Efficacy and safety of a new pressurised metered-dose inhaler formulation of budesonide/formoterol in children with asthma: a superiority and therapeutic equivalence study

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta₂-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs budesonide pMDI in asthmatic children (6-<12 years)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) have been demonstrated in patients with asthma at least 12 years old.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of 2 formoterol doses added to budesonide as fixed combinations vs budesonide alone in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT02091986; CHASE 3) included children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma previously receiving a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS plus a long-acting β₂-agonist. Children symptomatic during a 7-28-day run-in on low-dose ICS, 1 inhalation of budesonide dry powder inhaler 90 μg twice daily (BID), were randomized to receive 2 inhalations of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 μg (160/9 μg) BID (n = 92), budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/2.25 μg (160/4.5 μg) BID (n = 95), or budesonide pMDI 80 μg (160 μg) BID (n = 92) for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 1 hour after dosing (primary end point), change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second 15 minutes after dosing, and peak expiratory flow 1 hour after dosing at week 12 were statistically significantly greater for budesonide/formoterol 160/9 μg vs budesonide (P ≤ .015 for all comparisons), but not for budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg vs budesonide. Bronchodilator effects, evident 15 minutes after the dose on day 1, were maintained at week 12. Incidence of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations and improvements in asthma symptom-related and quality-of-life outcomes were similar across treatments. There were no notable safety differences among treatments.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 μg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful lung function improvements vs budesonide pMDI 160 μg, demonstrating appropriateness as a therapeutic option for children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma symptomatic on ICS alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02091986.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Effectiveness of drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations and increase symptom-free days in asthmatic children: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (≤18 years) of ≥4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome.

RESULTS

Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12,010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium- or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium- or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

Psychiatric adverse effects of pediatric corticosteroid use

Corticosteroids, highly effective drugs for myriad disease states, have considerable neuropsychiatric adverse effects that can manifest in cognitive disorders, behavioral changes, and frank psychiatric disease. Recent reviews have summarized these effects in adults, but a comprehensive review on corticosteroid effects in children has not been published since 2005. Here, we systematically review articles published since then that, we find, naturally divide into 3 main areas: (1) chronic effects of acute prenatal and neonatal exposure associated with prematurity and congenital conditions; (2) immediate behavioral effects of acute exposure via oncological protocols; and (3) acute behavioral effects of sporadic use in children and adolescents with other conditions. PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were queried to identify articles reporting psychiatric adverse effects of corticosteroids in pediatric patients. Search terms included corticosteroids, adrenal cortex hormones, steroid psychosis, substance-induced psychoses, glucocorticoids, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, prednisone, adverse effects, mood disorders, mental disorders, psychosis, psychotic, psychoses, side effect, chemically induced, emotions, affective symptoms, toxicity, behavior, behavioral symptoms, infant, child, adolescent, pediatric, paediatric, neonatal, children, teen, and teenager. Following guidelines for systematic reviews from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis, we have found it difficult to draw specific conclusions that are more than general impressions owing to the quality of the available studies. We find a mixed picture with neonates exposed to dexamethasone, with some articles reporting eventual deficits in neuropsychiatric functioning and others reporting no effect. In pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, corticosteroid use appears to correlate with negative psychiatric and behavioral effects. In children treated with corticosteroids for noncancer conditions, adverse effects have been observed both during treatment and after cessation, although the data from article to article are not consistent enough to establish dose relationships. By and large, inhaled corticosteroids are considered safe and free of severe neuropsychiatric effects. Although both antipsychotic medications and benzodiazepines have been used to treat corticosteroid-induced mania and psychosis, no unified management strategy has emerged. Large-scale standardized investigations are needed to clarify the psychiatric effect of corticosteroids on children in all these conditions. Meanwhile, there is general agreement that patients as well as caregivers should be warned of the potential for behavioral adverse effects when patients receive these drugs.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

LABAs in asthmatic children: highlights and new inside

International asthma guidelines recommend increasing the dose of ICS or adding leukotriene modifiers or the use of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists (LABAs) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) when uncontrolled asthma occurs in adult and children in treatment with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids. However, in children, the effects of this last treatment option are unclear because there are few studies on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in pediatric age. Furthermore, salmeterol is licensed for use in children over 4 years and formoterol in children of more than 6 years. Finally, recent data provides evidence that repeated bronchoconstriction induces epithelial cell stress that may lead to remodeling and these findings may have potential implications for asthma management, particularly for LABAs treatment in the future.

