The effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on the risk of severe asthma exacerbations following episodes of high reliever use: an exploratory analysis of two randomised, controlled studies with comparisons to standard therapy

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

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

Patient response to the management during the acute presentation of cough variant Asthma: Retrospective cohort study

The clinical improvement after assessing patients with cough variant asthma in outpatient clinics, and therapy success varied depending on the subjective improvement. Cough could be controlled within appropriate time and subsequent management can consist of inhaled corticosteroids. In this study we used the cough improvement, the only available clinical response, as a predictable factor to determine the effect of different modalities of treatment among patients with cough variant asthma. Retrospective observational analysis was performed in Saudi Arabia's King Saud University Medical City, on the presentation, diagnosis, course of therapy, and responsiveness to oral and inhaled steroids in patients with cough variant asthma. All patients who visited the clinic on multiple occasions with persistent, acute coughing without being pre-screened between September 2021 and September 2022 included based on medical records. Cough resembles cough variant asthma is the term used to describe a cough without a diagnosed etiology. To identify patients eligible for CVA treatment, iindividuals having GERD-associated cough, allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, smokers and atopic cough was excluded. For the examination of these findings, IBM SPSS version 28 (Armonk, NY, USA) was employed. As a result of using budesonide-formoterol inhaler, most patients (86.3 %) showed improvement in their cough symptoms (with 95 %CI: 78.3 to 94.9). There was a significant yet weak positive correlation between the frequency of cough symptoms before and after using budesonide-formoterol (r = 0.318, P value < 0.001). The understanding of treatment response and patient selection for budesonide-formoterol inhaler therapy, providing clinicians with valuable information to optimize patient care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

Landscape of short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) overuse in Europe

This review article provides an overview of short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) use and prescribing trends in Europe, summarizing updated data on the results from the industry-funded SABINA program (SABA use IN asthma) and other studies on this matter. SABA use continues to increase worldwide. Overuse has been defined as ≥3 canisters/year. Almost a third of European patients with asthma, at all severity levels, overuse SABA. Guidelines recommend close monitoring of patients who overuse SABA and avoiding over-reliance on SABA monotherapy. SABA overuse is associated with increased risk of asthma exacerbations and mortality, increased use of health services and negative physical and mental health outcomes. Reliance on SABA monotherapy can be unsafe and therefore it is necessary to change asthma treatment approaches and policies. Changes in physician and patient behaviours towards SABA use are required to ensure that patients with asthma are not over-reliant on SABA monotherapy. Notwithstanding, the limitations of the studies on the use of SABA should be considered, taking into account that the prescription/purchase of medication canisters does not always represent the actual use of the medication and that associations between SABA overuse and poor asthma outcomes may not be directly causal. National health systems and asthma guidelines must align asthma management with global recommendations and adjust them to local needs.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

Asthma management in low and middle income countries: case for change

Asthma is the most common noncommunicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), which have disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality. Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times per week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS are prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting β2-agonists (SABA) alone, owing to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries. The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death, despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches, is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable and effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Efficacy and safety of as-needed albuterol/budesonide versus albuterol in adults and children aged ≥4 years with moderate-to-severe asthma: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled MANDALA study

Introduction

Uncontrolled asthma is associated with substantial morbidity. While fast-acting bronchodilators provide quick relief from asthma symptoms, their use as rescue fails to address the underlying inflammation. Combining a short-acting beta₂-agonist, such as albuterol (salbutamol), with an inhaled corticosteroid, such as budesonide, in a single inhaler as rescue therapy could help control both bronchoconstriction and inflammation, and reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations.

Methods and analysis

The Phase 3 MANDALA study was designed to determine the efficacy of albuterol in combination with budesonide (albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg or 180/80 µg, two actuations of 90/80 µg or 90/40 µg, respectively) versus albuterol (180 µg, two actuations of 90 µg) as rescue therapy in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. This event-driven study enrolled symptomatic patients (3000 adults/adolescents and 100 children aged 4–11 years) who experienced ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation in the previous year and were receiving maintenance therapy for ≥3 months prior to study entry. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-to-first severe asthma exacerbation.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, and that are consistent with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and Good Clinical Practice and the applicable regulatory requirements.

