Reversing acute bronchoconstriction in asthma: the effect of bronchodilator tolerance after treatment with formoterol

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with 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.

Loss of bronchoprotection to Salbutamol during sputum induction with hypertonic saline: implications for asthma therapy

Background

Sputum induction with hypertonic saline in obstructive airway diseases is generally safe. However, saline induces bronchoconstriction in some patients despite pre-medication with Salbutamol. Our objectives were to investigate the predictors of failure of Salbutamol to protect against saline-induced-bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma and COPD and to evaluate implications for asthma therapy.

Methods

Retrospective survey on a database of 3565 patients with obstructive airway diseases who had sputum induced with hypertonic saline. The effect of baseline FEV₁, bronchitis and concomitant medication on saline-induced-bronchoconstriction (≥ 15% drop in FEV₁) were examined by logistic regression analysis. A subgroup had this re-examined 8–12 weeks after decreasing long-acting-beta-2-agonist dose or after adding Montelukast, which included an assessment of mast cell activity in sputum.

Results

222 (6.2%) patients had saline-induced-bronchoconstriction despite pre-treatment with inhaled Salbutamol. Baseline airflow obstruction (FEV₁% predicted < 60% OR 3.29, p < 0.001) and long-acting-beta-agonist use (OR 2.02, p = 0.001), but not bronchitis, were predictors of saline-induced-bronchoconstriction, which decreased when long-acting-beta-agonist dose was decreased. Refractoriness to subsequent bronchodilation was associated with mast cell activity and was attenuated by Montelukast.

Conclusion

Sputum induction with saline provides information on bronchitis and additional physiological data on tolerance to beta-agonists and mast cell activity that may have implications for clinical therapy.

Novel treatment strategies for smooth muscle disorders: Targeting Kv7 potassium channels

Smooth muscle cells provide crucial contractile functions in visceral, vascular, and lung tissues. The contractile state of smooth muscle is largely determined by their electrical excitability, which is in turn influenced by the activity of potassium channels. The activity of potassium channels sustains smooth muscle cell membrane hyperpolarization, reducing cellular excitability and thereby promoting smooth muscle relaxation. Research over the past decade has indicated an important role for Kv7 (KCNQ) voltage-gated potassium channels in the regulation of the excitability of smooth muscle cells. Expression of multiple Kv7 channel subtypes has been demonstrated in smooth muscle cells from viscera (gastrointestinal, bladder, myometrial), from the systemic and pulmonary vasculature, and from the airways of the lung, from multiple species, including humans. A number of clinically used drugs, some of which were developed to target Kv7 channels in other tissues, have been found to exert robust effects on smooth muscle Kv7 channels. Functional studies have indicated that Kv7 channel activators and inhibitors have the ability to relax and contact smooth muscle preparations, respectively, suggesting a wide range of novel applications for the pharmacological tool set. This review summarizes recent findings regarding the physiological functions of Kv7 channels in smooth muscle, and highlights potential therapeutic applications based on pharmacological targeting of smooth muscle Kv7 channels throughout the body.

A long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist increases the expression of muscarine cholinergic subtype‑3 receptors by activating the β2-adrenoceptor cyclic adenosine monophosphate signaling pathway in airway smooth muscle cells

The persistent administration of β₂-adrenergic (β₂AR) agonists has been demonstrated to increase the risk of severe asthma, partly due to the induction of tolerance to bronchoprotection via undefined mechanisms. The present study investigated the potential effect of the long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist, formoterol, on the expression of muscarinic M3 receptor (M₃R) in rat airway smooth muscle cells (ASMCs). Primary rat ASMCs were isolated and characterized following immunostaining with anti-α-smooth muscle actin antibodies. The protein expression levels of M₃R and phospholipase C-β₁ (PLCβ₁) were characterized by western blot analysis and the production of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP₃) was determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Formoterol increased the protein expression of M₃R in rat ASMCs in a time- and dose-dependent manner, which was significantly inhibited by the β₂AR antagonist, ICI118,551 and the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) inhibitor, SQ22,536. The increased protein expression of M₃R was positively correlated with increased production of PLCβ₁ and IP₃. Furthermore, treatment with the glucocorticoid, budesonide, and the PLC inhibitor, U73,122, significantly suppressed the formoterol-induced upregulated protein expression levels of M₃R and PLCβ₁ and production of IP₃. The present study demonstrated that formoterol mediated the upregulation of M₃R in the rat ASMCs by activating the β₂AR-cAMP signaling pathway, resulting in increased expression levels of PLCβ₁ and IP₃, which are key to inducing bronchoprotection tolerance. Administration of glucocorticoids or a PLC antagonist prevented formoterol-induced bronchoprotection tolerance by suppressing the protein expression of M₃R.

The β-2 agonist debate: is there still a problem?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present an evidence-based review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations for long-acting β agonist (LABA) use in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FDA recommendation contraindicating the use of LABAs without a concomitant asthma-controller medication such as an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is supported, with the caveat that concomitant use of an asthma-controller medication applies only to ICS therapy and not other asthma controller medications (such as leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy or theophylline). The recommendation that LABA therapy be stopped once asthma control is achieved is restrictive. Although downtitration of therapy should be considered in patients with asthma, who are well controlled, other options such as reducing the dose of ICS may be preferable to stopping LABA therapy. In patients who are at risk of unstable asthma or severe exacerbations, maintaining the ICS/LABA therapy without downtitration may be required. The recommendation against LABA use in patients whose asthma is adequately controlled with a low or medium dose ICS is supported. The recommendation that fixed-dose combination ICS/LABA products should be the only form in which LABAs are prescribed in adolescents and paediatric patients should be extended to all asthma patients.

SUMMARY

The current β agonist debate focuses on the optimal management approaches for the use of LABA therapy to both minimize risk and maximize clinical efficacy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers' websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel-design clinical trials on patients of any age and with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.

