Combined salmeterol 50 microg and fluticasone propionate 250 microg in the diskus device for the treatment of asthma

Is the assessment of asthma treatment efficacy sufficiently comprehensive?

The goal of asthma guideline therapy is to achieve disease control, by minimizing impairment and decreasing the risk of exacerbations and adverse effects of the disease and its treatment. The primary objective of most clinical trials of biologics for severe asthma is a reduction in exacerbation rate. Recently, studies with patients at the lower guideline steps have also selected exacerbation reduction as a primary objective. These trials in patients with milder disease frequently demonstrate statistically significantly fewer exacerbations, but their power calculations reflect larger sample size and smaller effect size. Exacerbations have a precise consensus definition, although a minimal clinically important difference has not been established. Reduction of exacerbations in severe asthma is commonly 10-fold greater than in mild disease. Further, reduction in exacerbations is not always associated with reduced impairment. If superior control is the objective, both domains should demonstrate consistent and parallel improvement. The disconnect may reflect the need for alternative tools for measurement of impairment or, possibly, different therapeutic mechanisms of action. Determining response to biologics or discussion of disease remission requires assessing symptoms that may occur daily rather than focusing on exacerbations that occur once or twice a year for patients at the highest steps of care according to the guidelines.

Drug combinations for inhalation: Current products and future development addressing disease control and patient compliance

Pulmonary delivery is an alternative route of administration with numerous advantages over conventional routes of administration. It provides low enzymatic exposure, fewer systemic side effects, no first-pass metabolism, and concentrated drug amounts at the site of the disease, making it an ideal route for the treatment of pulmonary diseases. Owing to the thin alveolar-capillary barrier, and large surface area that facilitates rapid absorption to the bloodstream in the lung, systemic delivery can be achieved as well. Administration of multiple drugs at one time became urgent to control chronic pulmonary diseases such as asthma and COPD, thus, development of drug combinations was proposed. Administration of medications with variable dosages from different inhalers leads to overburdening the patient and may cause low therapeutic intervention. Therefore, products that contain combined drugs to be delivered via a single inhaler have been developed to improve patient compliance, reduce different dose regimens, achieve higher disease control, and boost therapeutic effectiveness in some cases. This comprehensive review aimed to highlight the growth of drug combinations by inhalation over time, obstacles and challenges, and the possible progress to broaden the current options or to cover new indications in the future. Moreover, various pharmaceutical technologies in terms of formulation and device in correlation with inhaled combinations were discussed in this review. Hence, inhaled combination therapy is driven by the need to maintain and improve the quality of life for patients with chronic respiratory diseases; promoting drug combinations by inhalation to a higher level is a necessity.

Therapeutic Potential of Controlled Delivery Systems in Asthma: Preclinical Development of Flavonoid-Based Treatments

Asthma is a chronic disease with increasing prevalence and incidence, manifested by allergic inflammatory reactions, and is life-threatening for patients with severe disease. Repetitive challenges with the allergens and limitation of treatment efficacy greatly dampens successful management of asthma. The adverse events related to several drugs currently used, such as corticosteroids and β-agonists, and the low rigorous adherence to preconized protocols likely compromises a more assertive therapy. Flavonoids represent a class of natural compounds with extraordinary antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, with their potential benefits already demonstrated for several diseases, including asthma. Advanced technology has been used in the pharmaceutical field to improve the efficacy and safety of drugs. Notably, there is also an increasing interest for the application of these techniques using natural products as active molecules. Flavones, flavonols, flavanones, and chalcones are examples of flavonoid compounds that were tested in controlled delivery systems for asthma treatment, and which achieved better treatment results in comparison to their free forms. This review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the development of novel controlled delivery systems to enhance the therapeutic potential of flavonoids as active molecules for asthma treatment.

New Versus Old: The Impact of Changing Patterns of Inhaled Corticosteroid Prescribing and Dosing Regimens in Asthma Management

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies are the mainstay of pharmacological management of asthma. They can be administered alone or in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator, depending on asthma severity, and may also be supplemented with short-acting bronchodilators for as-needed rescue medication. Adherence to asthma therapies is generally poor and characterized by underuse of ICS therapies and over-reliance on short-acting bronchodilators, which leads to poor clinical outcomes. This article reviews efficacy versus systemic activity profiles for various dosing regimens of budesonide (BUD) and fluticasone propionate (FP). We performed a structured literature review of BUD and FP regular daily dosing, and BUD/formoterol (FOR) as-needed dosing, to explore the relationship between various dosing patterns of ICS regimens and the risk–benefit profile in terms of the extent of bronchoprotection and cortisol suppression. In addition, we explored how adherence could potentially affect the risk–benefit profile, in patients with mild, moderate, and moderate-to-severe asthma. With a specific focus on BUD or FP-containing treatments, we found that regular daily ICS and ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) dosing had a greater degree of bronchoprotection than as-needed BUD/FOR dosing or BUD/FOR maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) dosing, and still maintained low systemic activity. We also found that the benefits of regular daily ICS dosing regimens were diminished when adherence was low (50%); the shorter duration of bronchoprotection observed was similar to that seen with typical as-needed BUD/FOR usage. These findings have implications for aiding clinicians with selecting the most suitable treatment option for asthma management, and subsequent implications for the advice clinicians give their patients.

