenance and reliever therapy in a number of countries (Symbicort SMART). Many of the studies supporting the use of budesonide/formoterol combination therapies have included populations of adolescents and adults aged >11 years.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of ICS/LABA fixed maintenance-dose treatment with budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in patients with persistent asthma aged > or =16 years.

METHODS

Following 2-weeks' run-in, 2866 adults aged > or =16 years were randomized to: fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol 640 microg/18 microg per day, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 100 microg/500 microg per day plus terbutaline as needed, or budesonide/formoterol 320 microg/9 microg per day plus additional inhalations as needed (budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy). Outcome measures included time to first severe asthma exacerbation (primary outcome) and number of severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy prolonged time to first severe exacerbation versus budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance dose (p = 0.037 and p = 0.0089, respectively). Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol reduced the risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room visits by 28% (relative rate [RR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53, 0.98; p = 0.034) and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy by 37% (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46, 0.87; p = 0.0043). All treatments provided similar improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol fixed maintenance dose or maintenance and reliever therapy provides similar improvements in current asthma control and reduces the future risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room treatments versus salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, providing additional clinical benefit to asthma patients aged > or =16 years.

Formoterol versus short-acting beta-agonists as relief medication for adults and children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Formoterol is a long-acting beta(2)-agonist but because it has a fast onset of action it can also be used as a relief medication.

OBJECTIVES

To asses the efficacy and safety of formoterol as reliever therapy in comparison to short-acting beta(2)-agonists in adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and websites of clinical trial registers (for unpublished trial data), and we checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel-arm trials of at least 12 weeks duration in patients of any age and severity of asthma. Studies randomised patients to any dose of as-needed formoterol versus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or other maintenance medication was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. We sought unpublished data on primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight studies conducted in 22,604 participants (mostly adults). Six studies compared formoterol as-needed to terbutaline whilst two studies compared formoterol with salbutamol as-needed. Background maintenance therapy varied across the trials. Asthma exacerbations and serious adverse events showed a direction of treatment effect favouring formoterol, of which one outcome reached statistical significance (exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids). In patients on short-acting beta(2)-agonists, 117 people out of 1000 had exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over 30 weeks, compared to 101 (95% CI 93 to 108) out of 1000 for patients on formoterol as-needed. In patients on maintenance inhaled corticosteroids there were also significantly fewer exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids on formoterol as-needed (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91). There was one death per 1000 people on formoterol or on short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults, formoterol was similar to short-acting beta(2)-agonists when used as a reliever, and showed a reduction in the number of exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids. Clinicians should weigh the relatively modest benefits of formoterol as-needed against the benefits of single inhaler therapy and the potential danger of long-term use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists in some patients. We did not find evidence to recommend changes to guidelines that suggest that long-acting beta(2)-agonists should be given only to patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids.There was insufficient information reported from children in the included trials to come to any conclusion on the safety or efficacy of formoterol as relief medication for children with asthma.

Fixed or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in asthma patients aged >or=16 years: post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) combinations are the preferred maintenance therapy for adult asthma patients uncontrolled by ICS alone. Supporting data are largely from mixed populations of adolescents and adults, although ICS/LABA combinations are not approved for adolescents in all countries. This analysis evaluates overall asthma control in asthma patients aged >or=16 years receiving ICS/LABA combinations.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of asthma patients aged >or=16 years in a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study. Patients received fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler), fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair Diskus) or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol. Patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for as-needed reliever medication. The primary efficacy variable was the odds of having a well controlled asthma week during the randomized treatment period.

