Therapeutic comparison of a new budesonide/formoterol pMDI with budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol DPI in asthma

High inhaler resistance does not limit successful inspiratory maneuver among patients with asthma or COPD

INTRODUCTION

There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.

AREAS COVERED

For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.

SMART - is it practical in the United States?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Impact of choice of inhalers for asthma care on global carbon footprint and societal costs: a long-term economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

While effective asthma control medications reduce the burden of asthma, a significant subgroup of these treatments, namely metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), produce substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, thus contributing to climate change. This study quantified the global climate impact (i.e. carbon dioxide equivalent [CO₂e] emissions) and costs of long-term status quo asthma inhaler use versus alternative scenarios substituting MDIs with propellant-free dry powder inhalers (DPIs).

METHODS

Three scenarios were evaluated across 10-year (2020-2030) and 50-year (2020-2070) time horizons: A (status quo inhaler use), B and C (2% and 5% year-over-year substitution of MDIs with DPIs, respectively). Global inhaler volumes and costs at baseline were sourced from IQVIA, then projected using UN and WHO trends in per capita GDP, urbanization, and asthma population growth. Inhaler spending was assumed to fall by 90% following generic entry in 2030. The carbon footprint per inhaler and health damage factors for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were derived from literature. The US government's central and high-impact estimates for the social cost of carbon (SCC) were used to calculate emissions costs.

RESULTS

Over 50 years, scenario A resulted in 826 million tonnes of CO₂e emissions globally, with an associated SCC between 21% and 65% of the projected global spending on asthma inhalers. In comparison, CO₂e emissions were reduced by 38% and 58% in Scenarios B and C, respectively, and DALYs improved by 33 and 51%. Depending on SCC estimates, Scenarios B and C increased global costs by 7.3% and 16.5%, respectively (central SCC), or decreased costs by 4.2% and 2.6% (high-impact SCC) versus Scenario A. Over 10 years, Scenario A resulted in 97 million tonnes of CO₂e emissions globally, with an associated SCC between 4.4% and 12.2% of projected spending. In comparison, Scenarios B and C were associated with 12% and 24% reductions in CO₂e emissions and improvements in DALYs by 11.5% and 22.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Global efforts by environmental and health-policy decision-makers to substitute currently available MDIs with DPIs for asthma control would result in substantial reductions in GHG emissions with manageable costs, or potential cost savings, depending on the SCC. Policies that decrease use of MDIs warrant global attention.

Budesonide/Fomoterol in combination with Montelukast in the treatment of Bronchial Asthma

Objective:

To analyze the clinical effect of budesonide/fomoterol combined with montelukast in the treatment of chronic persistent asthma.

Methods:

Ninety-four patients with asthma who came to our hospital for treatment from April 2017 to April 2019 were randomly divided into control group and observation group, with 47 patients in each group. The control group was treated with budesonide/formoterol, and the observation group was treated with montelukast on the basis of the control group. The treatment effect of the two groups was observed and compared.

Results:

The total efficacy rate of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P<0.05); the daytime symptom score and nighttime symptom score of the observation group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). The pulmonary function indexes of the two groups after treatment were significantly higher than that before treatment, and the improvement of the observation group was more significant (P<0.05); the FeNO and EO levels of the observation group after treatment were superior to those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Budesonide/formoterol powder inhalation combined with montelukast can effectively improve the lung function, reduce the level of inflammatory factors, and accelerate the regression of symptoms in the treatment of chronic persistent asthma. It is worth clinical application.

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.

Management of acute loss of asthma control: yellow zone strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma exacerbations are associated with a significant burden to both the individual patient and to the healthcare system. Patients often step-up home therapies in response to increased asthma symptoms, and the asthma action plan was created to empower patients to self-manage their asthma care. The yellow (intermediate) zone of the asthma action plan is frequently poorly defined, and current Expert Panel Report 3 guideline recommendations are not effective for all patients. This article reviews the evidence behind various recommended yellow zone intervention strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are many potential methods of delivering yellow zone therapy, and recent studies have assessed preventive efficacy of a scheduled increase in controller medication(s), reliever medication(s), or a symptom-driven combination of both. The literature suggests that, in certain asthma subpopulations, some methods may be more efficacious than others.

