ICS-formoterol reliever versus ICS and short-acting β2-agonist reliever in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for asthma in preschool children: A systematic review

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) are essential in asthma management, but the guidelines for treatment in preschool children remain heterogeneous worldwide. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of LABA + ICS therapy in asthmatic children under six years. We searched four databases, identifying six eligible studies (n = 1415 preschoolers), and in all the LABA used was salmeterol. Due to high heterogeneity, quantitative analysis was not feasible. Three before-and-after studies demonstrated significant reductions in unscheduled visits and hospitalizations due to asthma exacerbations with LABA + ICS. One RCT showed fewer exacerbations in the LABA + ICS group compared to ICS alone. Night-time awakenings decreased significantly in two studies but not in one RCT. Improvements in lung function using impulse oscillometry and FeNO levels were noted with LABA+ICS in one RCT. No significant adverse effects were reported. Despite positive findings, high-quality trials are needed to confirm these results, particularly using formoterol as LABA, aligning with the recommendations. Further research is imperative to optimize asthma management in preschool children.

Salbutamol Easyhaler provides non-inferior relief of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction in comparison to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Salbutamol is a cornerstone for relieving acute asthma symptoms, typically administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) offer an alternative, but concerns exist whether DPIs provide an effective relief during an obstructive event.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to show non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler DPI compared to pMDI with spacer in treating methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. Applicability of Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler DPI as a reliever was also assessed.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel-group trial in subjects sent to methacholine challenge (MC) test for asthma diagnostics. Participants with at least 20 % decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were randomized to receive Salbutamol Easyhaler (2 × 200 μg), Ventoline Evohaler with spacer (4 × 100 μg) or Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler (2 × 160/4.5 μg) as a reliever. The treatment was repeated if FEV1 did not recover to at least -10 % of baseline.

RESULTS

180 participants (69 % females, mean age 46 yrs [range 18-80], FEV1%pred 89.5 [62-142] %) completed the trial. Salbutamol Easyhaler was non-inferior to pMDI with spacer in acute relief of bronchoconstriction showing a -0.083 (95 % LCL -0.146) L FEV1 difference after the first dose and -0.032 (-0.071) L after the last dose. The differences in FEV1 between Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler and Salbutamol pMDI with spacer were -0.163 (-0.225) L after the first and -0.092 (-0.131) L after the last dose.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer in relieving acute bronchoconstriction, making Easyhaler a sustainable and safe reliever for MC test and supports its use during asthma attacks.

The carbon footprint of as-needed budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma: a post hoc analysis

INTRODUCTION

The use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and asthma exacerbations necessitating healthcare reviews contribute substantially to the global carbon footprint of healthcare. It is possible that a reduction in carbon footprint could be achieved by switching patients with mild asthma from salbutamol pMDI reliever-based therapy to inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) reliever therapy, as recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included all 668 adult participants in the Novel START trial, who were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with as-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI, as-needed salbutamol pMDI or maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI. The primary outcome was carbon footprint of asthma management, expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per person-year. Secondary outcomes explored the effect of baseline symptom control and adherence (maintenance budesonide DPI arm only) on carbon footprint.

RESULTS

As-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI was associated with 95.8% and 93.6% lower carbon footprint compared with as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least-squares mean 1.1 versus 26.2 kgCO2e; difference -25.0, 95% CI -29.7 to -20.4; p<0.001) and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least-squares mean 1.1 versus 17.3 kgCO2e; difference -16.2, 95% CI -20.9 to -11.6; p<0.001), respectively. There was no statistically significant evidence that treatment differences in carbon footprint depended on baseline symptom control or adherence in the maintenance budesonide DPI arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The as-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI treatment option was associated with a markedly lower carbon footprint than as-needed salbutamol pMDI and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI.

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting β2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

The Anti-Inflammatory Reliever (AIR) Algorithm Study: a protocol for a single-group study of an AIR stepwise approach to the treatment of adult asthma

Background

The stepwise approach to long-term asthma management, which traditionally incorporates short-acting β2-agonist reliever therapy, has been a core feature of asthma guidelines for over 30 years. There have been no studies, however, directly investigating the use of an entire guideline-recommended track. Recently, inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol has been recommended as the preferred reliever therapy in adult asthma, in accordance with a stepwise "Anti-Inflammatory Reliever" (AIR) treatment track.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the AIR stepwise approach recommended by the New Zealand adolescent and adult asthma guidelines, in combination with a novel algorithm for transitioning between treatment steps.