RESULTS

ICS/LABA regimens were well tolerated and efficacious, and the odds for achieving a well controlled asthma week did not differ between groups in this sub-analysis. The number of exacerbations was similar between fixed-dose regimens; however, there were trends toward fewer exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room treatment in the fixed- and adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol groups (three and two events, respectively) than in the fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (eight events). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) were small but significantly greater with fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol versus fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis supports the use of ICS/LABA combinations in adults aged >or=16 years.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide/formoterol is a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist available as a dry-powder inhaler for the indication of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in various countries outside of the USA and as a pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the USA for the indication of asthma. Clinical studies have shown that budesonide/formoterol is significantly more effective than an equivalent or higher dose of budesonide or fluticasone propionate alone in patients with moderate-to-severe disease, and at least as effective as its two components administered via separate inhalers in asthmatics with predominantly moderate to severe persistent disease. Budesonide/formoterol is effective when administered both once or twice daily. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol has been shown to provide equivalent or better asthma control with a significantly lower amount of study drug use compared with fixed dosing. The rapid onset of action of budesonide/formoterol, predominantly due to formoterol, as well as its favorable dose-response, has prompted budesonide/formoterol to be used as both a maintenance and reliever medication, referred to as the Symbicort maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) dosing regimen in several countries. Use of this approach has resulted in studies evaluating SMART, demonstrating significantly lower rates of exacerbations and reliever medication use compared with fixed-dosing regimens in asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Budesonide/formoterol dry powder in asthma: an option for control as maintenance and reliever therapy

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with various components that may contribute to symptoms. Obtaining global control of is one of the fundamental parts of the management of this disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The Cochrane trial database, Medline and Embase, were searched systematically, and approximately 20 respiratory journals and conference abstracts were searched manually. The search was limited to publications in English language of last 20 years and which included the keywords 'budesonide', 'formoterol', 'asthma' and 'control'.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The purposes of this review are: i) to discuss the rationale about possibility of using combination therapy administered with a single inhaler for both daily maintenance and relief as needed of breakthrough symptoms in asthma management; ii) to give readers the current status of clinical pharmacological treatment of asthma; iii) to discuss the evidence on the use of budesonide/formoterol dry powder in one inhaler.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Among the various inhalatory drugs, budesonide and formoterol can be conveniently delivered in one dry powder inhaler and simplify treatment by providing immediate step-up when symptoms increase. Alongside the anti-inflammatory component, formoterol provides both short- and long-acting bronchodilator effects with maintenance and reliever properties. The option of using one inhaler simplifies treatment by simultaneously providing bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activity, thus enhancing compliance. As indicated in guidelines, all these characteristics are essential for optimizing asthma treatment and control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes during treatment with adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in patients with asthma

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes is important in evaluating the impact of asthma treatment. This study was conducted to compare effects of adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler with fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler regimens on patient-reported outcomes in patients aged > or =18 years with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

In this phase III, randomized, open-label study, 1225 patients were randomized 2:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 mug) twice daily or fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 microg twice daily for 1 month. In the subsequent 6 months, patients receiving fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol continued therapy, whereas those receiving fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose or adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol (adjustable from 320/9 microg twice daily to 320/9 microg once daily or 640/18 microg twice daily).

RESULTS

Mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardized) overall and individual domain scores and the Asthma Control Questionnaire score were clinically important (> or =0.5 points) for all treatments. Patients in both budesonide/formoterol groups reported greater treatment satisfaction on the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure questionnaire than patients in the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler group for the attributes of timely relief of symptoms (p < or = .037) and feel medication working (p < or = .020). Onset of Effect Questionnaire scores showed a greater percentage of patients perceiving onset of effect with budesonide/formoterol regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (p < or = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment regimens did not differ regarding improvements in asthma-specific quality of life and asthma control. Questions related to perceived rate of onset and feeling medication working in the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure and Onset of Effect Questionnaire generally elicited somewhat more favorable responses with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler.

