Safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma trials

Patient response to the management during the acute presentation of cough variant Asthma: Retrospective cohort study

The clinical improvement after assessing patients with cough variant asthma in outpatient clinics, and therapy success varied depending on the subjective improvement. Cough could be controlled within appropriate time and subsequent management can consist of inhaled corticosteroids. In this study we used the cough improvement, the only available clinical response, as a predictable factor to determine the effect of different modalities of treatment among patients with cough variant asthma. Retrospective observational analysis was performed in Saudi Arabia's King Saud University Medical City, on the presentation, diagnosis, course of therapy, and responsiveness to oral and inhaled steroids in patients with cough variant asthma. All patients who visited the clinic on multiple occasions with persistent, acute coughing without being pre-screened between September 2021 and September 2022 included based on medical records. Cough resembles cough variant asthma is the term used to describe a cough without a diagnosed etiology. To identify patients eligible for CVA treatment, iindividuals having GERD-associated cough, allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, smokers and atopic cough was excluded. For the examination of these findings, IBM SPSS version 28 (Armonk, NY, USA) was employed. As a result of using budesonide-formoterol inhaler, most patients (86.3 %) showed improvement in their cough symptoms (with 95 %CI: 78.3 to 94.9). There was a significant yet weak positive correlation between the frequency of cough symptoms before and after using budesonide-formoterol (r = 0.318, P value < 0.001). The understanding of treatment response and patient selection for budesonide-formoterol inhaler therapy, providing clinicians with valuable information to optimize patient care.

Drug Development from Natural Products Based on the Pathogenic Mechanism of Asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the pulmonary system associated with many wheeze-to-sleep apnea complications that may lead to death. In 2019, approximately 262 million patients suffered from asthma, and 455 thousand died from the disease worldwide. It is a more severe health problem in children and older adults, and as the aging of society intensifies, the problem will continue to worsen. Asthma inducers can be classified as indoor and outdoor allergens and can cause asthma due to their repeated invasion. There are several theories about asthma occurrence, such as the imbalance between Th1 and Th2, inflammation in the pulmonary system, and the abnormal apoptosis/cell proliferation of cells related to asthma. Although there are many medications for asthma, as it is an incurable disease, the purpose of the drugs is only to suppress the symptoms. The current drugs can be divided into relievers and controllers; however, as they have many adverse effects, such as immune suppression, growth retardation, promotion of cataracts, hyperactivity, and convulsions, developing new asthma drugs is necessary. Although natural products can have adverse effects, the development of asthma drugs from natural products may be beneficial, as some have anti-asthmatic effects such as immune modulation, anti-inflammation, and/or apoptosis modulation.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

Effectiveness and Quality of life in asthmatic patients treated with budesonide/formoterol via Elpenhaler® device in primary care. The "SKIRON" real world study

Aim Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) combination therapy is used for the effective control of asthma. Aim of this study was to collect data on the effectiveness, safety, quality of life, and patient satisfaction from a fixed dose combination of budesonide/formoterol administered with the Elpenhaler^® device following 3-months' treatment.Methods A 3-month real-life, multicentre, one-arm, prospective observational study (SKIRON study-NCT03055793) was conducted, using the following questionnaires: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) for asthma control assessment, MiniAQLQ questionnaire for QoL assessment, and Feeling of Satisfaction with Inhaler questionnaire (FSI-10) for patients' satisfaction with the inhaler device. Comorbidities and safety data were also recorded during the study.Results We enrolled 1,174 asthmatic patients following standard clinical practice in primary care from 126 sites in urban and rural areas of Greece. The majority of patients (71.5%) had at least one comorbidity. A statistically significant improvement in the ACQ-6 score was noted at 3 months compared to the baseline evaluation (mean ± SD 2.19 ± 0.97 at baseline vs. 0.55 ± 0.56 at 3 months; mean change -1.64 (95%CI -1.69, -1.57), p < 0.0001). MiniAQLQ score was statistically and clinically significantly improved, compared to baseline, (4.55 ± 1.04 at baseline vs. 6.37 ± 0.64 at 3 months; mean change 1.82 (95%CI 1.75, 1.87), p < 0.0001). The mean FSI-10 score of 44.2 ± 5.4 indicated patient satisfaction and ease-of-use of the Elpenhaler^® device.Conclusions In this large real-world study of inadequately-controlled asthma patients in primary care settings, the treatment with budesonide/formoterol FDC with the Elpenhaler^® device was associated with significant improvement in patients' asthma control and quality of life.