Trial registration

NCT03769090.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes.GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by >60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA.Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11  years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4.Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults/adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

A Practical Guide to Implementing SMART in asthma management

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

[What not to do in the therapeutic management of bronchial asthma. Delphi consensus recommendations for physicians who treat asthma]

Asthma is one of the most prevalent diseases in Spain, yet despite the great diagnostic and therapeutic advances made in this field, health outcomes suggest that up to 80% of patients do not have their asthma well controlled. Although the causes of this situation are diverse, there are some practices among the professionals who treat asthma that are not conducive to improving health outcomes in this disease. Our working group has prepared this document in order to remind clinicians of a series of basic guidelines, aligned with current guidelines and recent literature, and agreed by a multidisciplinary expert panel using Delphi methodology. These recommendations about what not to do in the management of asthma in the adult patient are structured into four areas: diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and prevention of exacerbations.

Updated Australian guidelines for mild asthma: what's changed and why?

The Australian asthma guidelines have recently been updated and include additional treatment options for adults and adolescents with mild asthma Mild asthma is not necessarily a benign condition and patients are still at risk of severe flare-ups, particularly if they overuse short-acting beta2 agonists such as a salbutamol inhaler For adults and adolescents with mild asthma, the updated guidelines include as-needed inhaled low-dose budesonide–formoterol as an alternative to daily low-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting beta2 agonist The budesonide–formoterol combination should be taken as needed to provide symptom relief and reduce the risk of severe exacerbations

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Pharmacotherapeutic management of asthma in the elderly patient

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with variable phenotypes. Reversible airway obstruction and airway hyper-responsiveness often with an atopic or eosinophilic component is common in the elderly asthmatic. Asthma chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS), a combination of atopy-mediated airway hyper-responsiveness and a history of smoking or other environmental noxious exposures, can lead to some fixed airway obstruction and is also common in elderly patients. Little specific data exist for the treating the elderly asthmatic, thus requiring the clinician to extrapolate from general adult data and asthma treatment guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

A stepwise approach to pharmacotherapy of the elderly patient with asthma and ACOS is offered and the literature supporting the use of each class of drugs reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Inhaled, long-acting bronchodilators in combination with inhaled corticosteroids represent the backbone of treatment for the elderly patient with asthma or ACOS . Beyond these medications used as direct bronchodilators and topical anti-inflammatory agents, a stepwise approach to escalation of therapy includes multiple options such as oral leukotriene receptor antagonist or 5-lipoxygense inhibitor therapy, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids, oral macrolide antibiotics and if evidence of eosinophilic/atopic component disease exists then modifying monoclonal antibody therapies.

Variability in airway inflammation, symptoms, lung function and reliever use in asthma: anti-inflammatory reliever hypothesis and STIFLE study design

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease. Increase in airway inflammation is hypothesised to contribute to worsening of asthma symptoms and deterioration in lung function, resulting in the use of reliever medication. Short-acting β₂-agonists only treat the symptoms, whereas an anti-inflammatory reliever is believed to treat both symptoms and the underlying inflammation, thereby arresting the progression to an exacerbation. As-needed budesonide/formoterol as an anti-inflammatory reliever reduces the risk of severe exacerbations. However, supporting mechanistic evidence has not yet been described, specifically the temporal dynamics of parameters including airway inflammation, over time and during asthma worsening. The STIFLE study aims to characterise daily variability in airway inflammation, symptoms, lung function and reliever use in people with asthma. This phase IV, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, exploratory study will enrol 60-80 adult patients with asthma receiving low- or medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β₂-agonists (EudraCT identifier number 2018-003467-64). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either as-needed budesonide/formoterol dry-powder inhaler or salbutamol reliever for 24 weeks, in addition to their maintenance therapy. Daily data will be captured for fractional exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, asthma symptoms and medication use using devices connected to a smartphone via the STIFLE application. STIFLE will thereby enable not only characterisation of the variability of airway inflammation and clinical outcomes in relation to asthma worsening, but also elucidate the effect of as-needed budesonide/formoterol on airway inflammation against a background of daily maintenance therapy.

What have we learnt about asthma control from trials of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever?

Despite improvements in medications, devices and understanding of the disease, about half of all asthma patients worldwide remain inadequately controlled, suggesting the need for a new approach to asthma management. Poor adherence to prescribed maintenance therapy and over-reliance on SABA reliever medication is a common cause of inadequate control. This article reviews published data from 6- to 12-month, double-blind, RCT and open-label real-world studies involving budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) and relevant comparator approaches to asthma management, and considers how these compare in achieving the treatment goals described in guidelines. The data confirm that patients with asthma treated with budesonide/formoterol MART achieved the same or better asthma symptom control compared with ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at similar or higher ICS doses, with consistently lower rates of exacerbations and considerably lower annual requirement for oral corticosteroids. These findings have been confirmed across a range of severities of persistent asthma. With the MART approach, maintenance dosing ensures coverage for day-to-day control, and the use of a reliever with anti-inflammatory properties (budesonide/formoterol) provides extra doses of ICS as soon as symptoms prompt the use of reliever, resulting in a 40-50% reduction of exacerbations compared with an ICS-based treatment approach plus as-needed SABA as reliever. As-needed, budesonide/formoterol has also recently been shown to be more effective as a reliever in mild asthma than SABA alone, reducing exacerbations by up to 64% in the SYGMA studies.

