Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with asthma previously stable with twice-daily budesonide/ formoterol dosing

Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Exposure of Once-Daily Indacaterol Acetate in Pediatric Asthma: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Dose-Finding Study

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol acetate (IND), a long-acting β2-agonist in combination with mometasone furoate (MF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), is being explored as a once-daily (od) treatment for asthma in children. This study examined the efficacy, safety, and systemic exposure of IND 75 µg and IND 150 µg in children with persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this Phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, pediatric patients (aged ≥ 6 to < 12 years) with persistent asthma were randomized (1:1) to receive either IND 75 µg od or IND 150 µg od via Breezhaler® in combination with ICS background therapy. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after two weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 80 patients received IND 75 µg (n = 39) or IND 150 µg (n = 41). The study met its primary endpoint; both doses demonstrated improvements in pre-dose trough FEV1 from baseline to Day 14 (mean change [Δ]: 212 mL, IND 75 µg; 171 mL, IND 150 µg). The secondary spirometry parameters (post-dose FEV1 after 1-h, post-dose forced vital capacity; morning and evening peak expiratory flow) also improved. Overall, 36.1% in IND 75 μg group and 25% patients in IND 150 μg group achieved a decrease from baseline in Pediatric Interviewer-administered Asthma Control Questionnaire score of ≥ 0.5 units. A dose-dependent increase in plasma IND concentration was noted between the two groups. Both IND doses demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily IND 75 μg and IND 150 μg via Breezhaler® in combination with background ICS therapy provided substantial bronchodilation in children with asthma and were well tolerated. Taken together, these clinical and systemic exposure findings support IND 75 μg as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in combination with MF in pediatric asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02892019; 08-Sep-2016).

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

Is Once Versus Twice Daily Dosing Better for Adherence in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed once- or twice-daily dosing of controller inhalers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess differences in controller adherence by dosing schedule and age.

METHODS

Electronic medication monitors (EMMs) captured the date and time of inhaler actuations over 90 days in patients using the Propeller Health platform. Prescribed inhaler schedule was self-reported. Once- versus twice-daily schedule comparisons were assessed retrospectively using regressions adjusting for age.

RESULTS

A total of 6294 patients with asthma and 1791 patients with COPD were included. On average, once-daily users had significantly higher median (interquartile range [IQR]) daily adherence than twice-daily users (asthma: 63.3 [IQR: 31.1, 86.7]% vs 50.3 [IQR: 21.1, 78.3]%, P < .001; COPD: 83.3 [IQR: 57.2, 95.6]% vs 64.7 [IQR: 32.8, 88.9]%, P < .001). This pattern persisted in all age groups, with the exception of 4- to 17-year-olds in asthma. The lowest adherence was in the young adult population (18- to 29-year-olds). The percentage of patients who achieved ≥80% adherence was significantly higher among once- versus twice-daily users in asthma (34.3% vs 23.6%, P < .001) and COPD (54.8% vs 38.6%, P < .001). The adjusted odds of once- versus twice-daily users achieving ≥80% adherence was 1.36 (95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.56, P < .001) in asthma and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.38-2.17, P < .001) in COPD. Most once-daily patients with COPD took their medication in the morning versus at night; there was no difference in morning versus afternoon/evening administration in all other asthma and COPD groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with asthma and COPD who were prescribed once-daily versus twice-daily medications were more likely to adhere to their inhalers. Patients with COPD had higher adherence than those with asthma, possibly reflecting, in part, the older cohort age. The effect of greater adherence on exacerbations is a topic for future analysis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparing the efficacy and safety of formoterol/budesonide pMDI versus its mono-components and other LABA/ICS in patients with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) are effective drug delivery devices prescribed in obstructive airway diseases due to their convenience, portability, ease of enabling multiple doses in a single formulation, and storage in any orientation. For the management of asthma, the fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) has been recommended by Global Initiative for Asthma guideline as a preferred treatment option for patients who are uncontrolled with only ICS doses. One of the available LABA/ICS combinations is the formoterol/budesonide (FB).

AREAS COVERED

This article systematically reviews the efficacy and safety of the FB pMDI compared with the FB dry powder inhaler (DPI), individual mono-components (formoterol and budesonide) or salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) combination in the treatment of asthma among paediatric and adult patients. PubMed was searched with the string: ''((Budesonide) AND Formoterol) AND ((((pMDI) OR MDI) OR Pressurised Metered-dose inhaler) OR Metered-dose inhaler)'', in ALL fields. Screening of all the articles was done till February 2020. We have included 24 articles from the total of 142 hits received.

