Formoterol as relief medication in asthma: a worldwide safety and effectiveness trial

Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear.

Objective

To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma.

Data Sources

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions.

Study Selection

Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events.

Results

A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.

The Use of Albuterol/Budesonide as Reliever Therapy to Reduce Asthma Exacerbations

Prevention of asthma exacerbations and reduction of systemic corticosteroid burden remain unmet needs in asthma. US asthma guidelines recommend concomitant short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as an alternative reliever at step 2. The Food and Drug Administration approved a pressurized metered-dose inhaler containing albuterol and budesonide for as-needed treatment or prevention of bronchoconstriction and for reducing exacerbation risk in patients with asthma aged ≥18 years. This combination is approved for use as a reliever with or without maintenance therapy, but it is not indicated for maintenance therapy (or for single maintenance and reliever therapy). Intervening with as-needed SABA-ICS during the window of opportunity to reduce inflammation during loss of asthma control can reduce exacerbation risk, by exerting both genomic and nongenomic anti-inflammatory effects. We propose that the use of albuterol-budesonide rather than albuterol as a reliever to manage episodic symptoms driven by acute bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation can improve outcomes. This combination approach, shown to decrease asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid burden in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, represents a paradigm shift for asthma treatment in the United States. Further safety and efficacy studies should provide evidence that this type of reliever should be standard of care.

Safety and Effectiveness of As-Needed Formoterol in Asthma Patients Taking Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS)-Formoterol or ICS-Salmeterol Maintenance Therapy

BACKGROUND

As-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever is recommended in patients with asthma prescribed maintenance ICS-formoterol. Clinicians often ask whether ICS-formoterol reliever can be used with other maintenance ICS-long-acting β2-agonists.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of as-needed formoterol in patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol from the RELIEF study.

METHODS

RELIEF (SD-037-0699) was a 6-month, open-label study that randomized 18,124 patients with asthma to as-needed formoterol 4.5 μg or salbutamol 200 μg on top of maintenance therapy. This post hoc analysis included patients on maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol (n = 5436). The primary safety outcome was a composite of serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or adverse events leading to discontinuation (DAEs); the primary effectiveness outcome was time-to-first exacerbation.

RESULTS

For both maintenance groups and both relievers, similar numbers of patients had ≥1 SAE and/or DAE. In patients taking maintenance ICS-salmeterol, but not ICS-formoterol, significantly more non-asthma-related and nonserious DAEs occurred with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (P = .0066 and P = .0034, respectively). In patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol, there was a significantly lower risk in time-to-first exacerbation with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 0.95; P = .007). In patients taking ICS-salmeterol maintenance, time-to-first exacerbation was not significantly different between treatment arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06; P = .35).

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed formoterol significantly reduced exacerbation risk compared with as-needed salbutamol when added to maintenance ICS-formoterol, but not to maintenance ICS-salmeterol. More DAEs were seen with ICS-salmeterol maintenance therapy plus as-needed formoterol. Further research is needed to assess whether this is relevant to as-needed combination ICS-formoterol.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

A Practical Guide to Implementing SMART in asthma management

The use of a single inhaler containing the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and formoterol, a specific long-acting bronchodilator, for both maintenance and quick relief therapy (single maintenance and reliever therapy [SMART or MART]) is recommended by both the Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee in steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. This article provides practical advice about implementing SMART in clinical practice based on evidence and clinical experience. Fundamental to SMART is that ICS-formoterol provides quick relief of asthma symptoms similar to that of short-acting β₂-agonists such as albuterol, while reducing the risk for severe asthma exacerbations and at an overall lower ICS exposure. Most SMART clinical trials were in adults and adolescents (aged ≥12 years), using budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 μg (delivered dose), one inhalation once or twice daily (step 3) and two inhalations twice daily (step 4). For both steps 3 and 4, patients take additional inhalations of budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 μg, one inhalation whenever needed for symptom relief, up to a maximum for adults and adolescents of 12 total inhalations in any single day (delivering 54 μg formoterol). The efficacy and safety of SMART with budesonide-formoterol and beclometasone-formoterol have been confirmed, but other ICS-long-acting bronchodilator combinations have not been studied. The SMART regimen should be introduced with a careful explanation of its role in self-management, preferably with a customized written asthma action plan. The cost to patients and the availability of SMART treatment will depend on the prescribed dose and national or local payer agreements.

Efficacy and Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Adolescents with Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is challenging for adolescents. In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol (BUD-FORM) reduces severe exacerbations compared with as-needed short-acting beta₂-agonists, similar to the reduction with maintenance budesonide.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc pooled analysis of Symbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 and 2 assessed the efficacy and safety of as-needed BUD-FORM in adolescents.

METHODS

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind studies (NCT022149199; NCT02224157) in patients 12 years or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomized to twice-daily placebo + as-needed BUD-FORM 200/6 μg, twice-daily BUD 200 μg + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or twice-daily placebo + as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Annualized severe exacerbation rates, maintenance treatment adherence, and safety (including change in height) were compared between treatment groups in adolescents (aged ≥12 to <18 years).

RESULTS

Severe exacerbation rate was similar with as-needed BUD-FORM and BUD maintenance (pooled analysis: 0.08 vs 0.07/y; P = .634), and was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM versus as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1: 0.04 vs 0.17/y; P = .005). Median adherence was 73% in SYGMA 1 and 51% in SYGMA 2. Change in height from baseline in adolescents aged ≥12 years to <14 years was significantly greater with as-needed BUD-FORM (4.8 cm) versus BUD maintenance (3.9 cm) (pooled: P < .046), and was similar between as-needed BUD-FORM (4.5 cm) and as-needed terbutaline (4.1 cm) (SYGMA 1: P = .500). No new or unexpected safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents with mild asthma, as-needed BUD-FORM was superior to as-needed terbutaline for severe exacerbation reduction, with similar efficacy to BUD maintenance. As-needed BUD-FORM provides an alternative treatment option for adolescents with mild asthma, without needing daily treatment.

