Description of a randomised controlled trial of inhaled corticosteroid/fast-onset LABA reliever therapy in mild asthma

Perspectives of mild asthma patients on maintenance versus as-needed preventer treatment regimens: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

As-needed low-dose combination budesonide-formoterol is recommended by asthma guidelines in many countries as an alternative to maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for treatment of mild asthma, but there are few data on patient attitudes toward these regimens. This study explored the comparative implementation experiences and future treatment preferences of mild asthma patients who had experienced these two treatment regimens.

SETTING

A subgroup of adults randomised to maintenance ICS or as-needed ICS-formoterol in a multinational, 52-week open-label randomised controlled trial (NovelSTART) in mild asthma patients were interviewed to explore their motivations for treatment use during the study and their preferences for future treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 74 participants (Maintenance group: n=39, As-needed group n=35, mean age 38 (range 19-69)) and thematically analysed from transcribed audiorecordings.

RESULTS

Emergent themes from analysis comprised: 'How much my asthma affects me' (how their asthma's impact affected their self-management motivation); 'What I know about asthma' (limited knowledge impeded appropriate self-management decision making); 'How much effort this treatment regimen involves for me' (treatment complexity and/or difficulty establishing a medication routine impeded implementation, particularly in the Maintenance group); and 'My beliefs about the benefits and risks of this treatment' (patients who considered their treatment as ineffective, eg, limited difference in symptoms relative to salbutamol (both groups) or slower onset of relief (As-needed group) had poor motivation to use the treatment). Due to the simplicity of the as-needed combination strategy, this was the preferred future regimen, even by patients who had not yet tried it.

CONCLUSIONS

Key patient perspectives on the implementation of preventer treatments for mild asthma included factors relating to perceived asthma burden, disease knowledge, treatment complexity and treatment usefulness or safety. The as-needed budesonide-formoterol regimen was preferred to maintenance ICS treatment in mild asthma though patient education is urgently needed to address implementation motivation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615000999538.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.

Patient experiences of as-needed budesonide-formoterol by Turbuhaler® for treatment of mild asthma; a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol, taken as-needed for symptom relief reduces exacerbation risk and is recommended for treatment of mild asthma. The NovelQ qualitative study explored patients' attitudes toward using this novel therapy.

METHODS

Adults with mild asthma using reliever-only treatment were randomised to as-needed budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler® in a multinational, 52-week open-label randomised controlled trial (NovelSTART-ACTRN12615000999538). A subgroup were interviewed to explore their attitudes to use of as-needed budesonide-formoterol after receiving it for ≥10 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until saturation, audio-recorded, and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Analysis of 35 participants (66% female; mean age 43.5 [range 18-74]; mean Asthma Control Questionnaire score 1.09 ± SD0.55) interviews identified 5 themes, each including both barriers and facilitators to therapy use. Themes were: 'Treatment effectiveness' i.e. how well symptoms were relieved and/or prevented; 'Lifestyle fit of the regimen' e.g. the extent to which the treatment regimen integrated into the patient's daily life; 'Attitudes toward medication use and safety' e.g. openness for new reliever treatments, beliefs about treatment necessity or side effects; 'Device attributes' e.g. perceived ease of use; and 'Doctor-patient relationship' e.g. impact of health professional support on new treatment acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of factors seem to drive the opinions of mild asthma patients on as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy. Many patients perceived both positive and negative treatment attributes, and their individual evaluation of these attributes determined their likelihood of using it after the study. Supportive patient-physician interactions appear key to addressing patient barriers. Recommendations for patient-centred discussions, developed from this research, are provided.

Predictive value of blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide in adults with mild asthma: a prespecified subgroup analysis of an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Whether blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are associated with important outcomes in mild asthma is unclear. In this prespecified subgroup analysis of a previously published open-label clinical trial, we aimed to assess associations between blood eosinophil counts and FeNO with outcomes and response to asthma treatment.