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies can be administered in a variety of ways depending on a patient’s asthma severity. Patients with mild asthma tend to experience symptom relief with as-needed or regular daily use of an ICS alone, whereas patients with more severe asthma may require regular daily use of an ICS plus a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) to experience sufficient asthma control. However, failure to correctly adhere to ICS-containing therapies or an over-reliance on short-acting bronchodilators for symptom relief hinders optimal asthma management, thus negatively affecting overall patient health and wellbeing. Understanding how different dosing regimens affect the degree of bronchoprotection (efficacy) and cortisol suppression (systemic activity) of ICS treatments would benefit physicians by helping them to prescribe the most appropriate treatment for their patient’s asthma. We performed a structured literature review of two ICS molecules—budesonide (BUD) (alone and combined with formoterol [FOR]) and fluticasone propionate (FP)—to explore the relationship between various ICS dosing regimens, and then used these findings to construct models for ICS risk–benefit profiles. Our models factored in different ICS dosing regimens—as-needed, regular daily dosing, and maintenance and reliever therapy (MART)—and various degrees of treatment adherence. We found that regular daily ICS and ICS/LABA dosing provided better bronchoprotection than as-needed BUD/FOR dosing or BUD/FOR MART dosing, but this benefit was diminished with low adherence. Regular daily dosing maintained low cortisol suppression, which indicated a fairly low risk of negative side effects. Our findings have subsequent implications for optimizing treatment in patients with asthma.

Clinical Bioequivalence of Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus in Adults With Asthma

Background: Wixela® Inhub® is a dry powder inhaler approved as a generic equivalent to Advair® Diskus® (fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol fixed-dose combination) for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed at confirming the local (lung) therapeutic equivalence of both the FP and salmeterol components of Wixela Inhub (test [T]) to Advair Diskus (reference [R]) after inhalation. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients ≥18 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma compared the local therapeutic equivalence (using forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) of FP/salmeterol (100/50 μg) after inhaled delivery via T and R. Results: Randomized patients (N = 1127) received T (n = 512), R (n = 512), or placebo (n = 103). T and R significantly increased day 1 FEV1 area under the effect curve over 12 hours of the change from baseline (AUC[0-12]) and day 29 trough FEV1 over placebo, indicating that these endpoints were sufficiently sensitive for evaluation of bioequivalence. On day 1, T and R each increased FEV1 AUC(0-12) over placebo (3.134 L•h [T], 2.677 L•h [R]; each p < 0.0001). Following twice-daily dosing for 28 days, T and R also each increased trough FEV1 (measured on day 29) over placebo (235 mL [T], 215 mL [R]; each p < 0.0001). Least-squares mean T/R ratios (90% confidence intervals) for day 1 FEV1 AUC(0-12) and day 29 trough FEV1 were 1.120 (1.016-1.237) and 1.069 (0.938-1.220), respectively, indicating that T and R were bioequivalent for both co-primary endpoints. FP/salmeterol was well tolerated when administered via either T or R. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the therapeutic effects of Wixela Inhub are bioequivalent to Advair Diskus in the lung. Wixela Inhub represents a therapeutically equivalent new FP/salmeterol treatment option for use in the treatment of asthma and COPD.

Inadequate assessment of adherence to maintenance medication leads to loss of power and increased costs in trials of severe asthma therapy: results from a systematic literature review and modelling study

Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy in severe asthma is rarely adequately assessed, and its influence on trial outcomes is unknown. We systematically determined how adherence to maintenance therapy is assessed in clinical trials of "add-on" therapy for severe asthma. We model the improvement in trial power that could be achieved by accurately assessing adherence.A systematic search of six major databases identified randomised trials of add-on therapy for severe asthma. The relationship between measuring adherence and study outcomes was assessed. An estimate of potential improvements in statistical power and sample size was derived using digitally recorded adherence trial data.87 randomised controlled trials enrolling 22 173 participants were included. Adherence assessment was not reported in 67 trials (n=13 931, 63%). Studies that reported adherence used a range of self-report and subjective methods. None of the studies employed an objective assessment of adherence. Studies that reported adherence had a significantly reduced pooled variance in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) compared to those that did not assess adherence: s²=0.144 L² versus s²=0.168 L², p<0.0001. Power to detect clinically relevant changes in FEV₁ was significantly higher in trials that reported adherence assessment (mean power achieved 59% versus 49%). Modelling suggests that up to 50% of variance in FEV₁ outcomes is attributable to undetected variations in adherence. Controlling for such variations could potentially halve the required sample size.Few trials of add-on therapy monitor adherence to maintenance inhaled therapy, resulting in a greater variance in trial outcomes and inadequate power for determining efficacy.

Global Initiative for Asthma 2016-derived asthma control with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol: A Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study reanalysis

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the landmark Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study demonstrated that most patients can achieve asthma control through sustained treatment and that adding a long-acting β₂-adrenoreceptor agonist to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is more effective than ICS alone in this regard. Definitions of asthma control have since evolved, and the consequent implications for the GOAL study findings are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone in achieving and maintaining asthma control, as derived from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2016 report.

METHODS

In total, 3416 patients were stratified by prior medication (ICS-naive [stratum 1], low-dose ICS [stratum 2], or medium-dose ICS [stratum 3]) and randomized to receive fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled or partly controlled asthma; secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma. Control was evaluated during the last 4 weeks of each dose titration.

RESULTS

In all strata, more patients achieved well-controlled or partly controlled asthma with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate alone (stratum 1: 91% vs 85%; P = .003; stratum 2: 86% vs 82%; P = .07; and stratum 3: 76% vs 66%; P < .001), as well as patients with well-controlled asthma (stratum 1: 64% vs 56%; P = .005; stratum 2: 59% vs 41%; P < .001; and stratum 3: 40% vs 22%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A markedly higher proportion of patients with uncontrolled asthma in each stratum achieved control according to GINA 2016 criteria compared with the original study criteria. The proportion of patients achieving control remained greater with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol than with fluticasone propionate alone.