Effect of montelukast or salmeterol added to inhaled fluticasone on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of montelukast, 5 mg, or inhaled salmeterol, 50 microg, added to inhaled fluticasone in reducing the maximum percentage decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after a standardized exercise challenge and response to rescue bronchodilation with albuterol in children aged 6 to 14 years with persistent asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 2-period, 4-week, crossover study conducted between December 22, 2005 and November 14, 2008 at 30 centers in Europe, Asia, Mexico, and South America. Patients with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids demonstrated an FEV1 of 70% or higher of the predicted value and EIB (defined as a decrease in FEV1 > or = 15% compared with preexercise baseline FEV1 on 2 occasions before randomization). Standardized exercise challenges were performed at baseline (prerandomization) and at the end of each active treatment period.

RESULTS

Of 154 patients randomized, 145 completed the study. Montelukast, compared with salmeterol, significantly reduced the mean maximum percentage decrease in FEV1 (10.6% vs 13.8%; P = .009), mean area under the curve for the first 20 minutes after exercise (116.0% x min vs 168.8% x min; P = .006), and median time to recovery (6.0 vs 11.1 minutes; P = .04). Response to albuterol rescue after exercise challenge was significantly greater (P < .001) with montelukast. Montelukast and salmeterol were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Attenuation and response of EIB to albuterol rescue after exercise challenge were significantly better with montelukast than with salmeterol after 4 weeks of treatment.

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was January 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were included in the review (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 mug versus salmeterol 50 mug twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma), and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six month period in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis the percentage with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a 3 month period the percentage of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol, and 1.3% for salmeterol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Four studies have been identified comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all subjects were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

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

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 versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

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 FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2007.

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 were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data was extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events was sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 26 trials comparing salmeterol to placebo and 8 trials comparing with salbutamol. These included 62,630 participants with asthma (including 2,380 children). In 6 trials (2,766 patients), no serious adverse event data could be obtained. All cause mortality was higher with regular salmeterol than placebo but the increase was not significant, Odds Ratio 1.33 [95% CI: 0.85, 2.10]. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular salmeterol was compared with placebo, Odds Ratio 1.14 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.28]. One extra serious adverse event occurred over 28 weeks for every 188 people treated with regular salmeterol [95% CI: 95 to 2606]. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the risk in children is higher or lower than in adults. No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular salmeterol was compared with regular salbutamol. Individual patient data from the SNS study have been combined with the results of the SMART study; in patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids, compared to regular salbutamol or placebo, there was a significant increase in risk of asthma-related death with regular salmeterol, Odds Ratio 9.52 [95% CI: 1.24, 73.09]. The confidence interval for patients taking inhaled corticosteroids is too wide to rule out an increase in asthma mortality in this group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular salmeterol. There is also a clear increase in risk of asthma-related mortality in patients not using inhaled corticosteroids in the two large surveillance studies. Although the increase in asthma-related mortality was smaller in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids at baseline, the confidence interval is wide, so it cannot be concluded that the inhaled corticosteroids abolish the risks of regular salmeterol. The adverse effects of regular salmeterol in children remain uncertain due to the small number of children studied.

Bronchodilator efficacy of the fixed combination of ipratropium and albuterol compared to albuterol alone in moderate-to-severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

The potential of anticholinergics to provide bronchodilatory benefits over short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABA) alone in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma has not been well defined.

METHODS

An outpatient, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study in adult asthmatics with moderate-to-severe obstruction despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was conducted comparing the fixed combination of ipratropium and albuterol (IB+ALB) to albuterol alone (ALB). Serial spirometry was performed over 6h. SABA were withheld for 8h, ICS and LABA for 24h.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were randomized, 106 completed the study (males n=47; mean+/-SD age=51+/-13 years). Mean+/-SD baseline FEV(1)=1.4+/-0.5 L (49+/-12% predicted). IB+ALB resulted in significantly greater improvements over ALB in the average improvement over baseline in FEV(1) as approximated from the area under the curve from 0 to 6h after drug administration (72 ml, p<0.01) and mean peak FEV(1) response (55 ml, p<0.01) as well as higher FEV(1) responses at individual time points from 0.5 to 6h postdose (p<0.01 for all). Time to onset of response was similar between groups but time to peak and duration of response were longer with IB+ALB versus ALB (120 versus 60 min and 245 versus 106 min, respectively).

CONCLUSION

IB+ALB resulted in significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) and longer duration of response compared to ALB alone in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma (Trial number: 1012.50; ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00096616).

Rationale for the major changes in the pharmacotherapy section of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines

Numerous changes have been incorporated into the new National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Expert Panel Report 3. In the pharmacotherapy section of the report, many of these changes are minor in that they do not alter the basic philosophy of treatment recommendations from the previous Expert Panel Report but only add new formulations, change dosing or dosage forms, or add discussion of risks. However, 4 major changes have been identified, and the rationales for 3 are discussed in detail here. The treatment of childhood asthma is divided into 2 distinct age groups, infants less than 5 years of age and children 5 to 12 years of age, because of the availability of more data suggesting differences in response in these patients, as well as a relative paucity of quality data in the younger patients. Omalizumab, a humanized mAb to IgE, is the only new entity approved for the treatment of asthma since the previous guidelines, and its recommendations were reviewed. The indication for combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) has been modified in lieu of the recent black box warning concerning the increased risk of severe asthma exacerbations and death associated with LABA use. However, the inhaled corticosteroids/LABAs are still recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. The rationale for the continued recommendation is provided.

Comparison of the dose response to levalbuterol with and without pretreatment with S-albuterol after methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of S-albuterol on the dose response to levalbuterol in patients with moderate bronchoconstriction induced by a methacholine challenge.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

SETTING

University-affiliated clinical trial center.

PATIENTS

Twenty-two adults with mild, stable asthma.

