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

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.

The Impact of a Forced Non-Medical Switch of Inhaled Respiratory Medication Among Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Patient Survey on Experience with Switch, Therapy Satisfaction, and Disease Control

PURPOSE

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) was removed from a Medicare Part D formulary, and patients switched to fluticasone-based dry powder inhaler (DPI) therapies. This study describes the experience, satisfaction, and disease control among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who switched due to removal from the formulary.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A patient survey was conducted among adults with asthma or COPD who used budesonide/formoterol pMDI for ≥3 months prior to the formulary block and the new medication for ≥3 weeks after switching, recruited by providers in a research panel. Survey comprised both validated instruments (PASAPQ, OEQ, ACQ-6, and CAT) and stand-alone questions. Patient characteristics, switch experience, device and treatment satisfaction, onset of effect, and disease control were compared between disease (asthma and COPD) and medication (once and twice daily) cohorts. Minimal significance for group differences: P≤0.05.

RESULTS

Among 100 patients, 93% received communication from their doctor or nurse about the switch and 73% received training on using the new inhaler. Patients used their new treatment for an average of 7 months prior to completing the survey. Patient satisfaction with the new therapy was high (PASAPQ; mean overall satisfaction: 6.2 for asthma; 6.0 for COPD; P=0.338). However, asthma was not well controlled (ACQ-6) in 62% of patients with asthma, and 56% of patients with COPD reported high/very high impact of their illness on their lives (CAT). Sixty-eight percent and 70% of patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, required reliever medication (≥3 puffs) most days during the week prior to the survey. There were no significant differences in disease control (ACQ-6, CAT) between once-daily and twice-daily treatments (P>0.05 for both asthma and COPD).

CONCLUSION

Even when reporting satisfaction with their new medication, objective measures showed substantial morbidity, regardless of DPI device or dosing regimen.

Maintaining Control of Chronic Obstructive Airway Disease: Adherence to Inhaled Therapy and Risks and Benefits of Switching Devices

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are major obstructive airway diseases that involve underlying airway inflammation. The most widely used pharmacotherapies for asthma and COPD are inhaled agents that have been shown to be effective and safe in these patients. However, despite the availability of effective pharmacologic treatment and comprehensive treatment guidelines, the prevalence of inadequately controlled asthma and COPD is high. A main reason for this is poor adherence. Adherence is a big problem for all chronic diseases, but in asthma and COPD patients there are some additional difficulties because of poor inhalation technique and inhaler choice. Easier-to-use devices and educational strategies on proper inhaler use from health caregivers can improve inhaler technique. The type of device used and the concordance between patient and physician in the choice of inhaler can also improve adherence and are as important as the drug. Adherence to inhaled therapy is absolutely necessary for optimizing patient control. If disease control is not adequate despite good adherence, switching to a more appropriate inhaled therapy is recommended. By contrast, uninformed switching or switching to less user-friendly inhaler may impact disease control negatively. This critical review of the available literature is aimed to provide a guidance protocol on when a switch may be recommended in individual patients.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2 -agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in growth among children with asthma?

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the first choice of treatment for children with persistent asthma that is not well controlled when only a reliever inhaler is used to treat symptoms. Steroids work by reducing inflammation in the lungs and are known to control underlying symptoms of asthma. However, parents and physicians remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth.

