Efficacy and safety profile of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared to its individual components administered concurrently in asthma: a randomised controlled trial

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.

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Administered via a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and a Novel Breath-Actuated Inhaler in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol) exposures, following administration of Flutiform^® K-haler^®, a breath-actuated inhaler (BAI), were compared with the Flutiform pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with/without spacer in two healthy volunteer studies. In addition, formoterol-induced systemic pharmacodynamic (PD) effects were examined in the second study. Methods: Study 1: single-dose, three-period, crossover pharmacokinetic (PK) study with oral charcoal administration. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg was administered via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI with spacer (pMDI+S). Pulmonary exposure for BAI was deemed no less than for pMDI (primary comparator) if the lower limit of 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) for BAI:pMDI maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt) ratios was ≥80%. Study 2: two-stage adaptive design, both stages being single-dose, crossover without charcoal administration. The PK stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S. The primary comparisons were as follows: BAI versus pMDI+S for fluticasone and BAI versus pMDI for formoterol. Systemic safety with BAI was deemed no worse than primary comparator if the upper limit of 94.12% CIs for Cmax and AUCt ratios was ≤125%. PD assessment was to be conducted if BAI safety was not confirmed in the PK stage. Based on PK results, only formoterol PD effects were evaluated. The PD stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 1500/60 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S; fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 μg pMDI; and formoterol 60 μg pMDI. The primary endpoint was maximum reduction in serum potassium within 4 hours postdose. Equivalence was defined as 95% CIs for BAI versus pMDI+S and pMDI ratios within 0.5-2.0. Results: Study 1: lower limit of 94.12% CIs for BAI:pMDI ratios >80%. Study 2, PK stage: upper limit of 94.12% CIs for fluticasone (BAI:pMDI+S) ratios <125%; upper limit of 94.12% CIs for formoterol (BAI:pMDI) ratios >125% (for Cmax, not AUCt). Study 2, PD stage: 95% CIs for serum potassium ratios 0.7-1.3 (BAI:pMDI+S) and 0.4-1.5 (BAI:pMDI). Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol BAI performance was within the range observed for the pMDI with/without a spacer. Sponsor: Mundipharma Research Ltd. EudraCT 2012-003728-19 (Study 1) and 2013-000045-39 (Study 2).

A review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fixed-dose combination

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) is one of the newer combinations among inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination formulations currently available. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of this FP/FORM combination, it is important to review all the available evidence and take a comprehensive look at the current and relevant data in the patient population suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AREAS COVERED

In this focused review, we summarize the available literature published until January 2021 using the PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM with its mono-components; concurrent administration of FP+FORM; and with other ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD patients.

EXPERT OPINION

FP/FORM combination therapy is a strong alternative in the treatment of persistent asthma and moderate-severe COPD. Extensive study of several trials has established the superior efficacy of FP/FORM combination therapy over FP or FORM monotherapy, comparable efficacy with FP+FORM and non-inferiority to other ICS/LABA fixed-dose combinations. The safety profile of FP/FORM has also been found to be comparable with respect to its mono-components and their concurrent use, and also other ICS/LABA combinations such as formoterol/budesonide and fluticasone/salmeterol.

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.

Comparative Safety Profile of the Fixed-Dose Combination Corticosteroid and Long-acting β2-Agonist Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate: A 36-Month Longitudinal Cohort Study in UK Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

The inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform^®) has been available as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy for asthma patients aged ≥ 12 years in the UK since 2012. This post-authorisation safety study examined adverse outcomes and prescribing practices for FP/FORM and other FDC ICS/LABA therapies in a real-life clinical setting over 36 months.