Asthma: Diagnosis and Treatment

Asthma is an obstructive lung disease affecting >230 million people worldwide and a significant cause of morbidity in patients of all ages. It is a heterogeneous disease with a complex pathophysiology and phenotype. Diagnosis is made with thorough history-taking and physical examination, and the condition is characterised by variable airflow obstruction and airway hyper-responsiveness. Understanding the severity of the disease is important, and treatment is aimed at symptom control and the prevention of future exacerbations. Pharmacologic treatment with beta-agonists for intermittent asthma and inhaled corticosteroids and a combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-2 agonists for persistent asthma are recommended. Additional and alternative treatments with leukotriene modifiers, anticholinergics, biologics, and bronchial thermoplasty are also available. However, understanding an individual’s disease phenotype, endotype, and comorbidities is necessary for asthma treatment, with appropriate consultation with asthma specialists required for those with severe asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

Repurposing drugs as inhaled therapies in asthma

For the first 40 years of the 20th century treatment for asthma occurred in response to an asthma attack. The treatments were given by injection or orally and included the adrenergic agonists adrenalin/epinephrine and ephedrine and a phosphodiesterase inhibitor theophylline. Epinephrine became available as an aerosol in 1930. After 1945, isoprenaline, a non-selective beta agonist, became available for oral use but it was most widely used by inhalation. Isoprenaline was short-acting with unwanted cardiac effects. More selective beta agonists, with a longer duration of action and fewer side-effects became available, including orciprenaline in 1967, salbutamol in 1969 and terbutaline in 1970. The inhaled steroid beclomethasone was available by 1972 and budesonide by 1982. Spirometry alone and in response to exercise was used to assess efficacy and duration of action of these drugs for the acute benefits of beta₂ agonists and the chronic benefits of corticosteroids. Early studies comparing oral and aerosol beta₂ agonists found equivalence in bronchodilator effect but the aerosol treatment was superior in preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Inhaled drugs are now widely used including the long-acting beta₂ agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, and the corticosteroids, fluticasone, ciclesonide, mometasone and triamcinolone, that act locally and have low systemic bio-availability. Repurposing drugs as inhaled therapies permitted direct delivery of low doses of drug to the site of action reducing the incidence of unwanted side-effects and permitting the prophylactic treatment of asthma.

Clinical Bioequivalence of OT329 SOLIS and ADVAIR DISKUS in Adults with Asthma

RATIONALE

OT329 SOLIS is a generic candidate for the branded asthma treatment, ADVAIR DISKUS (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate), and, as such, the manufacturer is required to provide evidence of clinical "bioequivalence" as a condition for regulatory approval.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the current study was to determine if SOLIS and DISKUS provided bioequivalent improvements in lung function at two time points: Day 1 and Week 4.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, multiple-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design conducted in the United States (NCT02260492) with a 2-week run-in followed by a 4-week treatment period. Consenting patients were randomized to treatment with OT329 SOLIS 100/50, ADVAIR DISKUS 100/50, or placebo. Lung function was measured predose and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours after the first dose to test equivalence of the β-agonist salmeterol component based on FEV₁ area under the curve (0-12 h). After 4 weeks of twice-daily dosing, trough (predose) FEV₁ was measured to evaluate equivalence of the fluticasone propionate corticosteroid component. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the products fell within 80-125%.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 1,524 screened, 879 patients with asthma were randomized to treatment (n = 418 SOLIS, 419 DISKUS, 42 placebo). OT329 SOLIS and ADVAIR DISKUS were bioequivalent at Day 1, with an FEV₁ area under the curve (0-12 h) test/reference ratio of 108% (90% CI = 94-122%). Likewise, the products were bioequivalent at Week 4 with a trough FEV₁ test/reference ratio of 105% (90% CI = 90-119). Both active treatments were superior to placebo (P < 0.05) at both time points.

CONCLUSIONS

The data support a conclusion of clinical bioequivalence of OT329 SOLIS to ADVAIR DISKUS. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02260492).

Initiating or changing to a fixed-dose combination of Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol over Fluticasone propionate/Salmeterol: A real-life effectiveness and cost impact evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Asthma has a substantial impact on quality of life and health care resources. The identification of a more cost-effective, yet equally efficacious, treatment could positively influence the economic burden of this disease. Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol (FP/FOR) may be as effective as Fluticasone Salmeterol (FP/SAL). We evaluated non-inferiority of asthma control in terms of the proportion of patients free from exacerbations, and conducted a cost impact analysis.

METHODS

This historical, matched cohort database study evaluated two treatment groups in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database in the UK: 1) an FP/FOR cohort of patients initiating treatment with FP/FOR or changing from FP/SAL to FP/FOR and; 2) an FP/SAL cohort comprising patients initiating, or remaining on FP/SAL pMDI combination therapy. The main outcome evaluated non-inferiority of effectiveness (defined as prevention of severe exacerbations, lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between groups in patient proportions with no exacerbations is -3.5% or higher) in patients treated with FP/FOR versus FP/SAL.

RESULTS

After matching 1:3, we studied a total of 2472 patients: 618 in the FP/FOR cohort (174 patients initiated on FP/FOR and 444 patients changed to FP/FOR) and 1854 in the FP/SAL cohort (522 patients initiated FP/SAL and 1332 continued FP/SAL). The percentage of patients prescribed FP/FOR met non-inferiority as the adjusted mean difference in proportion of no severe exacerbations (95%CI) was 0.008 (-0.032, 0.047) between the two cohorts. No other significant differences were observed except acute respiratory event rates, which were lower for patients prescribed FP/FOR (rate ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Changing to, or initiating FP/FOR combination therapy, is associated with a non-inferior proportion of patients who are severe exacerbation-free at a lower average annual cost compared with continuing or initiating treatment with FP/SAL.