Methods

This 52-week, open-label, single-group study will recruit 100 adults aged 18 to 75 years with mild, moderate and moderate-severe asthma (ACTRN12620001010987). Participants will be allocated to budesonide-formoterol 200/6 µg, one actuation as needed (Step 1), one actuation twice daily and as needed (Step 2), or two actuations twice daily and one as needed (Step 3). Treatment steps will be adjusted throughout the study, in response to reliever use and asthma attacks, according to a stepwise AIR algorithm. Following a 26-week period of investigator-led transitions, participants will adjust their own treatment step. The primary outcome is participant satisfaction as measured by the Global Satisfaction score of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. Secondary outcomes will assess efficacy and safety, and describe patterns of medication use and participant flow through the treatment steps.

Conclusion

This is the first trial to assess the AIR treatment track and algorithm. The results will provide knowledge to guide the clinical use of this approach.

Clinical standards for the diagnosis and management of asthma in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to aid the diagnosis and management of asthma in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).METHODS: A panel of 52 experts in the field of asthma in LMICs participated in a two-stage Delphi process to establish and reach a consensus on the clinical standards.RESULTS: Eighteen clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, Every individual with symptoms and signs compatible with asthma should undergo a clinical assessment; Standard 2, In individuals (>6 years) with a clinical assessment supportive of a diagnosis of asthma, a hand-held spirometry measurement should be used to confirm variable expiratory airflow limitation by demonstrating an acute response to a bronchodilator; Standard 3, Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should be performed in individuals (>6 years) to support diagnosis before treatment is commenced if there is diagnostic uncertainty; Standard 4, Individuals with an acute exacerbation of asthma and clinical signs of hypoxaemia or increased work of breathing should be given supplementary oxygen to maintain saturation at 94-98%; Standard 5, Inhaled short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) should be used as an emergency reliever in individuals with asthma via an appropriate spacer device for metered-dose inhalers; Standard 6, Short-course oral corticosteroids should be administered in appropriate doses to individuals having moderate to severe acute asthma exacerbations (minimum 3-5 days); Standard 7, Individuals having a severe asthma exacerbation should receive emergency care, including oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators (e.g., salbutamol with or without ipratropium bromide) and a single dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate should be considered; Standard 8, All individuals with asthma should receive education about asthma and a personalised action plan; Standard 9, Inhaled medications (excluding dry-powder devices) should be administered via an appropriate spacer device in both adults and children. Children aged 0-3 years will require the spacer to be coupled to a face mask; Standard 10, Children aged <5 years with asthma should receive a SABA as-needed at step 1 and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to cover periods of wheezing due to respiratory viral infections, and SABA as-needed and daily ICS from step 2 upwards; Standard 11, Children aged 6-11 years with asthma should receive an ICS taken whenever an inhaled SABA is used; Standard 12, All adolescents aged 12-18 years and adults with asthma should receive a combination inhaler (ICS and rapid onset of action long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] such as budesonide-formoterol), where available, to be used either as-needed (for mild asthma) or as both maintenance and reliever therapy, for moderate to severe asthma; Standard 13, Inhaled SABA alone for the management of patients aged >12 years is not recommended as it is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It should only be used where there is no access to ICS.The following standards (14-18) are for settings where there is no access to inhaled medicines. Standard 14, Patients without access to corticosteroids should be provided with a single short course of emergency oral prednisolone; Standard 15, Oral SABA for symptomatic relief should be used only if no inhaled SABA is available. Adjust to the individual's lowest beneficial dose to minimise adverse effects; Standard 16, Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) can be used as a preventive medication and is preferable to the use of long-term oral systemic corticosteroids; Standard 17, In exceptional circumstances, when there is a high risk of mortality from exacerbations, low-dose oral prednisolone daily or on alternate days may be considered on a case-by-case basis; Standard 18. Oral theophylline should be restricted for use in situations where it is the only bronchodilator treatment option available.CONCLUSION: These first consensus-based clinical standards for asthma management in LMICs are intended to help clinicians provide the most effective care for people in resource-limited settings.