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

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

The role of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in the management of asthma

The aim of asthma management is to gain and maintain asthma control and reduce the risk of future exacerbations. However, despite the availability of effective therapies and national and international guidelines for their use, many patients remain inadequately controlled and continue to endure and accept a reduced quality of life. This review discusses current challenges in asthma management facing primary care physicians and provides insight into new treatment strategies developed to improve asthma control. A web-based literature review was undertaken with a focus on studies and reviews discussing asthma control and management with traditional therapies and new therapies, including a novel treatment approach using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. One of the most common problems in long-term asthma control is poor adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy, resulting in under-treatment of inflammation. Many patients tend to over-rely on short-acting beta(2)-agonist medication for quick relief of symptoms at the expense of ICS therapy, thus lowering anti-inflammatory protection and increasing the propensity for the development of severe and potentially life-threatening exacerbations. New simplified treatment strategies have been investigated with the aim of overcoming many of these primary care challenges, ultimately improving asthma control and reducing the future risk of exacerbations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of combination long-acting beta-2 agonists and inhaled glucocorticosteroids for treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Treating asthma with a combination of inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-2-agonist is often preferred when asthma is not controlled when using a low-medium dose of an inhaled corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of inhalers containing combinations of long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids to treat moderate-to-severe, persistent asthma.

METHODS

Using a list of keywords, we conducted a PubMed search of the literature. Data provided by the manufacturer were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Fluticasone propionate with salmeterol and budesonide with formoterol are both well tolerated, have equal clinical efficacy and have recent data affirming their safe use in diverse patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination inhalers improve asthma control in patients previously uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has been considered as preventer and reliever therapy. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in a single inhaler introduces the possibility of using a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to compare formoterol and corticosteroid in single inhaler for maintenance and relief of symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids for maintenance and a separate reliever inhaler.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies on 5,378 adults compared single inhaler therapy with current best practice, and did not show a significant reduction in participants with exacerbations causing hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.45) or treated with oral steroids (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). Three of these studies on 4281 adults did not show a significant reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07). These trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids with single inhaler therapy (mean reduction ranged from 107 to 267 micrograms/day, but the trial results were not combined due to heterogeneity). The full results from four further studies on 4,600 adults comparing single inhaler therapy with current best practice are awaited.Three studies including 4,209 adults compared single inhaler therapy with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. No significant reduction was found with single inhaler therapy in the risk of patients suffering an asthma exacerbation leading to hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09), but fewer patients on single inhaler therapy needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64). These results translate into an eleven month number needed to treat of 14 (95% CI 12 to 18), to prevent one patient being treated with oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of long-acting beta(2)-agonists, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in.One study included children (N = 224), in which single inhaler therapy was compared to higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with single inhaler therapy, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the single inhaler therapy group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the single inhaler therapy group, [95% CI 0.3 to 1.7 cm].There was no significant difference found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroids. Guidelines and common best practice suggest the addition of regular long-acting beta(2)-agonist to inhaled corticosteroids for uncontrolled asthma, and single inhaler therapy has not been demonstrated to significantly reduce exacerbations in comparison with current best practice, although results of five large trials are awaiting full publication. Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom.

Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid versus beta2-agonist as relief medication for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Formoterol has a fast onset of action and can therefore be used to relieve symptoms of asthma. A combination inhaler can deliver formoterol with different doses of inhaled corticosteroid; when used as a reliever both drugs will be delivered more frequently when asthma symptoms increase. This has the potential to treat both bronchoconstriction and inflammation in the early stages of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined inhalers containing both formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid when used for reliever therapy in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in April 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in adults and children with chronic asthma, where a combination inhaler containing formoterol and inhaled corticosteroid is compared with fast-acting beta2-agonist alone for the relief of asthma symptoms. This should be the only planned difference between the trial arms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials involving 5905 participants were included. In patients with mild asthma who do not need maintenance treatment, no clinically important advantages of budesonide/formoterol as reliever were found in comparison to formoterol as reliever.Two studies enrolled patients with more severe asthma who were not controlled on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (around 700 mcg/day in adults), and had suffered a clinically important asthma exacerbation in the past year. Hospitalisations related to asthma in the two studies comparing budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with the same dose of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance with terbutaline for relief yielded an odds ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.16), which was not a statistically significant reduction. One adult study found a reduction in exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids compared to terbutaline, odds ratio 0.56 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and the study in children found less serious adverse events with budesonide/formoterol used for maintenance and relief. There was no significant difference in annual growth in children using budesonide/formoterol reliever in comparison to terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In mild asthma it is not yet known whether patients who use a budesonide/formoterol inhaler for relief of asthma symptoms derive any clinically important benefits. In more severe asthma, one study that enrolled patients who were not controlled on quite high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and had suffered an exacerbation in the previous year, demonstrated a reduction in the risk of exacerbations that require oral corticosteroids with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in comparison with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and terbutaline or formoterol for relief. The incidence of serious adverse events in children was also less using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in one study, which similarly enrolled children who were not controlled on medium to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, and compared to terbutaline relief with an explorative maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol that is not approved for treatment.