Predictors of future exacerbation risk in patients with asthma

OBJECTIVES

Although modern treatment of asthma improves asthma control, some patients still experience exacerbations. The aim of the present study was to detect predictors of asthmatic exacerbations Methods: We included patients with asthma followed up in asthma clinics of 2 tertiary University hospitals. Demographic and functional characteristics, levels of exhaled NO, and inflammatory biomarkers (IL-13, ΕCP και IL-8) and cell counts in induced sputum were recorded at baseline. Measurements were performed with the patients in stability and were considered as their personal best. Patients received optimal treatment with good compliance and were followed up for 1 year for asthma exacerbations occurrence. Evaluation of the effect of recorded parameters on asthma exacerbations was performed with univariate and multivariate Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

171 patients (118 female) with bronchial asthma (mean age 51.6 ± 13.2 years) were included in the study. The mean number of exacerbations in 1 year of follow up was 0.4 ± 0.8 while the majority of patients (71.9%) did not experience any exacerbation. In multivariate Poisson Regression analysis only 3 characteristics were predictors of future exacerbations: FEV1 [IRR(95% CI)], [0.970(0.954-0.987)], p = 0.001, high BMI [1.078(1.030-1.129)], p = 0.001, and the need for permanent treatment with oral corticosteroids for asthma control maintenance [2.542(1.083-5.964)], p = 0.032 CONCLUSION: Optimal guideline-based asthma management results in minimal occurrence of exacerbations in the majority of patients. Predictors of exacerbations are low FEV1 levels in stability, high BMI and the need for permanent treatment with oral corticosteroids.

Budesonide/salmeterol in fixed-dose combination for the treatment of asthma

Fixed dose combinations (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta agonist (LABA) are well established in asthma treatment. The budesonide/salmeterol (B/S) FDC is now about to reach the market. It is provided as powder in hard capsules of two strengths: 120/20μg and 240/20μg when expressed as delivered doses, equivalent to 150/25μg and 300/25μg when expressed as nominal doses. Its development involved 9 pharmacokinetic (320 subjects), 3 phase II (123 subjects) and 4 phase III (1206 patients with different asthma severity) studies. Delivery is effectuated via low resistance inhaler device, Axahaler®, generating also fine particles targeting the small airways. B/S safety, assessed in 1401 subjects, did not outline novel concerns specific for this FDC. In conclusion, the B/S dry powder FDC can be used for asthma treatment in adults not adequately controlled on ICS alone, or to maintain control of ICS/LABA treated patients, in whom switching to alternative FDC is indicated.

Role of the fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in adult Chinese patients with asthma and COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are common airway disorders characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction, and are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the People's Republic of China. These two diseases pose a high economic burden on the family and the whole of society. Despite evidence-based Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines being available for the diagnosis and management of COPD and asthma, many of these patients are not properly diagnosed or managed in the People's Republic of China. The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists has been established in the management of asthma and COPD globally. Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists such as fluticasone and salmeterol, have been shown to be effective for improving symptoms, health status, and reducing exacerbations in both diseases. In this review, we discuss the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy from key studies, particularly in the People's Republic of China.

Salmeterol Xinafoate

Salmeterol xinafoate is a potent and a long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist. It is prescribed for the treatment of severe persistent asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Different methods were used to prepare (R)-(-)-salmeterol such as: mixing a sample of 4-benzyloxy-3-hydroxymethyl-ω-bromoacetophenone with sodium lauryl sulfate and the mixture was added to the microbial culture of Rhodotorula rubra, treatment of p-hydroxyacetophenone with Eschenmoser's salt and carbonate exchange resin followed by a sequence of supported reagents and scavenging agents or via Rh-catalyzed asymmetric transfer hydrogenation. The enantioselective synthesis of (S)-salmeterol was achieved via asymmetric reduction of the azidoketone 4 by Pichia angusta yeast. Physical characteristics of salmeterol xinafoate were confirmed via: X-ray powder diffraction pattern, thermal analysis and UV, vibrational, nuclear magnetic resonance, and mass spectroscopical data. Initial improvement in asthma control may occur within 30 min following oral inhalation of salmeterol in fixed combination with fluticasone propionate. Clinically important improvements are maintained for up to 12 h in most patients. It is extensively metabolized in the liver by hydroxylation, thus increased plasma concentrations may occur in patients with hepatic impairment.

Effect of common comparators in indirect comparison analysis of the effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma

Purpose

Indirect comparison (IC) and direct comparison (DC) of four inhaled corticosteroid (CS) treatments for asthma were conducted, and the factors that may influence the results of IC were investigated. Among those factors, we focused on the effect of common comparator selection in the treatment of asthma, where little control group bias or placebo effect is expected.

Method

IC and DC were conducted using the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1(L)) as an outcome parameter. Differences between inhaled CS were evaluated to compare the results of IC and DC. As a common comparator for IC, placebo (PLB) or mometasone (MOM) was selected. Whether the results of IC are affected by the selection of a common comparator and whether the results of IC and DC are consistent were examined.

Results

23 articles were identified by a literature search. Our results showed that ICs yielded results similar to DCs in the change from baseline of FEV1(L). No statistically significant difference was observed in inconsistency analysis between ICs and DCs. It was clinically and statistically confirmed that ICs with PLB and those with MOM did not differ in terms of the results of FEV1(L) analysis in this dataset.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that ICs among inhaled CS can deliver results consistent with those of DCs when using the change from baseline in FEV1(L) as an outcome parameter in asthma patients. It was also shown that using an active comparator has similar results if there is no effect of control group bias. It should be emphasized that the investigation of control group bias is a key factor in conducting relevant ICs so that an appropriate common comparator can be selected.