METHODS

Historical, longitudinal cohort database study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, for patients initiated on or switched to an FDC ICS/LABA (ENCePP study number: EUPAS12330). The main cohort was adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma. The primary outcome was incidence of new adverse outcomes after initiation of ICS/LABA; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for FP/FORM versus other FDC ICS/LABAs using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 241,007 patients with an FDC ICS/LABA prescription were identified. In the adult asthma cohort (N = 41,609), the incidence rate of new adverse outcomes [in 100 patient-years (py)] was significantly lower for FP/FORM (24.75) versus fluticasone/salmeterol metered-dose inhaler [8.86; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)], fluticasone/salmeterol dry powder inhaler [31.19; HR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29)], budesonide/formoterol [25.16; HR: 1.13 (1.03, 1.25)] and beclometasone/formoterol [25.47; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)]. The overall prescribing rate was lower for FP/FORM (13.85 per 1000/py) than licensed FDC ICS/LABA comparators (20.30-28.13 per 1000/py). Of those prescribed FP/FORM, 80.8% were adults with asthma and < 7% were prescribed FP/FORM "off-label".

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that FP/FORM was associated with an overall lower adverse outcome rate than the licensed comparators.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for paediatric asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) for paediatric asthma remains controversial.

Aim

We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma.

Material and methods

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

Results

Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for paediatric asthma, FP/FORM and FP/SAL demonstrate a comparable influence on FEVj (Std. MD = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03; p = 0.62), FVC (Std. MD = 0; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.87), FEF25 (Std. MD = -1.69; 95% CI: -6.69 to 3.31; p = 0.51), FEF50 (Std. MD = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.33; p = 0.37), FEF75 (Std. MD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.24; p = 0.91), asthma symptom scores (Std. MD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.04; p = 0.43), sleep disturbance scores (Std. MD = 0.03; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.24; p = 0.81) and adverse events (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.38; p = 0.61).

Conclusions

FP/FORM and FP/SAL show a comparable efficacy for paediatric asthma.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management

Introduction:

In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform^®) was conducted.

Methods:

This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.

Results:

The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusion:

In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Synergistic drug combinations prediction by integrating pharmacological data

There is compelling evidence that synergistic drug combinations have become promising strategies for combating complex diseases, and they have evident predominance comparing to traditional one drug - one disease approaches. In this paper, we develop a computational method, namely SyFFM, that takes pharmacological data into consideration and applies field-aware factorization machines to analyze and predict potential synergistic drug combinations. Firstly, features of drug pairs are constructed based on associations between drugs and target, and enzymes, and indication areas. Then, the synergistic scores of drug combinations are obtained by implementing field-aware factorization machines on latent vector space of these features. Finally, synergistic combinations can be predicted by introducing a threshold. We applied SyFFM to predict pairwise synergistic combinations and three-drug synergistic combinations, and the performance is good in terms of cross-validation. Besides, more than 90% combinations of the top ranked predictions are proved by literature and the analysis of parameters in model shows that our method can help to investigate and explain synergistic mechanisms underlying combinatorial therapy.

Pulmonary deposition of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in healthy volunteers, asthmatics and COPD patients with a novel breath-triggered inhaler

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) has been incorporated within a novel, breath-triggered device, named K-haler^®. This low resistance device requires a gentle inspiratory effort to actuate it, triggering at an inspiratory flow rate of approximately 30 L/min; thus avoiding the need for coordination of inhalation with manual canister depression. The aim of the study was to evaluate total and regional pulmonary deposition of FP/FORM when administered via the K-haler device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve healthy subjects, 12 asthmatics, and 12 COPD patients each received a single dose of 2 puffs ^99mtechnetium-labelled FP/FORM 125/5 μg. A gamma camera was used to obtain anterior and posterior two-dimensional images of drug deposition. Prior transmission scans (using a^99mtechnetium flood source) allowed the definition of regions of interest and calculation of attenuation correction factors. Image analysis was performed per standardised methods.