Onset of effect of budesonide and formoterol administered via one pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Onset of bronchodilation of budesonide/formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has not been evaluated in asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate time to onset of clinically significant bronchodilation (> or = 15% improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and patient-perceived onset of effect (OE) in patients previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

In two 12-week studies, patients 12 years and older with moderate to severe (study 1; n = 596) and mild to moderate (study 2; n = 480) persistent asthma received budesonide/formoterol pMDI, budesonide pMDI plus formoterol dry powder inhaler (study 1 only), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler, or placebo. Postdose time to 15% or greater improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-perceived OE (assessed in a subset of patients 18 years and older [study 1, n=553; study 2, n=405]) were evaluated [corrected]

RESULTS

More budesonide/formoterol-treated patients achieved onset of clinically significant bronchodilation within 15 minutes (median, 13 minutes) of administration at randomization vs those taking budesonide or placebo (P < .001). More patients receiving budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide and placebo reported feeling their study medication begin to work right away (P < or = .004; end of week 1). Similar results (P < .001) were observed for patient satisfaction with how quickly they felt their medication begin to work (except budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide, study 1 [P = .073]). Time to onset of clinically significant bronchodilation and patient-perceived OE of budesonide/formoterol and formoterol were similar.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol demonstrated a more rapid onset of clinically significant bronchodilation and a greater percentage of patients who perceived their medication working right away vs budesonide or placebo.

Acute care among asthma patients using budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists has become the standard therapy for many patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. Whether the differences between budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol translate into differences in treatment outcomes in a real life setting is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the use of healthcare services between new users of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol in a single inhaler between 2002 and 2004.

METHODS

A 12-month population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health care databases was conducted. Asthma patients 16-65 years of age using budesonide/formoterol were matched according to age and markers of asthma severity to patients using fluticasone/salmeterol. The rate of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma, hospitalizations for asthma, claims for oral corticosteroids, and visits to a respiratory specialist were compared between the two groups using Poisson regression models. The mean number of doses of short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic-agonists (SABA) per week was compared between the two groups using a linear regression model.

RESULTS

Users of budesonide/formoterol were found to be less likely to have an ED visit for asthma (adjusted RR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.96), a hospitalization for asthma (adjusted RR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.25-0.99), a claim for oral corticosteroids (adjusted RR=0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.95), and use SABA (adjusted mean difference=-1.1 dose per week; 95% CI: -1.7; -0.5) than patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol.

CONCLUSION

Our study has found that subjects initiating ICS/LABA treatment with budesonide/formoterol had better outcomes than those initiating treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol.

Differences in the pharmacodynamics of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone reflect differences in their therapeutic usefulness in asthma

Although the available inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta( 2)-agonist (LABA) combinations principally work in a similar fashion, they differ in several important ways, leading to different efficacy. The ICS/LABA combination product budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and reliever therapy, providing a fixed maintenance dose, which does not change, and replacing short-acting beta(2)-agonists as relievers thereby allowing intervention to address the underlying inflammation at the earliest sign of symptomatic worsening. This approach is not suitable for other combination products such as salmeterol/fluticasone. Here we review the pharmacological differences of budesonide/ formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone that permit the use of budesonide/formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy.