Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations

Predictors of success/failure in the control of asthmatic smoking patients under conditions of clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking directly affects the airway, where it triggers a very strong local inflammatory response.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of improvement or worsening of asthma control in asthmatic smokers.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, multicenter, single cohort study, carried out in the outpatient pulmonology departments with a follow-up period of 6 months. The treatment was adjusted according to the indications of standard clinical practice.

RESULTS

196 patients were included, with a mean age of 54.64 years.39% of the patients were active smokers. Interpreting an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of ≤ 0.75 as asthma control, this was achieved in 30.2% of the cases. Patients with greater adherence were more likely to improve their asthma symptoms (p < 0.05), defined as a decrease in ACQ of 0.5 points or more at the final visit, while taking concomitant medication was a negative risk factor for improvement (p < 0.001). An eosinophil value >300 was a predictor for achieving control (p < 0.01). Patients treated with fluticasone propionate/formoterol versus those receiving budesonide/formoterol or beclomethasone/formoterol had a lower ACQ score (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Asthmatic patients with active tobacco exposure and a higher number of anti-asthma medications are more likely to have poorer control. Correct adherence to treatment is the main intervention to be performed to achieve the control. An eosinophil count greater than 300 was the main predictor for achieving control. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol FP/FORM was associated with a greater likelihood of improving ACQ score.

Fixed-dose combination fluticasone/formoterol for asthma treatment in a real-world setting: meta-analysis of exacerbation rates and asthma control

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for asthma management are derived almost exclusively from the results of controlled clinical trials undertaken in carefully selected patient populations; meaning that their outcomes may not reflect the true performance of treatments when used in general daily medical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to combine the results of observational studies investigating the fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) fixed-dose combination in real-world asthma patients.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was completed in March 2019 using the PubMed database. We identified 394 studies. Five studies, which included a total of 4756 patients treated with FP/FORM, were judged eligible and included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated severe asthma exacerbation rate was 11.47% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.72%), calculated from the random effect model. A sensitivity analysis excluding 2 studies (one was an outlier, and the exacerbation rate for the studied treatment alone could not be determined in the other) showed a 7.04% rate of severe asthma exacerbations. The estimated relative risk of the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.323 (95% CI, 0.159 to 0.658). The estimated asthma control rate was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.7% to 65.6%). The odds of achieving asthma control significantly increased by FP/FORM compared with pre-study conditions (estimated odds ratio: 2.214 [95% CI, 1.292 to 3.795]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis confirm the effectiveness of FP/FORM for the treatment of asthma patients in a real-world setting beyond the limitations of RCTs.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Administered via a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and a Novel Breath-Actuated Inhaler in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol) exposures, following administration of Flutiform^® K-haler^®, a breath-actuated inhaler (BAI), were compared with the Flutiform pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with/without spacer in two healthy volunteer studies. In addition, formoterol-induced systemic pharmacodynamic (PD) effects were examined in the second study. Methods: Study 1: single-dose, three-period, crossover pharmacokinetic (PK) study with oral charcoal administration. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg was administered via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI with spacer (pMDI+S). Pulmonary exposure for BAI was deemed no less than for pMDI (primary comparator) if the lower limit of 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) for BAI:pMDI maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt) ratios was ≥80%. Study 2: two-stage adaptive design, both stages being single-dose, crossover without charcoal administration. The PK stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S. The primary comparisons were as follows: BAI versus pMDI+S for fluticasone and BAI versus pMDI for formoterol. Systemic safety with BAI was deemed no worse than primary comparator if the upper limit of 94.12% CIs for Cmax and AUCt ratios was ≤125%. PD assessment was to be conducted if BAI safety was not confirmed in the PK stage. Based on PK results, only formoterol PD effects were evaluated. The PD stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 1500/60 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S; fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 μg pMDI; and formoterol 60 μg pMDI. The primary endpoint was maximum reduction in serum potassium within 4 hours postdose. Equivalence was defined as 95% CIs for BAI versus pMDI+S and pMDI ratios within 0.5-2.0. Results: Study 1: lower limit of 94.12% CIs for BAI:pMDI ratios >80%. Study 2, PK stage: upper limit of 94.12% CIs for fluticasone (BAI:pMDI+S) ratios <125%; upper limit of 94.12% CIs for formoterol (BAI:pMDI) ratios >125% (for Cmax, not AUCt). Study 2, PD stage: 95% CIs for serum potassium ratios 0.7-1.3 (BAI:pMDI+S) and 0.4-1.5 (BAI:pMDI). Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol BAI performance was within the range observed for the pMDI with/without a spacer. Sponsor: Mundipharma Research Ltd. EudraCT 2012-003728-19 (Study 1) and 2013-000045-39 (Study 2).