RESULTS

Of 36 subjects, 35 provided evaluable post-dose scintigraphic data. Mean subject ages were 35.7 (healthy), 44.5 (asthma) and 61.7 years (COPD); mean FEV₁% predicted values were 109.8%, 77.4% and 43.2%, respectively. Mean pulmonary deposition was 26.6% (healthy), 44.7% (asthma), 39.0% (COPD) of the delivered dose. The respective mean penetration indices (peripheral:central ratio normalised to a transmission lung scan) were 0.44, 0.31 and 0.30.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM administration via the K-haler device resulted in high lung deposition in patients with obstructive lung disease but somewhat lesser deposition in healthy subjects. Regional deposition data demonstrated drug deposition in both the central and peripheral regions in all subject populations.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2015-000744-42.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

A Randomized, Crossover Trial Evaluating Patient Handling, Preference, and Ease of Use of the Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Breath-Triggered Inhaler

BACKGROUND

Appropriate inhaler selection is of fundamental importance in obstructive lung disease management. Key factors in device selection include a patient's capacity to operate a particular device and their preference for it.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study (NCT01739387) compared the ability of adolescent and adult patients with obstructive lung disease to correctly handle the fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform^®) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and FP/FORM K-haler^®, a novel breath-triggered inhaler (BTI), following a simple, standardized training regimen. The primary endpoint was the ability to perform all steps correctly at the first attempt. Secondary endpoints included the ability to perform all critical steps correctly at the first attempt, the requisite number of attempts to successfully use the inhaler, the ability to be trained within 15 minutes, and the ability to trigger the K-haler BTI to actuate at the first attempt. Ease of device use and device preference versus patients' usual maintenance inhalers were also assessed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

At the first attempt, an identical proportion (77.2% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1, 81.8]) of 307 patients performed all pMDI and K-haler BTI handling steps correctly, whereas the corresponding proportions performing all critical steps correctly were 82.4% (95% CIs: 77.7, 86.5) and 87.0% (95% CI: 82.7, 90.5), respectively. For both devices, >90% of patients required only two attempts to master device usage; >99% of patients could be trained to correctly use each device within 15 minutes. Virtually all patients (99.0% [95% CIs: 97.2, 99.8]) were able to successfully trigger the K-haler BTI's dose-release mechanism at first attempt. Ease of use and preference data for FP/FORM pMDI challenged the perceived wisdom that dry powder inhalers are necessarily simpler to use, whereas the corresponding data for FP/FORM K-haler strongly favored this novel BTI over the Turbuhaler^®, Accuhaler^®, and other pMDIs.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Fixed-dose combination fluticasone propionate/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a review of its pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability]

The fixed-dose combination fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FPF) is a novel combination of a widely known and used inhaled glucocorticoid (IGC) and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), available for the first time in a single device. This fixed-dose combination of FPF has a demonstrated efficacy and safety profile in clinical trials compared with its individual components and other fixed-dose combinations of IGC/LABA and is indicated for the treatment of persistent asthma in adults and adolescents. FPF is available in a wide range of doses that can adequately cover the therapeutic steps recommended by treatment guidelines, constituting a fixed-dose combination of GCI/LABA that is effective, rapid, well tolerated and with a reasonable acquisition cost. Various assessment agencies of the Spanish Autonomous Communities consider this combination to be an appropriate alternative therapy for asthma in the primary care setting.

Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

A primary goal of asthma management is the reduction of exacerbation risk. We assessed the occurrence of oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbations (OCS exacerbations) with long-term fluticasone/formoterol therapy, and compared it with the occurrence of similar events reported with other inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations.

METHODS

The occurrence of OCS exacerbations was assessed in two open-label trials of fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol administered for between 26 to 60 weeks in adults and adolescents with asthma. The incidence of OCS exacerbations with fluticasone/formoterol was compared with those reported in three recent Cochrane meta-analyses of other ICS/LABAs.