Clinical utility and development of the fluticasone/formoterol combination formulation (Flutiform(®)) for the treatment of asthma

Pharmacologic treatment of asthma should be done with a stepwise approach recommended in treatment guidelines. If inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone are not adequate, ICSs in combination with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) are now established and widely used as the next step in effective controller therapy. Fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations in a single device are the preferred form of delivery and improve compliance by enabling patients to get symptom relief from the LABA while receiving the anti-inflammatory benefits of ICSs. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate is one of the newest fixed-dose combinations. It has been in use in Europe in 2012, but is still under regulatory review in the US. Fluticasone is a synthetic ICS with potent anti-inflammatory effects, while formoterol is a selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation within 5-10 minutes and a 12-hour duration of action. Fluticasone/formoterol has shown superior efficacy when compared to fluticasone or formoterol alone in multiple well-designed studies. The combination has shown comparable or "noninferior" benefits in lung function, clinical symptoms, and asthma control when compared with fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently in separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol provides similar efficacy with fluticasone/salmeterol, but with more rapid symptom relief. It has been compared directly with budesonide/formoterol with comparable results. Fluticasone/formoterol is well tolerated, with no unusual or increased safety concerns versus each individual component or other available ICS/LABA combinations. Fluticasone/formoterol is the latest entry into a relatively crowded market of branded fixed-dose preparations. Upcoming generic fixed-dose combinations and once-daily agents pose significant market challenges. In clinical practice, most practitioners consider all the currently available fixed-dose preparations to be of comparable efficacy and safety.

Measurement properties of an asthma symptom and rescue medication use diary

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of symptoms and rescue medication use are well-established endpoints for clinical trials evaluating asthma treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the measurement properties of an asthma symptom and rescue medication use (ASRMU) diary for clinical trials involving asthma patients aged ≥12 years.

METHODS

Interviews with 35 patients were conducted to confirm the importance of key concepts in the ASRMU diary. Scores of symptom and rescue medication use were converted to symptom-free days (SFD) and rescue-free days (RFD). Test-retest reliability and equivalence (based on intra-class correlation coefficients [ICCs]) between paper-and-pencil and electronic (eDiary) versions were evaluated in a prospective study in 47 patients. Responsiveness of the ASRMU diary was evaluated through differences in percentage of SFD and of RFD by treatment group in eight asthma clinical trials that assessed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), alone or in combination. A ninth placebo-controlled study calculated effect sizes. Minimal important differences (MID) were determined using anchor-based methods from two trials and by interviewing 11 patients.

RESULTS

Patient interviews supported content validity for the ASRMU diary. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for SFD (ICC:0.70-0.75), but varied for RFD (ICC:0.58-0.78). Paper-and-pencil and eDiary modes of administration were equivalent (SFD, ICC=0.84; RFD, ICC=0.70). ICS/LABA had the largest percentage of SFD and RFD, followed by monotherapy and then placebo. MIDs were 7.7-14.7% for SFD and 8.4-15.6% for RFD.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASRMU diary captures the disease-specific concepts of greatest importance to asthma patients and provides important information for asthma diagnosis and treatment evaluation.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol 100-25 mcg compared with fluticasone furoate 100 mcg in asthma: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) in combination with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) is under development for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of FF-VI and FF in patients (≥ 12 years old) with persistent asthma.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (n = 609) (intent-to-treat population) received FF-VI 100-25 mcg, FF 100 mcg, or placebo once daily (evening) by using a dry powder inhaler for 12 weeks. Coprimary end points were change from baseline in trough FEV1 and serial (0-24 hours) weighted mean FEV1 (wmFEV(1)). Rescue-free 24-hour periods and safety also were assessed.

RESULTS

Placebo increased trough FEV1 (196 mL) and wmFEV(1) (212 mL) versus baseline. Compared with placebo, FF-VI and FF significantly improved trough FEV1 (172 mL [P < .001] and 136 mL [P = .002]), respectively, and serial wmFEV(1) (302 mL [P < .001] and 186 mL [P = .003]), respectively. Treatment differences between FF-VI and FF approached significance for serial wmFEV(1) (116 mL; P = .060) but not for trough FEV1 (36 mL; P = .405). The percentage of rescue-free 24-hour periods with FF-VI was 10.6% greater than FF and 19.3% greater than placebo. Statistically significant (P = .032) urinary cortisol suppression was observed with FF-VI (ratio, 0.82) relative to placebo, but not with FF. Adverse event and safety profiles were similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement in lung function was observed with FF-VI and FF versus placebo in patients with persistent asthma. Improvement of FEV1 when VI was added to FF was not significant. The high placebo response in evening trough FEV1 may have influenced the assessment of efficacy.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol reduces risk of severe exacerbations in asthma versus FF alone

Background

Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) is recommended for patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS alone. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the risk-benefit ratio of using LABA in asthma.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of the addition of a novel LABA, vilanterol (VI), to a once-daily ICS, fluticasone furoate (FF), on the risk of severe asthma exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Methods

This randomised double-blind comparative study of variable duration (≥24–78 weeks) was designed to finish after 330 events (each patient's first on-treatment severe asthma exacerbation). 2019 patients with asthma aged ≥12 years with ≥1 recorded exacerbation within 1 year were randomised and received FF/VI 100/25 μg or FF 100 μg, administered once daily in the evening. The primary endpoint was time to first severe exacerbation; secondary endpoints were rate of severe asthma exacerbations per patient per year and change in trough evening forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) from baseline.

Results

Compared with FF, FF/VI delayed the time to first severe exacerbation (HR 0.795, 95% CI 0.642 to 0.985) and reduced the annualised rate of severe exacerbations (rate reduction 25%, 95% CI 5% to 40%). Significantly greater improvements in trough FEV₁ (p<0.001) were observed with FF/VI than with FF at weeks 12, 36, 52 and at endpoint. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar rates of treatment-related adverse events and on-treatment serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Once-daily FF/VI reduced the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improved lung function compared with FF alone, with good tolerability and safety profile in adolescents and adults with asthma currently receiving ICS.