SMART - is it practical in the United States?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The 2020 focused updates to the asthma management guidelines by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group advocate for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol combinations as single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) for patients with persistent asthma. We review the rationale, the evidence supporting SMART use in asthma, and barriers limiting its wide adoption in the United States.

RECENT FINDINGS

A growing body of evidence supports the use of SMART over the conventional use of controller medicaments with an as-needed short-acting β2 agonist for rescue therapy for the purpose of reducing the risk of asthma exacerbation and maintaining asthma control in adolescents and adults with persistent disease. Lack of US Food and Drug Administration approval, inconsistent insurance coverage, and limited options of ICS-formoterol combination available for use as SMART represent obstacles to wider integration of SMART in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

SMART represents a paradigm shift in asthma management. By identifying and addressing the current and anticipated barriers to implementing SMART, its adoption by providers is likely to increase in the United States.

A Practical Guide to Implementing SMART in asthma management

The use of a single inhaler containing the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and formoterol, a specific long-acting bronchodilator, for both maintenance and quick relief therapy (single maintenance and reliever therapy [SMART or MART]) is recommended by both the Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee in steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. This article provides practical advice about implementing SMART in clinical practice based on evidence and clinical experience. Fundamental to SMART is that ICS-formoterol provides quick relief of asthma symptoms similar to that of short-acting β₂-agonists such as albuterol, while reducing the risk for severe asthma exacerbations and at an overall lower ICS exposure. Most SMART clinical trials were in adults and adolescents (aged ≥12 years), using budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 μg (delivered dose), one inhalation once or twice daily (step 3) and two inhalations twice daily (step 4). For both steps 3 and 4, patients take additional inhalations of budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 μg, one inhalation whenever needed for symptom relief, up to a maximum for adults and adolescents of 12 total inhalations in any single day (delivering 54 μg formoterol). The efficacy and safety of SMART with budesonide-formoterol and beclometasone-formoterol have been confirmed, but other ICS-long-acting bronchodilator combinations have not been studied. The SMART regimen should be introduced with a careful explanation of its role in self-management, preferably with a customized written asthma action plan. The cost to patients and the availability of SMART treatment will depend on the prescribed dose and national or local payer agreements.

Recent Advances in β2-Agonists for Treatment of Chronic Respiratory Diseases and Heart Failure

β₂-Adrenoceptor (β₂-AR) agonists are widely used as bronchodilators. The emerge of ultralong acting β₂-agonists is an important breakthrough in pulmonary medicine. In this review, we will provide mechanistic insights into the application of β₂-agonists in asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Recent studies in β-AR signal transduction have revealed opposing functions of the β₁-AR and the β₂-AR on cardiomyocyte survival. Thus, β₂-agonists and β-blockers in combination may represent a novel strategy for HF management. Allosteric modulation and biased agonism at the β₂-AR also provide a theoretical basis for developing drugs with novel mechanisms of action and pharmacological profiles. Overlap of COPD and HF presents a substantial clinical challenge but also a unique opportunity for evaluation of the cardiovascular safety of β₂-agonists. Further basic and clinical research along these lines can help us develop better drugs and innovative strategies for the management of these difficult-to-treat diseases.

What have we learnt about asthma control from trials of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever?

Despite improvements in medications, devices and understanding of the disease, about half of all asthma patients worldwide remain inadequately controlled, suggesting the need for a new approach to asthma management. Poor adherence to prescribed maintenance therapy and over-reliance on SABA reliever medication is a common cause of inadequate control. This article reviews published data from 6- to 12-month, double-blind, RCT and open-label real-world studies involving budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) and relevant comparator approaches to asthma management, and considers how these compare in achieving the treatment goals described in guidelines. The data confirm that patients with asthma treated with budesonide/formoterol MART achieved the same or better asthma symptom control compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at similar or higher ICS doses, with consistently lower rates of exacerbations and considerably lower annual requirement for oral corticosteroids. These findings have been confirmed across a range of severities of persistent asthma. With the MART approach, maintenance dosing ensures coverage for day-to-day control, and the use of a reliever with anti-inflammatory properties (budesonide/formoterol) provides extra doses of ICS as soon as symptoms prompt the use of reliever, resulting in a 40-50% reduction of exacerbations compared with an ICS-based treatment approach plus as-needed SABA as reliever. As-needed, budesonide/formoterol has also recently been shown to be more effective as a reliever in mild asthma than SABA alone, reducing exacerbations by up to 64% in the SYGMA studies.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled once-daily low-dose indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: Phase III randomised QUARTZ study findings

