Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provide similar rapid relief in patients with acute asthma showing refractoriness to salbutamol

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Bronchodilator responsiveness testing with inhaled budesonide/formoterol in asthma

BACKGROUND

The choice of bronchodilators for responsiveness testing (BRT) is a clinical decision according to ATS/ERS. Since January 2019 we use budesonide/formoterol for BRT in asthma at our center in Argentina. The aim was to compare budesonide/formoterol with salbutamol for BRT in stable asthmatic patients that were followed up in a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA)-free asthma center.

METHODS

From the Hospital database, we found for the same patient at least one BRT using salbutamol 200 µg and another with budesonide/formoterol 320/9 µg.

RESULTS

We found similar BRT between salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in 101 asthmatic individuals (26 males) aged 38.14 ± 16.1 yrs (mean ± Standard deviation). The absolute response was 0.18 ± 0.21 L in FEV1 after salbutamol and 0.20 ± 0.22 L in FEV1 after budesonide/formoterol. Afterwards, we showed 202 patients tested with budesonide/formoterol; the mean absolute response was 0.21 ± 0.22 L in FEV1. There were no unexpected safety findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In asthmatic patients, we demonstrated similar efficacy between Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol for BRT.

Nebulized budesonide combined with systemic corticosteroid vs systemic corticosteroid alone in acute severe asthma managed in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The additive benefit of inhaled corticosteroid when used with systemic corticosteroid in acute asthma is still unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of high and repeated doses of inhaled budesonide when combined with the standard treatment of adult acute asthma.

METHODS

It was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study performed in the emergency department (ED) from May 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04016220). Fifty patients were included and were randomized to receive intravenous hydrocortisone hemisuccinate in association with nebulized budesonide (n = 23, budesonide group) or normal saline (n = 27, control group). Nebulization of budesonide or saline was done in combination with 5 mg of terbutaline every 20 min the first hour, then at 2 h (H2), and 3 h (H3). All patients received standard treatment. Efficacy and safety of inhaled budesonide were evaluated every 30 min for 180 min.

RESULTS

A significant increase in peak expiratory flow (PEF) was observed in both treatment groups at evaluation times. The increase in PEF persisted significantly compared to the previous measurement in both groups. There was no significant difference in the PEF between the two groups at evaluation times. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the evolution in the respiratory rate and heart rate. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the rate of hospitalization, the discharge criteria before the end of the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its limited power, our study suggests that the association of nebulized budesonide with hydrocortisone hemisuccinate has no additional effect over the use of hydrocortisone alone in adults' acute asthma managed in the ED.

Revisiting Mild Asthma: Current Knowledge and Future Needs

Asthma is a common chronic airways disease with significant impact on patients, caregivers, and the health-care system. Although most research and novel interventions mainly have focused on patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, most patients with asthma have mild disease. Epidemiologic studies suggest that many patients with mild asthma report frequent exacerbations of the disease and uncontrolled symptoms. However, despite its impact, mild asthma does not have either a uniformly agreed on definition for or a consensus on its clinical and pathophysiologic progression. More recently, the approach to treatment of patients with mild asthma has undergone significant changes primarily based on emerging evidence that airway inflammation in this population is important. This led to clinical research studies that explored the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids along with the rescue medications that traditionally have been the mainstay of treatment. Despite some advancement in the field in recent years, many controversies and unmet needs remain. In this review, we examine the current understanding of the pathophysiologic features and management of mild asthma. In addition, we outline unmet needs for future research. We conclude that mild asthma contributes significantly to the morbidity and mortality of asthma and should be the focus of future research.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO.

RESULTS

We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3-42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7-40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4-18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5-82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.

New approach to intermittent and mild asthma therapy: evolution or revolution in the GINA guidelines?

New recommendations from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) were released in a pocket guide form on April 12, 2019. These recommendations provide very important changes to the management of asthma, especially regarding the treatment of intermittent and mild asthma. Due to safety concerns, GINA experts no longer recommend treatment with a short-acting β2 agonist alone. Henceforth, all adults and adolescents (but not yet children) with mild asthma should receive either symptom-driven or daily low-dose ICS. The main goal of this new approach is to reduce the risk of serious asthma exacerbations and asthma-related deaths in the population of patients with mild asthma. Herein, the authors present the epidemiological and clinical data regarding the risks of excessive SABA use and the benefits of regular treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The authors deliver a critical review on the evolution of the changes in the GINA experts’ standpoint and provide evidence-based background for the new approach to asthma treatment. Moreover, the authors identify gaps and unmet needs still present in the current asthma management recommendations and discuss them thoroughly.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Acute effect of an inhaled glucocorticosteroid on albuterol-induced bronchodilation in patients with moderately severe asthma

BACKGROUND

We have previously shown that in patients with asthma a single dose of an inhaled glucocorticosteroid (ICS) acutely potentiates inhaled albuterol-induced airway vascular smooth muscle relaxation through a nongenomic action. An effect on airway smooth muscle was not seen, presumably because the patients had normal lung function. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a similar study in patients with asthma with airflow obstruction to determine if an ICS could acutely also potentiate albuterol-induced airway smooth muscle relaxation in them.