A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four

Background

The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.

Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness.

Methods

Systematic review with network meta-analysis. After a comprehensive search in Central, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO search portal two reviewers selected RCTs performed in 4,129 children from 5-18 year old, with moderate persistent asthma comparing any GINA step 3&4 medication options. Further quality was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and data-extracted included papers and built a network of the trials. Attempt at ranking treatments with formal statistical methods employing direct and indirect (e.g. through placebo) connections between all treatments.

Results

8,175 references were screened; 23 randomized trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head (n=17) or against placebo (n=10), met the inclusion criteria. Except for theophylline as add-on therapy in step 4, a closed network allowed all comparisons to be made, either directly or indirectly. Huge variation in, and incomplete reporting of, outcome measurements across RCTs precluded assessment of relative efficacies.

Conclusion

Evidence-based ranking of effectiveness of drug treatments in GINA steps 3&4 is not possible yet. Existing initiatives for harmonization of outcome measurements in asthma trials need urgent implementation.

Asthma outcomes: exacerbations

BACKGROUND

The goals of asthma treatment include preventing recurrent exacerbations. Yet there is no consensus about the terminology for describing or defining "exacerbation" or about how to characterize an episode's severity.

OBJECTIVE

National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to propose how asthma exacerbation should be assessed as a standardized asthma outcome in future asthma clinical research studies.

METHODS

We used comprehensive literature reviews and expert opinion to compile a list of asthma exacerbation outcomes and classified them as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at a National Institutes of Health-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011.

RESULTS

No dominant definition of "exacerbation" was found. The most widely used definitions included 3 components, all related to treatment, rather than symptoms: (1) systemic use of corticosteroids, (2) asthma-specific emergency department visits or hospitalizations, and (3) use of short-acting β-agonists as quick-relief (sometimes referred to as "rescue" or "reliever") medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The working group participants propose that the definition of "asthma exacerbation" be "a worsening of asthma requiring the use of systemic corticosteroids to prevent a serious outcome." As core outcomes, they propose inclusion and separate reporting of several essential variables of an exacerbation. Furthermore, they propose the development of a standardized, component-based definition of "exacerbation" with clear thresholds of severity for each component.

Efficacy of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler alone in Hispanic adults and adolescents with asthma: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Few clinical trials in asthma have focused on Hispanic populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) with BUD in an ethnically diverse group of Hispanic participants with asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (NCT00419757) was designed to enroll Hispanic participants (self-reported) (≥12 years of age) with moderate to severe asthma requiring medium- to high-dose ICS. After a 2-week run-in period (low-dose BUD pressurized metered-dose inhaler [pMDI] 80 μg × 2 inhalations [160 μg] twice daily), participants with a symptom score greater than 0 (scale: 0-3) on 3 or more of 7 run-in days and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) 45%-85% predicted were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 160/4.5 μg × 2 inhalations (320/9 μg) twice daily or BUD pMDI 160 μg × 2 inhalations (320 μg) twice daily.

RESULTS

Randomized participants (n = 127 BUD/FM; n = 123 BUD) were predominately Mexican (51%) or Puerto Rican (21%). During low-dose ICS run-in, the mean symptom score was 1.0; however, mean predose FEV(1) improved (2.10-2.21 L). During randomized treatment, small, but not statistically significant, improvements favored BUD/FM vs BUD (am peak expiratory flow [PEF; primary efficacy variable] 25.4 vs 19.9 L/min; pm PEF 20.6 vs 15.8 L/min; predose FEV(1) 0.16 vs 0.11 L; rescue medication use -0.7 vs -0.6 inhalations/d). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in clinically relevant control end points occurred in both BUD/FM and BUD groups; both treatments were well tolerated in this Hispanic asthma population but were not significantly differentiated.

New approaches to managing asthma: a US perspective

Despite remarkable advances in diagnosis and long-term management, asthma remains a serious public health concern. Newly updated expert guidelines emphasize the intra- and inter-individual variability of asthma and highlight the importance of periodic assessment of asthma control. These guidelines update recommendations for step-wise asthma treatment, address the burgeoning field of asthma diagnostics, and stress the importance of a patient and health care professional partnership, including written action plans and self monitoring. The field of asthma therapeutics is expanding rapidly, with promising new treatment options available or in development that may address some of the existing barriers to successful asthma management. These approaches simplify treatment, use combinations of agents in one delivery device that have complementary actions, or target specific pathways involved in asthma patho-physiology. Considerable activity is taking place in asthma pharmacogenetics. This review provides an overview of these new approaches to managing asthma, including their present status and future potential.