METHODS

In the previously reported 52-week, open-label, randomised controlled trial, people with mild asthma receiving only β agonist reliever inhalers were enrolled at one of 16 clinical trials units in New Zealand, the UK, Italy, or Australia. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1, stratified by country), to receive inhalers to take as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 μg in a pressurised metered dose inhaler), maintenance budesonide (200 μg twice per day by inhaler) plus as-needed salbutamol (two inhalations of 100 μg), or as-needed budesonide-formoterol (one inhalation of 200 μg budesonide and 6μg formoterol by inhaler). The primary outcome was the annual rates of asthma exacerbations per patient, and in this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed whether annual exacerbation rates in each treatment group were significantly different depending on levels of blood eosinophil count, FeNO, or a composite score of both. Analyses were done for patients with available biomarker measurements The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000999538.

FINDINGS

675 participants were enrolled between March 17, 2016, and Aug 29, 2017, of whom 656 had results for blood eosinophil analysis and 668 had results for FeNO. Of the patients who received as-needed salbutamol, the proportion of patients having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count (two [4%] of 49 participants with <0·15 × 10⁹/L, six [6%] of 93 with 0·15 to <0·3 × 10⁹/L, and 15 [19%] of 77 with ≥0·3 × 10⁹/L; p=0·014). There were no significant interactions between blood eosinophil count or FeNO level and the effect of as-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with as-needed salbutamol for either exacerbations or severe exacerbations. However, there were significant interactions between blood eosinophil count subgroups and the effect of maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol compared with as-needed salbutamol, both for exacerbations (p=0·0006) and severe exacerbations (p=0·0007). Maintenance budesonide plus as-needed salbutamol was more effective than as-needed salbutamol in patients with blood eosinophil counts of 0·3 × 10⁹/L or more, both for exacerbations (rate ratio 0·13 [95% CI 0·05-0·33]) and severe exacerbations (risk odds ratio 0·11 [0·03-0·45]). This difference was not seen for blood eosinophil counts of less than 0·15 × 10⁹/L (1·15 [0·51-1·28] for exacerbations and 5·72 [0·97-33·60] for severe exacerbations). There was no consistent interaction between treatment response and FeNO or the composite score.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with mild asthma, the effects of as-needed budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations are independent of biomarker profile, whereas the benefits of maintenance inhaled budesonide are greater in patients with high blood eosinophil counts than in patients with low counts.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca, Health Research Council of New Zealand.

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.

Controlled Trial of Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed for Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

In double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, budesonide-formoterol used on an as-needed basis resulted in a lower risk of severe exacerbation of asthma than as-needed use of a short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA); the risk was similar to that of budesonide maintenance therapy plus as-needed SABA. The availability of data from clinical trials designed to better reflect clinical practice would be beneficial.

METHODS

We conducted a 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial involving adults with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: albuterol (100 μg, two inhalations from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler as needed for asthma symptoms) (albuterol group); budesonide (200 μg, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler twice daily) plus as-needed albuterol (budesonide maintenance group); or budesonide-formoterol (200 μg of budesonide and 6 μg of formoterol, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler as needed) (budesonide-formoterol group). Electronic monitoring of inhalers was used to measure medication use. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

The analysis included 668 of 675 patients who underwent randomization. The annualized exacerbation rate in the budesonide-formoterol group was lower than that in the albuterol group (absolute rate, 0.195 vs. 0.400; relative rate, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.72; P<0.001) and did not differ significantly from the rate in the budesonide maintenance group (absolute rate, 0.195 in the budesonide-formoterol group vs. 0.175 in the budesonide maintenance group; relative rate, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.79; P = 0.65). The number of severe exacerbations was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group than in both the albuterol group (9 vs. 23; relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.86) and the budesonide maintenance group (9 vs. 21; relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.96). The mean (±SD) dose of inhaled budesonide was 107±109 μg per day in the budesonide-formoterol group and 222±113 μg per day in the budesonide maintenance group. The incidence and type of adverse events reported were consistent with those in previous trials and with reports in clinical use.

CONCLUSIONS

In an open-label trial involving adults with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was superior to albuterol used as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Novel START Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000999538.).

As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

Patients with mild asthma often rely on inhaled short-acting β₂-agonists for symptom relief and have poor adherence to maintenance therapy. Another approach might be for patients to receive a fast-acting reliever plus an inhaled glucocorticoid component on an as-needed basis to address symptoms and exacerbation risk.