The management of mild asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been recommended as a maintenance treatment, either alone or together with long-acting inhaled β₂-agonists, for all asthma patients. Short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) are rapid-onset bronchodilators, which provide symptom relief, but have no anti-inflammatory properties, yet are the most widely used as-needed reliever treatment for asthma and often the only treatment prescribed. Asthma patients can find adhering to daily preventative medication with ICS difficult and will often revert to using as-needed SABA as their only treatment, increasing their risk of exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of reliever medications that contain ICS compared with SABA as reliever, or with maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, in mild asthma patients.Nine studies were identified that have evaluated the use of ICS as a component of an as-needed reliever in patients with mild asthma. Four of the most recent studies compared the combination of ICS/formoterol to SABA as reliever.ICS-containing reliever medication was superior to SABA as reliever alone, and was equivalent to maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, particularly in reducing risks of severe asthma exacerbations, in studies which compared these reliever options.SABAs should not be used as a reliever without ICS. The concern about patients with mild asthma not being adherent to maintenance ICS supports a recommendation that ICS/formoterol should be considered as a treatment option instead of maintenance ICS, to avoid the risk of patients reverting to SABA alone.

Japanese guidelines for adult asthma 2020

Bronchial asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation, which manifests clinically as variable airway narrowing (wheezes and dyspnea) and cough. Long-standing asthma may induce airway remodeling and become intractable. The prevalence of asthma has increased; however, the number of patients who die from it has decreased (1.3 per 100,000 patients in 2018). The goal of asthma treatment is to control symptoms and prevent future risks. A good partnership between physicians and patients is indispensable for effective treatment. Long-term management with therapeutic agents and the elimination of the triggers and risk factors of asthma are fundamental to its treatment. Asthma is managed by four steps of pharmacotherapy, ranging from mild to intensive treatments, depending on the severity of disease; each step includes an appropriate daily dose of an inhaled corticosteroid, which may vary from low to high. Long-acting β₂-agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, sustained-release theophylline, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended as add-on drugs, while anti-immunoglobulin E antibodies and other biologics, and oral steroids are reserved for very severe and persistent asthma related to allergic reactions. Bronchial thermoplasty has recently been developed for severe, persistent asthma, but its long-term efficacy is not known. Inhaled β₂-agonists, aminophylline, corticosteroids, adrenaline, oxygen therapy, and other approaches are used as needed during acute exacerbations, by selecting treatment steps for asthma based on the severity of the exacerbations. Allergic rhinitis, eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic otitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, and pregnancy are also important conditions to be considered in asthma therapy.

Effect of a single day of increased as-needed budesonide-formoterol use on short-term risk of severe exacerbations in patients with mild asthma: a post-hoc analysis of the SYGMA 1 study

BACKGROUND

In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol reduces long-term exacerbation risk compared with as-needed short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA), with a similar or increased reduction versus maintenance with budesonide plus as-needed SABA, despite a lower budesonide dose. In this post-hoc analysis of the SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 study, we investigated the short-term risk of severe exacerbations after a single day with various levels of reliever use.

METHODS

SYGMA 1 was a 52-week, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, in which patients aged 12 years or older with mild asthma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo twice daily plus as-needed terbutaline 0·5 mg, placebo twice daily plus as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 μg, or budesonide 200 μg twice daily plus as-needed terbutaline (ie, budesonide maintenance group). In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed the frequency of reliever use and the risk of a severe exacerbation in the 21 days after first use of more than two, four, six, or eight reliever inhalations in 24 h. SYGMA 1 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02149199, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Of 5721 patients enrolled in SYGMA 1, 3849 were randomly assigned to as-needed terbutaline (n=1280), as-needed budesonide-formoterol (n=1279), or budesonide maintenance (n=1290), of whom 3836 had evaluable data (n=1277 as-needed terbutaline, n=1277 as needed budesonide-formoterol, and n=1282 budesonide maintenance). Median reliever use was 0·32 (IQR 0·08-0·91) inhalations per day for the as-needed terbutaline group, 0·29 (0·07-0·72) for the as-needed budesonide-formoterol group, and 0·16 (0·04-0·52) for the budesonide maintenance group. Compared with as-needed terbutaline, after adjustment for age, sex, randomly assigned treatment, pre-study treatment group, baseline % predicted post-bronchodilator FEV₁, and severe exacerbation in the 12 months before enrolment in the study, the hazard ratio (HR) for severe exacerbation in the 21 days after a single day with more than two as-needed inhalations was 0·27 (95% CI 0·12-0·58; p=0·0008) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·39 (0·19-0·79; p=0·0091) with budesonide maintenance; after a single day of more than four as-needed inhalations the HR was 0·24 (0·10-0·62; p=0·0030) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·30 (0·13-0·72; p=0·0065) with budesonide maintenance; and after a single day of more than six as-needed inhalations the HR was 0·14 (0·02-1·06; p=0·057) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·43 (0·14-1·26; p=0·12) with budesonide maintenance. HRs were not calculated for more than eight as-needed inhalations due to the small number of events.

INTERPRETATION

In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol reduces the short-term risk of severe exacerbations after a single day of higher use (more than two as-needed inhalations), even when overall use is infrequent. Use of an anti-inflammatory reliever might reduce the risk of short-term severe exacerbations by the timely provision of increased doses of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol when symptoms occur. These findings should be further assessed in prospective randomised clinical trials.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta₂-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Influence of Adherence to Inhaled Corticosteroids and Inhaler Handling Errors on Asthma Control in a Japanese Population

Objective High adherence to medications and accurate handling of inhaler devices are important for asthma management. However, few reports to date have simultaneously evaluated adherence and handling errors. We therefore investigated the adherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and inhaler handling errors in the same patients in cooperation with pharmacists. Methods Data were derived from a survey of physicians and pharmacists treating asthma patients who visited participating hospitals and pharmacies from July 2012 to January 2013. The patients were evaluated for asthma control using the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and for inhaler handling errors using checklists. ICS adherence was evaluated based on pharmaceutical records. Results Adherence among participants (n=290) was 33.3% (mean), and the percentage of inhaler handling errors was 20.0% (mean). Total inhalation times in the high-adherence group were fewer than those in the low-adherence group. In a comparison by device, adherence to pressurized metered dose inhalers was significantly lower than that to Diskus® inhalers, presumably attributable to the total number of inhalations per day. Adherence, handling errors, and total number of inhalations per day were significantly different between the asthma-controlled group and the uncontrolled group. A multivariate analysis showed that adherence and handling errors were independent factors contributing to asthma control. Conclusion Our data indicated that both adherence to ICS and device handling errors contributed to asthma control in this population.

A systematic review of adverse drug events associated with administration of common asthma medications in children

Objective

To systematically review the literature and determine frequencies of adverse drug events (ADE) associated with pediatric asthma medications.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched six bibliographic databases between January 1991 and January 2017. Study eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were independently completed and verified by two reviewers. We included randomized control trials (RCT), case-control, cohort, or quasi-experimental studies where the primary objective was identifying ADE in children 1 month– 18 years old exposed to commercial asthma medications. The primary outcome was ADE frequency.

Findings

Our search identified 14,540 citations. 46 studies were included: 24 RCT, 15 cohort, 4 RCT pooled analyses, 1 case-control, 1 open-label trial and 1 quasi-experimental study. Studies examined the following drug classes: inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 24), short-acting beta-agonists (n = 10), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (n = 3), ICS + LABA (n = 3), Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists (n = 3) and others (n = 3). 29 studies occurred in North America, and 29 were industry funded. We report a detailed index of 406 ADE descriptions and frequencies organized by drug class. The majority of data focuses on ICS, with 174 ADE affecting 13 organ systems including adrenal and growth suppression. We observed serious ADE, although they were rare, with frequency ranging between 0.9–6% per drug. There were no confirmed deaths, except for 13 potential deaths in a LABA study including combined adult and pediatric participants. We identified substantial methodological concerns, particularly with identifying ADE and determining severity. No studies utilized available standardized causality, severity or preventability assessments.

Conclusion

The majority of studies focus on ICS, with adrenal and growth suppression described. Serious ADE are relatively uncommon, with no confirmed pediatric deaths. We identify substantial methodological concerns, highlighting need for standardization with future research examining pediatric asthma medication safety.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies

Background

Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors.

Methods

AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks’ duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study.

Results

Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38).

Conclusion

This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Use of ICS/LABA (extra-fine and non-extra-fine) in elderly asthmatics

Age represents an exclusion criterion in randomized clinical trials designed to test the efficacy and safety of inhaled drugs in asthma. As a consequence, data on efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combinations in elderly asthmatics are scanty. Older age is associated with an increased proportion of comorbid conditions; in addition, all organ functions undergo a process of senescence, thus reducing their ability to metabolize the agents. Overall, these age-associated conditions may variably, and often unpredictably, affect the metabolism and excretion of respiratory drugs. However, pharmacological treatment of asthma does not follow specific recommendations in the elderly. In the elderly, the ICS/LABA combinations may carry an increased risk of local indesiderable effects, primarily due to the lack of coordination between activation of the device and inhalation, and systemic adverse events, mainly due to the greater amount of active drug that is available because of the age-associated changes in organ functions as well as drug-to-drug and drug-to-concomitant disease interactions. The extra-fine formulations of ICSs/LABAs, which allow for a more favorable drug deposition in the lungs at a reduced dose, may contribute to overcome this issue. This review revises the efficacy and safety of treatment with ICSs/LABAs, focusing on the main pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the drugs and highlighting the potential risks in the elderly asthmatic population.

Inhaled Glucocorticosteroid and Long-Acting beta(2)-Adrenoceptor Agonist Single-Inhaler Combination for Both Maintenance and Rescue Therapy : A Paradigm Shift in Asthma Management

Despite aggressive fixed-dose (FD) combination therapy with inhaled glucocorticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA), many patients with asthma remain suboptimally controlled, based on the need for rescue therapy and rates of severe exacerbations. The strategy of adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD) involves adjustment of the maintenance dose, (using a single combination [budesonide/formoterol] inhaler, Symbicort((R))) in response to variability of asthma control over time. The AMD strategy, like the FD approach, involves the use of a short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (SABA) for rapid relief of bronchospasm. The dose-response characteristics of budesonide/formoterol make the AMD strategy a feasible option that cannot be exploited with the combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Advair((R))). Several studies suggest that the AMD strategy is superior to a FD approach in terms of overall asthma control.Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is as effective as albuterol (salbutamol) for relief of acute asthma episodes, a feature that makes it possible to use this combination for both maintenance and reliever therapy without the need for the use of a SABA. The single-inhaler strategy has been shown to be safe and more efficacious than FD therapy. In particular, the COSMOS study has demonstrated that exacerbation burden is reduced more effectively when the combination (budesonide/formoterol) single inhaler is used for both maintenance and relief compared with FD therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone and albuterol for rescue in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. These findings suggest that we will have to reconsider our definition of reliever therapy for patients that require long-term therapy with combination ICS and LABA.The concept of single-inhaler therapy represents a paradigm shift in asthma management that has been validated in several large studies involving thousands of patients. The single-inhaler strategy represents one of the most significant advances in asthma management in many years, and one that appears ideal for adoption in primary care.

Formoterol as reliever medication in asthma: a post-hoc analysis of the subgroup of the RELIEF study in East Asia

Background

As-needed formoterol can effectively relieve asthma symptoms. Since budesonide/formoterol is available as maintenance and reliever therapy in Asia, formoterol is now being used as-needed, but always with concomitant inhaled corticosteroids. The objective of this analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of formoterol therapy in patients in East Asia (China, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines and Singapore) with asthma.