BACKGROUND

Global initiative for asthma (GINA) 2019 recommends adding a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a maintenance controller therapy in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Indacaterol acetate (IND, a LABA) in combination with mometasone furoate (MF, an ICS) is under development for the treatment of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

This phase III QUARTZ was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy and parallel-group study to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg once daily (o.d.) versus MF 200 μg o.d. in adult and adolescent patients with inadequately controlled asthma.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 802) were randomised (1:1) to receive either low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg o.d. via Breezhaler® or MF 200 μg o.d. via Twisthaler® for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and key secondary endpoint was Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) treatment difference after 12-week treatment. Other secondary endpoints included ACQ-7 responder analysis, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire total score, rescue medication use, daily symptom score, nighttime awakenings and rate of exacerbations, evaluated over 12-week treatment. Safety was also assessed including serious asthma outcomes.

RESULTS

Low-dose IND/MF significantly improved trough FEV₁ (least squares mean treatment difference [LSMTD]: 0.182 L; p < 0.001) and ACQ-7 (LSMTD: -0.218; p < 0.001) versus MF at Week 12. Improvements in all other secondary endpoints favoured low-dose IND/MF. Safety was comparable.

CONCLUSION

These results support the use of low-dose IND/MF 150/80 μg o.d. as a potential therapy for adult and adolescent patients with inadequately controlled asthma.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a novel anti-asthmatic drug, XC8, in healthy probands

INTRODUCTION

XC8 (histamine glutarimide) is a novel agent which targets eosinophilic migration and mast cell degranulation and has shown anti-asthmatic effects in animal studies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this placebo-controlled phase 1 study was to assess the safety of oral XC8 and to evaluate its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.

METHODS

32 healthy volunteers in three dose-escalation treatment groups (10 mg [n = 8], 50 mg [n = 8] and 200 mg [n = 16]) were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to XC8 or placebo respectively. The subjects received a single dose of the drug at Day 1 and then once-daily for 14 days (Days 8-21).

RESULTS

No severe adverse events occurred. The number of adverse events was similar in the treatment arms compared to placebo and all subjects completed the study as planned. No clinically significant changes occurred in hematologic and biochemical blood tests in subjects receiving XC8. The pharmacokinetic data showed similar dose and time dependent mean plasma XC8 concentrations after single (Day 1) and multiple (Day 21) dosing. The mean maximum concentrations were 114-1993 ng/mL after single and 115-2089 ng/mL after multiple dosing. The mean times to maximum concentration were 0.68-1.01 and 0.67-0.98 h, respectively. There was no evidence for accumulation of XC8 after multiple dosing.

CONCLUSION

XC8 was safe and well tolerated. A phase 2 study is being performed to further evaluate the potential role of XC8 in asthma treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02882217.

Challenges and choices in the pharmacological treatment of non-severe pediatric asthma: A commentary for the practicing physician

In recent years, asthma research has focused intensely on the severe part of the disease spectrum, leading to new treatments, mostly therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. However, severe asthma accounts for not more than 2% of asthma in the pediatric population. Therefore, non-severe asthma remains a major health problem in children, not only for patients and parents but also for healthcare professionals such as general practitioners, pediatricians and allergists who take care of these patients. It is thus essential to identify and put in context novel concepts, applicable to the treatment of these patients. Recent evidence suggests benefits from using anti-inflammatory treatment even for the mildest cases, for whom until now only symptomatic bronchodilation was recommended. Likewise, “reliever” medication may be better combined with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Among “new” treatments (for children), ICS formulation in ultrafine particles has showed promise and tiotropium is gaining access to the pediatric population. Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) is an option for moderate disease. Most importantly, personalized response to medications appears to be considerable, therefore, it may need to be taken into account. Overall, these new options provide opportunities for multiple new management strategies. The deployment of such strategies in different populations remains to be evaluated.

Repeated exacerbation of asthma: An intrinsic phenotype of uncontrolled asthma

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airways affecting a large number of people across the globe. Uncontrolled asthma poses an emotional as well as the physical burden on patients and results in a great economic burden. “Exacerbation-prone phenotype” asthmatics are a cluster of patients who may suffer from more frequent and severe exacerbations than other asthmatics. Factors such as inadequate symptom control, improper adherence to medications, and incorrect use of inhalers are responsible for frequent asthma exacerbations. Caring for the patient with “exacerbation-prone asthma” needs participation from both the doctor as well as the patient. Self-management, improving knowledge about the disease, control of comorbidities, and a stepwise approach with the use of a single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy in patients with severe asthma could help in delivering better care for the “exacerbation-prone phenotype” of asthmatics.

Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) and the evolution of asthma management within the GINA guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) annual report summarizes the latest evidence for asthma management. GINA recommends stepwise pharmacological treatment, advocating inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus rapid, long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) delivered in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief at Steps 3 (moderate persistent asthma requiring 1-2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), 4 (severe persistent asthma requiring ≥2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), and 5 (higher level care and/or add-on treatment). Areas covered: Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence demonstrate that flexibly dosed budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief (Symbicort® Maintenance And Reliever Therapy [SMART]) is associated with reductions in severe exacerbations, prolongs time to first exacerbation, and provides fast symptom relief. Expert commentary: SMART provides greater or equal levels of sustained asthma control than similar or higher fixed doses of ICS/LABA plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed or higher ICS plus SABA as needed, with lower overall ICS doses and cost. The simplified dosing strategy may improve adherence and overall asthma control but relies on patient education. Budesonide/formoterol as needed in mild asthma (patients qualifying for regular low-dose ICS) is currently under investigation in two double-blind randomized studies, SYGMA1/2 (NCT02149199/NCT02224157), comparing budesonide/formoterol as needed with budesonide plus SABA and SABA alone.

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

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

Serious Asthma Events with Budesonide plus Formoterol vs. Budesonide Alone

BACKGROUND

Concerns remain about the safety of adding long-acting β2-agonists to inhaled glucocorticoids for the treatment of asthma. In a postmarketing safety study mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, we evaluated whether the addition of formoterol to budesonide maintenance therapy increased the risk of serious asthma-related events in patients with asthma.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomly assigned patients, 12 years of age or older, who had persistent asthma, were receiving daily asthma medication, and had had one to four asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive budesonide-formoterol or budesonide alone. Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma were excluded. The primary end point was the first serious asthma-related event (a composite of adjudicated death, intubation, and hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The noninferiority of budesonide-formoterol to budesonide was defined as an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The primary efficacy end point was the first asthma exacerbation, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 11,693 patients underwent randomization, of whom 5846 were assigned to receive budesonide-formoterol and 5847 to receive budesonide. A serious asthma-related event occurred in 43 patients who were receiving budesonide-formoterol and in 40 patients who were receiving budesonide (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65]); budesonide-formoterol was shown to be noninferior to budesonide alone. There were two asthma-related deaths, both in the budesonide-formoterol group; one of these patients had undergone an asthma-related intubation. The risk of an asthma exacerbation was 16.5% lower with budesonide-formoterol than with budesonide (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adolescents and adults with predominantly moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with budesonide-formoterol was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations than budesonide and a similar risk of serious asthma-related events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01444430 .).

Budesonide + formoterol fumarate dihydrate for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Equivalent Lung Dose and Systemic Exposure of Budesonide/Formoterol Combination via Easyhaler and Turbuhaler

BACKGROUND

Easyhaler(®) device-metered dry powder inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol fumarate dihydrate (hereafter formoterol) for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been developed. The current approvals of the product in Europe were based on several pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence (BE) studies, and in vitro-in vivo correlation (IVIVC) modeling.

METHODS

Four PK studies were performed to compare the lung deposition and total systemic exposure of budesonide and formoterol after administration of budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler and the reference product, Symbicort Turbuhaler. The products were administered concomitantly with oral charcoal (lung deposition) and in two of the studies also without charcoal (total systemic exposure). Demonstration of BE for lung deposition (surrogate marker for efficacy) and non-inferiority for systemic exposure (surrogate marker for safety) were considered a proof of therapeutic equivalence. In addition, IVIVC models were constructed to predict study outcomes with different reference product fine particle doses (FPDs).