RESULTS

The pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations with long-term fluticasone/formoterol was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1, 3.2%, n/N = 16/752). In only two of the nineteen treatment arms summarized by Cochrane did OCS exacerbation incidence approximate that seen in the two fluticasone/formoterol trials (single-inhaler fluticasone/salmeterol [2.9%]; separate inhaler budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus formoterol [3.4%]). In Lasserson's review the pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations for single-inhaler combinations was 9.5% (95% CI: 8.4, 10.6%; n/N = 239/2516) for fluticasone/salmeterol, and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.3, 11.8%; n/N = 257/2433) for budesonide/formoterol. In Ducharme's and Chauhan's meta-analyses (primarily incorporating separate inhaler combinations [fluticasone, budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus salmeterol or formoterol]), the pooled incidences of OCS exacerbations were 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 17.8%, n/N = 258/1615) and 16.7% (95% CI: 14.9, 18.5, n/N = 275/1643), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of exacerbations in two fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol studies was low and less than in the majority of comparable published studies involving other ICS/LABA combinations. This difference could not be readily explained by differences in features of the respective studies and may be related to the favorable pharmacological/mechanistic characteristics of the constituent components fluticasone and formoterol compared to other drugs in their respective classes.

Clinical efficacy of tiotropium in children with asthma

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical efficacy of tiotropium in children with asthma.

METHODS

Eighty children with newly diagnosed moderate persistent asthma were enrolled into this study. The children were randomly assigned to the fluticasone propionate aerosol group or the fluticasone propionate aerosol plus tiotropium group for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Lung function was significantly improved in both groups at 4, 8, and 12 weeks compared with baseline (P < 0.01). Moreover, lung function was significantly improved in the tiotropium group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe asthma between the two groups (36.3% and 26.8%, respectively; P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the number of days and frequency of short-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist use was significantly reduced in the tiotropium group (P < 0.05). Awakenings during the night were also significantly decreased (P < 0.00). There were no severe adverse reactions in either of the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Tiotropium could significantly improve lung function, reduce the use of short-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, and improve sleep in children with asthma. Furthermore, few adverse reactions were reported.

Health-related quality of life measurement in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of the 2009-2014 literature

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are frequent in the general population. These diseases can worsen the quality of life of people suffering from them, limiting their daily activities and disrupting their sleep at night. Some questionnaires to measure the impact of the diseases on the daily life of patients are available. The measurements of subjective outcomes have become a part of clinical practice, and are used very frequently in clinical trials. Our aim was to describe how data on HRQoL in asthma and COPD are reported in papers published in the medical literature.

METHODS

We identified papers on the recent respiratory drugs (chemical, not biological), that reported the HRQoL measurement and that were published from 2009 to April 2014. We planned to describe data about HRQoL, and we had no intention of comparing the degree of efficacy of drugs.

RESULTS

The most used questionnaires are the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). These tools, administered at the baseline and at the end of the study (and interim evaluations in the longer studies) allowed for the identification of improvements as perceived by the patient after the treatment, even if in some cases these improvements were limited and not clinically relevant. Subjective measurements have always been placed among the secondary endpoints and the number of patients (estimated for the main endpoint) has often statistically overestimated the result. In addition, it is clear that subjective data is normally reported, but rarely commented on.

CONCLUSIONS

There are some methodology aspects that should be discussed in more depth, for example the necessity to express variations in the subjective perception, not as p-value but as effect-size.

A valid option for asthma control: Clinical evidence on efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol combination in a single inhaler

A good level of asthma control improves the quality of life of asthmatic patients and may prevent future risk in term of exacerbations and decline of pulmonary function. However, in a real-life setting, several factors contribute to generally low compliance to the treatment. A rapid-onset, long-lasting medication with few adverse effects may contribute to improve adherence to therapy, along with an effective patient education and a good physician-patient communication. Many clinical studies demonstrated the comparable efficacy of the new fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/F) combination in a single inhaler to other combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and β2agonists and the superiority of FP/F as compared to its individual components. Also the safety profile of this combination was encouraging in all studies, even at higher doses. By effectively and safely targeting both airway inflammation and smooth muscle dysfunction, the two pathological facets of asthma, and allowing the patient to adapt dose strength, FP/F combination in a single device represents a valid option to improve asthma control in patients with different levels of asthma severity.