Methods

Post-hoc analyses of data from the East Asian population of the RELIEF (REal LIfe EFfectiveness of Oxis® Turbuhaler® as-needed in asthmatic patients; study identification code: SD-037-0699) study were performed.

Results

This sub-group comprised 2834 randomised patients (formoterol n = 1418; salbutamol n = 1416) with mean age 35 years; 50.7 % were male. 2678 patients completed the study. There was no significant difference in the total number of adverse events (AEs) reported in the formoterol and salbutamol groups (21.3 % vs 20.9 % of patients; p = 0.813), nor in the total number of serious AEs and/or discontinuations due to AEs (4.6 % vs 5.5 %, respectively; p = 0.323). Compared with salbutamol, formoterol was associated with a significantly longer time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.86; p = 0.023) and a 14 % reduction in the risk of any exacerbation (p < 0.05). Relative to salbutamol, mean adjusted reliever medication use throughout the study was significantly lower in the formoterol group (p = 0.017) and the risk of increased asthma medication use was 20 % lower with formoterol (p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Among patients with asthma in East Asia, as-needed formoterol and salbutamol had similar safety profiles but, compared with salbutamol, formoterol reduced the risk of exacerbations, increased the time to first exacerbation and reduced the need for reliever medication.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-015-0166-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[A new fixed dose combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler for the treatment of asthma]

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting beta-2 agonist is indicated for the regular treatment of persistent moderate-to-severe asthmatics whose asthma is not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and the occasional use of a short acting beta-2 agonist. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the rationale of combining formoterol and fluticasone and to analyze the clinical data concerning a new fixed combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler with a dose counter (Flutiform(®)) that was approved for the treatment of asthma in France in 2013. The clinical studies provide evidence that combined fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone (Flixotide(®)) and formoterol (Foradil(®)) administered concurrently. The combination of fluticasone/formoterol gave a more rapid bronchodilatation than the combination fluticasone/salmeterol. As a whole, the combination of fluticasone/formoterol had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to the combinations of either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol.

Dry-powder inhalers in acute asthma

An updated literature search was performed to evaluate the efficacy of rapid-acting β2-agonists delivered via dry powder inhalers in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute asthma. Databases were searched from 1985 up to December 2012. A total of 23 randomized, double-blind or open clinical studies in acute asthma comparing the efficacy of a dry powder inhaler with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler or a nebulizer, and performed under controlled hospital conditions, were identified. This review found that administration of β2-agonist bronchodilators via dry powder inhalers (formoterol, salbutamol, terbutaline and budesonide/formoterol) was effective during severe asthma worsening and acute asthma attacks, and was as effective as established therapies with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler with or without a spacer, or nebulization. These results ensure that patients can rely upon dry powder inhalers equally well as other inhaler devices during episodes of asthma worsening.

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.

LABAs in asthmatic children: highlights and new inside

International asthma guidelines recommend increasing the dose of ICS or adding leukotriene modifiers or the use of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists (LABAs) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) when uncontrolled asthma occurs in adult and children in treatment with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids. However, in children, the effects of this last treatment option are unclear because there are few studies on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in pediatric age. Furthermore, salmeterol is licensed for use in children over 4 years and formoterol in children of more than 6 years. Finally, recent data provides evidence that repeated bronchoconstriction induces epithelial cell stress that may lead to remodeling and these findings may have potential implications for asthma management, particularly for LABAs treatment in the future.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A critical comparison between the World Health Organization list of essential medicines for children and the Brazilian list of essential medicines (Rename)

OBJECTIVE

To perform a critical comparison between the Brazilian national essential medicines list (Rename, 2012) with the list of essential medicines for children (LEMC, 2011) of the World Health Organization (WHO), regarding the differences among drugs and formulations listed for children.

METHODS

The LEMC drugs were classified into four categories: 1) absent in Rename; 2) included in Rename but without any formulation suitable for children; 3) listed in Rename only in some formulations; 4) present in Rename in all formulations. The missing formulations were analyzed by therapeutic group. Alternatives present in Rename were searched.

RESULTS

From the 261 drugs of interest on the LEMC, 30.3% are absent from Rename, 11.1% are in Rename but without any pediatric formulation, and 32.2% are present in some but not all formulations listed in LEMC. Considering all formulations items listed in the LEMC (n = 577), 349 are missing from Rename, of these 19.6% due to their strength, and 18.5% due to the the dosage form. Useful formulations specific for neonatal care, respiratory tract, central nervous system, and anti-infectives, among other groups, are missing.

CONCLUSION

The lack of age-appropriate formulations of essential medicines for children in Brazil includes important therapeutic groups and indispensable drugs for severe clinical conditions. Some of these products exist in the Brazilian pharmaceutical market, but not in public facilities; others could be produced by national laboratories with commercial interest or stimulated by a specific governmental policy, as in other countries.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in Asian patients (aged ≥16 years) with asthma: a sub-analysis of the COSMOS study

BACKGROUND

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), budesonide, and a rapid long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA), formoterol, in a single inhaler for use as maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™) effectively achieves a high level of asthma control and reduces exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalizations. The COSMOS study, a multinational, 12-month study (N = 2143), compared budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol, allowing physicians to modify maintenance doses of both combinations according to routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post hoc sub-group analysis of the COSMOS study is to provide focused data on budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus as-needed salbutamol in patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled across Asian countries, specifically China, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

METHODS

This sub-analysis of the COSMOS study concerns all 404 randomized patients ≥16 years of age (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 69.1%) who were recruited from Asian countries. Patients received either budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler SMART™, n = 198), starting dose 160 mg/4.5 mg two inhalations twice daily (bid) [plus additional as-needed inhalations], or salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide(®) Diskus(®), n = 206), starting dose 50 mg/250 mg bid (plus salbutamol [Ventolin(®)] as needed). Maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks (budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus as needed, n = 198; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol, n = 206). To allow for free adjustment in maintenance doses in both arms, the trial was performed open-label; maintenance doses could be titrated by clinicians after the first 4 weeks. The time to first severe exacerbation (defined as deterioration in asthma resulting in hospitalization/emergency room treatment, oral corticosteroids for ≥3 days or unscheduled visit leading to treatment change) was the primary variable.