ClinicalTrials.gov No

NCT01086384

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

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. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate, and the long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonist, formoterol fumarate, are both highly effective treatments for bronchial asthma. This study (NCT00393952/EudraCT number: 2006-005989-39) compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy (flutiform(®); 250/10 μg) administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, with the individual components (fluticasone 250 μg b.i.d.; formoterol 10 μg b.i.d.), in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre, placebocontrolled phase 3 study. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were: i) the mean change in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. formoterol), ii) the mean change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 h post-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. fluticasone), and iii) the number of patients who discontinued prematurely due to lack of treatment efficacy (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. placebo). The secondary endpoints included measures of lung function, disease control, and asthma symptoms. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Overall, 395 (70.9%) patients completed the study. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg b.i.d. was superior to the individual components and placebo for all three co-primary endpoints and demonstrated numerically greater improvements for multiple secondary efficacy analyses. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety profile over the 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy will provide clinicians with an efficacious alternative treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Efficacy and Safety of Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate Combination Delivered by the Diskustrade mark or Pressurised Metered-Dose Inhaler in Children with Asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate are well established in the treatment of childhood asthma, and their combination is effective in children aged 4-11 years. Asthma guidelines recommend that the inhaler device best suited to the individual should be used to administer asthma treatment. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) delivered by the Diskustrade mark (50/100mug, one inhalation twice daily) and compare it with that observed when SFC is delivered by a chlorofluorocarbon-free pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) [25/50mug, two inhalations twice daily] in children aged 4-11 years with persistent asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This equivalence study had a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group design and comprised asthmatic children aged 4-11 years who required beclometasone (beclomethasone dipropionate) </=500 mug/day (or equivalent). After a 2-week run-in using existing inhaled corticosteroid therapy, patients were randomised to receive SFC via Diskustrade mark (n = 213) or pMDI (n = 215, with 82% using a spacer) for 12 weeks. Salbutamol (Ventolin((R))) was provided for symptomatic relief. The primary endpoint was mean morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) recorded by patients during weeks 1-12. Secondary endpoints included other lung function parameters, day- and night-time symptoms, use of rescue medication and percentage of symptom- and salbutamol-free days. Adverse events and 12-hour overnight urinary cortisol concentrations were monitored to assess safety.

RESULTS

Treatment with SFC, delivered by either device, was highly effective in improving patients' morning PEF and asthma symptoms. Over the whole study period, morning PEF (mean +/- standard error) improved by 37.7 +/- 3.1 L/min in the Diskustrade mark group and by 38.6 +/- 3.0 L/min in the pMDI group. The -0.9 L/min difference between groups (95% CI -7.1, 5.4) was within the predefined criterion for equivalence of (i.e. -15, 15 L/min). The median percentage of symptom-free and rescue medication-free days and nights increased considerably in both groups. For all efficacy parameters assessed, improvement occurred for all age groups as early as weeks 1-4, and was sustained over the 12 weeks. Both Diskustrade mark and pMDI treatments were well tolerated and their safety profiles were comparable.

CONCLUSION

SFC delivered via Diskustrade mark or pMDI was shown to be highly effective in asthmatic children aged 4-11 years. Children as young as 4 years were able to use the Diskustrade mark and pMDI effectively. The combination is clinically equivalent when administered via either device in this patient population. This means that both Diskustrade mark and pMDI (+ spacer) are suitable for administration of SFC, which provides prescribers/users with a choice of device.

Short-term safety and tolerability of double-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in adult asthmatic patients

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of asthma exacerbations in patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretidetrade mark or Advair((R))) is low. However, when asthma control deteriorates, clinicians may instruct patients to double the dose of their inhaled corticosteroid medication for a short period. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that doubling the dose of Seretidetrade mark for a period of 2 weeks in subjects with persistent asthma is safe and well tolerated.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in primary-care centres. Adults with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of >/=70% predicted were stratified to receive a single dose of Seretidetrade mark 50mug/100mug, 50mug/250mug or 50mug/500mug twice daily from a Diskustrade mark inhaler for a 4-week run-in period, dependent on the dose of inhaled corticosteroid on entry. Subjects were then randomised to receive either an extra inhalation of the same dose of Seretidetrade mark received during the run-in (double dose) or an inhalation of matching placebo (single dose) for 14 days in a 2 : 1 ratio. Subjects were asked to record any adverse events, morning and evening heart rate (HR), peak flow and relief medication use in daily record cards. The primary endpoint was tremor as perceived by the subject. Clinic evaluations included HR, 12-lead ECG, and potassium and glucose levels.

RESULTS

110 and 208 subjects received single- and double-dose Seretidetrade mark, respectively. Only one subject experienced tremor. This was classified as mild and occurred in a subject receiving double-dose Seretidetrade mark (50mug/100mug). There was no difference between the treatment groups in the incidence of tremor (difference <1%; 95% CI -6, 8). Other salmeterol-related adverse events (palpitations, muscle cramps and headache) and fluticasone propionate-related events (oral candidiasis and hoarseness) occurred in a similar percentage of subjects in each treatment group. The treatment differences for morning and evening HR measurements showed small differences between the two groups (<2 beats/min). The adjusted mean treatment difference (double dose - single dose) in morning HR was 1.1 beats/min (95% CI 0.2, 2.0) and evening HR was 0.9 beats/min (95% CI 0.1, 1.7). Seven percent of subjects receiving single-dose Seretidetrade mark and 8% receiving double-dose Seretidetrade mark had a QTc change from baseline in the interval 30-59 msec. No increases above 59 msec were seen in either group. There were no clinically significant changes from baseline for potassium levels. Two percent of subjects in the single dose and <1% in the double-dose group had a change from a non-clinically significant baseline blood glucose assessment to a clinically significant abnormality at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSION

In circumstances in which a physician may be considering doubling the dose of Seretidetrade mark for a short period of time in adult asthmatics, this study demonstrates that doubling the dose for a period of 2 weeks is safe and well tolerated.

Impact of Inhaled Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate Combination Product versus Budesonide on the Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients with Asthma

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN

Measurement of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) may show benefits of asthma treatments not revealed by objective monitoring and can complement clinical and physiological assessments of treatment outcome. HR-QOL was measured in four countries in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination and budesonide in patients aged > or =12 years with moderate-to-severe asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Patients received, twice daily, either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/250 microg (Seretide/ Advair) via Diskus inhaler (n = 55) or budesonide 800 microg (Pulmicort) via Turbuhaler (n = 58). Patients completed the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) at baseline and after 12 weeks treatment (or early withdrawal). The analysis included 113 patients.