SUMMARY

Multiple yellow zone approaches may be beneficial, and the yellow zone is not a 'one size fits all' narrative.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of Co-Suspension Delivery Technology Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate (BGF MDI) and Budesonide/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate (BFF MDI) Fixed-Dose Combinations Compared With an Active Control: A Phase 1, Randomized, Single-Dose, Crossover Study in Healthy Adults

This randomized, phase 1, single-dose, crossover study (NCT02189304) compared the 12-hour pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) 320/14.4/10 μg and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BFF) MDI 320/10 μg (both formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology) to an active comparator (budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler [BUD/FORM DPI] 320/9-μg delivered dose) in healthy adults. The potential for PK interaction between glycopyrronium and budesonide/formoterol within BGF MDI was assessed. Of 72 subjects randomized, 59 completed treatment. Systemic budesonide exposure (primary objective) based on area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve 0-12 hours (AUC_0-12 ; % coefficient of variation) was 1598.38 (49.7), 1657.09 (50.4), and 1276.75 (70.4) pg·h/mL for BGF MDI, BFF MDI, and BUD/FORM DPI, respectively; and formoterol exposure (AUC_0-12 [% coefficient of variation]) was 39.16 (45.9), 39.53 (40.5), and 23.24 (59.2) pg·h/mL, respectively. BGF MDI and BFF MDI were bioequivalent for budesonide and formoterol. All treatments were well tolerated. While systemic exposure to budesonide and formoterol was higher for BGF MDI and BFF MDI than for BUD/FORM DPI, there were no appreciable differences in the incidence of pharmacologically predictable adverse events. This, coupled with the absence of PK interactions, suggests the BGF MDI safety profile will be comparable to BUD/FORM DPI.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting β-Agonists as Controller and Quick Relief Therapy With Exacerbations and Symptom Control in Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Combined use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) as the controller and the quick relief therapy termed single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) is a potential therapeutic regimen for the management of persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of SMART in patients with persistent asthma.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception through August 2016 and updated through November 28, 2017. Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating SMART vs inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA used as the controller therapy and short-acting β-agonists as the relief therapy for patients aged 5 years or older with persistent asthma and reporting on an outcome of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength of evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

The analyses included 16 randomized clinical trials (N = 22 748 patients), 15 of which evaluated SMART as a combination therapy with budesonide and formoterol in a dry-powder inhaler. Among patients aged 12 years or older (n = 22 524; mean age, 42 years; 14 634 [65%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.80]; RD, -6.4% [95% CI, -10.2% to -2.6%]) and a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98]; RD, -2.8% [95% CI, -5.2% to -0.3%]). Similar results were seen when SMART was compared with inhaled corticosteroids alone as the controller therapy. Among patients aged 4 to 11 years (n = 341; median age, 8 [range, 4-11] years; 69 [31%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94]; RD, -12.0% [95% CI, -22.5% to -1.5%]) or the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.63]; RD, -23.2% [95% CI, -33.6% to -12.1%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of patients with persistent asthma, the use of single maintenance and reliever therapy compared with inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (with or without a long-acting β-agonist) and short-acting β-agonists as the relief therapy was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations. Evidence for patients aged 4 to 11 years was limited.

Advances in device and formulation technologies for pulmonary drug delivery

Inhaled pharmaceuticals are formulated and delivered differently according to the therapeutic indication. However, specific device-formulation coupling is often fickle, and new medications or indications also demand new strategies. The discontinuation of chlorofluorocarbon propellants has seen replacement of older metered dose inhalers with dry powder inhaler formulations. High-dose dry powder inhalers are increasingly seen as an alternative dosage form for nebulised medications. In other cases, new medications have completely bypassed conventional inhalers and been formulated for use with unique inhalers such as the Staccato® device. Among these different devices, integration of software and electronic assistance has become a shared trend. This review covers recent device and formulation advances that are forming the current landscape of inhaled therapeutics.