INTERVENTION

At the screening visit, patients were switched from their beta2-agonist to ipratropium bromide for use as an as-needed rescue therapy. At the baseline visit 2-6 days later, the provocative concentration of methacholine to induce a 30% decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1) PC(30)) was determined, followed by a nebulized racemic albuterol dose-response study with three doses of albuterol, to familiarize patients with the procedures. At visits 2 and 3, patients were randomly assigned to receive nebulized normal saline placebo or S-albuterol 5 mg before the methacholine challenge and were administered three escalating doses of levalbuterol after the challenge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Area under the curve for FEV(1) over 40 minutes (AUC(0-40)) after administration of levalbuterol was the primary outcome, with slope of FEV(1) as the secondary outcome. In addition, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) was measured before and after the challenges. In the 17 patients who met criteria for completion, no deleterious effect for S-albuterol was found for FEV(1) PC(30), AUC(0-40) FEV(1), or the FEV(1) slope(0-40). However, S-albuterol reduced the provocative concentration of methacholine to induce a 20% decrease in FEV(1) (PC(20) 0.52 +/- 2.06 vs 0.39 +/- 1.58 mg/ml, placebo vs S-albuterol, p=0.044) but did not affect FeNO.

CONCLUSION

A single high dose of S-albuterol did not alter the bronchodilator response to levalbuterol. The effect on bronchial responsiveness requires further study.

Non-corticosteroid therapy for the long-term control of asthma

The non-corticosteroids approved for the maintenance therapy of persistent asthma include the long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists (LABAs), leukotriene modifiers, chromones, theophylline and omalizumab. This review assesses the benefits and risks of each in relation to the inhaled corticosteroids and each other. Neither the LABAs nor omalizumab should be used as monotherapy for persistent asthma. There is no evidence of clinically significant differences in efficacy between the chromones, theophylline and leukotriene modifiers as monotherapy in mild-moderate persistent asthma; thus the choice of one therapy over the other is a clinical decision based upon differences in safety, acceptability to the patient and ease of use. Although there is significant variability in response to various therapies, non response to one therapy is not predictive of response to another. Neither studies of phenotypes nor genotypes have provided acceptable determinants of response as yet. As adjunctive therapy to the inhaled corticosteroids for moderate-severe persistent asthma, the LABAs provide superior improvement in lung function and reduction in exacerbations relative to higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids and the other noncorticosteroids used as adjunctive therapy. Thus, LABAs remain the adjunctive therapy of choice in patients not adequately controlled on low-medium dose inhaled corticosteroids. Omalizumab has not been compared with the other adjunctive therapies, so its relative efficacy is unknown. However, it is the only adjunctive therapy added to the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA to demonstrate further improvement in a controlled clinical trial.

Levalbuterol for asthma: a better treatment?

The purpose of this review is to determine whether the proinflammatory actions identified in vitro for (S)-albuterol provide a clinically significant therapeutic advantage for levalbuterol over racemic albuterol. Clinical trials evaluating the bronchodilation in chronic and acute asthma provide conflicting evidence. Older trials suggested an advantage for levalbuterol; however, the newer trials have failed to confirm those advantages. Although (S)-albuterol produces increased bronchial hyperresponsiveness in vitro and in animal models, this has not been consistently confirmed in clinical trials; however, the heterogeneity of the trials precludes definitive conclusions. Current clinical trials do not provide evidence of a substantial advantage of levalbuterol over racemic albuterol although the data are insufficient to determine whether subsets of the patient population might benefit from single isomer therapy.

Overcoming beta-agonist tolerance: high dose salbutamol and ipratropium bromide. Two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Asthmatics treated with long-acting beta-agonists have a reduced bronchodilator response to moderate doses of inhaled short acting beta-agonists during acute bronchoconstriction. It is not known if the response to higher doses of nebulised beta-agonists or other bronchodilators is impaired. We assessed the effect of long-acting beta-agonist treatment on the response to 5 mg nebulised salbutamol and to ipratropium bromide.

METHODS

Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies of inhaled formoterol 12 mug twice daily in patients with asthma.High-dose salbutamol: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled methacholine to produce a 20% fall in FEV1. Salbutamol 5 mg was then administered via nebuliser and the FEV1 was monitored for 20 minutes. Ipratropium: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled 4.5% saline to produce a 20% fall in FEV1. Salbutamol 200 mug or ipratropium bromide 40 mug was then inhaled and the FEV1 was monitored for 30 minutes. Four study arms compared the response to each bronchodilator after formoterol and placebo. Analyses compared the area under the bronchodilator response curves, adjusting for changes in pre-challenge FEV1, dose of provocational agent and FEV1 fall during the challenge procedure.

RESULTS

The response to nebulised salbutamol was 15% lower after formoterol therapy compared to placebo (95% confidence 5 to 25%, p = 0.008). The response to ipratropium was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

Long-acting beta-agonist treatment induces tolerance to the bronchodilator effect of beta-agonists, which is not overcome by higher dose nebulised salbutamol. However, the bronchodilator response to ipratropium bromide is unaffected.

Concluding remarks: can we explain the association of beta-agonists with asthma mortality? A hypothesis