Tiotropium Add-On and Treatable Traits in Asthma-COPD Overlap: A Real-World Pilot Study

Purpose

The 'treatable traits' strategy for patients with chronic inflammatory airway diseases, especially asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is a focus of interest, because it implements precision and personalized medicine. Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), a phenotype involving both asthma and COPD, is an important disease entity because patients with ACO have significantly worse outcomes, conferring greater economical and social burdens. Some guidelines for ACO recommend add-on therapy of long-acting muscarinic antagonists to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2 agonists. However, this approach is based on extrapolation from patients with asthma or COPD alone. Consequently, a 'treatable traits' approach suitable for ACO remains obscure.

Methods

A 12-week open-label cross-over pilot study was conducted in patients with ACO to investigate the effect of tiotropium bromide (TIO) 5 µg/day add-on therapy to fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FM) 500/20 µg/day compared with FP/FM 500/20 µg/day alone. A 4-week run-in period and two 4-week treatment periods were included.

Results

A total of 18 male patients with stable ACO participated in this pilot study. All patients were ex-smokers. Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were 1.21 ± 0.49 L after the run-in period, 1.20 ± 0.51 L after the FP/FM combination therapy period, and 1.30 ± 0.48 L after the TIO add-on therapy to FP/FM period. FEV1 values after the TIO add-on therapy FP/FM period were significantly higher than those after the run-in period (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

TIO add-on therapy to FP/FM in patients with ACO, considered difficult to treat because of the presence of both asthma and COPD, resulted in improvements in lung function parameters in this real-world pilot study, indicating the potential value of TIO add-on therapy as a "treatable traits" option for standard treatment for ACO.

Treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients with asthma initiating treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients initiating inhaler treatment with fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-2-adrenergic agonists (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of asthma.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study conducted by review of electronic medical records (database: Fundación RediSS).

SETTING

Retrospective cohort study. The follow-up period was 1 year.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included patients aged ≥18 years who started treatment with ICS/LABA and met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study groups were fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/FORM), budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM), fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM). The main measurements were persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR) and exacerbations. Statistical significance was established as p<0.05.

RESULTS

In total, 3203 patients were recruited for the study. By groups, 31.1% FP/SAL, 28.6% BDP/FORM, 25.0% BUD/FORM, 8.2% FF/VI and 7.0% FP/FORM. The mean age was 52.2 years, 60.8% were female and 44.9% had persistent-moderate asthma. Treatment persistence was 61.7% (95% CI 60.0% to 63.4%) and by study group it was FP/SAL: 60.7%, BDP/FORM: 61.2%, BUD/FORM: 60.3%, FF/VI: 66.7% and FP/FORM: 67.6% (p=0.046). MPR by study group was FP/SAL: 74.3%, BDP/FORM: 73.8%, BUD/FORM: 74.6%, FF/VI: 79.4% and FP/FORM: 80.6% (p=0.028). The mortality rate was 2.9%. By treatment group, exacerbations were FP/SAL: 21.9% (95% CI 19.3% to 24.5%), BDP/FORM: 22.2% (95% CI 19.5% to 24.9%), BUD/FORM: 22.8% (95% CI 19.9% to 25.7%), FF/VI: 17.9% (95% CI 14.9% to 20.7%) and FP/FORM: 16.0% (95% CI 12.2% to 19.3%), p=0.036.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment with FP/FORM and FF/VI versus FP/SAL, BDP/FORM and BUD/FORM were associated with greater treatment adherence (persistence, MPR) and lower rates of exacerbations. However, further studies will be needed to strengthen the consistency of the results.

Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-blinded Double-dummy Clinical Trial

Background

Only a few studies directly compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of two pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) in asthma. We analyzed the asthma treatment outcomes, safety, and patient preferences using formoterol/beclomethasone (FORM/BDP), a pMDI with extra-fine particles, compared with formoterol/budesonide (FORM/BUD), another pMDI with non-extra-fine particles.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group study, 40 adult asthmatics were randomized to FORM/BDP group (n=18; active FORM/BDP and placebo FORM/BUD) or FORM/BUD group (n=22; active FORM/BUD and placebo FORM/BDP). During the two visits (baseline and end of 8-week treatment), subjects were asked to answer questionnaires including asthma control test (ACT), asthma control questionnaires (ACQ), and Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics (QLQAKA). Lung function, compliance with inhaler, and inhaler-handling skills were also assessed.

Results

Ten subjects in the FORM/BDP group and 14 in the FORM/BUD group completed follow-up visits. ACT, ACQ, QLQAKA (a primary outcome), and adverse events did not differ between two groups. We found that the increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity and forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of the pulmonary volume in the FORM/BDP group was higher than in the FORM/BUD group. Regarding preference, subjects responded that the flume velocity of FORM/BDP was higher, but more adequate than that of FORM/BUD. They also answered that FORM/BDP reached the trachea and bronchus and irritated them significantly more than FORM/BUD.

Conclusion

The use of pMDI with extra-fine particles may relieve small airway obstruction more than the one with non-extra-fine particles despite no significant differences in overall treatment outcomes. Some asthmatics have a misconception about the adequacy of high flume velocity of pMDIs.

Perspective on the Budgetary Impact of FP/FORM pMDI on Treatment and Management of Exacerbation in Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients in Singapore

Purpose

Reducing the risk of exacerbation is a long-term goal of managing moderate-to-severe asthma. The use of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FORM) pressurized metered-dose (pMDI, Flutiform^®), a type of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination, has been associated with lower oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbation rates than other ICS/LABA fixed-dose combinations, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/FORM). This study presents the first budget impact analysis of drug and exacerbation management cost savings associated with the increased access to FP/FORM compared to the currently available ICS/LABAs for treating moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore.

Patients and Methods

A budget impact model showed changes to annual drug and exacerbation costs over 5 years for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore, following the inclusion of FP/FORM on a government subsidy list. The eligible patient population was identified based on national statistics data. Different treatment costs pertaining to the population were applied according to the usage data (IQVIA Singapore National Sales Data) for different scenarios. Drug costs were obtained from public-sector hospitals. Exacerbation management costs were obtained from literature searches.

Results

The analysis showed that increased access to FP/FORM as a result of switching from FP/SAL could help achieve drug (S$1,042,289) and exacerbation management (S$223,550) cost savings over 5 years. In the scenario where patients switched from BUD/FORM, greater drug (S$2,572,797) and exacerbation management (S$256,781) cost savings were observed over 5 years.

Conclusion

The analysis provides a perspective that the increased access to FP/FORM could help achieve drug and exacerbation cost savings for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma.

Systematic Literature Review of Systemic Corticosteroid Use for Asthma Management

Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010–2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12–17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage.

Independent roles of beta-adrenergic and glucocorticoid receptors in systemic and pulmonary effects of ozone

Background: The release of catecholamines is preceded by glucocorticoids during a stress response. We have shown that ozone-induced pulmonary responses are mediated through the activation of stress hormone receptors.Objective: To examine the interdependence of beta-adrenergic (βAR) and glucocorticoid receptors (GRs), we inhibited βAR while inducing GR or inhibited GR while inducing βAR and examined ozone-induced stress response.Methods: Twelve-week-old male Wistar-Kyoto rats were pretreated daily with saline or propranolol (PROP; βAR-antagonist; 10 mg/kg-i.p.; starting 7-d prior to exposure) followed-by saline or dexamethasone (DEX) sulfate (GR-agonist; 0.02 mg/kg-i.p.; starting 1-d prior to exposure) and exposed to air or 0.8 ppm ozone (4 h/d × 2-d). In a second experiment, rats were similarly pretreated with corn-oil or mifepristone (MIFE; GR-antagonist, 30 mg/kg-s.c.) followed by saline or clenbuterol (CLEN; β₂AR-agonist; 0.02 mg/kg-i.p.) and exposed.Results: DEX and PROP + DEX decreased adrenal, spleen and thymus weights in all rats. DEX and MIFE decreased and increased corticosterone, respectively. Ozone-induced pulmonary protein leakage, inflammation and IL-6 increases were inhibited by PROP or PROP + DEX and exacerbated by CLEN or CLEN + MIFE. DEX and ozone-induced while MIFE reversed lymphopenia (MIFE > CLEN + MIFE). DEX exacerbated while PROP, MIFE, or CLEN + MIFE inhibited ozone-induced hyperglycemia and glucose intolerance. Ozone inhibited glucose-mediated insulin release.Conclusions: In summary, 1) activating βAR, even with GR inhibition, exacerbated and inhibiting βAR, even with GR activation, attenuated ozone-induced pulmonary effects; and 2) activating GR exacerbated ozone systemic effects, but with βAR inhibition, this exacerbation was less remarkable. These data suggest the independent roles of βAR in pulmonary and dependent roles of βAR and GR in systemic effects of ozone.