Development of Budesonide Loaded Biopolymer Based Dry Powder Inhaler: Optimization, In Vitro Deposition, and Cytotoxicity Study

The progress in the development of DPI technology has boosted the use of sensitive drug molecules for lung diseases. However, delivery of these molecules from conventional DPI to the active site still poses a challenge with respect to deposition efficiency in the lung. At same time, serious systemic side effects of drugs have become a cause for concern. The developed budesonide loaded biopolymer based controlled release DPI had shown maximum in vitro lung deposition with least toxicity. The subject of present study, lactose-free budesonide loaded biopolymer based DPI, further corroborates the great potential of antiasthmatic drugs. This technology is expected to revolutionize the approaches towards enhanced therapeutic delivery of prospective drugs.

Real-world effects of two inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

There are several inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations currently used to treat asthmatic patients, but the differences in the clinical effects of these ICS/LABAs are currently unknown. We herein evaluated the effects of two currently available ICS/LABA combinations in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combined Discus inhaler (FP/SM; 250/50 μg bid) was switched to a budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler inhaler (BUD/FM; 160/4.5 μg two inhalations bid) and FP/SM (500/50 μg bid) was also switched to BUD/FM (160/4.5 μg four inhalations bid) in symptomatic asthmatic patients treated with FP/SM over 20 years of age.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled in this study, and the scores of the asthma control test (ACT) and asthma control questionnaire-5 item version (ACQ5) were significantly improved 4 and 8 weeks after the switch to ICS/LABA treatments, and well-controlled asthma (ACQ5 score <0.75) and good control (ACT score >20) was achieved in 54 (90%) and 40 (66.7%) patients, respectively, at 8 weeks. The spirometric analysis revealed significant improvements of the values of the peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after switching from FP/SM to BUD/FM, and significantly improved small airway impairments ([Formula: see text]50 and [Formula: see text]25) were observed in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA. These subjective and objective improvements were also seen in patients aged over 65 years old.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrated that changing the combined ICS/LABA inhaler from FP/SM to BUD/FM can lead to more effective management of symptomatic patients with asthma, especially in patients treated with high-dose ICS/LABA.

Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Asthma outcomes: exacerbations

BACKGROUND

The goals of asthma treatment include preventing recurrent exacerbations. Yet there is no consensus about the terminology for describing or defining "exacerbation" or about how to characterize an episode's severity.

OBJECTIVE

National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to propose how asthma exacerbation should be assessed as a standardized asthma outcome in future asthma clinical research studies.

METHODS

We used comprehensive literature reviews and expert opinion to compile a list of asthma exacerbation outcomes and classified them as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at a National Institutes of Health-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011.

RESULTS

No dominant definition of "exacerbation" was found. The most widely used definitions included 3 components, all related to treatment, rather than symptoms: (1) systemic use of corticosteroids, (2) asthma-specific emergency department visits or hospitalizations, and (3) use of short-acting β-agonists as quick-relief (sometimes referred to as "rescue" or "reliever") medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The working group participants propose that the definition of "asthma exacerbation" be "a worsening of asthma requiring the use of systemic corticosteroids to prevent a serious outcome." As core outcomes, they propose inclusion and separate reporting of several essential variables of an exacerbation. Furthermore, they propose the development of a standardized, component-based definition of "exacerbation" with clear thresholds of severity for each component.

New approaches to managing asthma: a US perspective

Despite remarkable advances in diagnosis and long-term management, asthma remains a serious public health concern. Newly updated expert guidelines emphasize the intra- and inter-individual variability of asthma and highlight the importance of periodic assessment of asthma control. These guidelines update recommendations for step-wise asthma treatment, address the burgeoning field of asthma diagnostics, and stress the importance of a patient and health care professional partnership, including written action plans and self monitoring. The field of asthma therapeutics is expanding rapidly, with promising new treatment options available or in development that may address some of the existing barriers to successful asthma management. These approaches simplify treatment, use combinations of agents in one delivery device that have complementary actions, or target specific pathways involved in asthma patho-physiology. Considerable activity is taking place in asthma pharmacogenetics. This review provides an overview of these new approaches to managing asthma, including their present status and future potential.