METHODS

We conducted a 52-week, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients 12 years of age or older who had mild asthma and were eligible for treatment with regular inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 μg of budesonide and 6 μg of formoterol) used as needed or budesonide maintenance therapy with twice-daily budesonide (200 μg) plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed. The primary analysis compared budesonide-formoterol used as needed with budesonide maintenance therapy with regard to the annualized rate of severe exacerbations, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1.2. Symptoms were assessed according to scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment).

RESULTS

A total of 4215 patients underwent randomization, and 4176 (2089 in the budesonide-formoterol group and 2087 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis set. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to budesonide maintenance therapy for severe exacerbations; the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.13) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14), respectively (rate ratio, 0.97; upper one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). The median daily metered dose of inhaled glucocorticoid was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group (66 μg) than in the budesonide maintenance group (267 μg). The time to the first exacerbation was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). The change in ACQ-5 score showed a difference of 0.11 units (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15) in favor of budesonide maintenance therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to twice-daily budesonide with respect to the rate of severe asthma exacerbations during 52 weeks of treatment but was inferior in controlling symptoms. Patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had approximately one quarter of the inhaled glucocorticoid exposure of those in the budesonide maintenance group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224157 .).

Inhaled Combined Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed in Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

In patients with mild asthma, as-needed use of an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a fast-acting β₂-agonist may be an alternative to conventional treatment strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a 52-week, double-blind trial involving patients 12 years of age or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: twice-daily placebo plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed (terbutaline group), twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 μg of budesonide and 6 μg of formoterol) used as needed (budesonide-formoterol group), or twice-daily budesonide (200 μg) plus terbutaline used as needed (budesonide maintenance group). The primary objective was to investigate the superiority of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to as-needed terbutaline with regard to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma.

RESULTS

A total of 3849 patients underwent randomization, and 3836 (1277 in the terbutaline group, 1277 in the budesonide-formoterol group, and 1282 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis and safety data sets. With respect to the mean percentage of weeks with well-controlled asthma per patient, budesonide-formoterol was superior to terbutaline (34.4% vs. 31.1% of weeks; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.30; P=0.046) but inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy (34.4% and 44.4%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.73). The annual rate of severe exacerbations was 0.20 with terbutaline, 0.07 with budesonide-formoterol, and 0.09 with budesonide maintenance therapy; the rate ratio was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49) for budesonide-formoterol versus terbutaline and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16) for budesonide-formoterol versus budesonide maintenance therapy. The rate of adherence in the budesonide maintenance group was 78.9%. The median metered daily dose of inhaled glucocorticoid in the budesonide-formoterol group (57 μg) was 17% of the dose in the budesonide maintenance group (340 μg).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol provided superior asthma-symptom control to as-needed terbutaline, assessed according to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma, but was inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy. Exacerbation rates with the two budesonide-containing regimens were similar and were lower than the rate with terbutaline. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed resulted in substantially lower glucocorticoid exposure than budesonide maintenance therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02149199 .).

Asthma

Asthma-one of the most common chronic, non-communicable diseases in children and adults-is characterised by variable respiratory symptoms and variable airflow limitation. Asthma is a consequence of complex gene-environment interactions, with heterogeneity in clinical presentation and the type and intensity of airway inflammation and remodelling. The goal of asthma treatment is to achieve good asthma control-ie, to minimise symptom burden and risk of exacerbations. Anti-inflammatory and bronchodilator treatments are the mainstay of asthma therapy and are used in a stepwise approach. Pharmacological treatment is based on a cycle of assessment and re-evaluation of symptom control, risk factors, comorbidities, side-effects, and patient satisfaction by means of shared decisions. Asthma is classed as severe when requiring high-intensity treatment to keep it under control, or if it remains uncontrolled despite treatment. New biological therapies for treatment of severe asthma, together with developments in biomarkers, present opportunities for phenotype-specific interventions and realisation of more personalised treatment. In this Seminar, we provide a clinically focused overview of asthma, including epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical diagnosis, asthma phenotypes, severe asthma, acute exacerbations, and clinical management of disease in adults and children older than 5 years. Emerging therapies, controversies, and uncertainties in asthma management are also discussed.

Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) and the evolution of asthma management within the GINA guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) annual report summarizes the latest evidence for asthma management. GINA recommends stepwise pharmacological treatment, advocating inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus rapid, long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) delivered in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief at Steps 3 (moderate persistent asthma requiring 1-2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), 4 (severe persistent asthma requiring ≥2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), and 5 (higher level care and/or add-on treatment). Areas covered: Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence demonstrate that flexibly dosed budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief (Symbicort® Maintenance And Reliever Therapy [SMART]) is associated with reductions in severe exacerbations, prolongs time to first exacerbation, and provides fast symptom relief. Expert commentary: SMART provides greater or equal levels of sustained asthma control than similar or higher fixed doses of ICS/LABA plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed or higher ICS plus SABA as needed, with lower overall ICS doses and cost. The simplified dosing strategy may improve adherence and overall asthma control but relies on patient education. Budesonide/formoterol as needed in mild asthma (patients qualifying for regular low-dose ICS) is currently under investigation in two double-blind randomized studies, SYGMA1/2 (NCT02149199/NCT02224157), comparing budesonide/formoterol as needed with budesonide plus SABA and SABA alone.

Description of the protocol for the PRACTICAL study: a randomised controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of ICS/LABA reliever therapy in asthma

Introduction

In adult asthma, combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/fast-onset long-acting beta agonist (LABA) used solely as reliever therapy may represent an effective and safe alternative to ICS maintenance and short-acting beta agonist (SABA) reliever therapy.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of ICS/fast-onset LABA reliever therapy with ICS maintenance and SABA reliever therapy in adults with asthma.

Methods and analysis

A 52-week, open-label, parallel group, multicentre, phase III randomised controlled trial with 1:1 randomisation to either budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler 200/6 µg, one actuation as required for symptom relief, or budesonide Turbuhaler 200 µg, one actuation twice daily and terbutaline Turbuhaler 250 µg, two actuations as required for symptom relief. 890 adults aged 18–75 years with asthma for whom maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy is indicated by current guidelines will be recruited in New Zealand. The primary outcome variable is the rate of severe exacerbations per patient per year. This study will investigate a novel treatment regimen that might lead to a paradigm shift in asthma management for adults for whom guidelines currently recommend maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted (15/NTB/178). Study findings will be published according to Iinternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12616000377437; Pre-results.

The SYGMA programme of phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol given 'as needed' in mild asthma: study protocols for two randomised controlled trials

Background

In many patients with mild asthma, the low frequency of symptoms and the episodic nature of exacerbations make adherence to regular maintenance treatment difficult. This often leads to over-reliance on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) reliever medication and under-treatment of the underlying inflammation, with poor control of asthma symptoms and increased risk of exacerbations. The use of budesonide/formoterol ‘as needed’ in response to symptoms may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with mild asthma.

Methods/design

The SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) programme consists of two 52-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma for at least 6 months, who would qualify for treatment with regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). SYGMA1 aims to recruit 3750 patients who will be randomised to placebo twice daily (bid) plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg, placebo bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg, or budesonide 200 μg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over as-needed terbutaline for asthma control, as measured by well-controlled asthma weeks; a secondary objective is to establish the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline using the same outcome measure. SYGMA2 aims to recruit 4114 patients who will be randomised to placebo bid plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg, or budesonide 200 μg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over budesonide bid plus as-needed terbutaline as measured by the annualised severe exacerbation rate. In both studies, use of all blinded study inhalers will be recorded electronically using Turbuhaler® Usage Monitors.

Discussion

Given the known risks of mild asthma, and known poor adherence with regular inhaled corticosteroids, the results of the SYGMA programme will help to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide/formoterol therapy in mild asthma. Patient recruitment is complete, and completion of the phase 3 studies is planned in 2017.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02149199 SYGMA1 and NCT02224157 SYGMA2. Registered on 16 May 2014 and 19 August 2014, respectively.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1731-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.