Beta-agonists have clearly demonstrated benefits for the treatment of both acute and chronic asthma. Therefore, it is perhaps surprising that many of the articles in this issue have focused on concerns about their safety. Much of this concern can be traced back to the "beta-agonist controversy"--the association of high-dose isoprenaline and fenoterol inhalers with asthma mortality in the 1960s and 1970s. Although a causal link was never proven, lingering doubts about the safety of beta-agonists remain. It is unclear whether a similar adverse effect is responsible for recently reported association of long-acting beta-agonists with asthma deaths. No mechanism for the beta-agonist controversy was established, but the evidence presented in this collection of articles points to a number of contributing factors. I suggest that a combination of these effects provides a plausible mechanism for the association of frequent beta-agonist use with asthma mortality. Rebound bronchoconstriction and bronchial hyperresponsiveness occur on withdrawal of regular beta-agonist treatment. Regular use of fenoterol is associated with a reduction in morning peak flow suggesting that the overnight interval between doses is sufficient to allow rebound bronchoconstriction. This has not been observed with terbutaline or salbutamol, although rebound phenomena do occur when these drugs are withdrawn for slightly longer periods. Regular use of beta-agonists also leads to tolerance to their bronchoprotective and bronchodilator effects. Tolerance becomes more apparent with worsening bronchoconstriction. In severe asthma, this could result in a poor response to emergency treatment. The combination of rebound deterioration of asthma and a poor response to beta-agonist treatment resulting from tolerance could explain the increased mortality associated with fenoterol and isoprenaline. Both effects are probably caused by downregulation of beta-receptors which occurs with all beta-agonists. Long-acing beta-agonists cause a similar degree of tolerance to short-acting beta-agonists, but avoid the problem of overnight withdrawal. Long-acting beta-agonists have also been shown to improve asthma control when taken in combination with inhaled corticosteroids. The clinical significance of tolerance in this context remains to be determined.

Beta2-agonists and exercise-induced asthma

Beta2-agonists taken immediately before exercise provide significant protection against exercise- induced asthma (EIA) in most patients. However, when they are taken daily, there are some negative aspects regarding severity, control, and recovery from EIA. First, there is a significant minority (15-20%) of asthmatics whose EIA is not prevented by beta2-agonists, even when inhaled corticosteroids are used concomitantly. Second, with daily use, there is a decline in duration of the protective effect of long-acting beta2-agonists. Third, if breakthrough EIA occurs, recovery of lung function is slower in response to a beta2-agonist, and additional doses are often required to achieve pre-exercise values. If a person who takes a beta2-agonist daily experiences problems with exercise, then the physician should consider changing the treatment regimen to achieve better control of EIA. These problems likely result from desensitization of the beta2-receptor on the mast cell, which enhances mediator release, and on the bronchial smooth muscle, which enhances the bronchoconstrictor response and delays recovery from EIA. These effects are reversed within 72 h after cessation of a beta2-agonists. The important clinical question is: Are we actually compromising the beneficial effects of beta2-agonists on the prevention and recovery from EIA by prescribing them daily? Patients with EIA need to ensure that their doses of inhaled corticosteroid or other anti-inflammatory therapy are optimized so that, if necessary, a beta2-agonist can be used intermittently as prophylactic medication with greater confidence in the outcome.

Clinical concerns with inhaled beta2-agonists: adult asthma

Inhaled beta2-agonists, when used regularly, cause subtle but significant worsening of asthma control. Overuse of inhaled beta2-agonists is associated with increased risk of death from asthma in a dose-response fashion. beta2-Agonists enhance airway responses to allergens, including induced airway hyperresponsiveness and induced airway inflammation. This is a plausible explanation for beta2-agonist-worsened asthma control. These direct effects of inhaled beta2-agonists, including increased airway response to allergen, tolerance, etc., may partially explain the association of overuse with asthma death. However, it is probable that the major reason for the association of beta2-agonists overuse and asthma mortality is an indirect effect. Inhaled beta2-agonists are effective relievers and preventers of bronchoconstriction and asthma symptoms but fail to treat the underlying pathogenesis, namely the airway inflammation. Thus, overuse may mask the true asthma severity and result in both an underappreciation and undertreatment of the disease. This would provide a rational explanation for the relationship of inhaled beta2-agonist use and mortality and also would fit the dose-response pattern. Inhaled beta2-agonists should be used exclusively as needed for relief of symptoms and their requirement should be infrequent: the need for excessive doses of beta2-agonists provides a useful marker of asthma (lack of) control.

Recovery from bronchoconstriction and bronchodilator tolerance

Until recently, researchers believed that tolerance or tachyphylaxis to the bronchodilator effects of beta-agonists did not occur. However, recent studies examining the recovery from bronchoconstriction have clearly shown that an impaired response to beta-agonists occurs in patients who have been using regular beta-agonist treatment. This tolerance develops with both long- and short-acting beta-agonists and is not affected by treatment with inhaled steroids. It develops rapidly, reaching a maximum within 1 wk of starting beta-agonists, and has been demonstrated after methacholine, hypertonic saline, mannitol, and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. The observed reduction in the bronchodilator response is proportional to the severity of bronchoconstriction. Therefore, although individuals with stable asthma show little evidence of tolerance, those with severe bronchospasm have a markedly reduced bronchodilator response to beta-agonists. Almost all asthmatics show evidence of tolerance when tested in the setting of bronchoconstriction, although the extent of this tolerance varies. The reasons for this interindividual variation are not understood. Bronchodilator tolerance is difficult to study in the clinical setting because nearly every patient has used multiple doses of beta-agonist before seeking medical attention. However, there is compelling evidence that the response to rescue beta-agonist treatment is reduced in those who use regular long- or short-acting beta-agonists. The extent to which this phenomenon contributes to asthma morbidity and mortality remains to be determined.

Interactions between corticosteroids and beta2-agonists

In vitro studies have demonstrated numerous ways in which beta2-agonists and corticosteroids may interact. Together with evidence of improved control of airway diseases using a combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists compared with treatment with either drug alone, this suggests that there may be a beneficial synergy between these two classes of medication. However, a positive interaction has not been clearly demonstrated in vivo. There is little evidence that beta2-agonists enhance the anti-inflammatory actions of inhaled corticosteroids. Corticosteroids do not enhance the bronchodilator response to beta2- agonists, nor do they appear to prevent the development of tolerance during chronic beta2-agonist treatment. The evidence that high doses of corticosteroids can reverse tolerance to beta2-agonists is conflicting. Most of the clinical benefits from combinations using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists to treat asthma could result from additive or complimentary effects of the drugs on different parts of the disease process. Nevertheless, there are several studies in which the combination of a long- or short-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled corticosteroid appears to have provided more than additive clinical benefits. The issue warrants further study. Combined inhaled corticosteroid/beta-agonist treatment will remain the basis of asthma management for the foreseeable future, and although the overall clinical benefit of the combination is no longer in doubt, there is more to learn about maximizing this benefit and minimizing adverse effects.