RESULTS

Mean improvement in AQLQ scores achieved clinical importance in all four domains in the salmeterol/fluticasone group (AQLQ change > or =0.5), but in only two domains in the budesonide group. Although the mean overall improvement in AQLQ scores observed in the salmeterol/fluticasone group was significantly greater than that observed in the budesonide group (difference of 0.45; p = 0.002), the difference was less than the minimal important difference (0.5). Nevertheless, further analysis showed that the number-needed-to-treat was only 3.4. This indicates that only 3.4 patients need to be treated with the salmeterol/fluticasone combination for one patient to experience a meaningful improvement in HR-QOL, relative to monotherapy with an increased dose of budesonide.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate resulted in superior gains in HR-QOL relative to increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

How do children and their caregivers perceive the benefits of inhaled asthma therapy?

OBJECTIVE

Although well reported in adults, there is relatively little data on how children with asthma and their parents describe their attitudes to the disease, expectations of therapy, and perception of treatment benefit. We investigated this to determine if they differed from reports by adults with asthma.

METHODS

We recruited families with an asthmatic child (4-11 years) who had recently been prescribed a change in treatment [starting inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy (ICS) or changing from ICS to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β(2)-agonist combination therapy (ICS/LABA)]. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the parents and the children if aged 7-11 years.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 parents and 13 children. All children on ICS/LABA had been changed from ICS monotherapy because of poor asthma control. Pediatric asthma had a significant impact on the whole family and both parents and children hoped the new medication would improve symptoms, increase their participation in physical activities, and decrease unscheduled visits to the GP (General Practitioner)/hospital. Positive effects of treatment change were reported by both parents and children, particularly in those changing from ICS to ICS/LABA. The most commonly reported benefits were reduced cough and wheeze, increased participation in sport or play activities, and reduced rescue medication use. These effects resulted in fewer visits to the GP/hospital and better attendance at school.

CONCLUSIONS

While asthma symptoms prevent adults and children from participating in different types of activities (e.g., school, employment), children and their parents report the same benefits as previously reported in adults with asthma.

Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the population level costs, effects, and cost effectiveness of selected, individual based interventions to combat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma in the context of low and middle income countries.

DESIGN

Sectoral cost effectiveness analysis using a lifetime population model.

SETTING

Two World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE); and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).

DATA SOURCES

Disease rates and profiles were taken from the WHO Global Burden of Disease study; estimates of intervention effects and resource needs were drawn from clinical trials, observational studies, and treatment guidelines. Unit costs were taken from a WHO price database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005.

RESULTS

In both regions low dose inhaled corticosteroids for mild persistent asthma was considered the most cost effective intervention, with average cost per DALY averted about $Int2500. The next best value strategies were influenza vaccine for COPD in Sear-D (incremental cost $Int4950 per DALY averted) and low dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long acting β agonists for moderate persistent asthma in Afr-E (incremental cost $Int9112 per DALY averted).

CONCLUSIONS

COPD is irreversible and progressive, and current treatment options produce relatively little gains relative to the cost. The treatment options available for asthma, however, generally decrease chronic respiratory disease burden at a relatively low cost.

Impact of race on asthma treatment failures in the asthma clinical research network

RATIONALE

Recent studies suggest that people with asthma of different racial backgrounds may respond differently to various therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To use data from well-characterized participants in prior Asthma Clinical Research Network (ACRN) trials to determine whether racial differences affected asthma treatment failures.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline phenotypes and treatment failure rates (worsening asthma resulting in systemic corticosteroid use, hospitalization, emergency department visit, prolonged decrease in peak expiratory flow, increase in albuterol use, or safety concerns) in subjects participating in 10 ACRN trials (1993-2003). Self-declared race was reported in each trial and treatment failure rates were stratified by race.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1,200 unique subjects (whites = 795 [66%]; African Americans = 233 [19%]; others = 172 [14%]; mean age = 32) were included in the analyses. At baseline, African Americans had fewer asthma symptoms (P < 0.001) and less average daily rescue inhaler use (P = 0.007) than whites. There were no differences in baseline FEV(1) (% predicted); asthma quality of life; bronchial hyperreactivity; or exhaled nitric oxide concentrations. A total of 147 treatment failures were observed; a significantly higher proportion of African Americans (19.7%; n = 46) experienced a treatment failure compared with whites (12.7%; n = 101) (odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.5; P = 0.007). When stratified by treatment, African Americans receiving long-acting β-agonists were twice as likely as whites to experience a treatment failure (odds ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.6; P = 0.004), even when used with other controller therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having fewer asthma symptoms and less rescue β-agonist use, African-Americans with asthma have more treatment failures compared with whites, especially when taking long-acting β-agonists.

Efficacy of a fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol: the EXCITED-study

Recommended treatment for moderate to severe asthma is the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist. The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol in comparison to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in patients with moderate asthma. This was a phase II, multi-centre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study. After a 2-week run-in period, 160 patients with moderate asthma were randomized to a 6-week treatment with ciclesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg bid (CIC/F) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 μg bid (FP/S), both delivered as powder formulations. The primary outcome FEV1 increased during treatment by 0.356 L in the CIC/F group and by 0.288 L in the FP/S group (p < 0.0001). The increases were statistically significant and clinically relevant. The between-treatment analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of CIC/F to FP/S treatment (p < 0.0001). A significant improvement from baseline in lung function, symptom score and rescue medication use was observed in both groups at all time points. No differences were observed between treatments in the frequency of adverse events and overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio. The studied fixed combination of ciclesonide/formoterol is not inferior to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone/salmeterol in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus conventional best standard treatment in asthma in an attempted 'real life' setting

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort® SMART®, AstraZeneca AB, Södertälje, Sweden) with conventional best standard treatment (CBST) in patients with persistent asthma in an attempted 'real life' setting.