Regular (up to 10 puffs 4-hourly) inhaled salbutamol should be prescribed at discharge after an asthma attack: myth or maxim?

Over the past 20 years, the concept of asthma weaning plans on discharge after an attack has crept into common practice, although the precise origin of these plans is unclear. High use of short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) may result in tolerance to their bronchodilator effects, thus diminishing their efficacy, particularly when they are most needed at the time of an acute attack. Furthermore, key warning signs of a deterioration in asthma control may be masked and the weaning plan may encourage the over-use and over-reliance on SABAs. Side-effects from over-use may also occur, including lactic acidosis, downregulation of the β2-adrenoreceptor, increased allergen response and pro-inflammatory effects. The need for asthma education at discharge, a personal asthma action plan and vigilance about prescribing and ensuring adherence to maintenance therapy are definitely important. However, the current authors conclude that the benefit of prescribing regular salbutamol (up to 10 puffs every 4 h) at discharge after an acute asthma attack is a myth, and a very dangerous one.

Evaluating as-needed inhaled corticosteroid strategies in asthma: expanding the benefits to mild asthma

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to regular anti-inflammatory treatment is commonly low, and short-acting β2 agonist (SABA) overuse is common in patients with asthma, leading to an increased risk of asthma-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Given the pivotal role of inflammation in asthma, multiple as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies have been developed, leading to a reduction in asthma exacerbations and improvement in symptom control. Currently, as-needed ICS/formoterol is one of the most commonly available formulations; however, other combinations such as ICS/SABA have been shown to be superior to as-needed SABA alone. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature to enhance the advantages and disadvantages of each combination in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The future direction we foresee in asthma management consists in abandoning as-needed short-acting bronchodilators in favor of as-needed ICS-containing therapies. Each patient is unique and differs from others; consequently, a single option will not fit everyone. Patients' and physicians' awareness of this perspective can be reached through the development of multiple therapeutic options suitable for each condition that can be found in 'real life'.

Advances in the pathogenesis and personalised treatment of paediatric asthma

The diversity of pathology of severe paediatric asthma demonstrates that the one-size-fits-all approach characterising many guidelines is inappropriate. The term "asthma" is best used to describe a clinical syndrome of wheeze, chest tightness, breathlessness, and sometimes cough, making no assumptions about underlying pathology. Before personalising treatment, it is essential to make the diagnosis correctly and optimise basic management. Clinicians must determine exactly what type of asthma each child has. We are moving from describing symptom patterns in preschool wheeze to describing multiple underlying phenotypes with implications for targeting treatment. Many new treatment options are available for school age asthma, including biological medicines targeting type 2 inflammation, but a paucity of options are available for non-type 2 disease. The traditional reliever treatment, shortacting β2 agonists, is being replaced by combination inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids and fast, longacting β2 agonists to treat the underlying inflammation in even mild asthma and reduce the risk of asthma attacks. However, much decision making is still based on adult data extrapolated to children. Better inclusion of children in future research studies is essential, if children are to benefit from these new advances in asthma treatment.

Comparison of three alternatives for the management of moderate asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines for children 6-11 years with persistent asthma advocate three alternatives: SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 mcg qd plus additional doses as needed), fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol, and fixed-dose budesonide. Concerns have arisen as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy were calculated over a time horizon of 6 years. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The mean QALY per patient was 0.57 and 0.56 QALYs per patient per year of SMART and fixed combination and 0,52 with fixed-dose budesonide. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$111 for SMART, US$133 for fixed combination, and US$67 for fixed-dose budesonide. The net monetary benefit of SMART was US$12,549, US$12278 for fixed combination, and US$11,380 for fixed-dose budesonide.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that SMART was more cost-effective than fixed combination and fixed-dose budesonide. These findings complement and support the GINA 2021 and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guideline recommendations for use of inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

Combined analysis of five non-interventional studies of the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of the extrafine fixed dose beclomethasone/formoterol combination in the treatment of asthma in Austria

OBJECTIVE

The real-world effectiveness and tolerability of an extrafine fixed dose beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/FF) treatment of patients with partially or non-controlled asthma was evaluated in five non-interventional studies (NISs) from Austria.