Risk versus benefit considerations for the beta(2)-agonists

Short-acting beta(2)-agonists are the mainstay of therapy for acute bronchospasm associated with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, whereas long-acting beta(2)-agonists are used in maintaining disease control in these respiratory disorders. This review describes and compares the pharmacology of the beta(2)-agonists and explains how these differences translate into differences in efficacy and beta(2)-adrenergic-mediated adverse effects. Questions commonly asked by clinicians regarding the efficacy and safety of short- and long-acting beta(2)-agonists include issues about cardiovascular effects, tolerance to their bronchodilator and bronchoprotective effects, blunting of albuterol response by long-acting beta(2)-agonists, potential masking of worsening asthma control, and the role of long-acting beta(2)-agonists as adjunctive therapy with inhaled corticosteroids in maintaining asthma control. Pharmacogenetics may play a role in determining which patients may be at risk for a reduced response to a beta(2)-agonist. The continued use of racemic albuterol, which contains a mixture of R-albuterol and S-albuterol, has been questioned because of data from preclinical and clinical studies suggesting that S-albuterol causes proinflammatory effects and may increase bronchial hyperreactivity. The preclinical and clinical effects of these two stereoisomers are reviewed. Data describing the efficacy and safety of levalbuterol (R-albuterol) and racemic albuterol are presented.

Long-acting beta2-agonists in asthma: not so SMART?

Asthma is a worldwide chronic disorder that is characterised by airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness, which results in intermittent airflow obstruction and subsequent perception of symptoms and exacerbations. Inhaled corticosteroids are a fundamental component in the prevention of the short- and long-term complications associated with inadequately controlled asthma. However, many individuals experience persistent symptoms and exacerbations despite receiving low-to-medium doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (400-800 microg/day of beclometasone or equivalent). In these symptomatic asthmatic patients, guidelines advocate the initiation of a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) as additional second-line controller therapy. The recent SMART (Salmeterol Multi-centre Asthma Research Trial) study was designed to compare the effects of add-on salmeterol 42 microg (ex-actuator) twice daily with placebo over 28 weeks in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group fashion, with the intention to enrol 60,000 asthmatic patients. However, the study was halted prematurely because preliminary data revealed an increased mortality associated with regular use of salmeterol. Moreover, concerning rates of respiratory-related deaths, asthma-related deaths and life-threatening events were observed among African Americans, who constituted up to 18% of the study population. This in turn prompted the US FDA to announce important safety information regarding inhalers containing LABAs and advise that new labelling be produced outlining the "small but significant risk in asthma-related deaths" associated with their regular use. This evidence-based review discusses the data from SMART and highlights potentially important drawbacks with regular use of LABAs in persistent asthma.

Determinants of the bronchodilation response to salbutamol on histamine-induced bronchoconstriction

Assessment of the bronchodilation response to short-acting beta2-adrenoreceptor agonists on pharmacologically induced bronchoconstriction has often been used to investigate airway smooth muscle beta2-adrenoreceptor function. However, little is known about factors affecting this response. In the present study, the bronchodilation response to 0.2 mg of salbutamol on histamine-induced bronchoconstriction was assessed in 101 steroid-naïve asthmatic subjects. The associations of the response with a wide range of challenge procedure-related variables, clinical asthma severity indicators, and blood markers of airway inflammation were investigated. The response was re-assessed after 6 and 12 weeks' therapy with inhaled budesonide. Baseline FEV1, final histamine concentration, and the maximal fall in FEV1 explained 35-59% of the total variation in the response to salbutamol, depending on the index chosen to express the response. Serum concentration of myeloperoxidase, an index of neutrophilic inflammation, was associated with a poor response. The preceding week daily PEF variation, rescue bronchodilator use, severity of asthmatic symptoms, blood eosinophil count, and serum eosinophilic cationic protein and eosinophilic protein X concentrations were not associated with the response. The salbutamol response seemed to diminish during budesonide treatment but when adjusted by the challenge procedure-related variables the treatment effect vanished. In conclusion, the bronchodilation response to salbutamol on histamine-induced bronchoconstriction is largely determined by challenge procedure-related variables. It seems to be unrelated to the clinical severity of asthma and is not affected by treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Neutrophilic airway inflammation may be associated with a poor response.

Advances in the management of pediatric asthma: a review of recent FDA drug approvals and label updates

Children have the highest prevalence of asthma of any age group. In the United States during 2001, there were 12.6 million physician and hospital outpatient visits for asthma treatment, of which almost 5 million involved children 18 years and younger. Therapeutic advances in pediatric asthma could improve patient outcomes and potentially reduce the burden on health care systems. Efforts to obtain efficacy and safety data in pediatric populations and develop pediatric formulations of asthma treatments have been encouraged by the FDA and clinicians. This article reviews the newest additions to asthma therapies approved for use in children, including an inhaled corticosteroid, some long-acting beta2-agonists, some leukotriene-receptor blockers, and a single-isomer, short-acting beta2-agonist.

Tolerance to bronchodilation during treatment with long-acting beta-agonists, a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Regular use of beta-agonists leads to tolerance to their bronchodilator effects. This can be demonstrated by measuring the response to beta-agonist following bronchoconstriction using methacholine. However most studies have demonstrated tolerance after a period of beta-agonist withdrawal, which is not typical of their use in clinical practice. This study assessed tolerance to the bronchodilator action of salbutamol during ongoing treatment with long-acting beta-agonist.

METHODS

Random-order, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. After 1 week without beta-agonists, 13 asthmatic subjects inhaled formoterol 12 microg twice daily or matching placebo for 1 week. Eight hours after the first and last doses subjects inhaled methacholine to produce a 20% fall in FEV1. Salbutamol 100, 200 and 400 microg (cumulative dose) was then given at 5-minute intervals and FEV1 was measured 5 minutes after each dose. After a 1 week washout subjects crossed over to the other treatment. Unscheduled use of beta-agonists was not allowed during the study. The main outcome variable was the area under the salbutamol response curve.