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for paediatric asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) for paediatric asthma remains controversial.

Aim

We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma.

Material and methods

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

Results

Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for paediatric asthma, FP/FORM and FP/SAL demonstrate a comparable influence on FEVj (Std. MD = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03; p = 0.62), FVC (Std. MD = 0; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.87), FEF25 (Std. MD = -1.69; 95% CI: -6.69 to 3.31; p = 0.51), FEF50 (Std. MD = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.33; p = 0.37), FEF75 (Std. MD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.24; p = 0.91), asthma symptom scores (Std. MD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.04; p = 0.43), sleep disturbance scores (Std. MD = 0.03; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.24; p = 0.81) and adverse events (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.38; p = 0.61).

Conclusions

FP/FORM and FP/SAL show a comparable efficacy for paediatric asthma.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in treating pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during a 12-week treatment cycle.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL in treating pediatric asthma were searched systematically using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

Results

Two articles including 546 patients were evaluated. The FP/SAL group showed obvious improvements in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) from day 0 to 84, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores compared with the FP/FORM group; however, the FP/FORM group had improved peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). In terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ from day 0 to 84, 2-hour forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and 2-hour forced vital capacity, we observed no significant differences between the two groups. For safety, including patients with at least one adverse event, bronchitis, cough, or pharyngitis, both groups had similar incidences, differing only in incidence of nasopharyngitis.

Conclusion

Compared with FP/FORM, FP/SAL showed a clear improvement in pre-dose FEV₁, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores. However, FP/FORM resulted in improved PEFR with a lower incidence of nasopharyngitis.

An innovative corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist breath-triggered inhaler: facilitating lung delivery of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate for the treatment of asthma

Introduction: Incorrect inhaler technique is one reason why the efficacies of inhaled asthma treatments in clinical trials and effectiveness in the real world differ. Inhaler technique is critical for drug delivery to the lungs; incorrect technique negatively impacts asthma control and long-term outcomes. Breath-triggered inhalers (BTIs) can simplify drug administration and are suitable for most patients, including those with reduced inspiratory flow. Until recently, no inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination BTI was available in Europe. The flutiform® (fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate [FP/FORM]) k-haler® is the first combination BTI now approved in Europe for asthma maintenance treatment.Areas covered: We review studies examining the challenges posed to patients by different inhaler types and explore evidence demonstrating the clinical efficacy of FP/FORM administered via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. We also review the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies supporting FP/FORM k-haler use, and consider data showing high lung deposition with the device. Finally, we review patient experiences using the BTI, device characteristics, and health economic aspects.Expert opinion: Despite the availability of therapies, asthma control levels remain low, and there is a clear need for easy-to-use inhalers. Research to increase our understanding of critical errors with each inhaler and how to overcome them is important for improving care.Abbreviations: AUC_t: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration; BDP: beclometasone dipropionate; BTI: breath-triggered inhaler; BUD: budesonide; CI: confidence interval; C_max: maximum observed plasma concentration; DPI: dry powder inhaler; FDC: fixed-dose combination; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FORM: formoterol fumarate; FP: fluticasone propionate; HCP: health-care professional; ICS: inhaled corticosteroid; LABA: long-acting β₂-agonist; OR: odds ratio; PIL: patient information leaflet; pMDI: pressurized metered-dose inhaler; SAL: salmeterol xinafoate.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management

Introduction:

In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform^®) was conducted.

Methods:

This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.