RESULTS

The time to first severe exacerbation was prolonged in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate plus salbutamol (log-rank p = 0.024). The risk of a first exacerbation was reduced by 44% (hazard ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32, 0.95; p = 0.033) in patients using the adjusted budesonide/formoterol regimen versus titrated salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. The overall exacerbation rates were 0.16 versus 0.26 events/patient-year, respectively, with a 38% reduction (rate ratio 0.62/patient/year; 95% CI 0.41, 0.94; p = 0.024) in favour of the budesonide/formoterol regimen. Compared with baseline, both regimens provided clinically relevant improvements in asthma control, quality of life and FEV(1); no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. Mean adjusted (standard deviation) ICS dose (expressed as beclomethasone dose equivalents) during treatment, including as-needed budesonide doses, was 944 (281) and 1034 (394) μg/day, respectively, in patients using maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSION

In patients (aged ≥16 years) enrolled from Asian countries as part of the COSMOS study, the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever regimen was associated with a lower future risk of exacerbations versus the physicians' free choice of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol. Single inhaler combination treatment with maintenance plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol was also at least as efficacious as salmeterol/fluticasone propionate dose plus salbutamol in improving current asthma control.

Relief of methacholine-induced bronchospasm with extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol in comparison with salbutamol in asthma

BACKGROUND

Short-acting beta2-agonists like salbutamol and terbutaline are used as rescue medications for acute bronchoconstriction and relief of symptoms due to their rapid onset of action. The aim of this study was to assess whether inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) combination in extrafine formulation is non-inferior to salbutamol in the speed of reverting methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction and symptoms.

METHODS

Fifty-six asthmatic patients were examined in a multicentre, randomised, double blind, double dummy, active treatment and placebo controlled three period cross-over study. On three different days, a single dose of BDP/FF 100/6 μg in pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) extrafine formulation or salbutamol 200 μg pMDI or placebo was inhaled after FEV(1) had dropped by 30-45% with methacholine challenge.

RESULTS

The median time to recovery of FEV(1) to 85% of baseline was similar for BDP/FF and salbutamol (3.66 and 2.15 min, respectively), but significantly longer for placebo (21.1 min). The planned analysis on adjusted mean time to recovery showed that the difference from methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction between BDP/FF and salbutamol was 3.82 min (95% confidence interval: -0.85 to 8.5), therefore greater than 3 min supposed in the study design. The difference between BDP/FF and salbutamol was not clinically significant. The two active treatments were also comparable in terms of the relief of symptoms (as assessed by the Borg dyspnoea scale).

CONCLUSIONS

BDP/FF combination has a fast onset of action, similar to that of salbutamol, and may represent a good alternative as rescue medication in asthmatic patients.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in primary care asthma management: effects on bronchial hyperresponsiveness and asthma control

BACKGROUND

The management of asthma has changed since the introduction of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) as both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART). SMART and its effects on bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) have not been studied in primary care.

AIMS

To compare the effects of SMART and guideline-driven usual care (UC) on BHR and clinical asthma severity in primary care practice.

METHODS

Patients with mild-to-moderate stable asthma were randomised to receive SMART treatment (n=54) (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 μg Turbuhaler®, two puffs once daily and extra inhalations as needed) or UC treatment (n=48) for 12 months. Diary data, Asthma Control Questionnaire scores, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements were collected during run-in and after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment. BHR, measured as the dose of histamine provoking a fall in FEV1 of 20% (PD20-histamine), was determined at randomisation and after 12 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients with asthma participated in the study. The change in PD20-histamine during the study was not significantly different between the SMART and UC groups (p=0.26). The mean inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose was 326 μg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalents/day (95% CI 254 to 399) with SMART, which was significantly lower (p<0.0001) than the mean ICS dose with UC treatment (798 μg BDP equivalents/day (95% CI 721 to 875). Morning and evening PEF values increased significantly with SMART treatment compared with UC; FEV1, symptoms and asthma control did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a 59% lower dose of ICS, BHR and other clinical outcomes remained stable during SMART treatment while PEF values improved.

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.

Tremor and β(2)-adrenergic agents: is it a real clinical problem?

Tremor is one of the most characteristic adverse effects following administration of β(2)-adrenergic agonists. It is reported by around 2-4% of patients with asthma taking a regular β(2)-adrenergic agonist and is induced by both short-acting and long-acting agents. Tremor associated with β(2)-adrenergic agonists is dose-related and may occur more commonly with oral dosing. The exact mechanism for tremor induction by β(2)-adrenergic agonists is still unknown, but there is some evidence that β(2)-adrenergic agonists act directly on muscle. An early explanation of the tremor was that β(2)-adrenoceptor stimulation shortens the active state of skeletal muscle, which leads to incomplete fusion and reduced tension of tetanic contractions. More recently, tremor has been correlated closely with hypokalaemia. A possible diverse impact of different modes of administration of β(2)-adrenergic agonists on tremorogenic responses has been suggested but solid evidence is still lacking. In any case, the desensitization of β(2)-adrenoceptors that occurs during the first few days of regular use of a β(2)-adrenergic agonist accounts for the commonly observed resolution of tremor after the first few doses. Therefore, tremor is not a really important adverse effect in patients under regular treatment with a β(2)-adrenergic agonist.

New approaches to managing asthma: a US perspective

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

Formoterol versus short-acting beta-agonists as relief medication for adults and children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Formoterol is a long-acting beta(2)-agonist but because it has a fast onset of action it can also be used as a relief medication.