Nanosized rods agglomerates as a new approach for formulation of a dry powder inhaler

Background:

Nanosized dry powder inhalers provide higher stability for poorly water-soluble drugs as compared with liquid formulations. However, the respirable particles must have a diameter of 1–5 μm in order to deposit in the lungs. Controlled agglomeration of the nanoparticles increases their geometric particle size so they can deposit easily in the lungs. In the lungs, they fall apart to reform nanoparticles, thus enhancing the dissolution rate of the drugs. Theophylline is a bronchodilator with poor solubility in water.

Methods:

Nanosized theophylline colloids were formed using an amphiphilic surfactant and destabilized using dilute sodium chloride solutions to form the agglomerates.

Results:

The theophylline nanoparticles thus obtained had an average particle size of 290 nm and a zeta potential of −39.5 mV, whereas the agglomerates were 2.47 μm in size with a zeta potential of −28.9 mV. The release profile was found to follow first-order kinetics (r² > 0.96). The aerodynamic characteristics of the agglomerated nanoparticles were determined using a cascade impactor. The behavior of the agglomerate was significantly better than unprocessed raw theophylline powder. In addition, the nanoparticles and agglomerates resulted in a significant improvement in the dissolution of theophylline.

Conclusion:

The results obtained lend support to the hypothesis that controlled agglomeration strategies provide an efficient approach for the delivery of poorly water-soluble drugs into the lungs.

Budesonide/formoterol combination in COPD: a US perspective

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable disease of the lung caused primarily by exposure to cigarette smoke. Clinically, it presents with progressive cough, sputum production, dyspnea, reduced exercise capacity, and diminished quality of life. Physiologically, it is characterized by the presence of partially reversible expiratory airflow limitation and hyperinflation. Pathologically, COPD is a multicomponent disease characterized by bronchial submucosal mucous gland hypertrophy, bronchiolar mucosal hyperplasia, increased luminal inflammatory mucus, airway wall inflammation and scarring, and alveolar wall damage and destruction. Management of COPD involves both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. Bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids are recommended medications for management of COPD especially in more severe disease. Combination therapies containing these medications are now available for the chronic management of stable COPD. The US Food and Drug Administration, recently, approved the combination of budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg; Symbicort™, AstraZeneca, Sweden) delivered via a pressurized meter dose inhaler for maintenance management of stable COPD. The combination also is delivered via dry powder inhaler (Symbicort™ and Turbuhaler™, AstraZeneca, Sweden) but is not approved for use in the United States. In this review, we evaluate available data of the efficacy and safety of this combination in patients with COPD.

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.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes during treatment with adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in patients with asthma

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes is important in evaluating the impact of asthma treatment. This study was conducted to compare effects of adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler with fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler regimens on patient-reported outcomes in patients aged > or =18 years with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

In this phase III, randomized, open-label study, 1225 patients were randomized 2:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 mug) twice daily or fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 microg twice daily for 1 month. In the subsequent 6 months, patients receiving fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol continued therapy, whereas those receiving fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose or adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol (adjustable from 320/9 microg twice daily to 320/9 microg once daily or 640/18 microg twice daily).

RESULTS

Mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardized) overall and individual domain scores and the Asthma Control Questionnaire score were clinically important (> or =0.5 points) for all treatments. Patients in both budesonide/formoterol groups reported greater treatment satisfaction on the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure questionnaire than patients in the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler group for the attributes of timely relief of symptoms (p < or = .037) and feel medication working (p < or = .020). Onset of Effect Questionnaire scores showed a greater percentage of patients perceiving onset of effect with budesonide/formoterol regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (p < or = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment regimens did not differ regarding improvements in asthma-specific quality of life and asthma control. Questions related to perceived rate of onset and feeling medication working in the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure and Onset of Effect Questionnaire generally elicited somewhat more favorable responses with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler.