METHODS

Asthma patients enrolled in these five NISs were treated with beclomethasone/formoterol (Foster® or Foster® Nexthaler®) as maintenance and reliever over 12 weeks. Asthma control, lung function and symptom scores were assessed at baseline, after 4-8 weeks and at the end of the investigations in week 12. In addition, tolerability and handling of the devices were evaluated by questionnaires.

RESULTS

The combined analysis included 891 patients (53% female, aged 49.3 years) demonstrating significant improvements in asthma control, lung function parameters (PEF, FEV₁ and FVC) and symptom scores (reduction of breathlessness, wheezing, chest tightness and cough). These changes were already detectable after 4-8 weeks. The treatment was effective irrespective of smoking status, exercise, or previous medication. Tolerability of the therapy with extrafine BDP/FF was rated as "very good" or "good" in 98% of the patients. 95% of the patients intended to continue the treatment, and nearly all (99%) rated the handling of the device as "very good" or "good". No serious adverse reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined analysis of five non-interventional studies confirms the effectiveness and tolerability of the extrafine fixed-dose BDP/FF combination (Foster® and Foster® Nexthaler®) in a heterogenous patient population suffering from partially or non-controlled asthma. Therapy was associated with a high patient satisfaction and the absence of serious adverse reactions.

Asthma-related hospitalizations after implementing SABA-free asthma management with a maintenance and anti-inflammatory reliever regimen

Overreliance on short-acting β₂-agonists (SABA) has been a common feature of asthma management globally for at least 30 years. However, given the evidence against the long-term use of SABA, including potentially increased risk of exacerbations, emergency room visits, overall healthcare resource utilization, and mortality, the latest Global Initiative for Asthma report no longer recommends SABA only therapy. Since 2014, we implemented an ICS-containing reliever strategy at our asthma center at the G Baigorria Hospital in Argentina; we only administered budesonide/formoterol via a single inhaler device across the spectrum of asthma severity and completely eliminated the use of SABA therapy. In this article, we compare hospitalization data from our center, previously reported in the EAGLE study (when inhaled corticosteroids plus as-needed SABA was administered) for the years 1999 and 2004 with data from 2017 to 2018 (when budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler device was administered as maintenance and/or anti-inflammatory reliever therapy [MART/AIR] without any SABA) from our center, to assess the impact of two distinct asthma management strategies on asthma-related hospitalizations. MART/AIR regimens in our SABA-free center reduced asthma hospitalizations from 9 (1999 and 2004) to 1 (2017 and 2018) (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.031; odds ratio = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.013-0.98); the hospitalization rate was reduced by 92% (1.47% in 1999 and 2004 to 0.12% in 2017 and 2018). Our data provide preliminary real-world evidence that MART/AIR with budesonide/formoterol simultaneously with SABA elimination across asthma severities is an effective asthma management strategy for reducing asthma-related hospitalizations.

Asthma control with ICS-formoterol reliever versus maintenance ICS and SABA reliever therapy: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials

Background

In randomised controlled trials, as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever therapy reduces severe exacerbation risk compared with maintenance ICS plus short-acting beta₂-agonist (SABA) reliever in adolescent and adult asthma, but results in slightly worse control of asthma symptoms, as measured by mean Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score.

Objective

To assess the levels and changes in asthma control for as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA in post hoc analyses from the Novel START and PRACTICAL clinical trials.

Methods

The number and proportion of participants at study end in each ACQ-5 category (‘well-controlled’, ‘partly controlled’ or ‘inadequately controlled’ symptoms), and in each responder category based on the minimal clinically important difference for ACQ-5 of 0.5 (improved, no change and worse) with as-needed budesonide–formoterol and maintenance budesonide plus SABA treatment were calculated.

Results

With last observation carried forwards, 189/214 (88.3%) and 354/434 (81.6%) of patients in the budesonide–formoterol group had ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ symptoms at the end of the study, vs 183/214 (85.5%) and 358/431 (83.1%) in the budesonide maintenance group, for Novel START and PRACTICAL, respectively. The proportion of patients whose symptom control was either improved or unchanged from baseline was 190/214 (88.8%) and 368/434 (84.8%) for budesonide–formoterol, vs 185/214 (86.4%) and 376/431 (87.2%) for maintenance budesonide, in Novel START and PRACTICAL respectively.