OBJECTIVES

To asses the efficacy and safety of formoterol as reliever therapy in comparison to short-acting beta(2)-agonists in adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and websites of clinical trial registers (for unpublished trial data), and we checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel-arm trials of at least 12 weeks duration in patients of any age and severity of asthma. Studies randomised patients to any dose of as-needed formoterol versus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or other maintenance medication 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. We sought unpublished data on primary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight studies conducted in 22,604 participants (mostly adults). Six studies compared formoterol as-needed to terbutaline whilst two studies compared formoterol with salbutamol as-needed. Background maintenance therapy varied across the trials. Asthma exacerbations and serious adverse events showed a direction of treatment effect favouring formoterol, of which one outcome reached statistical significance (exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids). In patients on short-acting beta(2)-agonists, 117 people out of 1000 had exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over 30 weeks, compared to 101 (95% CI 93 to 108) out of 1000 for patients on formoterol as-needed. In patients on maintenance inhaled corticosteroids there were also significantly fewer exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids on formoterol as-needed (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91). There was one death per 1000 people on formoterol or on short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults, formoterol was similar to short-acting beta(2)-agonists when used as a reliever, and showed a reduction in the number of exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids. Clinicians should weigh the relatively modest benefits of formoterol as-needed against the benefits of single inhaler therapy and the potential danger of long-term use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists in some patients. We did not find evidence to recommend changes to guidelines that suggest that long-acting beta(2)-agonists should be given only to patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids.There was insufficient information reported from children in the included trials to come to any conclusion on the safety or efficacy of formoterol as relief medication for children with asthma.

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

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

Protective effect of budesonide/formoterol compared with formoterol, salbutamol and placebo on repeated provocations with inhaled AMP in patients with asthma: a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study

Background

The budesonide/formoterol combination is successfully used for fast relief of asthma symptoms in addition to its use as maintenance therapy. The temporarily increased corticosteroid dose during increasing inhaler use for symptom relief is likely to suppress any temporary increase in airway inflammation and may mitigate or prevent asthma exacerbations. The relative contribution of the budesonide and formoterol components to the improved asthma control is unclear.

Methods

The acute protective effect of inhaled budesonide was tested in a model of temporarily increased airway inflammation with repeated indirect airway challenges, mimicking an acute asthma exacerbation. A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study design was used. Asthmatic patients (n = 17, mean FEV₁ 95% of predicted) who previously demonstrated a ≥30% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after inhaling adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP), were challenged on four consecutive test days, with the same dose of AMP (at 09:00, 12:00 and 16:00 hours). Within 1 minute of the maximal AMP-induced bronchoconstriction at 09:00 hours, the patients inhaled one dose of either budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg), formoterol (4.5 μg), salbutamol (2 × 100 μg) or placebo. The protective effects of the randomised treatments were assessed by serial lung function measurements over the test day.

Results

In the AMP provocations at 3 and 7 hours after inhalation, the budesonide/formoterol combination provided a greater protective effect against AMP-induced bronchoconstriction compared with formoterol alone, salbutamol and placebo. In addition all three active treatments significantly increased FEV₁ within 3 minutes of administration, at a time when inhaled AMP had induced the 30% fall in FEV₁.

Conclusions

A single dose of budesonide/formoterol provided a greater protective effect against inhaled AMP-induced bronchoconstriction than formoterol alone, both at 3 and at 7 hours after inhalation. The acute protection against subsequent bronchoconstrictor stimuli such as inhaled AMP and the rapid reversal of airway obstruction supports the use of budesonide/formoterol for both relief and prevention in the treatment of asthma.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00272753

Budesonide/formoterol dry powder in asthma: an option for control as maintenance and reliever therapy

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with various components that may contribute to symptoms. Obtaining global control of is one of the fundamental parts of the management of this disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The Cochrane trial database, Medline and Embase, were searched systematically, and approximately 20 respiratory journals and conference abstracts were searched manually. The search was limited to publications in English language of last 20 years and which included the keywords 'budesonide', 'formoterol', 'asthma' and 'control'.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The purposes of this review are: i) to discuss the rationale about possibility of using combination therapy administered with a single inhaler for both daily maintenance and relief as needed of breakthrough symptoms in asthma management; ii) to give readers the current status of clinical pharmacological treatment of asthma; iii) to discuss the evidence on the use of budesonide/formoterol dry powder in one inhaler.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Among the various inhalatory drugs, budesonide and formoterol can be conveniently delivered in one dry powder inhaler and simplify treatment by providing immediate step-up when symptoms increase. Alongside the anti-inflammatory component, formoterol provides both short- and long-acting bronchodilator effects with maintenance and reliever properties. The option of using one inhaler simplifies treatment by simultaneously providing bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activity, thus enhancing compliance. As indicated in guidelines, all these characteristics are essential for optimizing asthma treatment and control.

A randomized, comparative study of formoterol and terbutaline dry powder inhalers in the treatment of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations in the pediatric acute care setting

BACKGROUND

Formoterol is a fast-acting, long-acting beta-agonist. Its on-demand use by outpatients has been beneficial in controlling asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of formoterol as rescue medication for pediatric asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted on parallel groups involving 79 pediatric patients (mean [SD] age, 9.92 [2.5] years) with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. They were treated with up to 3 doses of formoterol aerolizer, 12 microg, or terbutaline Turbuhaler, 0.5 mg (dry powder inhalers). Respiratory rate, clinical score, pulse oximetry, and spirometry were analyzed at baseline and 15 minutes after administration of each bronchodilator dose. All the patients received oral prednisolone, 1 mg/kg, at study entry, followed by a single daily dose for 4 days. Forty-one patients were treated with formoterol and 38 with terbutaline. The groups were comparable in age and in severity of asthma exacerbation.