RESULTS

In the first pivotal study, the exposure and lung dose via Easyhaler were higher compared to the reference product (mean comparison estimates between 1.07 and 1.28) as the FPDs of the reference product batch were low. In the following studies, reference product batches with higher FPDs were utilized. In the second pivotal study, non-inferiority of Easyhaler compared to Turbuhaler was shown in safety and BE in efficacy for all other parameters except the formoterol AUCt. In the fourth study where two reference batches were compared to each other and Easyhaler, budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler was bioequivalent with one reference batch but not with the other having the highest FPDs amongst the 28 reference batches studied. In the IVIVC based study outcome predictions, the test product was bioequivalent with great proportion of the reference batches. For the test product and the median FPD reference product BE was predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence regarding both safety and efficacy between budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler and Symbicort Turbuhaler was shown based on totality of evidence from the PK studies and IVIVC analyses, and therefore, therapeutic equivalence between the products can be concluded. The results of the PK studies are likely dependent on the variability of FPDs of the reference product batches.

Effect of once-daily indacaterol maleate/mometasone furoate on exacerbation risk in adolescent and adult asthma: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of QMF149, a once-daily, fixed-dose combination of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) indacaterol maleate and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) mometasone furoate (MF) for the treatment of persistent asthma. The hypothesis was that QMF149 would not increase the risk of serious asthma exacerbations.

SETTING

174 research centres in nine countries.

PARTICIPANTS

1519 adolescents and adults with persistent asthma who were treated or qualified for treatment with combination LABA/ICS were randomised, and 1508 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to QMF149 (indacaterol maleate 500 µg/MF 400 µg) or MF (400 µg) once daily via Twisthaler inhalation device in a double-blind, parallel-group study for 6-21 months.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was time to first serious asthma exacerbation (resulting in hospitalisation, intubation or death). The key secondary end point was annual rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids.

RESULTS

Treatment with QMF149 resulted in no significant difference in time to first serious exacerbation compared to MF (2 (0.3%) vs 6 events (0.8%); difference -0.52 percentage point; 95% CI -1.25 to 0.21, p=0.160, HR=0.31; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.54, p=0.151). QMF149 significantly reduced the annual rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio=0.71; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.90, p=0.005). Proportions of patients experiencing adverse events were similar across groups (74.0% in the QMF149 group and 73.4% in the MF group). Serious adverse events occurred in 4% and 5.8% of patients in the QMF149 and MF groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed in the primary outcome of time to first serious asthma exacerbation in patients treated with QMF149 compared with patients treated with MF. Long-term treatment with QMF149 once daily had a favourable safety/efficacy profile in adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00941798.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy via Turbuhaler versus fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline in patients with asthma: phase III study results

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever therapy versus budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus terbutaline in adults with persistent asthma not adequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy alone.

METHODS

In this 12-month, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study (NCT00839800), patients (age ≥ 16 years; receiving maintenance ICS; ≥ 1 severe exacerbation in the 12 months prior to study entry) were randomized to either budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg 1 inhalation twice daily plus budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg as-needed or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg 1 inhalation twice daily plus terbutaline 0.4 mg as-needed for 12 months.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

time to first severe asthma exacerbation; secondary outcomes included: lung function, asthma symptom variables and tolerability.

RESULTS

Two thousand and ninety-one patients were randomized: 170 (16%) receiving budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy experienced 259 severe exacerbations versus 229 patients (22%) receiving budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline who experienced 363 severe exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation versus budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline (P = 0.0007) and reduced the instantaneous risk of an exacerbation by 30% (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.85, P = 0.0003). Times to first oral steroid use, first hospitalization and first emergency room treatment were all significantly prolonged in the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever group versus budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline. Both treatment groups were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy provided more effective asthma control, including a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, than budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline and was well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy also improved lung function and asthma symptoms.

The β-2 agonist debate: is there still a problem?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present an evidence-based review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations for long-acting β agonist (LABA) use in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FDA recommendation contraindicating the use of LABAs without a concomitant asthma-controller medication such as an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is supported, with the caveat that concomitant use of an asthma-controller medication applies only to ICS therapy and not other asthma controller medications (such as leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy or theophylline). The recommendation that LABA therapy be stopped once asthma control is achieved is restrictive. Although downtitration of therapy should be considered in patients with asthma, who are well controlled, other options such as reducing the dose of ICS may be preferable to stopping LABA therapy. In patients who are at risk of unstable asthma or severe exacerbations, maintaining the ICS/LABA therapy without downtitration may be required. The recommendation against LABA use in patients whose asthma is adequately controlled with a low or medium dose ICS is supported. The recommendation that fixed-dose combination ICS/LABA products should be the only form in which LABAs are prescribed in adolescents and paediatric patients should be extended to all asthma patients.

SUMMARY

The current β agonist debate focuses on the optimal management approaches for the use of LABA therapy to both minimize risk and maximize clinical efficacy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov: (NCT00939341).