[The management of asthma as a chronic inflammatory disease and global health problem: A position paper from the scientific societies]

Asthma is the most prevalent respiratory disease worldwide and it can affect people of all ages and is potentially fatal. Today, maintenance treatments are available that are effective in most patients, yet a significant proportion have poorly controlled disease, despite the resources on offer. This document, endorsed by members of the Spanish medical societies involved in the treatment of asthma, is intended to draw the attention of society and professionals to this problem in Spain. It focuses on the clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of asthma, and proposes some actions for improvement as regards patients and healthcare professionals which, in view of the current results arising from inadequate asthma control, might be beneficial to improve outcomes for both patients and public health.

Challenges in the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of effective treatments, asthma control in children and adolescents remains inadequate and rates of health care use are high. This follow-up to a recent review (O'Byrne et al, Eur Respir J. 2017;50[3]) examines a number of challenges in current pediatric asthma management compared with that of an adult perspective and discusses possible alternative strategies that might improve pediatric asthma management and control.

DATA SOURCES

The evidence base for this review is limited because, historically, much of the research has been performed in adults.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Pediatric asthma management is complicated by variability in asthma severity and control and difficulty in measuring pulmonary function and airway inflammation. Current challenges in pediatric asthma management include the recommended initial therapy treating only the symptoms rather than the underlying inflammation and switching to controller therapy only when asthma subsequently worsens.

CONCLUSION

Alternative strategies that might improve pediatric asthma management and control include replacement of short-acting β₂-agonist relievers by an inhaled corticosteroid plus a fast-acting β₂-agonist (short-acting β₂-agonist or fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist) combination at Global Initiative for Asthma step 1 or 2 to ensure that patients receive an inhaled corticosteroid whenever they feel the need for symptomatic relief. Such an approach could eliminate the problem of learned overuse or over-reliance on short-acting β₂-agonist reliever medication and address the other challenges in current pediatric asthma management. Clinical studies in pediatric patients or large studies involving a proportion of pediatric patients are required to provide the supporting evidence needed to help advance such new approaches and improve asthma control from a pediatric perspective.

Inhaled Combined Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed in Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

Real-Life Clinical Use of Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy for Asthmatic Patients in Korea

The aim of this study was to examine the daily practice patterns of Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) in Korean asthmatic patients and to analyze clinical signs related to overuse. This study used an observational, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective, uncontrolled design for examining asthmatic patients prescribed SMART to assess the frequency and pattern of Symbicort® usage as a maintenance and reliever medication. The characteristics of patients showing signs of overuse (frequency of inhalation: 8 or more times per day) were also analyzed. Among the 1,518 patients analyzed, 1,292 (85.1%) completed the trial. The number of mean inhalations per day was 2.14±1.15; the number of patients who had at least 1 as needed usage (PRN) inhalation per day was 843 (55.5%); the mean frequency of PRN use was 0.25±0.67 inhalations per day. The number of patients who overused for at least 1 day was 260 (17.1%). In particular, young patients, patients with limited physical activity, and patients with nocturnal symptoms demonstrated high frequency of overuse. The frequency of overuse during SMART was not high in Korean asthmatic patients and the asthma status of follow-up outpatients improved overall. However, there is a need for careful education targeted toward younger patients, patients with limited physical activity, and patients with nocturnal symptoms owing to their tendency to frequently overuse.

Asthma phenotypes: do cough and wheeze predict exacerbations in persistent asthma?

Little is known of the long-term symptom profile in uncontrolled asthma and whether symptoms can predict distinct phenotypes. The primary objective of these analyses was to assess diurnal profile of cough and wheeze in an uncontrolled asthma population. Secondary outcomes were to examine how these symptom profiles influence response to treatment.Twice-daily electronically recorded data from 1701 patients were examined in relation to the population demographics. Reliever treatment with salbutamol was then compared with extra-fine beclometasone/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Exacerbation frequency was then correlated with the symptom profile.Symptoms were commoner in older patients with an increased body mass index. In most patients, reported cough and wheeze were closely correlated (r=0.73). Two phenotypes of cough- and wheeze-predominant patients were identified; the former were overweight, older females and the latter older males. Diurnal symptoms of cough and wheeze were similarly attenuated by both therapies. MART reduced exacerbation frequency by a third compared with salbutamol, and this effect was greatest in patients with fewest reported symptoms.While cough and wheeze are highly correlated in uncontrolled asthma, some patients predominantly have cough whereas others wheeze. Symptoms and exacerbation frequency appear poorly associated, suggesting an alternative pathophysiology. MART may be the preferred option in those with fewest symptoms.