Treatment with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma: a focus on patient-reported outcomes

In the United States, budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is approved for treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥12 years whose asthma is not adequately controlled with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or whose disease severity clearly warrants treatment with an ICS and a long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist. This article reviews studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with persistent asthma, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcomes (eg, perceived onset of effect, patient satisfaction with treatment, health-related quality of life [HRQL], global assessments, sleep quality and quantity), as these measures reflect patient perceptions of asthma control and disease burden. A search of PubMed and respiratory meetings was performed to identify relevant studies. In two pivotal budesonide/formoterol pMDI studies in adolescents and adults, greater efficacy and similar tolerability were shown with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 μg and 320/9 μg twice daily versus its monocomponents or placebo. In those studies, improvements in HRQL, patient satisfaction, global assessments of asthma control, and quality of sleep also favored budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with one or both of its monocomponents or placebo. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI has a rapid onset of effect (within 15 minutes) that patients can feel, an attribute that may have benefits for treatment adherence. In summary, budesonide/formoterol pMDI is effective and well tolerated and has additional therapeutic benefits that may be important from the patient’s perspective.

Combination therapy salmeterol/fluticasone versus doubling dose of fluticasone in children with asthma

RATIONALE

For children with symptomatic asthma despite low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids, evidence is still lacking whether to add a long-acting bronchodilator or to increase the dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFP), 50/100 μg twice a day, is noninferior regarding symptom control compared with fluticasone propionate (FP), 200 μg twice a day Diskus in children with symptomatic asthma.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study was performed comparing SFP and FP treatment during 26 weeks on asthma control and lung function.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 158 children, 6-16 years old, still symptomatic on FP, 100 μg twice a day, during a 4-week run-in period, were included. Percentage of symptom-free days during the last 10 weeks of the treatment period did not differ between treatment groups (per protocol analysis: adjusted mean difference [FP minus SFP] 2.6%; 95% confidence interval, -8.1 to 13.4). Both groups showed substantial improvements of about 25 percent points in symptom-free days (both P < 0.001 from baseline). Lung function measurements (FEV(1), FVC, PEF rate, and maximal expiratory flow) did not differ between groups except for a slight advantage in maximal expiratory flow in the SFP group at 1 week. No differences were found between FP and SFP regarding exacerbation rates, adverse events, or growth.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study the efficacy on symptom control and lung function of the combination of a long-acting bronchodilator with inhaled corticosteroid is equal to doubling the dose of the inhaled corticosteroid in children still symptomatic on a moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroid.

Treatment of persistent asthma with Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol): an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler

OBJECTIVE

Budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol (Symbicort AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination administered twice daily via one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of persistent asthma in patients >or=12 years of age whose asthma cannot be controlled by an ICS alone. The objective was to review efficacy, safety, and pharmacogenetic data on budesonide/formoterol pMDI in the treatment of persistent asthma.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed and respiratory meeting databases to identify asthma studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Studies involving traditional and patient-reported outcomes, safety, tolerability, or pharmacogenetics were included.

RESULTS

In two 12-week pivotal trials in adolescents and adults, treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg) twice daily for moderate to severe persistent asthma or 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg) twice daily for mild to moderate persistent asthma, demonstrated greater efficacy and similar tolerability compared with placebo and the same nominal dose of its monocomponents. Comparisons with formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) for predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) and with budesonide pMDI for 12-hour mean postdose FEV(1) demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory contributions of budesonide and formoterol, respectively. Evaluations of patient-reported outcomes, including asthma-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction, further supported the clinical benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. In a 52-week tolerability study of patients aged >or=12 years, budesonide/formoterol pMDI was delivered at up to double the maximum dose (640/18 microg twice daily) and demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of budesonide (640 microg twice daily), with no unexpected pattern of abnormalities. Additional studies reported that budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 microg twice daily and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 microg twice daily have similar efficacy and tolerability, with significantly more patients achieving >or=15% improvement in FEV(1) within 15 minutes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with fluticasone/salmeterol DPI. Moreover, inheritance of the Gly16Arg polymorphism of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor does not appear to affect clinical outcomes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol pMDI administered twice daily is effective and generally well tolerated in patients whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

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.

Safety of formoterol in patients with asthma: combined analysis of data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist that regular long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) therapy may increase the risk of serious asthma-related events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risks of formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment by using a large asthma database.