Conclusions

There were no clinically important differences in the proportions of patients with ‘well-controlled’ or ‘partly controlled’ asthma symptoms, or proportions who improved or maintained their level of control, with as-needed budesonide–formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA.

Single dose of budesonide/formoterol turbuhaler compared to salbutamol pMDI for speed of bronchodilator onset in asthma: a randomised cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare bronchodilator response after to salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in adults with stable asthma.

METHODS

A double-blind, cross-over, single-centre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Adults with stable asthma were randomised to different orders of two treatment regimens: two actuations of placebo via MDI and one actuation of budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg via turbuhaler; and one actuation of placebo turbuhaler and two actuations of salbutamol 100 µg via MDI. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 2 min. Secondary outcome measures included FEV1, mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score and visual analogue score for breathlessness over 30 min.

RESULTS

Forty-nine of 50 potential participants were randomised. One participant withdrew following the first intervention visit and another could not be randomised due to COVID-19 restrictions. The mean (SD) change from baseline FEV1 2 min after treatment administration for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol was 0.08 (0.14) L, n=49, and 0.17 (0.18) L, n=48, respectively, mean (95% CI) paired difference of -0.097 L (-0.147 to -0.047), p=0.07, against a non-inferiority bound of -0.06 L. In the secondary analysis, FEV1 over 30 min was lower for budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol, difference (95% CI): -0.10 (-0.12 to -0.08) L, p<0.001. There were no differences in Visual Analogue Scale score or mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score between treatments.

CONCLUSION

The results do not support the primary hypothesis of non-inferiority at the boundary of -0.06 L for the difference between budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg compared with salbutamol 200 µg for FEV1 at 2 min, and could be consistent with inferiority with a p value of 0.07. For the secondary analysis of FEV1 measurements over time, the FEV1 was higher with salbutamol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12619001387112).

SABA prescriptions and asthma management practices in patients treated by specialists in Taiwan: Results from the SABINA III study

PURPOSE

Limited data exist on asthma medication patterns in Taiwan. The objectives of the SABINA III cross-sectional study in Taiwan were thus, to describe patient demographics and clinical features and estimate short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prescriptions per patient.

METHODS

Patients (≥18 years) with asthma were classified by investigator-defined asthma severity per the 2017 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations. Data on asthma symptom control (per GINA 2017 recommendations), severe exacerbation history, and prescribed treatments in the 12 months before study visit were collected using electronic case-report forms. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Overall, all 294 analyzed patients (mean [SD] age, 57.9 [15.6] years; female, 69%) were enrolled by specialists and had fully reimbursed healthcare. Most patients were classified with moderate-to-severe asthma (93.2%; GINA steps 3-5), were obese (53.4%) and nonsmokers (79.6%), reported high school or university and/or postgraduate education (61.9%), and had ≤2 comorbidities (89.1%). Mean (SD) asthma duration was 8.3 (10.0) years, with 37.8% of patients experiencing ≥1 severe exacerbation 12 months before the study visit. Overall, 62.2%, 26.2%, and 11.6% of patients had well-controlled, partly controlled, and uncontrolled asthma, respectively. Crucially, 19.3% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters in the preceding 12 months (overprescription). ICS, ICS + long-acting β_2-agonist fixed-dose combination, and oral corticosteroid bursts were prescribed to 6.5%, 97.3%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite treatment by specialists and fully reimbursed healthcare, findings indicate room for improvement in asthma control and SABA prescription practices in Taiwan, emphasizing the need to adhere to latest evidence-based guidelines.