REVIEW QUESTION

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in the growth of children with asthma? WHAT EVIDENCE DID WE FIND?: We studied whether a difference could be seen in the growth of children with persistent asthma who were using different doses of the same ICS molecule and the same delivery device. We found 22 eligible trials, but only 10 of them measured growth or other measures of interest. Overall, 3394 children included in the review combined 17 group comparisons (i.e. 17 groups of children with mild to moderate asthma using a particular dose and type of steroid in 10 trials). Trials used different ICS molecules (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) either on their own or in combination with a long-acting beta2 -agonist (a drug used to open up the airways) and generally compared low doses of corticosteroids (50 to 100 μg) with low to medium (200 μg) doses of corticosteroids (converted in μg HFA-beclomethasone equivalent) over 12 to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We found a small but statistically significant group difference in growth over 12 months between these different doses clearly favouring the lower dose of ICS. The type of corticosteroid among newer molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) did not seem to influence the impact on growth over one year. Differences in corticosteroid doses did not seem to affect the change in height, the gain in weight, the gain in bone mass index and the maturation of bones. QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE: This review is based on a small number of trials that reported data and were conducted on children with mild to moderate asthma. Only 10 of 22 studies measured the few outcomes of interest for this review, and only four comparisons reported growth over 12 months. Our confidence in the quality of evidence is high for this outcome, however it is low to moderate for several other outcomes, depending on the number of trials reporting these outcomes. Moreover, a few outcomes were reported only by a single trial; as these findings have not been confirmed by other trials, we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes to low quality. An insufficient number of trials have compared the effect of a larger difference in dose, for example, between a high dose and a low dose of ICS and of other popular molecules such as budesonide and beclomethasone over a year or longer of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We report an evidence-based ICS dose-dependent reduction in growth velocity in prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The choice of ICS molecule (mometasone, ciclesonide or fluticasone) was not found to affect the level of growth velocity response over a year. The effect of corticosteroids on growth was not consistently reported: among 22 eligible trials, only four comparisons reported the effects of corticosteroids on growth over one year. In view of parents' and clinicians' concerns, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth is a matter of concern given the importance of the topic. We recommend that growth be systematically reported in all trials involving children taking ICS for three months or longer. Until further data comparing low versus high ICS dose and trials of longer duration are available, we recommend that the minimal effective ICS dose be used in all children with asthma.

Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. COPD is characterized by poor treatment adherence, and patient medication preferences may contribute to adherence.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment with an internet panel drawn from the USA was used to evaluate preference and willingness to pay (WTP) of COPD patients for long-acting maintenance medications. Key attributes derived from earlier qualitative research (brief literature review and focus groups) with COPD patients on maintenance therapy included symptom relief, speed of feeling medication start to work, inhaler ease of use, rescue medication use, side effects, and monthly out-of-pocket co-pay. Patients were presented with hypothetical medications with different profiles and asked which they preferred. Utilities and marginal WTP in monthly co-pay dollars were estimated for all patients and by severity.

Results

Utilities for 515 participants were in the expected direction and highest for the most favorable attribute levels. Each attribute evaluated was important, and participants were willing to pay a premium to obtain each benefit. On average, WTP was as high as $US64 for complete symptom relief, $US59 for no side effects, $US32 to rarely use rescue medication, $US16 for a quick and easy to use inhaler, and $US13 for feeling medication work quickly (within 5 min; average WTP $US18/month for patients with severe/very severe COPD).

Conclusion

As expected, efficacy and safety were most valued by patients; however, this study showed that other COPD medication attributes, such as rescue medication, ease of use, and feeling medication work quickly, are also important in patient preferences.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

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.

Can patients with asthma feel inhaler therapy working right away? Two clinical trials testing the effect of timing of assessment on patient perception

BACKGROUND

Feeling a maintenance therapy work right away may provide positive reinforcement and may offer one way to improve adherence in patients with asthma. Precise measurement is required to accurately compare the presence of this effect across clinical trial treatment groups.

METHODS

Two randomized, controlled studies tested whether timing of assessment (daily vs weekly, study 1; and predose vs postdose, study 2) influenced patients' reports of whether they can feel a medication working right away (perception), and their satisfaction with this perception (satisfaction). These 2-week US-based multicenter double-blind, parallel-group studies included patients > or = 18 years of age with mild to moderate persistent asthma. In each, patients were randomized to one of two drugs with different onset profiles: budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg) twice daily or budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg) twice daily. Patients were further randomized to complete previously validated perception and satisfaction questions in a cross-over fashion, either daily and weekly (N = 123) or predose and postdose (N = 134). Patient surveys also assessed perceptions of the onset of effect of medication and their value of these perceptions.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in patients' reports of perception, either daily versus weekly or predose versus postdose. A statistically significant difference in satisfaction was found in study 1 only, favoring weekly recall (p < 0.05), with sensitivity analysis showing no difference by treatment group (p = 0.162). Across both studies, most patients (87%) who perceived their inhaler working right away (136 of 157 patients) identified positive airway sensations. Most patients reported that feeling their medication work right away is reassuring and would help them manage their asthma.

CONCLUSION

Assessment timing has no effect on patient response to the perception of feeling a medication working right away. Differences found in satisfaction levels reported with weekly versus daily recall were consistent across treatment groups, indicating that no bias was introduced in favor of either treatment group. Patients characterized the perception of feeling a maintenance therapy working right away as easier breathing and reported this perception as beneficial to patient self-care.