Practical guidance on the recognition of uncontrolled asthma and its management

PURPOSE

To highlight the significance of asthma in primary care and offer a practitioner-friendly interpretation of the asthma guidelines for the busy provider, while introducing new treatment options currently in clinical trials, such as the once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator tiotropium Respimat.

DATA SOURCES

Articles with relevant adult data published between 2004 and 2015 were identified via PubMed. Additional references were obtained by reviewing bibliographies from selected articles.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, uncontrolled or symptomatic asthma is common, with rates of 46%-78% in primary care. Uncontrolled asthma has a substantial impact on patients' quality of life and represents a significant healthcare burden. Nurse practitioners can improve patients' asthma control through education, monitoring, assessment, and treatment. Although asthma management guidelines are readily available, the authors recognize that nurse practitioners see patients with multiple comorbidities, all of which have treatment guidelines of their own.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurse practitioners have a compelling opportunity as frontline caregivers and patient educators to recognize and assess uncontrolled asthma, along with determining the steps necessary to help patients gain and maintain symptom control.

Revising old principles of inhaled treatment in new fixed combinations for asthma

The major influencing factors on persistent asthma control are the selected treatment(s), the drug delivery route and patient's adherence to therapy, together with the influence of lifestyle (i.e. sedentary habit), comorbid conditions and specific asthma phenotypes. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) are the gold standard for management of persistent asthma, with maximal local targeting and minimal systemic side effects. Several innovative inhaler devices have been developed for effective local drug administration and good patient compliance to therapy. Recently, a new ICS/LABA fixed combination, formulated with fluticasone propionate (FP) and formoterol fumarate (FF), has been proposed for maintenance treatment of asthma in adults and adolescent patients. FP/FF combines the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilating properties of powerful compounds in a single inhaler. Its pharmacological characteristics allow rapid speed of onset and dosage flexibility required for step-up and step-down strategies, improving adherence to treatment of asthmatic patients. The efficacy of the FP/FF fixed combination at all dosages in controlling asthma symptoms and the reduced rate of discontinuation have been demonstrated by all randomized trials conducted so far.

Fluticasone-formoterol: a systematic review of its potential role in the treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the available published data regarding the efficacy and safety of a combination product containing fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP-F) in order to establish its potential role compared with other inhaled combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta2 receptor agonists for the maintenance treatment of asthma.

METHODS

A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted using the terms "fluticasone propionate", "formoterol fumarate", "Flutiform(®)", and "asthma" in July 2014 to identify trials using this combination specifically for the treatment of asthma. Additional information was gathered from references cited in the identified publications, the package insert, and the ClinicalTrials. gov registry. All randomized controlled clinical trials for humans in asthma were evaluated for inclusion. Data from animal trials, clinical trials for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and non-English sources were excluded.

RESULTS

Seven short-term safety and efficacy trials of FP-F compared with its individual components and two comparison trials of FP-F versus other combination products were identified. Generally, the incidence of drug-related adverse events was low and consistent with previously reported drug class-related adverse events (ie, pharyngitis, dysphonia, and headache). The combination of FP-F was shown to be noninferior to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for improving predose forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) and 2 hours post dose FEV1. FP-F was also noninferior to budesonide/formoterol in improving predose FEV1. Other clinical endpoints, including various symptom scores, asthma control, quality of life, and subjects' assessment of the medications were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Poor asthma control is common. The data from short-term studies indicate that this inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 receptor agonist combination product is non-inferior to similar combination products available. As FP-F is available in different strengths, the corticosteroid dose can be titrated without changing devices. A potential advantage is that those with good technique, the same type of device could be used for both their controller and rapid relief inhaler medicines. The choice of this combination versus other similar products may be based primarily on cost.