RESULTS

Both treatments resulted in similar clinical and functional improvement; 37 patients (47%) required 1 bronchodilator dose. Increases of 19.5% and 15.3% occurred in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in the formoterol and terbutaline groups, respectively. Therapeutic failures occurred in 2 patients. No adverse effects were observed. At 1-week follow-up, patients were stable, with pulmonary function close to normal.

CONCLUSION

Formoterol therapy was at least as effective as terbutaline therapy in children and adolescents with mild and moderate asthma exacerbations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus conventional best practice

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART) reduces asthma exacerbations and symptoms versus fixed-dose regimens plus short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABA) in double-blind trials. Information is lacking regarding its effectiveness versus conventional best practice (CBP). This pooled analysis of six 6-month, randomized, open-label studies examined asthma control and exacerbation risk in asthmatics (aged> or =12 years). Patients (N=7855) symptomatic on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or stable/symptomatic on ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) received budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (160/4.5microg bid and as needed) or CBP (ICS or ICS/LABA+/-other agents at an approved dose plus as-needed SABA). Overall asthma control was assessed comparing the incidence of exacerbations and levels of asthma control using the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ). Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy did not significantly reduce time to first severe exacerbation (primary variable) versus CBP (P=0.062). However, patients in this group experienced 15% fewer exacerbations (0.20 versus 0.24/patient/year; P=0.021) and used 27% less ICS (P<0.0001). Odds of remaining well controlled (ACQ< or =0.75) over 6 months were higher with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus CBP (45% versus 41%, odds ratio [OR] 1.29; P<0.01) while risk of remaining uncontrolled decreased (25% versus 29%, OR 0.81; P<0.01). Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy improves key aspects of asthma control versus physicians' choice of CBP.

Budesonide and the risk of pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Concern is continuing about increased risk of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who use inhaled corticosteroids. We aimed to establish the effects of inhaled budesonide on the risk of pneumonia in such patients.

METHODS

We pooled patient data from seven large clinical trials of inhaled budesonide (320-1280 mug/day), with or without formoterol, versus control regimen (placebo or formoterol alone) in patients with stable COPD and at least 6 months of follow-up. The primary analysis compared treatment groups for the risk of pneumonia as an adverse event or serious adverse event during the trial or within 15 days of the trial end. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyse the data on an intention-to-treat basis. Data were adjusted for patients' age, sex, smoking status, body-mass index, and postbronchodilator percent of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)).

FINDINGS

We analysed data from 7042 patients, of whom 3801 were on inhaled budesonide and 3241 were on control treatment, with 5212 patient-years of exposure to treatment. We recorded no significant difference between treatment groups for the occurrence of pneumonia as an adverse event (3% [n=122 patients] vs 3% [n=103]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.37) or a serious adverse event (1% [n=53] vs 2% [n=50]; 0.92, 0.62-1.35), or for time to pneumonia as an adverse event (log-rank test 0.94) or a serious adverse event (0.61). Increasing age and decreasing percent of predicted FEV(1) were the only two variables that were significantly associated with occurrence of pneumonia as an adverse event or a serious adverse event.

INTERPRETATION

Budesonide treatment for 12 months does not increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD during that time and therefore is safe for clinical use in such patients.

FUNDING

Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

Effects of formoterol on contraction and Ca2+ signaling of mouse airway smooth muscle cells

Formoterol, a long-acting beta(2)-receptor agonist, is used to relieve bronchial constriction. However, formoterol is often a racemic formulation, and contains both (R,R)- and (S,S)-enantiomers. Because the activity of each isomer is poorly defined, the mechanisms by which formoterol relaxes smooth muscle cells (SMCs) of intrapulmonary airways are not well understood. Consequently, we compared the effects of (S,S)-, (R,R)-, and racemic formoterol, as well as (R)-albuterol, on the contraction and Ca(2+) signaling of airway SMCs in mouse lung slices with phase-contrast and confocal microscopy. Small airways were contracted with methacholine and the associated SMCs displayed sustained Ca(2+) oscillations and an increase in Ca(2+) sensitivity. These contracted airways displayed a substantial, concentration-dependent relaxation in response to (R,R)-formoterol. Racemic formoterol had a similar potency as (R,R)-formoterol for relaxing airways. By contrast, (S,S)-formoterol only induced a small relaxation. In conjunction with relaxation, (R,R)- and racemic formoterol stopped and decreased the methacholine-induced Ca(2+) oscillations and Ca(2+) sensitivity of the SMCs, respectively, whereas (S,S)-formoterol only decreased the Ca(2+) sensitivity. In these studies, (R,R)- and racemic formoterol had a similar, but much greater, potency than (R)-albuterol for relaxing mice airways. This action was quickly initiated at high concentrations by decreasing the frequency of Ca(2+) oscillations, but was more usually mediated at lower concentrations by decreasing the Ca(2+) sensitivity of the SMCs.

Use of dry powder inhalers in acute exacerbations of asthma and COPD

To investigate whether dry powder inhalers (DPIs) function in a constrained situation, a literature analysis was performed to evaluate the use of DPIs compared with established therapies in the treatment of acute asthma and COPD, irrespective of rapid-acting beta(2)-agonist used. The external databases Medline, Embase, Biosis and Current Contents and AstraZeneca's internal literature database Planet were searched up to April 2008. Only publications or congress abstracts describing clinical trials in patients treated at EDs or hospitals were considered, and then only those in which exacerbation severity (measured as FEV(1)) were included. Fifteen clinical studies met these criteria; twelve in acute asthma and three in acute COPD. For acute asthma, eight studies were double-blind, randomised studies (six in adults and two in children), two were open-label studies (one in adults and one in children), and two were investigational (methacholine challenge) studies. For the acute COPD studies, one was double-blind and randomised, one was single-blind and randomised, and one was open-label. This review found that administration of fast-acting bronchodilators via DPIs, the majority of which were Turbuhaler, is effective during an asthma or COPD worsening. Our literature review finds that DPIs function in patients with acute asthma or COPD equally well as established therapies with other inhaler devices. Patients can therefore rely upon DPIs in the same way that they rely upon other inhaler devices.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy in the management of moderate to severe asthma