Can severe asthmatic patients achieve asthma control? A systematic approach in patients with difficult to control asthma followed in a specialized clinic

Background

Despite advances in asthma treatment, severe asthma (SA) still results in high morbidity and use of health resources. Our hypothesis was that SA patients would achieve adequate control with a systematic protocol, including oral corticosteroids, budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy and a multidisciplinary approach to improve adherence.

Methods

Non-controlled (NC) SA patients were enrolled to receive 2 weeks of oral corticosteroids and 12 weeks of formoterol + budesonide. Assessments included asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), asthma control test (ACT), daily symptom diary, lung function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires.

Results

Of 51 patients, 13 (25.5%) achieved control. NC patients had higher utilization of health resources and higher exacerbation rates. Both controlled (C) and NC patients had significantly reduced ACQ scores after oral corticosteroid treatment. After 12 weeks, C patients continued improving. NC patients did not have significant changes. A similar pattern was found regarding lung function, use of rescue medication, and days free of symptoms. After 2 weeks of oral corticosteroids, an increase occurred in those who achieved the ACQ cut off; however, 53.8% of C patients had an ACQ < 1.57 versus 21.1% of NC patients (p = 0.03). Both groups had low HRQoL at baseline with improvement after intervention.

Conclusions

Despite rigorous, optimized follow-up treatment, 75% of SA patients did not achieve adequate symptom control and presented with impaired quality of life. Conversely, application of a low-cost, easy to implement systematic protocol can prevent up to 25% of SA patients from up-titrating to new and complex therapies, thus reducing costs and morbidity.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrial.gov on 22 February 2010 (NCT01089322).

Budesonide + formoterol fumarate dihydrate for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

One of the most widely used fixed combinations in asthma management is dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate which is commercially available as Symbicort Turbuhaler(®) (and generic products), Easyhaler Bufomix(®) and DuoRespSpiromax(®) inhaler. The aim of this paper was to review the fixed dry powder combination of inhaled budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate for asthma treatment in adolescents and adults.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search using relevant search terms, reference lists for reviews and meta-analyses was performed.

EXPERT OPINION

In symptomatic adolescent and adult patients with asthma maintenance and reliever therapy with a single-inhaler fixed combination of dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate is an evidenced option. The combination treatment is convenient to patients. It reduces the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids. In some patients the strategy may also reduce the total intake of inhaled corticosteroids over time. Whether important outcome measures of asthma treatment, such as hospital admission and emergency room visit rates, may be reduced is less well documented since the published studies may have been influenced by publication bias. Non-pharmaceutical company-sponsored research evaluating such measures is needed. There is no evidence for the use of single inhaler fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids+long-acting β(2)-agonists in children (<12 years of age), and budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate should not be prescribed to the age group.

Clinically relevant outcome measures for new therapies of asthma using pharmaceutical and biologic agents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To determine the benefits of new asthma drugs or therapies, they should be assessed with regard to their effects on relevant clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most frequently used outcomes have been symptoms, rescue medication needs and pulmonary function tests, although others such as quality of life, exacerbations and impairment of activities have also been identified as important ones. Improvements in our understanding of basic mechanisms of asthma have led to the development of new sets of outcomes including inflammatory markers and a rapidly increasing number of biomarkers, which however require validation, and assessment of their clinical usefulness. Many studies have not only looked at induced sputum cell differentials or FENO to phenotype asthma but also as treatment efficacy markers. Periostin is considered a marker of TH2-induced airway inflammation and a predictor of response to drugs such as anti-IL13 and omalizumab, although at the individual level, such prediction remains imperfect.

SUMMARY

There is a need to develop new markers of activity of the disease, with a prognostic value with regard to the benefits of new treatments.

Reliever salbutamol use as a measure of exacerbation risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Debate exists regarding which endpoints most sensitively reflect day-to-day variation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms and are most useful in clinical practice to predict COPD exacerbations. We hypothesized that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever use would predict short- and long-term exacerbation risk in COPD patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from a study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT00419744) comparing budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg with formoterol 9 μg (both twice daily) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD; reliever salbutamol 90 μg was provided. First occurrence of reliever use >4 (low), >10 (medium), and >20 (high) inhalations/day was assessed as a predictor of short-term (3-week) exacerbation risk. Mean daily reliever use in the week preceding the 2-month visit was investigated as a predictor of the long-term (10-month) exacerbation risk, using intervals of 2-5, 6-9, and ≥10 inhalations/day.