Efficacy of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in the treatment of asthma: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate have been combined in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) for the maintenance treatment of asthma. This pooled analysis assessed the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone in patients who previously received inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Data were pooled from five randomised studies in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years) treated for 8 or 12 weeks with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10, 250/10 or 500/20 μg b.i.d.; n = 528 delivered via pMDI) or fluticasone alone (100, 250 or 500 μg b.i.d.; n = 527).

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol provided significantly greater increases than fluticasone alone in mean morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at study end (least-squares mean [LSM] treatment difference: 0.146L; p < 0.001) and in pre-dose FEV1 from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 0.048 L; p = 0.043). Compared with fluticasone, fluticasone/formoterol provided greater increases in the percentage of asthma control days (no symptoms, no rescue medication use and no sleep disturbance due to asthma) from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 8.6%; p < 0.001), and was associated with a lower annualised rate of exacerbations (rate ratio: 0.71; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, fluticasone/formoterol provides clinically significant improvements in lung function and asthma control measures, with a lower incidence of exacerbations than fluticasone alone.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol: a fixed-combination therapy with flexible dosage

International guidelines describe asthma control as the main outcome of asthma management. Prevention of symptoms, improved quality of life, and reduction of exacerbations are the main components, consequently decreasing health care costs. However, many of these objectives remain unmet in real life: several surveys show that a large proportion of asthmatic patients are not well controlled despite the efficacy of current available treatment. Several randomized controlled clinical trials indicate that combining inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, by means of a single inhaler, greatly improves the management of the disease. The results of 9 multicenter phase III clinical studies demonstrate that the fixed combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in a single inhaler is effective in terms of lung function and symptom control. These studies highlight the dose flexibility, safety and tolerability of this new inhaled combination. These characteristics meet the recommendations of international guidelines, and the preferences of respiratory physicians who identified these aspects as critical components of a successful asthma therapy. Combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in a single inhaler provides potent anti-inflammatory activity of fluticasone propionate and rapid onset of action of the β2-agonist formoterol making this association a viable treatment option both in terms of effectiveness and compliance.

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

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

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

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

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in fixed-dose combination for the treatment of asthma

A new combination inhaler containing fluticasone, a potent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and formoterol, a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) with rapid onset and sustained bronchodilator effect, has been approved for treatment of persistent asthma in patients ≥12 years of age requiring combination ICS-LABA therapy. The fluticasone/formoterol combination, delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler and available in three dose strengths, has demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile in trials of up to 1 year. The efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol is greater than that of fluticasone or formoterol alone and noninferior to that of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in tightly controlled 8-12-week clinical trials. Advantages of the fluticasone/formoterol combination aerosol include rapid onset of bronchodilation, an attribute preferred by patients, and emission of a high fine-particle fraction that is consistent at different flow rates, which may aid consistency of delivery (given patient variability in inhalation maneuvers) and provide real-life benefits.

Fluticasone/formoterol dry powder versus budesonide/formoterol in adults and adolescents with uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma

This 12-week study compared the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol (FL/F) 250/12 μg b.i.d. administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) (Libbs Farmacêutica, Brazil) to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol (BD/F) 400/12 μg b.i.d. After a 2-week run-in period (in which all patients were treated exclusively with budesonide plus formoterol), patients aged 12-65 years of age (N = 196) with uncontrolled asthma were randomized into an actively-controlled, open-labeled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III study. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority, measured by morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF). The non-inferiority was demonstrated. A statistically significant improvement from baseline was observed in both groups in terms of lung function, asthma control, and the use of rescue medication. FL/F demonstrated a statistical superiority to BD/F in terms of lung function (FEV(1)) (p = 0.01) and for asthma control (p = 0.02). Non-significant between-group differences were observed with regards to exacerbation rates and adverse events. In uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma patients, the use of a combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol via DPI for 12-weeks was non-inferior and showed improvements in FEV(1) and asthma control when compared to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol. (

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ISRCTN60408425).