RESULTS

The analysis showed a significant time by treatment interaction indicating that the response to salbutamol fell during formoterol therapy compared to placebo. After 1 week of formoterol the area under the salbutamol response curve was 48% (95% confidence interval 28 to 68%) lower than placebo. This reduction in response remained significant when the analyses were adjusted for changes in the pre-challenge FEV1 and dose of methacholine given (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The bronchodilator response to salbutamol is significantly reduced in patients taking formoterol. Clinically relevant tolerance to rescue beta-agonist treatment is likely to occur in patients treated with long-acting beta-agonists.

Formoterol used as needed in patients with intermittent or mild persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of as-needed treatment of formoterol compared with the short-acting alternative terbutaline.

METHODS

Two double-blind, 12-month, parallel-group, non-inferiority trials comparing as-needed use of formoterol (Oxis) 4.5 microg and terbutaline (Bricanyl) 0.5 mg via dry-powder inhaler (Turbuhaler), one in 675 patients with intermittent and one in 455 patients with mild persistent asthma, overall 6-87 years of age. Peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptoms, rescue medication use, exacerbations, airway responsiveness (metacholine challenge; subgroup of 127 patients), systemic effects (high single-dose test; subgroup of 87 patients), and safety (adverse events) were assessed.

RESULTS

Formoterol 4.5 microg was as effective as terbutaline 0.5 mg with regard to morning PEF (non-inferiority; lower 95% confidence interval limit above -10 L/min). Metacholine sensitivity, exacerbation rates or use of rescue medication did not differ between treatments. Formoterol 54 microg was shown to give less systemic effects than terbutaline 6 mg. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol 4.5 microg used as needed was at least as effective and safe as terbutaline 0.5 mg used as needed in intermittent and mild persistent asthma, and was associated with less systemic effects when administered as high single doses.

Past, present and future--beta2-adrenoceptor agonists in asthma management

The beta-adrenoceptor agonists (beta-agonists) have been used to relieve bronchoconstriction for at least 5000 years. beta-agonists are based on adrenaline and early forms, such as isoprenaline, Lacked bronchial selectivity and had unpleasant side effects. Modern beta-agonists are more selective for the beta2-adrenoceptors (beta2-receptors) located in bronchial smooth muscle and have less cardiotoxicity. Traditional beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (beta2-agonists), such as salbutamol, terbutaline and fenoterol, were characterised by a rapid onset but relatively short duration of action. While valuable as reliever medication, their short duration gave inadequate night-time relief and limited protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. beta2-agonists with longer durations of action, formoterol and salmeterol, were subsequently discovered or developed. When combined with inhaled corticosteroids they improved lung function, and reduced symptoms and exacerbations more than an increased dose of corticosteroids. However, tolerance to the bronchprotective effects of long-acting beta2-agonists and cross-tolerance to the bronchodilator effects of short-acting beta2-agonists is apparent despite use of inhaled corticosteroids. The role of beta2-receptor polymorphisms in the development of tolerance has yet to be fully determined. Formoterol is unique in having both a long-lasting bronchodilator effect (> 12 h) and a fast onset of action (1-3min from inhalation), making it effective both as maintenance and reliever medication. The recent change in classification from short- and long-acting beta2-agonists to rapid-acting and/or long-acting agents reflects the ongoing evolution of beta2-agonist therapy.

Single-dose agents in the prevention of exercise-induced asthma: a descriptive review

Exercise-induced asthma (EIA) refers to the transient narrowing of the airways that occurs after vigorous exercise in 50-60% of patients with asthma. The need to condition the air inspired during exercise causes water to be lost from the airway surface, and this is thought to cause the release of inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins) from mast cells. EIA is associated with airway inflammation and its severity is markedly reduced following treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Drugs that inhibit the release of mediators and drugs that inhibit their contractile effects are the most successful in inhibiting EIA. Single doses of short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists, given as aerosols immediately before exercise, are very effective in the majority of patients with asthma, providing about 80% protection for up to 2 hours. Long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) given in single doses can be effective for up to 12 hours when used intermittently, but tolerance to the protective effect occurs if they are taken daily. Drugs such as cromolyn sodium (sodium cromoglicate) and nedocromil given as aerosols are less effective than beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (beta(2)-agonists), providing 50-60% protection for only 1-2 hours, but they have some advantages. They do not induce tolerance, the aerosol dosage can be easily titrated for the individual, and the protective effect is immediate. Because they cause no significant adverse effects, multiple doses can be used in a day. Leukotriene receptor antagonists, such as montelukast and zafirlukast, are also used for the prevention of EIA and provide 50-60% protection for up to 24 hours when given as tablets. Tolerance to the protective effect does not develop with regular use. If breakthrough EIA occurs, a beta(2)-agonist can be used effectively for rescue medication. For those patients with more persistent symptoms, the use of a LABA in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid has raised a number of issues with respect to the choice of prophylactic treatment for EIA. The most important issue is the development of tolerance to the protective effect of a LABA such that extra treatment may be needed in the middle of a treatment period. Recommending extra doses of a beta(2)-agonist to control EIA is not advisable on the basis that multiple doses can enhance the severity of EIA, delay spontaneous recovery from bronchoconstriction, and enhance responses to other contractile stimuli. It is time to take into account the advantages and disadvantages of the different drugs available to prevent EIA and to recognize that there are some myths related to their use in EIA.