CONCLUSIONS

The FB pMDI is efficacious for the long-term management of asthma in patients 6 years of age and above. It has been shown to improve lung function and asthma control, and to reduce daytime and night-time symptoms, the number of rescue medication doses and asthma exacerbations. It also showed rapid onset of bronchodilatory effect with a dose-response relationship that allows patients to utilise it as a Single Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) regimen.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A 12-week, Randomized, Parallel-group, Phase III Study Comparing the Efficacy of Once-daily Budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler (160/4.5 μg/d) with Twice-daily Budesonide (400 μg/d) During the Step-down Period in Well-controlled Asthma

OBJECTIVES

Budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/FF) is recommended in the stepwise management of uncontrolled asthma, but data on a once-daily dose of this medication in a step-down period are lacking. We aimed to compare BUD/FF and BUD in terms of the changes in asthma control scores and lung functions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, parallel-group, single-center, open-label study was conducted in well-controlled asthmatic patients receiving twice-daily BUD/FF (160/4.5 μg 2 inhalations) randomized into once-daily BUD/FF (160/4.5 μg 1 inhalation) or twice-daily BUD (200 μg 2 inhalations).

RESULTS

At week 12, the medians of Asthma Control Test (ACT) were 23 (interquartile range [IQR]: 22-24) in the BUD/FF group and 23 (IQR: 22-24.5) in the BUD group, while the medians of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) were 0.43 (IQR: 0.29-0.82) in the BUD/FF group and 0.57 (IQR: 0.43-0.93) in the BUD group. No statistically significant difference was observed in either ACT (p=0.673) or ACQ (p=0.295) between the treatments. The ACT scores significantly decreased from baseline to week 12 in both treatments. Peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) also had no statistically significant differences between treatments. PEF in the BUD/FF group and FEV₁ in both treatments significantly decreased from baseline to week 12.

CONCLUSION

Compared to twice-daily BUD, once-daily BUD/FF provides equivalent asthma control scores and lung function during the step-down period after switching from twice-daily doses of BUD/FF in well-controlled asthma.

The Asthma Control Questionnaire as a clinical trial endpoint: past experience and recommendations for future use

The goal of asthma treatment is to control the disease according to guidelines issued by bodies such as the Global Initiative for Asthma. Effective control is dependent upon evaluation of symptoms, initiation of appropriate treatment and minimization of the progressive adverse effects of the disease and its therapies. Although individual outcome measures have been shown to correlate with asthma control, composite endpoints are preferred to enable more accurate and robust monitoring of the health of the individual patient. A number of validated instruments are utilized to capture these component endpoints; however, there is no consensus on the optimal instrument for use in clinical trials. The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) has been shown to be a valid, reliable instrument that allows accurate and reproducible assessment of asthma control that compares favourably with other commonly used instruments. This analysis provides a summary of the use of ACQ in phase II, III and IV asthma trials. Comparisons between the ACQ and other instruments are also presented. Our analysis suggests that the ACQ is a valid and robust measure for use as a primary or secondary endpoint in future clinical trials.

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

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

Once- vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol in 6- to 15-year-old patients with stable asthma

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy/tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus budesonide pMDI (primary) and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (secondary) in children/adolescents with asthma stabilized with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol.

METHODS

This 12-week multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled study (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00646321) included 521 patients aged 6 to 15 years with mild/moderate persistent asthma. Patients stabilized during a 4- to 5-week run-in with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 40/4.5 microgx2 inhalations (160/18 microg daily) received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 40/4.5 microgx2 inhalations (160/18 microg daily), once-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microgx2 inhalations (160/9 microg daily; evening), or once-daily budesonide pMDI 80 microgx2 inhalations (160 microg daily; evening).

RESULTS

Once- or twice-daily budesonide/formoterol was more effective than budesonide for evening peak expiratory flow (primary variable) at the end of the 24-hour once-daily dosing interval (P<or=.027). Twice-daily budesonide/formoterol demonstrated better efficacy versus once-daily treatments for evening predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P<or=.011), versus budesonide for daytime/nighttime rescue medication (P<or=.023), and versus once-daily budesonide/formoterol for daytime rescue medication (last 12 hours of once-daily dosing) (P=.032). There were no significant between-group differences for daytime/nighttime asthma symptoms, nighttime awakenings attributed to asthma, or health-related quality of life. Fewer patients experienced asthma worsening (predefined criteria) with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (8.2%) versus once-daily budesonide (15.5%) (P=.036) or once-daily budesonide/formoterol (19.6%) (P=.002). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily budesonide/formoterol demonstrated significantly better efficacy than once-daily budesonide for most pulmonary-function variables. Twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (160/18 microg daily) maintenance therapy was generally more effective than stepping down to once-daily dosing (160/9 microg daily). Treatments were well tolerated, and there was no evident safety benefit for once- versus twice-daily dosing.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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