Efficacy and safety of maintenance and reliever combination budesonide-formoterol inhaler in patients with asthma at risk of severe exacerbations: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Single combination budesonide-formoterol inhaler Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) regimen reduces severe asthma exacerbations in patients, but whether the high doses of corticosteroid and β agonist increase the risk of adverse effects with both short-term and cumulative exposure is not certain. Our aim was to investigate whether the SMART regimen would reduce the risk of overuse of β agonist, reduce the likelihood of patients to seek medical review when such episodes occurred, and if any reduction in severe asthma exacerbations would be at the cost of a higher burden of systemic corticosteroid.

METHODS

In this 24-week trial undertaken at four primary health-care practices and one hospital in New Zealand, patients (aged 16-65 years) with a recent asthma exacerbation were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SMART or standard fixed-dose regimen. Treatment in the SMART group consisted of two actuations of budesonide-formoterol (200 μg and 6 μg, respectively, per actuation) twice daily, delivered through a combination metered dose inhaler (MDI), with one extra actuation as needed for relief of symptoms; treatment in the standard group consisted of two actuations of budesonide-formoterol (200 μg and 6 μg, respectively, per actuation) twice daily through a combination MDI with one to two actuations of salbutamol (100 μg per actuation) by MDI as needed for relief of symptoms. MDIs were monitored electronically to measure actual use of medication. The allocation sequence for randomisation was computer generated, with a block size of eight per site. Participants, investigators, and the statistician were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with at least one high-use episode of β agonist (more than eight actuations per day of budesonide-formoterol in addition to the four maintenance doses in the SMART group or more than 16 actuations per day of salbutamol in the standard group). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12610000515099.

FINDINGS

303 patients were randomly assigned to the SMART (n=151) or standard group (n=152). No significant difference was noted between the SMART and standard groups in the proportion of participants with at least one high-use episode of β agonist (84 [56%] vs 68 [45%], respectively, relative risk 1·24 [95% CI 0·99-1·56]; p=0·058). There were fewer days of high use in the SMART group (mean 5·1 days [SD 14·3] vs 8·9 days [20·9], relative rate 0·58 [0·39-0·88]; p=0·01). Of the patients who had at least one high-use episode, those in the SMART group had fewer days of high use without medical review (8·5 days [17·8] vs 18·3 days [24·8], 0·49 [0·31-0·75]; p=0·001). The SMART regimen resulted in higher inhaled corticosteroid exposure (943·5 μg budesonide per day [1502·5] vs 684·3 μg budesonide per day [390·5], respectively; ratio of means 1·22 [1·06-1·41]; p=0·006), but reduced oral corticosteroid exposure (77·5 mg prednisone [240·5] vs 126·6 mg prednisone [382·1], respectively; p=0·011), with no significant difference in composite systemic corticosteroid exposure (793·7 mg prednisone equivalent per year [893·1] vs 772·1 mg prednisone equivalent per year [1062·7], respectively; 1·03 [0·86-1·22]; p=0·76). Participants in the SMART group had fewer severe asthma exacerbations (35 [weighted mean rate per year 0·53] vs 66 [0·97]; relative rate 0·54 [0·36-0·82]; p=0·004).

INTERPRETATION

The SMART regimen has a favourable risk-to-benefit profile and can be recommended for use in adults at risk of severe asthma exacerbations.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand.

The effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on the risk of severe asthma exacerbations following episodes of high reliever use: an exploratory analysis of two randomised, controlled studies with comparisons to standard therapy

BACKGROUND

Divergent strategies have emerged for the management of severe asthma. One strategy utilises high and fixed doses of maintenance treatment, usually inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA), supplemented by a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) as needed. Alternatively, budesonide/formoterol is used as both maintenance and reliever therapy. The latter is superior to fixed-dose treatment in reducing severe exacerbations while achieving similar or better asthma control in other regards. Exacerbations may be reduced by the use of budesonide/formoterol as reliever medication during periods of unstable asthma. We examined the risk of a severe exacerbation in the period after a single day with high reliever use.

METHODS

Episodes of high reliever use were quantified and exacerbations occurring post-index day with these episodes were examined post hoc in two double-blind studies comparing the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART™, Turbuhaler®) 160/4.5 μg twice daily plus as needed with similar or higher maintenance doses of ICS/LABA plus SABA or formoterol.