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

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

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

Comparative efficacy of inhalers in mild-to-moderate asthma: systematic review and network meta-analysis

The comparative effectiveness of different inhaler therapies in mild-to-moderate asthma remains unclear. To assess this, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the use of inhalers for mild-to-moderate asthma by searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. A total of 29 trials including 43,515 patients and 12 types of inhaler therapies were included. For the prevention of severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) as maintenance and reliever (SMART) showed the highest rank for effectiveness. As-needed ICS/LABA or short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) was similar to low-dose ICS and superior to as-needed SABA or LABA for the prevention of severe and moderate-severe exacerbations. As for lung function (FEV1), low-dose ICS/LABA had the highest rank; as-needed ICS/LABA was inferior to regular low-dose ICS but superior to placebo. Higher-dose ICS had a superior effect on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores, and as-needed ICS/LABA and as-needed SABA or LABA had lower ranks in p-rankogram than did the regular use of low-dose ICS. As-needed ICS with LABA or SABA was more effective than a similar dose of regular ICS for preventing exacerbation in mild-to-moderate asthma. As-needed ICS showed some weakness in improving lung function and controlling asthma symptoms.

Cost Utility of Intermittent Inhaled Corticosteroids in Preschoolers with Viral-Triggered Wheeze

Background: Evidence has demonstrated that adding intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to treatment with short-acting b2-agonists (SABAs) in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent viral-induced wheezing (VIW) reduces the risk of severe exacerbations. However, there is concern about whether the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent ICS in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW. Methods: We constructed a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of intermittent ICS compared with SABA reliever therapy in preschoolers with viral-triggered wheezing in Colombia. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $5,180. Results: In an analysis of the Markov cohort model, we estimated a gain of 0.2 QALYs per patient per year on intermittent ICS compared with SABA and a reduction of cost per patient of USD $37 per year. This position of dominance negated the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. Conclusion: Adding intermittent ICS to treatment with SABAs in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW was found to be cost effective. These results could improve the use of health care resources, especially in settings with limited economic resources.

Repeated dose budesonide/formoterol compared to salbutamol in adult asthma: A randomised cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative bronchodilator, systemic beta2-agonist, cardiovascular and adverse effects of salbutamol 200 µg and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg when taken repeatedly in stable asthma.

METHODS

This open-label, cross-over, single-centre, controlled trial, randomised adults with asthma to different orders of two treatment regimens: salbutamol 200 µg via MDI at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, then salbutamol 2.5 mg via nebuliser at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min; or budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg one actuation via Turbuhaler at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, two actuations at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 180 min. Secondary outcomes included repeat measures of FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and adverse events RESULTS: Of 39 patients randomised, two withdrew due to adverse events (QTCF prolongation and T wave abnormalities) after the first intervention with salbutamol. The mean (sd) change from baseline FEV1 180 min after randomisation for salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol regimens was 0.71 (0.46) L, N=38, and 0.58 (0.45) L, N=37, respectively; with a mean (sd) paired difference of -0.10 (0.40) L, N=37, and a model-based estimated difference (95% CI) -0.12 (-0.25 to 0.02) L, p=0.088. In the main secondary analysis, salbutamol resulted in significantly greater FEV1 from 30 to 240 min, but lesser FEV1 at 360 and 420 min. Salbutamol resulted in a significantly lower serum potassium, and a higher heart rate and number of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The comparative bronchodilator responses of repeated administration of salbutamol 200 µg dose-1 and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg differed depending on the time of measurement. Salbutamol caused greater systemic beta2-agonist and cardiovascular effects and more adverse events.

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.

How to Choose the Correct Drug in Severe Pediatric Asthma

When a child with severe asthma (asthma defined clinically for the purposes of this review as wheeze, breathlessness, and chest tightness sometimes with cough) does not respond to treatment, it is important to be sure that an alternative or additional diagnosis is not being missed. In school age children, the next step is a detailed protocolized assessment to determine the nature of the problem, whether within the airway or related to co-morbidities or social/environmental factors, in order to personalize the treatment. For example, those with refractory difficult asthma due to persistent non-adherence may benefit from using budesonide and formoterol combined in a single inhaler [single maintenance and reliever treatment (SMART)] as both a reliever and preventer. For those with steroid-resistant Type 2 airway inflammation, the use of biologicals such as omalizumab and mepolizumab should be considered, but for mepolizumab at least, there is a paucity of pediatric data. Protocols are less well developed in preschool asthma, where steroid insensitive disease is much more common, but the use of two simple measurements, aeroallergen sensitization, and peripheral blood eosinophil count, allows the targeted use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). There is also increasing evidence that chronic airway infection may be important in preschool wheeze, increasing the possibility that targeted antibiotics may be beneficial. Asthma in the first year of life is not driven by Type 2 inflammation, so beyond avoiding prescribing ICSs, no evidence based recommendations can be made. In the future, we urgently need to develop objective biomarkers, especially of risk, so that treatment can be targeted effectively; we need to address the scandal of the lack of data in children compared with adults, precluding making evidence-based therapeutic decisions and move from guiding treatment by phenotypes, which will change as the environment changes, to endotype based therapy.