Single-inhaler combination therapy for maintenance and relief of asthma: a new strategy in disease management

When an adequate standard of asthma control is not achieved with maintenance treatment of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of a long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic receptor agonist (LABA) bronchodilator is recommended. Using a combination product, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide or Advair) or budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) is preferred for convenience and avoids any risk that LABA might be used as monotherapy. As formoterol has a rapid onset of bronchodilator effect, the budesonide/formoterol combination can be used for both the maintenance and reliever components of asthma treatment (Symbicort SMART) and this is endorsed as an effective treatment by the Global Initiative for Asthma. The efficacy of this approach has been evaluated in a series of well conducted, controlled studies. Current control of asthma symptoms is improved or achieved with reduced total dose administration with Symbicort SMART compared with any reasonable alternate option. In every study, the risk of severe exacerbations was lower with Symbicort SMART than comparator treatment. Patients who benefit to the greatest extent are those with evidence of more severe asthma and greater exacerbation risk. When initiated in suitable patients in conjunction with appropriate education, Symbicort SMART is dominant in pharmacoeconomic terms. Symbicort SMART delivers improved asthma outcomes with lower treatment and social costs than any alternative.

Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)].Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Budesonide/Formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler

*The corticosteroid budesonide and the long-acting [beta]2-adrenoceptor agonist formoterol have been combined into a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for use in patients aged > or =12 years with asthma. *In well designed 12-week clinical trials in patients with mild to moderate or moderate to severe persistent asthma, lung function improved to a significantly greater extent with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160 [micro]g/9 [micro]g or 320 [micro]g/9 [micro]g than with placebo or the same nominal dosage of either of the components alone. *Budesonide/formoterol pMDI was also associated with improvements from baseline in patient-reported asthma control, asthma symptom and asthma-related quality of life outcomes that were significantly greater than those with placebo and, for many endpoints, monotherapy with the individual components. *In a 52-week safety study, treatment with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320 [micro]g/9 [micro]g was associated with rapid and durable improvements in lung function and asthma control that were significantly greater than those with twice-daily budesonide pMDI 640 [micro]g monotherapy. *Budesonide/formoterol pMDI was well tolerated in clinical trials. Its overall adverse event profile is consistent with the known tolerability profiles of long-acting [beta]2-adrenoceptor agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and is similar to that shown with placebo.

Budesonide/formoterol decreases expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor 1 within airway remodelling in asthma

INTRODUCTION

Angiogenesis and microvascular remodelling may play a vital role in the chronic inflammatory process within asthma. One of the most important factors involved in angiogenesis is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). In this study we hypothesised that an increased expression of VEGF may be involved in airway remodelling in asthma patients. To this end, we compared the histology and expression levels of VEGF and one of its receptors (VEGFR1) in bronchial tissues of patients with asthma compared with control patients. We also investigated the effect of treatment with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort; AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden) in the relationship between VEGF and airway remodelling.

METHODS

Bronchial tissues were obtained from patients attending the West China Hospital from April to November 2006. Thirteen patients were diagnosed with moderate asthma and 10 others were treated as control. Histological and immunohistochemical comparisons between asthmatic and control patients were made at baseline, and (for asthmatic subjects) following 6 months of treatment with budesonide/formoterol.

RESULTS

Compared with control patients, asthmatic patients had significantly decreased respiratory parameters, including forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) (% predictive). Furthermore, patients with asthma had submucosal gland hyperplasia, increased smooth muscle mass, increased subepithelial fibrosis and neovascularisation. Asthmatic patients also exhibited increased expression of VEGF and VEGFR1 within epithelial cells. The increased expression of VEGF and its receptor correlated well with airway remodelling, airflow obstruction and airway hyper-responsiveness. After treatment with budesonide/formoterol for 6 months, the expression of VEGF and VEGFR1 was decreased, with correlatory decreased airway remodelling in patients with asthma.

CONCLUSION

The increased expression of VEGF and VEGFR(1) in asthmatic patients is accompanied by an increased number and size of blood vessels in asthmatic airways, as well as airway remodelling. Budesonide/formoterol therapy for 6 months can decrease the expression of VEGF and VEGFR(1) alongside airway remodelling in asthma. The inhibition of VEGF and its receptor may be a good therapeutic strategy for asthma.