RESULTS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the risk of episodes of high reliever use (>6 inhalations/day) vs. all alternative ICS/LABA regimens. With conventional fixed-dose treatment the need for exacerbation treatment within 21 days ranged from 6.0-10.1% of days post-index for all regimens compared with 2.5-3.4% of days with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces the incidence of high reliever episodes and the exacerbation burden immediately following these episodes vs. alternative ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at up to double the maintenance dose of ICS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

These studies do not have registration numbers as they were conducted before clinical trial registration was required.

A comparison of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus conventional best practice in asthma management in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety in a real-life setting of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy® (Symbicort SMART®), a simplified management approach with one inhaler, compared with conventional best practice (CBP) with multiple inhalers in patients with persistent asthma.

DESIGN

Open-label randomized controlled parallel-group trial, 6-month treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 654 adult patients, with persistent asthma receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either alone or in conjunction with long-acting β(2)-agonist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to first severe asthma exacerbation and number of severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

No difference between groups was seen in time to first severe exacerbation (p = .2974). Exacerbation rates were low in both groups. A total of 22 patients in the Symbicort SMART group experienced a total of 24 severe asthma exacerbations, and 31 patients in the CBP group experienced a total of 34 severe asthma exacerbations (annual rate 0.16 vs. 0.22, p = .2869). The mean daily dose of ICS expressed in beclomethasone dipropionate equivalent was significantly lower in the Symbicort SMART group (including as-needed use) versus the CBP group (799 μg vs.1184 μg; p < .001). Mean scores in Asthma Control Questionnaire, five-question version, improved significantly in the SMART group compared with the CBP group (p = .0292). Symbicort SMART and CBP were equally well tolerated. The mean drug cost per patient per 6 months was lower for the patients in the SMART group compared with patients receiving CBP (€295.32 vs. €387.98, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified regimen using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART) was at least as effective at improving clinical control compared with CBP with a significantly lower ICS dose and lower drug costs.

Recent research and developmental strategy of anti-asthma drugs

Extensive research over the past decade has provided information about the pharmacotherapy of bronchial asthma (BA). Anti-asthma drugs are classified into two categories: relievers (for the relief of asthma attack symptoms) and controllers (for the prevention of asthma symptoms). This paper aims to review the recent advancements of anti-asthma drugs that are controller medicines. The controllers mainly act on immune and inflammatory responses in BA development. 1) Immunomodulators. Drugs that act on the immune response are classified into two categories: immunosuppressors and immunomodulators, including immunopotentiators. The immunomodulation of the Th1 and Th2 imbalance is the first strategy of the controller because allergic BA is thought to be caused by Th2-polarized immunity. Suplatast is a novel immunomodulator that can adjust the imbalance in the Th1/Th2 immune response and shows clear clinical efficacy against BA. The immunomodulator approach has shifted from a more theoretical and conceptual model to one supported by evidence of clinical efficacy.2) Anti-inflammatory agents. Corticosteroids,mast cell stabilizers and autacoid inhibitors are anti-inflammatory agents for BA. The clinical superiority of the combined therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2 agonists is evident. This combined therapy shows a potent synergic anti-inflammatory effect compared to the effect by corticosteroids alone. Currently, the anti-inflammatory agents for BA under development are drugs affecting lipid mediators. The prostaglandin (PG) D2 antagonist, PGE2, EP3 agonist and PGI2 agonist are being considered in addition to well-established leukotriene and thromboxane A2 inhibitors. New development strategies and therapeutics for controllers are described in this review.

Is the patient's baseline inhaled steroid dose a factor for choosing the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy regimen?

OBJECTIVE

Baseline inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose may be a factor for prescribers to consider when they select a budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy regimen for symptomatic asthmatics.

METHODS

A 6-month randomized study compared two maintenance doses of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, 1 × 2 and 2 × 2, plus as needed, in 8424 asthma patients with symptoms when treated with ICS ± an inhaled long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA). In the total study population, 1339 (17%) were high-dose ICS (HD) users (≥ 1600 µg/day budesonide). This HD stratum was compared with the rest of the study population, divided into low-dose (LD; 400 µg/day) and medium-dose strata (MD; 401-1599 µg/day) with regard to severe asthma exacerbations and mean changes in five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ(5)) scores from baseline.