Development of the asthma treatment satisfaction measure

OBJECTIVE

Study aims were to develop and assess the measurement properties of a four-part treatment satisfaction measure for patients with asthma. The Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure (ATSM) incorporates specific attributes representing patient expectations, treatment preferences, self-reported treatment outcomes, and overall treatment satisfaction. This paper describes patients' ability to detect change in their satisfaction with asthma therapies using the ATSM.

METHODS

Adult patients with chronic asthma requiring a change in their asthma controller medications were recruited from sites in the US and Canada. Interviews were conducted with 22 patients to elicit areas important to patients in asthma treatment for measurement of satisfaction, providing the basis for the four-part questionnaire that was then tested for clarity. An additional 105 patients participated in the validation study and completed the first two parts of the ATSM (expectations and importance of treatment) at their initial visit (baseline) prior to a change in treatment. Parts 3 and 4 (treatment outcomes and treatment satisfaction) were completed after 4 weeks on the new treatment. A daily diary was completed by patients at home between visits. During clinical visits, patients also completed the Asthma Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Standardized version assessing HRQL (AQLQ(S)), the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ-6), a 9-item asthma symptom checklist, items assessing symptom severity, and a single item overall rating of satisfaction (numerical analog scale between 0 and 10). Derived total satisfaction scores were compared to scores produced by the single global treatment satisfaction item using score variation and distribution plots.

RESULTS

Qualitative results identified 11 key attributes of asthma treatment. Internal consistency for the expectations, outcomes, and satisfaction parts of the measures (11 items each) were 0.73, 0.82 and 0.95, respectively. ATSM scores were able to discriminate between control and lack of control measured by ACQ-6 scores (F = 30.09; p < 0.001); between improvement, no change, or worsening of symptoms using the 4-week diary (F = 7.05; p < 0.001); between mild, moderate and severe levels of self-reported severity of asthma (F = 2.07; p < 0.001); and levels of self-reported health status (F = 5.96; p < 0.001). Compared to the single overall satisfaction item, the ATSM satisfaction score demonstrated a broader and more normal distribution. Irrespective of the variety of treatment regimens being changed from and changed to in the normal care setting, 4 of the 11 attributes still detected statistically significant differences in (p < 0.05) levels of patient satisfaction related to their new asthma treatment regimen.

CONCLUSION

By augmenting a satisfaction rating with the constructs that help define satisfaction with treatment (expectation, importance and actual treatment experience), the ATSM scores demonstrated greater ability to detect changes in treatment and provide a potentially useful measurement system for pharmacologic evaluation. This study was conducted using a normal care setting to identify patients undergoing a change in treatment. Therefore, the main limitations were the inability to control for efficacy of treatment, and a relatively small sample. Several individual ATSM satisfaction scores were able to detect significant levels of patient satisfaction related to their treatment, while the global satisfaction scores were unable to detect any significant differences.

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

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

Interpreting clinical trial results of patient-perceived onset of effect in asthma: methods and results of a Delphi panel

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine if empirically observed differences in patient perception of, and satisfaction with, onset of effect between an active maintenance treatment and placebo are clinically meaningful to practicing clinicians. A secondary objective was to determine the lowest threshold for a clinically meaningful difference in terms of both between-group differences and maximum acceptable placebo effect.

METHODS

Twelve community-based healthcare professionals participated in a Delphi consensus panel. Panelists were provided with blinded results of two clinical trials showing statistically significant treatment effects for treatment A (budesonide/formoterol [Symbicort*]) over placebo in the proportion of patients who could perceive the medication working right away and the proportion of patients satisfied with this perception. Panelists were then asked to respond to a series of questions to identify a threshold for clinically important differences in patient-perceived onset of effect and satisfaction with speed of onset of effect. All expert panelists participated in two rounds of the Delphi process.

RESULTS

Panelists were unanimous in their conclusion that the statistically significant results from the two trials were clinically meaningful. According to these practitioners, the empirical results presented to them, showing that patients could feel a maintenance inhaler therapy work right away, were meaningful to clinical decision-making, and the attribute could potentially improve patient adherence with therapy. A group consensus was reached that a minimum active treatment response for these outcomes should range from 50% to 75% and be 2-3 times larger than the placebo response, with a maximum placebo effect of 26-40%.

CONCLUSION

A Delphi panel study of practitioners was used to establish a meaningful range of response and a minimal important difference for interpreting results of clinical trials in which patient perception of onset of effect and satisfaction with this perception are tested. While the views of this panel may not be generalized to the entire population of practitioners in the United States, results provide insight into how a typical practitioner is likely to view clinical trial results and how the information might be used in clinical practice.