METHODS

In total, 1835 patients from Denmark, Finland and Norway were randomized to 26 weeks treatment with budesonide/formoterol 160/4,5 µg twice daily plus budesonide/formoterol 160/4,5 µg for symptom relief or CBST according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The study was randomized, open-label and designed to reflect 'real life' asthma management. Efficacy variables were time to first severe asthma exacerbation, rate of severe asthma exacerbations, asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5) and use of inhaled glucocorticosteroids (IGCS).

RESULTS

Treatment with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy led to a 21% reduction in time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with CBST, although not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.794, P = 0.189). A trend towards a reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations in the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy group was observed (16 vs 22 events/100 patient years; P = 0.058). The percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma increased significantly among those treated with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with CBST (45% vs 40%; odds ratio 1.39; P < 0.01), in spite of a significant 31% reduction in total mean daily IGCS dose (P < 0.0001). No difference in mean as-needed medication use was seen (P = 0.98). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy resulted in a better overall asthma control with a significant lower daily IGCS dose compared with CBST.

Use and safety of long-acting β2-agonists for pediatric asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as the preferred add-on therapy for adults and children over 5 years of age when asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone. It has been suggested that LABA use may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, this view is controversial since study findings have been inconsistent. While the safety profile of LABA monotherapy has been questioned, the value of concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to eliminate possible risks remains unproven. There is a paucity of efficacy and safety data for LABA use in children, and existing evidence is not sufficiently convincing to demonstrate a clear position for LABAs in the management of childhood asthma. The main aims of this article are to place LABAs in context in the management of childhood asthma and evaluate the current evidence for safety and efficacy.

Current concepts on the use of glucocorticosteroids and beta-2-adrenoreceptor agonists to treat childhood asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews current concepts regarding the clinical and scientific rationale for the combined use of glucocorticosteroids and beta-2-adrenoreceptor (beta2AR) agonists in the treatment of childhood asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have demonstrated that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and beta2AR agonists are the most effective medications for the management of asthma in children. Given substantial evidence of an increased clinical benefit when these agents are used together, new studies are being pursued to establish the efficacy and safety of this combinational therapy in infants and children. Ongoing research is also investigating the mechanisms of beta2AR and glucocorticosteroids signaling and their molecular interactions. This new knowledge will likely lead to novel therapeutic approaches to asthma control.

SUMMARY

There is increasing evidence demonstrating that the combination of long-acting beta2AR agonists and ICS may be more effective than high-dose ICS therapy alone in the management of children with uncontrolled asthma. In addition, the use of a single inhaler containing ICS and a quick-acting beta2AR agonist might be a convenient alternative to prevent and treat asthma exacerbations. Future investigations should be designed to more specifically evaluate the efficacy and safety of these therapies in the different asthmatic phenotypes of infants and children.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Add-on salmeterol compared to double dose fluticasone in pediatric asthma: a double-blind, randomized trial (VIAPAED)

RATIONALE

In asthmatic children whose symptoms are uncontrolled on standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines recommend to either increase the ICS dose or to add further controller medication, e.g. a long acting ss2-agonist (LABA). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of ICS (fluticasone proprionate FP 200 microg twice daily) with adding a long-acting beta-2 agonist to the ICS (SFC, salmeterol 50 microg/ FP 100 microg twice daily) in children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Children between 4 and 16 years of age were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel-group study. During a 14-day run-in phase, all children inhaled FP 100 microg b.i.d. Patients with persistent symptoms on > or =7 of 14 days were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with a Diskus(R) containing either SFC 50 microg/100 microg b.i.d. or FP 200 microg b.i.d.. The primary endpoint was the mean change in morning (a.m.) PEF from baseline. The initial statistical hypothesis of non-inferiority of SFC vs. FP was confirmed in an adaptive interim analysis, so that the study was terminated prematurely.

RESULTS

441 patients from 39 centers entered the run-in phase, and 64% of these were randomized to treatment (N = 138 to SFC and N = 145 to FP). After 8 weeks, patients on SFC had significantly better results for primary and secondary endpoints: The mean increase in morning PEF was 30.4 +/- 34.1 L/min in the SFC group and 16.7 +/- 35.8 L/min in the fluticasone group, and the mean (95% CI) improvement from baseline a.m. PEF in the ITT group was significantly larger after SFC (+8.6 L/min, CI: [1.3; infinity]). Patients in the SFC group experienced 8.7% (CI: [1.2;16.3]) more days without asthma symptoms and 8.0% (CI: [0.6;15.3]) more days without salbutamol than patients receiving FP. Good asthma control was achieved for a longer period in the SFC (3.4 +/- 2.7 weeks) group than in the FP group (2.7 +/- 2.7, P = 0.02). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Asthma exacerbations were recorded in 3 and 6 and SAEs in 2 and 1 patients from the SFC and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on low dose ICS alone, adding a long acting beta-2-agonist to ICS in a single inhaler was more effective than doubling the ICS dose. These results support recommendations of adding LABA to low-dose ICS as the preferred controller option for children older than 4 years with symptomatic asthma.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Evaluation of combination long-acting beta-2 agonists and inhaled glucocorticosteroids for treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Treating asthma with a combination of inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-2-agonist is often preferred when asthma is not controlled when using a low-medium dose of an inhaled corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of inhalers containing combinations of long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids to treat moderate-to-severe, persistent asthma.

METHODS

Using a list of keywords, we conducted a PubMed search of the literature. Data provided by the manufacturer were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Fluticasone propionate with salmeterol and budesonide with formoterol are both well tolerated, have equal clinical efficacy and have recent data affirming their safe use in diverse patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination inhalers improve asthma control in patients previously uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased 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.

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 salmeterol 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 salmeterol 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 salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), 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, and from FDA submissions.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.