RESULTS

In all three strata there were fewer exacerbations in the 2 × 2 treatment groups (yearly rates 0.268, 0.172 and 0.094) than in the 1 × 2 treatment groups (yearly rates 0.232, 0.138 and 0.764). In no stratum was the difference between the treatment groups statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in time to the first severe exacerbation between the treatments 2 × 2 and 1 × 2 in the HD group (hazard ratio 0.944, p = 0.75). The adjusted mean changes in ACQ(5) scores in the HD, MD and LD strata were -0.89, -0.61 and -0.65, respectively, with 1 × 2 treatment and -0.90, -0.74 and -0.76, respectively, with 2 × 2 treatment. In the MD and LD strata, the difference between doses was significant in favour of 2 × 2 (MD p < 0.0001; LD p = 0.004), but not in the HD stratum (p = 0.870). No difference in serious adverse events was seen.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LD and MD strata, the HD stratum patients had more exacerbations and a shorter time to first exacerbation. However, there were no differences in response between the 1 × 2 and 2 × 2 groups in any of the strata. This indicates that patients using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, irrespective of baseline ICS dose, can be switched to 1 × 2 with its lower steroid load. ACQ(5) scores improved more in the HD stratum than in the MD and LD strata indicating, among other things, that HD patients were not overtreated at baseline.

Safe use of long-acting β-agonists: what have we learnt?

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce symptoms, improve lung function and enhance overall asthma control. However, several studies have indicated an increased risk of asthma mortality and asthma-related serious adverse events and the FDA recently mandated restrictions to the use of LABAs in asthma.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights the clinical studies on which safety analyses pertaining to salmeterol and formoterol have been based and then focuses on recent meta-analyses of safety outcomes with and without consideration of concomitant ICS.

EXPERT OPINION

The phenomenon of masking of inflammation by LABA if ICS dose is insufficient underscores the potential for confounding in determining real safety risks. Under-treatment with ICS and differential dosing of ICS in many trials are major factors driving the LABA safety concern. The FDA meta-analysis, when stratified for mandatory ICS use, found no significant increase in the composite outcome of asthma mortality, intubations and hospitalizations. Add-on therapy with LABA is effective and safe if the dose of ICS is adequate to treat airway inflammation. LABA and ICS given in a single device will negate the possibility of LABA monotherapy which is contraindicated. The FDA has recommended that LABAs be withdrawn when control is achieved with combination therapy but recent evidence suggests this may result in loss of symptom control.

Overall asthma control achieved with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy for patients on different treatment steps

BACKGROUND

Adjusting medication for uncontrolled asthma involves selecting one of several options from the same or a higher treatment step outlined in asthma guidelines. We examined the relative benefit of introducing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART® Turbuhaler®) in patients previously prescribed treatments from Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Steps 2, 3 or 4.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the results of five large clinical trials (>12000 patients) comparing BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy with other treatments categorised by treatment step at study entry. Both current clinical asthma control during the last week of treatment and exacerbations during the study were examined.

RESULTS

At each GINA treatment step, the proportion of patients achieving target levels of current clinical control were similar or higher with BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy compared with the same or a higher fixed maintenance dose of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) (plus short-acting β2-agonist [SABA] as reliever), and rates of exacerbations were lower at all treatment steps in BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy versus same maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.01) and at treatment Step 4 versus higher maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.001). BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy also achieved significantly higher rates of current clinical control and significantly lower exacerbation rates at most treatment steps compared with a higher maintenance dose ICS + SABA (Steps 2-4 for control and Steps 3 and 4 for exacerbations). With all treatments, the proportion of patients achieving current clinical control was lower with increasing treatment steps.

CONCLUSIONS

BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy may be a preferable option for patients on Steps 2 to 4 of asthma guidelines requiring a more effective treatment and, compared with other fixed dose alternatives, is most effective in the higher treatment steps.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The safety of long-acting beta-agonists: more evidence is needed

There is controversy regarding the possibility that long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) may paradoxically contribute adversely to asthma mortality. While studies and meta-analyses indicate increased risk, epidemiological data indicate a slow fall in asthma mortality since the introduction of LABA. Advocates for LABA propose that mandatory simultaneous use of inhaled corticosteroids satisfactorily reduce any potential risk. In the face of lingering doubts, others propose that LABA should be withdrawn from use. In this pro-con article, Kazani et al. provide the rationale for a modified randomized controlled trial that would define the level of risk more clearly, and provide the basis for a clear judgment to be made. Sears argues that current knowledge about the risks associated with LABA, especially when prescribed as monotherapy, provides sufficient evidence for clinicians and licensing authorities alike, and that the logistics and likely outcomes for a large prospective study are unjustified.

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

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