Results:

The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusion:

In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Pulmonary deposition of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in healthy volunteers, asthmatics and COPD patients with a novel breath-triggered inhaler

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) has been incorporated within a novel, breath-triggered device, named K-haler^®. This low resistance device requires a gentle inspiratory effort to actuate it, triggering at an inspiratory flow rate of approximately 30 L/min; thus avoiding the need for coordination of inhalation with manual canister depression. The aim of the study was to evaluate total and regional pulmonary deposition of FP/FORM when administered via the K-haler device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve healthy subjects, 12 asthmatics, and 12 COPD patients each received a single dose of 2 puffs ^99mtechnetium-labelled FP/FORM 125/5 μg. A gamma camera was used to obtain anterior and posterior two-dimensional images of drug deposition. Prior transmission scans (using a^99mtechnetium flood source) allowed the definition of regions of interest and calculation of attenuation correction factors. Image analysis was performed per standardised methods.

RESULTS

Of 36 subjects, 35 provided evaluable post-dose scintigraphic data. Mean subject ages were 35.7 (healthy), 44.5 (asthma) and 61.7 years (COPD); mean FEV₁% predicted values were 109.8%, 77.4% and 43.2%, respectively. Mean pulmonary deposition was 26.6% (healthy), 44.7% (asthma), 39.0% (COPD) of the delivered dose. The respective mean penetration indices (peripheral:central ratio normalised to a transmission lung scan) were 0.44, 0.31 and 0.30.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM administration via the K-haler device resulted in high lung deposition in patients with obstructive lung disease but somewhat lesser deposition in healthy subjects. Regional deposition data demonstrated drug deposition in both the central and peripheral regions in all subject populations.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2015-000744-42.

[Persistence to treatment and resources use with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of corticosteroids and long-acting β-adrenergic agonists for the treatment of asthma: A population-based retrospective study]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the persistence, exacerbations, and use of resources in patients who use inhaler treatment with fluticasone propionate/formoterol (PF/Form) in relation with other combinations of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-adrenergic (ICS/LABA) at fixed doses, for the treatment of asthma in real-life practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational study conducted by reviewing medical records. The study included subjects ≥18 years of age who started treatment with ICS/LABA and who met certain inclusion/exclusion criteria. The follow-up was carried out for one year. Study groups: a) PF/Form and b) Other-combinations (Other-ICS/LABA).

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), exacerbations, and costs (direct/indirect). The statistical analysis was performed using regression models, with a P<.05.

RESULTS

A total of 3,203 patients were included in the study. By groups: a) FP/Form: 7.0% and b) Other-ICS/LABA: 93.0%. The mean age was 52.2 years, and 60.8% were women. A total of 44.9% of patients had persistent-moderate asthma. Patients under treatment with FP/Form were associated with greater persistence (67.6 vs. 61.2%, P=.043), a higher RPM (80.6 vs. 74.3%, P=.002), and less exacerbations (16.0 vs. 21.9%, P=.021), particularly severe-exacerbations (4.0 vs. 7.7%, P=.043). The mean/unit of the total cost (ANCOVA) was lower in patients under treatment with PF/Form (2,033 vs. € 2,486, P=.012), respectively. The total cost was associated with: Exacerbations (β=0.618), asthma-severity (β=0.214), age (β=0.073), and lack-adherence (RPM: β=-0.031), P<.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment with PF/Form were associated with greater adherence to treatment (persistence, RPM), a circumstance that leads to less severe exacerbations and total costs for the national health system. These differences could be due to the pharmacological properties of the drug or other factors not measured.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Real-life effectiveness of asthma treatment with a fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler - Results from a non-interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, non-interventional study of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) across a spectrum of community-based patients with asthma in a real-life setting.

METHODS

In FP/FORM-treated patients aged ≥12 years, asthma control (Asthma Control Test™ [ACT]), incidence of severe exacerbations, lung function, quality of life (asthma quality of life questionnaire [AQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over one year.