What is new with the beta2-agonists: issues in the management of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To review the more recent literature addressing the issue of whether beta2-agonists can worsen asthma and/or increase the risk of severe exacerbations and death from asthma.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed was searched (2001-December 2004), along with the Food and Drug Administration and Cochrane Library Web sites. In addition, the bibliographies of recent reviews of the subject were assessed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and meta-analyses published in the past 3 years were reviewed. Studies assessing the potential for beta2-agonists to worsen outcomes in asthma as well as long-term studies assessing asthma outcomes that included an arm with regular administration of short- or long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists (LABAs) were selected. Worsening asthma was defined as a decline in lung function, an increase in bronchial hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, or death. Studies older than 3 years selected from the bibliographies of the primary articles that addressed background perspective were also included where appropriate.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The studies fell into 3 primary categories with some overlap: those assessing toxicity of the S-enantiomer of albuterol, those evaluating the risk of specific genotypes regarding worsening asthma, and those assessing asthma outcomes with LABA therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current data on the use of beta2-agonists continue to support the national and international guidelines for the treatment of asthma. That is, short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists should only be used as needed for symptoms and prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm, and LABAs should only be used regularly as adjunctive therapy with inhaled corticosteroids in patients whose asthma is not controlled with low to medium doses of the inhaled corticosteroid.

Long-acting beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists and exercise-induced asthma: lessons to guide us in the future

The safety and efficacy of long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) taken intermittently for the prevention of exercise-induced asthma (EIA) in children is well established. However, the safety and efficacy of LABAs taken twice daily, either alone or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, for the prevention of EIA is not as clear because of issues of tolerance (defined as being less responsive to the influence of LABAs). There have been many observations on short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (SABAs) and EIA that should have alerted us to the potential for tolerance and desensitization to occur with LABAs. For example, we expected that the use of LABAs for EIA would overcome the problem of the short duration of protection of SABAs, and to some extent they have. The protective period of a LABA is two to three times longer in duration than that of a SABA. However, when a LABA is taken daily it is apparent that the duration of its protective effect is reduced and there is a risk of EIA occurring well within the 12-hour administration schedules. Furthermore, daily use of LABAs attenuates the bronchodilator effect of SABAs, an effect that is greater the more severe the bronchoconstriction. This 'tolerance' increases both the time and the amount of therapy that is needed to recover from bronchoconstriction, and thus, could potentially impact on the success of rescue therapy should severe EIA occur. The daily use of LABAs also increases the sensitivity of the bronchial smooth muscle to contractile agents. This increase in sensitivity is almost equivalent to the extent to which inhaled corticosteroids reduce sensitivity to the same contractile agents. The increased sensitivity to contractile agents may occur either by a reduction in the inhibitory effect of beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists on release of mediators from mast cells or by a direct effect on the bronchial smooth muscle. These unwanted effects of LABAs are not necessarily reduced by concomitant treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. As the number of children being treated with LABAs increases, it is predicted that problems with breakthrough EIA will also increase. We need to know the percentage of children taking a LABA daily who are requiring either extra doses of a beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist to prevent (or reverse) EIA or other provocative stimuli. If this percentage is significant then we may need to reconsider the position of LABAs in the treatment of children with asthma who regularly perform strenuous physical activity.

Rapid onset of tolerance to beta-agonist bronchodilation

INTRODUCTION

Regular use of beta-agonists leads to tolerance to their bronchodilator effects. This is easily demonstrated if dilation is tested following methacholine challenge. It is not known how quickly tolerance develops or how long it lasts after stopping beta-agonist therapy.

METHODS

Ten subjects with stable asthma were studied. Following 2 weeks without beta-agonists, methacholine was inhaled to induce a 20% reduction in FEV1. The response to inhaled salbutamol (100, 100, 200 microg at 5-min intervals) was then measured. This procedure was repeated 24 h after one dose and 24 h after 3, 7 and 14 days of inhaled formoterol 12 microg twice daily, and 3 and 5 days after formoterol was discontinued. Unscheduled use of beta-agonists was not permitted.

RESULTS

Bronchodilator tolerance, assessed by a reduction of the area under the salbutamol dose-response curve, occurred after 1 dose of formoterol (28% reduction, 95% CI 12, 45%), increased up to 1 week and plateaued between 1 and 2 weeks (58% reduction, 95% CI 38, 78%). Three days after stopping formoterol, the response to salbutamol was similar to baseline (12% reduction, 95% CI -9, 33%). The first dose of formoterol provided significant bronchoprotection to methacholine (1.6 doubling doses, P=0.007). This diminished with regular treatment and by 2 weeks the PD20 methacholine was not significantly different to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchodilator tolerance occurs after a single dose and reaches a maximum after 1 week of regular formoterol. Sensitivity recovers 3 days after stopping treatment.

Adverse effects of short-acting beta-agonists: potential impact when anti-inflammatory therapy is inadequate

BACKGROUND

Short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) are associated with reduced lung function and increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Earlier studies have failed to show that these changes are clinically important when SABAs are taken regularly in modest doses. However, some patients use SABAs to excess, especially with deteriorating asthma. Our aim was to establish whether adverse effects of SABAs are greater at higher than normal doses and after withdrawing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy.

METHODOLOGY

This was a randomized controlled study. The treatments were salbutamol/ipratropium 100 microg/20 microg/puff or ipratropium 20 microg/puff, each 12 puffs daily. Phase 1 was of 2 weeks duration. During phase 2 ICS were withdrawn until loss of control (LOC) occurred.

RESULTS

During phase 1 the mean FEV1 fell by 9.3% with salbutamol (0.26 L; 95% C.I. 0.13, 0.39), but by only 1.6% with ipratropium (0.05 L; 95% C.I. -0.06, 0.16; P = 0.006). During phase 2 FEV1 fell by a further 18.9% with salbutamol (0.54 L; 95% C.I. 0.39, 0.69), but by only 10.5% (0.33 L; 95% C.I. 0.17, 0.49; P = 0.032) with ipratropium. Time to LOC was significantly shorter with salbutamol (8.9 days) compared to ipratropium (16.8 days; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Adverse changes in lung function with SABA appear to be greater with higher doses and increasing airway inflammation. This highlights the risks of excessive SABA use in patients who neglect ICS therapy and/or who rely on 'relievers'.

Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to fluticasone for protection against asthma attacks: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

For patients whose asthma is uncontrolled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids, addition of alternative therapy instead of increasing the steroid dose is recommended by current treatment guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To compare montelukast, a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, and salmeterol, a twice-daily, long-acting beta-agonist, concomitantly administered with inhaled fluticasone, according to the percentage of patients without an asthma attack for 1 year.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted. Adult patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma (ages 14-73 years) receiving inhaled fluticasone (220 microg/d) who remained symptomatic during a 4-week run-in period were randomized to the addition of salmeterol (84 microg/d) or montelukast (10 mg/d) for 48 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 1,473 randomized patients, 743 were randomized to montelukast and 730 to salmeterol; 1,059 patients completed the study. Eighty percent of patients in the montelukast group and 83.3% of patients in the salmeterol group remained attack free during the 48 weeks of treatment (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.49). Montelukast significantly reduced blood eosinophil counts compared with salmeterol, whereas salmeterol significantly increased prealbuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma-specific quality of life, morning peak expiratory flow rate, and decreased nocturnal awakenings compared with montelukast. Differences between treatments were small, and both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid similarly protected most patients from experiencing an asthma attack during a 1-year period, but, based on noninferiority limits, the study was inconclusive with regard to a difference between treatment groups.

A comparison of salmeterol and formoterol in attenuating airway responses to short-acting beta2-agonists

In vitro data suggest that salmeterol, contrary to formoterol, can partly antagonise the effect of short-acting beta(2)-agonist rescue medication. To explore whether this occurs in vivo, we compared the effects of increasing doses (200-3200 microg) of fenoterol on the recovery of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction as well as PD(20) methacholine in 23 asthmatic patients, during two-week treatment periods with placebo, and standard doses of salmeterol or formoterol in a double blind, double-dummy, crossover study. Salmeterol showed a slightly higher propensity for the development of bronchodilator tolerance. The recovery of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction was more complete during regular use of formoterol relative to salmeterol. During regular use of both long-acting beta(2)-agonists the bronchoprotective efficacy of fenoterol was attenuated, but this was more pronounced during salmeterol than during formoterol. The mean maximum increase in PD(20) metacholine after the highest dose of fenoterol was 3.97 DD during placebo, 2.47 DD during formoterol (p<0.001) and 1.81 DD during salmeterol treatment (p<0.001). We conclude that in asthmatic patients the efficacy of short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists can be significantly attenuated during regular use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists. In this respect, differences were observed between salmeterol and formoterol that may represent the expression of partial antagonism by salmeterol.

Genetic variation of the beta(2)-adrenoceptor: its functional and clinical importance in bronchial asthma

Asthma is a polygenic disease for which no clear genotype-phenotype relationships have emerged. In contrast, although not associated with the diagnosis of asthma per se, variant forms of the beta(2)-adrenoceptor (beta2-AR) gene (ADRB2) display functional effects that may be clinically relevant. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of ADBR2 are common and result in amino acid substitutions at positions 16, 27, and 164 of the receptor as well as position 19 of its 5' upstream peptide. These SNPs influence receptor function in vitro, although evidence regarding exact relationships is conflicting. This has raised the possibility that phenotypes such as bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) and responses to (beta2)-agonist drugs may be genetically determined. To date, no unequivocal relationships between SNPs and phenotype have been identified. In some studies the Gly(16) allele has been associated with increased BHR and asthma severity. In others, the Arg(16) allele has been shown to determine acute bronchodilator response and adverse events during long term beta(2)-agonist therapy. The latter may provide the basis for clinical application of this new knowledge. More recently, a small number of frequently occurring, functionally relevant ADRB2 haplotype pairs have been confirmed. These combinations of alleles may be more important in determining genotype/phenotype relationships than individual SNPs, and may explain why earlier investigations have yielded contrasting results. Future studies will be required to clarify the pharmacodynamic effects of ADRB2haplotypes both in vitro and in vivo.

Beta2-agonist tolerance and exercise-induced bronchospasm

The effect of regular inhaled beta-agonist on the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction was studied. Eight subjects with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction took 1 week each of salbutamol 200 microg qid or placebo in a random-order, double-blind, crossover study. They then withheld this treatment for 8 hours before performing a dry-air, sub-maximal exercise challenge at a work-rate previously shown to induce a 15% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Five minutes after exercise, they inhaled salbutamol 100, 100, and 200 microg at 5-minute intervals. The mean pre-exercise FEV1 was similar on both study days. However, pretreatment for 1 week with salbutamol led to a significantly greater fall in FEV1 after exercise. The FEV1 remained lower than during the placebo arm despite the administration of salbutamol after exercise. This difference persisted 25 minutes after exercise. It is concluded that regular beta-agonist treatment leads to increased exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a suboptimal bronchodilator response to beta-agonist. The data suggest that previous regular beta-agonist treatment may lead to a failure to respond to emergency bronchodilator treatment during an acute asthma attack and support current opinion that regular short-acting beta-agonist therapy should not be used to treat asthma.

Beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms and drug responses in asthma

Genetic variation in the beta 2-adrenoceptor and its associated proteins is common and therefore potentially relevant to the clinician. Several functional SNPs have been described but in vitro studies have yielded inconsistent results. Confounding due to the variable presence of other polymorphic alleles may be the explanation and the recent definition of ADRB2 haplotypes offers the opportunity for clarification. In vitro studies have concentrated on downregulation and desensitization as functional end points. However, the relevance of these phenomena is unclear and extrapolating in vitro data to the clinical setting may not be appropriate. To date, only the Arg(16) polymorphism appears to be important in determining beta 2-agonist drug responses but the data as well as their application are limited. The results of prospective studies based on selection by ADRB2 haplotype will be necessary before a more general application of this knowledge can be encouraged.