Doxofylline for Pediatric Asthma Steps 1-4. Pediatric Asthma: New Role for an Old Drug

The panoply of anti-asthma drugs for children between 6 and 18 years is not limited to those reported in the guidelines. In this review, we will re-assess the role of doxofylline, a xanthine characterized by a much higher handling than that of theophylline, as add-on treatment in pediatric asthma grade 1-4. Ten studies evaluated doxofylline in the treatment of asthma of patients non-responsive to the first-line inhaled corticosteroids. Of these, two included children and one was exclusively pediatric. According to their results, doxofylline exerts a powerful bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activity, which can be exploited when the inhaled oral corticosteroids are not sufficient to get the desired effect of reducing symptoms. Unlike theophylline, doxofylline does not require blood testing. It can be administered together with or as an alternative to a series of other drugs considered in additional therapy.

SMART therapy in adolescent and adults patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines, recommends for persistent asthma as first alternative low dose inhaled budesonide-formoterol maintenance and reliever over fixed combination of low doses inhaled corticosteroids - long-acting beta-agonist, or fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns arise as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model suggests a potential gain of 1.27 and 1.34 QALYs per patient per year on SMART respect to fixed combination and fixed-dose ICS respectively. We observed a reduction of US$4 in total discounted cost per person-year on SMART with respect to fixed combination and US$0.1 respect to fixed-dose ICS. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

SMART therapy was found to be cost-effective regarding fixed combination and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. This evidence supports the use of SMART therapy in Colombia and must to be replicated in others middle-income countries.

Cost-utility of as-needed ICS-formoterol versus to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma

Background

Recent asthma guidelines, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), recommend in adult patients as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The introduction of these recommendations concerns whether using as-needed budesonide-formoterol would be more cost-effective than to maintenance ICS. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in patients with mild asthma.

Methods

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

Results

The model suggests a potential gain of 0.37 QALYs and per patient per year on as-needed ICS-formoterol and a reduction in the discounted cost per person-year, of as-needed ICS-formoterol to maintenance ICS, of US$40. This position of dominance of as-needed ICS-formoterol negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, our base‐case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

Conclusion

Low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients with mild asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

The Children's Anti-inflammatory Reliever (CARE) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy in children with mild asthma

Background

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, many of whom are managed solely with a short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA). In adults, the evidence that budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy markedly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations compared with SABA alone has contributed to the Global Initiative for Asthma recommending against SABA monotherapy in this population. The current lack of evidence in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also relevant to this demographic. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed.

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy compared with as-needed salbutamol in children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma, who only use a SABA.

Methods

A 52-week, open-label, parallel group, phase III RCT will recruit 380 children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort Rapihaler^®) 50/3 µg, two actuations as needed, or salbutamol (Ventolin^®) 100  µg, two actuations as needed. The primary outcome is asthma attacks as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes assess asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. A cost-effectiveness analysis is also planned.

Conclusion

This is the first RCT to assess the safety and efficacy of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in children with mild asthma. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of mild asthma in children.

This protocol describes the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol as sole reliever therapy for children with mild asthma, providing urgently needed evidence in this populationhttps://bit.ly/35v0R3Z

Cost-utility of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol in adolescents mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Previously evidence has demonstrated that as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol reduced the risk of severe exacerbations compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in an adolescent with mild asthma. Concerns as if the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in adolescents with mild asthma in Colombia.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model suggests a potential gain of 0.03 QALYs and per patient per year on low-dose budesonide-formoterol. The cost difference per person was US$-4 per patient per year in favor of budesonide- formoterol. The position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in adolescents with mild asthma. This evidence should promote economic evaluations in developed and developing countries for the inclusion of new drugs in health insurance plans.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 μg to twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

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.