Long duration of airway but not systemic effects of inhaled formoterol in asthmatic patients

Effects on cerebral blood flow after single doses of the β2 agonist, clenbuterol, in healthy volunteers and patients with mild cognitive impairment or Parkinson's disease

AIMS

Cerebral hypometabolism occurs years prior to a diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases and coincides with reduced cerebral perfusion and declining noradrenergic transmission from the locus coeruleus. In pre-clinical models, β-adrenoceptor (β-AR) agonists increase cerebrocortical glucose metabolism, and may have therapeutic potential for neurodegenerative diseases. This study investigated the safety and effects on regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) of the oral, brain-penetrant β2-AR agonist, clenbuterol, in healthy volunteers (HV) and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Parkinson's disease (PD).

METHODS

This study evaluated the safety and effects on cerebral activity of the oral, brain-penetrant, β2-AR agonist clenbuterol (20-160 μg) in healthy volunteers and patients with MCI or PD. Regional CBF, which is tightly coupled to glucose metabolism, was measured by arterial spin labelling MRI in 32 subjects (25 HV and 8 MCI or PD) across five cohorts. In some cohorts, low doses of nadolol (1-5 mg), a β-AR antagonist with minimal brain penetration, were administered with clenbuterol to control peripheral β2-AR responses.

RESULTS

Significant, dose-dependent increases in rCBF were seen in multiple brain regions, including hippocampus, amygdala and thalamus, following the administration of clenbuterol to HVs (mean changes from baseline in hippocampal rCBF of -1.7%, 7.3%, 22.9%, 28.4% 3 h after 20, 40, 80 and 160 μg clenbuterol, respectively). In patients with MCI or PD, increases in rCBF following 80 μg clenbuterol were observed both without and with 5 mg nadolol (in hippocampus, 18.6%/13.7% without/with nadolol). Clenbuterol was safe and well-tolerated in all subjects; known side effects of β2-agonists, including increased heart rate and tremor, were mild in intensity and were blocked by low-dose nadolol.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of clenbuterol on rCBF were evident both in the absence and presence of low-dose nadolol, suggesting central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Concomitant inhibition of the peripheral effects of clenbuterol by nadolol confirms that meaningful β2-AR antagonism in the periphery was achieved without interrupting the central effects of clenbuterol on rCBF.

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.

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.

Inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β2-agonist pharmacological profiles: effective asthma therapy in practice

Fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) have been used to manage asthma for several years. They are the preferred therapy option for patients who do not achieve optimal control of their asthma with low-dose ICS monotherapy. In Europe, four ICS/LABA products are commercially available for asthma maintenance therapy (fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate, budesonide/formoterol fumarate and beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate), and other combinations are likely to be developed over the next few years (e.g. mometasone/formoterol fumarate, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol, mometasone/indacaterol). Data from randomized, controlled, clinical trials do not demonstrate a clear overall efficacy difference among ICS/LABA combinations approved for asthma therapy. Conversely, pharmacological data indicate that there may be certain advantages to using one ICS or LABA over another because of the specific pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles associated with particular treatments. This review article summarizes the pharmacological characteristics oft he various ICSs and LABAs available for the treatment of asthma, including the potential for ICS and LABA synergy, and gives an insight into the rationale for the development of the latest ICS/LABA combination approved for asthma maintenance therapy.

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.

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.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Tremor and β(2)-adrenergic agents: is it a real clinical problem?

Tremor is one of the most characteristic adverse effects following administration of β(2)-adrenergic agonists. It is reported by around 2-4% of patients with asthma taking a regular β(2)-adrenergic agonist and is induced by both short-acting and long-acting agents. Tremor associated with β(2)-adrenergic agonists is dose-related and may occur more commonly with oral dosing. The exact mechanism for tremor induction by β(2)-adrenergic agonists is still unknown, but there is some evidence that β(2)-adrenergic agonists act directly on muscle. An early explanation of the tremor was that β(2)-adrenoceptor stimulation shortens the active state of skeletal muscle, which leads to incomplete fusion and reduced tension of tetanic contractions. More recently, tremor has been correlated closely with hypokalaemia. A possible diverse impact of different modes of administration of β(2)-adrenergic agonists on tremorogenic responses has been suggested but solid evidence is still lacking. In any case, the desensitization of β(2)-adrenoceptors that occurs during the first few days of regular use of a β(2)-adrenergic agonist accounts for the commonly observed resolution of tremor after the first few doses. Therefore, tremor is not a really important adverse effect in patients under regular treatment with a β(2)-adrenergic agonist.

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination therapy for asthma: attitudes of specialists in Europe

BACKGROUND

As new combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β(2)-agonists (LABAs) become available for the treatment of asthma, it will be important to determine criteria against which they can be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess which attributes of combination therapy physicians consider most important.

METHODS

Primary and secondary care asthma specialists (n = 32) were recruited for an expert Delphi process that was performed over three rounds to determine attributes perceived to be important in the selection of combination therapy. A pan-European survey was carried out to assess the attitudes, perceptions and prescribing behaviour of a larger population (n = 1,861) of physicians with a specialist interest in asthma treatment.

RESULTS

The expert Delphi panel (response rate 59.4%) agreed that the availability of a range of doses (88% agreement in the final round), the efficacy of the combination (81%) and the safety and tolerability of the therapy (81%) were important attributes of ICS/LABA combination treatment. The potency of the ICS (69%) and the speed of onset of the LABA (69%) were also prioritized. The results of the attitudinal survey (eligibility rate 54.1%) showed that the same factors were considered important in everyday clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies identified which attributes of an ICS/LABA treatment are considered most important by an expert panel and a broader group of physicians; further research is warranted to better understand the influences that drive physician opinions.

Tremor severity and age: a cross-sectional, population-based study of 2,524 young and midlife normal adults

Mild action tremor occurs in most normal people. Yet this tremor mainly has been studied within the context of advanced age rather than among the vast bulk of adults who are not elderly. Whether this tremor worsens during young and middle age is unknown. Using cross-sectional data from a large population-based study of young and midlife normal adults (age range, 18-60 years), we assessed whether increasing age is associated with more severe action tremor. Two thousand five hundred and twenty-four adults in Araihazar, Bangladesh, drew an Archimedes spiral with each hand. Tremor in spirals was rated (0-3) by a blinded neurologist, and a spiral score (range, 0-6) was assigned. Spiral score was correlated with age (r = 0.06, P = .004). With each advancing decade, the spiral score increased (P = .002) so that the spiral score in participants in the highest age group (age 60) was approximately twice that of participants in the youngest age group (age 18-19); P = .003. In the regression model that adjusted for potential confounders (sex, cigarettes, medications, asthma inhalers, and tea and betel nut use), spiral score was associated with age (P = .0045). In this cross-sectional, population-based study of more than 2500 young and midlife normal adults, there was a clear association between age and tremor severity. Although the magnitude of the correlation coefficient was modest, tremor severity was higher with each passing decade. These data suggest that age-dependent increase in tremor amplitude is not restricted to older people but occurs in all adult age groups.

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.

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.

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.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH 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 July 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 were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.