RESULTS

Almost 40% (n = 555) of the full analysis population (N = 1410) were receiving ICS/LABA therapy prior to enrolment; 69.8% completed the study. Asthma control (mean ACT ± standard deviation) improved from 16.3 ± 5.0 at baseline to 19.8 ± 4.5 at study end. ACT scores were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than baseline at all observation timepoints, including the first assessment at 4-6 weeks. The percentage of patients with asthma control increased (baseline: 30.9%; study end: 62.4%), and the percentage of patients with ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation decreased (12 months before: 35.8%; during study: 5.9%). Lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow) improved from baseline to each observation timepoint (p < 0.0001 for all). Improvement in asthma status was accompanied by ameliorated quality of life: AQLQ scores improved significantly from baseline to all observation timepoints (p < 0.0001 for all). AEs accorded with the summary of product characteristics. After study completion, 70% of patients continued FP/FORM treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this one-year study, FP/FORM treatment was associated with clinically relevant improvements in asthma status in a diverse population of patients under real-life conditions.

A Randomized, Crossover Trial Evaluating Patient Handling, Preference, and Ease of Use of the Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Breath-Triggered Inhaler

BACKGROUND

Appropriate inhaler selection is of fundamental importance in obstructive lung disease management. Key factors in device selection include a patient's capacity to operate a particular device and their preference for it.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study (NCT01739387) compared the ability of adolescent and adult patients with obstructive lung disease to correctly handle the fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform^®) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and FP/FORM K-haler^®, a novel breath-triggered inhaler (BTI), following a simple, standardized training regimen. The primary endpoint was the ability to perform all steps correctly at the first attempt. Secondary endpoints included the ability to perform all critical steps correctly at the first attempt, the requisite number of attempts to successfully use the inhaler, the ability to be trained within 15 minutes, and the ability to trigger the K-haler BTI to actuate at the first attempt. Ease of device use and device preference versus patients' usual maintenance inhalers were also assessed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

At the first attempt, an identical proportion (77.2% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1, 81.8]) of 307 patients performed all pMDI and K-haler BTI handling steps correctly, whereas the corresponding proportions performing all critical steps correctly were 82.4% (95% CIs: 77.7, 86.5) and 87.0% (95% CI: 82.7, 90.5), respectively. For both devices, >90% of patients required only two attempts to master device usage; >99% of patients could be trained to correctly use each device within 15 minutes. Virtually all patients (99.0% [95% CIs: 97.2, 99.8]) were able to successfully trigger the K-haler BTI's dose-release mechanism at first attempt. Ease of use and preference data for FP/FORM pMDI challenged the perceived wisdom that dry powder inhalers are necessarily simpler to use, whereas the corresponding data for FP/FORM K-haler strongly favored this novel BTI over the Turbuhaler^®, Accuhaler^®, and other pMDIs.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

Formoterol and fluticasone propionate combination improves histone deacetylation and anti-inflammatory activities in bronchial epithelial cells exposed to cigarette smoke

BACKGROUND

The addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) to corticosteroids improves asthma control. Cigarette smoke exposure, increasing oxidative stress, may negatively affect corticosteroid responses. The anti-inflammatory effects of formoterol (FO) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in human bronchial epithelial cells exposed to cigarette smoke extracts (CSE) are unknown.

AIMS

This study explored whether FP, alone and in combination with FO, in human bronchial epithelial cellline (16-HBE) and primary bronchial epithelial cells (NHBE), counteracted some CSE-mediated effects and in particular some of the molecular mechanisms of corticosteroid resistance.

METHODS

16-HBE and NHBE were stimulated with CSE, FP and FO alone or combined. HDAC3 and HDAC2 activity, nuclear translocation of GR and NF-κB, pERK1/2/tERK1/2 ratio, IL-8, TNF-α, IL-1β mRNA expression, and mitochondrial ROS were evaluated. Actin reorganization in neutrophils was assessed by fluorescence microscopy using the phalloidin method.

RESULTS

In 16-HBE, CSE decreased expression/activity of HDAC3, activity of HDAC2, nuclear translocation of GR and increased nuclear NF-κB expression, pERK 1/2/tERK1/2 ratio, and mRNA expression of inflammatory cytokines. In NHBE, CSE increased mRNA expression of inflammatory cytokines and supernatants from CSE exposed NHBE increased actin reorganization in neutrophils. FP combined with FO reverted all these phenomena in CSE stimulated 16-HBE cells as well as in NHBE cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides compelling evidences that FP combined with FO may contribute to revert some processes related to steroid resistance induced by oxidative stress due to cigarette smoke exposure increasing the anti-inflammatory effects of FP.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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