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines aim at improving asthma control and preventing future risk. For patients with moderate to severe asthma an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination with a short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) as reliever is recommended. Despite the availability of effective maintenance therapies, a large proportion of patients still fail to achieve guideline-defined asthma control, and overuse of SABA reliever medication at the expense of ICS is commonly observed. New simplified treatment approaches may offer a solution and assist physicians to achieve overall asthma control. One such treatment approach, which is recommended in the GINA guidelines, is budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and reliever therapy. This treatment strategy significantly reduces the rate of severe asthma exacerbations compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA and achieves equivalent daily symptom control compared with higher doses of ICS/LABA plus separate SABA for relief. These benefits are achieved at a lower overall steroid load, and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy is well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe asthma. This review discusses current asthma management in patients with moderate to severe disease and examines the evidence for alternative asthma management approaches.

Formulating an effective and efficient written asthma action plan

Written asthma action plans (WAAPs) are recommended by national and international guidelines to help patients recognize and manage asthma exacerbations. Despite this recommendation, many patients with asthma do not have a WAAP. In addition, WAAPs vary widely in their readability and usability. To promote issuance and patient use, the WAAP should clearly define the decision (action) points, expected response, and expected time of response. The WAAP should also be easily integrated into a physician's busy practice. Herein, we describe the key elements of an effective WAAP, including concise, detailed recommendations regarding asthma exacerbation recognition (patient self-monitoring) and treatment.

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.

Differences in the pharmacodynamics of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone reflect differences in their therapeutic usefulness in asthma

Although the available inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta( 2)-agonist (LABA) combinations principally work in a similar fashion, they differ in several important ways, leading to different efficacy. The ICS/LABA combination product budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and reliever therapy, providing a fixed maintenance dose, which does not change, and replacing short-acting beta(2)-agonists as relievers thereby allowing intervention to address the underlying inflammation at the earliest sign of symptomatic worsening. This approach is not suitable for other combination products such as salmeterol/fluticasone. Here we review the pharmacological differences of budesonide/ formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone that permit the use of budesonide/formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy.

Potential adverse effects of bronchodilators in the treatment of airways obstruction in older people: recommendations for prescribing

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common disorders that are associated with increasing morbidity and mortality in older people. Bronchodilators are used widely in patients with these conditions, but even when used in inhaled form can have systemic as well as local effects. Older people experience more adverse drug effects because of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes and particularly drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. Cardiovascular disease is common in older people and beta-adrenoceptor agonists (beta-agonists) have inotropic and chronotropic effects that can increase arrhythmias and cardiomyopathy. They can also worsen or induce myocardial ischaemia and cause electrolyte disturbances that contribute to arrhythmias. Tremor is a well known distressing adverse effect of beta-agonist administration. Long-term beta-agonist use can be associated with tolerance, poor disease control, sudden life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths. Functional beta2-adrenoceptors are present in osteoblasts, and chronic use of beta-agonists has been implicated in osteoporosis. Inhaled anticholinergics are usually well tolerated but may cause dry mouth, which can be troublesome in older people. Pupillary dilatation, blurred vision and acute glaucoma can occur from escape of droplets from loosely fitting nebulizer masks. Although ECG changes have not been seen in randomized controlled trials of long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, supraventricular tachycardias have been observed in a 5-year randomized controlled trial of ipratropium bromide. Paradoxical bronchoconstriction can occur with inhaled anticholinergics as well as with beta-agonists, but tolerance has not been reported with anticholinergics. Anticholinergic drugs also cause central effects, most notably impairment of cognitive function, and these effects have been noted with inhaled agents. Use of theophylline is limited by its adverse effects, which range from commonly occurring gastrointestinal symptoms to palpitations, arrhythmias and reports of myocardial infarction. Seizures have been reported, but are rare. Theophylline is metabolized primarily by the liver, and commonly interacts with other medications. Its concentration in plasma should be monitored closely, especially in older people. Although many clinical trials have been conducted on bronchodilators in obstructive airways disease, the results of these clinical trials need to be interpreted with caution as older people are often under-represented and subjects with co-morbidities actively excluded from these trials.

Comparable morning versus evening administration of once-daily mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler

BACKGROUND

The control of daytime and nighttime symptoms is an important measure of effectiveness of asthma therapy, especially, when administered once-daily.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of evening and morning administrations of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) 400 microg once-daily (QD) to show equivalence.

METHODS

Open-label, randomized, parallel-group study in adult patients with mild to moderate asthma with a > or = 3-month history of ICS use. Patients received MF-DPI 400 microg QD either in the morning (AM) or evening (PM) for 12 weeks. The primary measure was the change in asthma symptoms from baseline to week 12. Secondary outcomes included response to treatment, adherence, inhaler device evaluation, use of rescue medication, urinary cortisol levels, and differential white blood cell count.

RESULTS

A total of 1537 patients were randomized; the efficacy population comprised 543 and 479 patients in the MF-DPI QD morning and evening groups, respectively. Mean improvements from baseline in daytime symptom scores at week 12 with morning and evening administration of MF-DPI 400 microg were -0.11+/-0.59 and -0.12+/-0.68, respectively (95% CI, -0.095 to 0.061) and the corresponding improvements in nighttime symptom scores were -0.08+/-0.59 and -0.07+/-0.50, respectively (95% CI, -0.067 to 0.068). Use of rescue medication was the same in both groups (1 puff/day). MF-DPI QD was well tolerated regardless of time of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This open-label study did not identify differences between morning and evening dosing of MF-DPI 400 microg QD. A better effect of evening dosing compared to morning dosing found in previous double-blind placebo-controlled studies could not be confirmed.