RESULTS

Overall, 810 patients were included (61 % male; mean age 63.2 years; post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 37.7 % of predicted). First occurrence of low, medium, or high reliever use was predictive of an exacerbation within the following 3 weeks; exacerbation risk increased significantly with increasing reliever use. Mean reliever use over 1 week was predictive of long-term exacerbation risk. Patients with mean use of 2-5, 6-9, and ≥10 inhalations/day exhibited 21 %, 67 %, and 135 % higher exacerbation rates, respectively, in the following 10 months, compared with <2 inhalations/day. Budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower short- and long-term exacerbation risk than formoterol in all reliever-use groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SABA reliever use is a predictor of short- and long-term exacerbation risk in moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbations receiving budesonide/formoterol or formoterol.

Beclometasone-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment in patients with asthma: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

According to international treatment guidelines, inhaled rapid-acting β2 agonists should be used for the control of symptoms in patients with asthma. We compared the efficacy and safety of an extrafine combination inhaler containing a corticosteroid (beclometasone) plus a rapid-onset, long-acting β2 agonist (formoterol) with a short-acting β2 agonist (salbutamol) as reliever strategies in patients taking beclometasone-formoterol combination as maintenance treatment.

METHODS

In a double-blind trial undertaken in 183 centres in 14 European countries over 48 weeks, patients (aged ≥18 years) with asthma that was not fully controlled, with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of at least 60% predicted, had a 2-week run in. During this period, patients were treated with a combination of beclometasone 100 μg and formoterol 6 μg per one inhalation twice daily plus salbutamol 100 μg as required delivered by use of a pressurised metered-dose inhaler. They were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a computer-generated randomisation list to receive beclometasone 100 μg plus formoterol 6 μg or salbutamol 100 μg as reliever in addition to maintenance with beclometasone 100 μg plus formoterol 6 μg twice daily. Primary outcome was the time to first severe exacerbation (admission to hospital or visit to emergency department, or use of systemic steroids for ≥3 consecutive days). Secondary outcomes were number of severe exacerbations (events per 100 patients per year), time to and number of mild exacerbations, additional exacerbation variables, lung function, symptom scores, and asthma control. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861926.

FINDINGS

1714 patients were randomly assigned to the as-needed beclometasone-formoterol (n=857) and as-needed salbutamol groups (n=857), and 1701 were analysed (852 and 849, respectively). 326 severe exacerbations were reported by 251 patients during the study, and 99 versus 152 patients had at least one exacerbation during the 48 weeks, respectively. Compared with beclometasone-formoterol plus salbutamol as needed, beclometasone-formoterol for both maintenance and reliever treatment significantly increased the time to first exacerbation (209 days vs 134 days) by 75 days, with a 36% reduction in risk (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·49 to 0·82]; p=0·0005), and the estimated probability was 12% and 18%, respectively (p=0·0003). The number of days with mild asthma exacerbations was also lower with as-needed beclometasone-formoterol than with as-needed salbutamol (56·04 days per patient per year vs 65·11 days per patient per year; 0·86 [0·76 to 0·98]; p=0·021). From the run-in period to week 48, both treatments improved symptoms (mean change -1·59 [-1·94 to -1·25] in the as-needed beclometasone-formoterol group vs -1·44 [-1·78 to -1·10] in the as-needed salbutamol group, difference -0·15 [-0·60 to 0·30]; p=0·507), percentage of asthma control days (9·5% [7·3 to 11·8] vs 10·9% [8·7 to 13·1], respectively, -1·4 [-4·3 to 1·6]; p=0·359), use of reliever (-0·29 [-0·38 to -0·20] vs -0·27 [-0·36 to -0·19], respectively, -0·02 [-0·13 to 0·10]; p=0·794), and lung function (FEV1, 0·090 [0·060 to 0·120] vs 0·090 [0·060-0·120], respectively, 0·001 [-0·040 to 0·040]; p=0·969), and were well tolerated (patients with serious adverse events, 32 [4%] and 41 [5%], respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Our results lend support to the use of the combination of a single inhaled corticosteroid plus a rapid-onset, long-acting β2 agonist for maintenance and relief in patients with moderate to severe asthma and provide encouraging data for the formulation of beclometasone-formoterol for this use.

FUNDING

Chiesi Farmaceutici.