METHODS

This analysis included all blind, parallel-arm, randomized, active-controlled and/or placebo-controlled AstraZeneca-sponsored asthma studies with formoterol-containing and non-LABA comparator arms. Serious adverse events were assessed for inclusion in all-cause death, asthma-related death, asthma-related intubation, and asthma-related hospitalization categories by using blind adjudication. Data were combined across trials; relative risk (RR) was assessed by using Mantel-Haenszel methods.

RESULTS

Data were from 13,542 formoterol-randomized and 9968 non-LABA patients 4 years or older (42 trials), of whom 93% and 89%, respectively, received inhaled corticosteroid as part of randomized treatment or allowed medication. Incidence of all-cause death was low (n=3 and n=4, respectively), with numerically lower all-cause deaths/1000 patient-treatment years in the formoterol-treated group (0.53) versus the non-LABA group (0.82) (RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-2.92). No asthma-related deaths and 1 asthma-related intubation (formoterol-treated group) occurred. Asthma-related hospitalizations/1000 patient-treatment years were lower numerically in the formoterol-treated group (12.1) versus the non-LABA group (16.4) (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-1.01), with fewer study discontinuations in the formoterol-treated group (12.7% vs 15.4%, respectively; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85). Relative to non-LABA, increasing daily formoterol dose (>/=4.5, 9, 18, 36 mug) did not increase the rate or incidence of asthma-related hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of increased risk of asthma-related hospitalization, no asthma-related deaths, and a low incidence of all-cause death and asthma-related intubation were seen with formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate vs. double dose fluticasone propionate on lung function and asthma control in children

There is a large body of data to support the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist vs. increasing the dose of ICS in adults, but less data in children. This double-blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared lung function and asthma control, based on Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, in children receiving either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) 50/100 microg bd (n = 160) or fluticasone propionate (FP) 200 microg bd (n = 161) for 12 wks. Change from baseline in mean morning peak expiratory flow increased following both treatments, but was significantly greater in the SFC group compared with FP [Adjusted mean change (s.e.) (l/min): SFC: 26.9 (2.13), FP: 19.3 (2.12); treatment difference: 7.6 (3.01); 95% CI: 1.7, 13.5; p = 0.012)]. Asthma control improved over time in both groups. Mean pre-bronchodilator maximal-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity and percentage rescue-free days showed significantly greater improvements in the SFC group compared with FP. All other efficacy indices showed comparable improvements in each group. Treatment with SFC 50/100 microg bd compared with twice the steroid dose of FP (200 microg bd), was at least as effective in improving individual clinical outcomes and overall asthma control, in asthmatic children previously uncontrolled on low doses of ICS.

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

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

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)].Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Inhaled corticosteroids compared to placebo for prevention of exercise induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND

The pathogenesis of exercise induced bronchoconstriction is likely multifactorial and is not completely understood. Inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of exercise induced bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects but the evidence seems less strong in non-asthmatic subjects. The management of exercise induced bronchoconstriction focuses on prevention, through both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to evaluate the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of exercise induced bronchoconstriction in a systematic way. Specifically, the review was designed to: determine whether inhaled corticosteroids (compared to placebo) has an attenuating effect on exercise induced bronchoconstriction in adult and pediatric asthmatic patients; estimate the magnitude of the attenuating effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register of trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, review articles, textbooks and reference list of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in adults or children comparing inhaled corticosteroids with placebo to prevent bronchoconstriction in patients with exercise induced bronchoconstriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

The results from six randomised controlled trials involving 123 participants were analyzed (two trials involving adults and four involving children). Combining results from the two parallel studies with at least 4 weeks duration of inhaled corticosteroids, the use of inhaled corticosteroids significantly attenuated the percent fall index in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (WMD = 14.07%; 95% CI: 11.62% to 16.52%). The result from one crossover study with duration of inhaled corticosteroids of 4 weeks revealed significant attenuation of percent fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second ( WMD = 6.90%; 95% CI: 1.40% to 12.40%) and the percent fall in peak expiratory flow ( WMD =11.50%; 95% CI: 6.31% to 16.69%). The small amount of data from placebo-controlled trials using a single treatment do not currently allow conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled corticosteroids used for 4 weeks or more before exercise testing significantly attenuated exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. The relative benefits of inhaled corticosteroids compared to other forms of exercise induced bronchoconstriction treatment (sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil sodium, salbutamol, and other anti-inflammatory agents) remains unclear.