METHODS

In 15 adult patients with asthma (mean ± SE baseline FEV1, 62% ± 3%), the response to inhaled albuterol (180 μg) was assessed by determining the change in FEV1 (ΔFEV1) for airway smooth muscle and in airway blood flow (ΔQaw) for airway vascular smooth muscle measured 15 min after drug inhalation. Using a double-blind design, the patients inhaled a single dose of the ICS mometasone (400 μg) or placebo simultaneously with or 30 min before albuterol inhalation.

RESULTS

After simultaneous drug administration, mean ΔFEV1 was 0.20 ± 0.05 L (10%) after placebo and 0.32 ± 0.04 L (19%) after mometasone (P < .05); mean ΔQaw was -2% after placebo and 30% after mometasone (P < .005). When mometasone or placebo was administered 30 min before albuterol, there was a lesser and insignificant difference in ΔFEV1 between the two treatments, whereas the difference in ΔQaw remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study showed that in adult patients with asthma with airflow obstruction, a single standard dose of an ICS can acutely increase the FEV1 response to a standard dose of inhaled albuterol administered simultaneously. The associated potentiation of albuterol-induced vasodilation in the airway was of greater magnitude and retained when the ICS was administered 30 min before albuterol. The clinical significance of this observation will have to be established by a study involving a larger patient cohort.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01210170; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Dry-powder inhalers in acute asthma

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

Step-down of budesonide/formoterol in early stages of asthma treatment leads to insufficient anti-inflammatory effect

OBJECTIVE

Administration of the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is the main treatment strategy for bronchial asthma. The ICS/LABA dosage can be reduced (stepped down) when the patient's symptoms and lung functions are well-controlled. In this study, we obtained fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurements to clarify whether the anti-inflammatory effect of budesonide/formoterol is shortened by step-down.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients who visited the Kawasaki Medical School Hospital with newly diagnosed asthma from November 2008 to July 2010 received budesonide/formoterol for 8 weeks or more. In 29 patients, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s% predicted increased to 80% or more, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score decreased to 0.5 or less within 12 weeks. These 29 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dosage-continued group (n = 14) and the step-down group (n = 15). Then, the impact of budesonide/formoterol step-down on ACQ score, pulmonary function and FeNO level was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

In the step-down group, the dosage was stepped down from 538 mcg/day to 331 mcg/day. In both groups, pulmonary function indicators and symptoms did not change. However, the mean FeNO level decreased significantly in the dosage-continued group (from 50.9 ppb to 45.0 ppb), and increased significantly in the step-down group (from 51.0 ppb to 65.7 ppb).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be more careful when stepping down budesonide/formoterol based solely on patients' symptoms and/or pulmonary function.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Inhaled steroids for acute asthma following emergency department discharge

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute asthma treated in the emergency department (ED) are frequently treated with inhaled beta(2)-agonists and systemic corticosteroids after discharge. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) following discharge may also be beneficial in improving patient outcomes after acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of ICS on outcomes in the treatment of acute asthma following discharge from the ED. To quantify the effectiveness of ICS therapy on acute asthma following ED discharge, when used in addition to, or as a substitute for, systemic corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals and conference proceedings. In addition, primary authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted to identify eligible studies. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts also were searched. The searches have been conducted up to September 2012

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients were treated for acute asthma in the ED or its equivalent, and following ED discharge were treated with ICS therapy either in addition to, or as a substitute for, oral corticosteroids. Two review authors independently assessed articles for potential relevance, final inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors, or confirmed by the study authors. Several authors and pharmaceutical companies provided unpublished data. The data were analysed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed effect model and heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were eligible for inclusion. Three of these trials, involving a total of 909 patients, compared ICS plus systemic corticosteroids versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone. There was no demonstrated benefit of ICS therapy when used in addition to oral corticosteroid therapy in the trials. Relapses were reduced; however, this was not statistically significant with the addition of ICS therapy (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02; 3 studies; N = 909). In addition, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated between the two groups for relapses requiring admission, quality of life, symptom scores or adverse effects.Nine trials, involving a total of 1296 patients compared high-dose ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone after ED discharge. There were no significant differences demonstrated between ICS therapy alone versus oral corticosteroid therapy alone for relapse rates (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 4 studies; N = 684), admissions to hospital, or in the secondary outcomes of beta(2)-agonist use, symptoms or adverse events. However, the sample size was not adequate to exclude the possibility of either treatment being significantly inferior and people with severe asthma were excluded from these trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy provides additional benefit when used in combination with standard systemic corticosteroid therapy upon ED discharge for acute asthma. There is some evidence that high-dose ICS therapy alone may be as effective as oral corticosteroid therapy when used in mild asthmatics upon ED discharge; however, the confidence intervals were too wide to be confident of equal effectiveness. Further research is needed to clarify whether ICS therapy should be employed in acute asthma treatment following ED discharge. The review does not suggest any reason to stop usual treatment with ICS following ED discharge, even if a course of oral corticosteroids are prescribed.

Early use of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department treatment of acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroid therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may also be beneficial in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit of ICS for the treatment of patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department (ED).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified controlled clinical trials from the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of controlled trials. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews, and texts also were searched. The latest search was September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Studies were included if patients presented to the ED or its equivalent with acute asthma, and were treated with ICS or placebo, in addition to standard therapy. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles, and then independently selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors. There were three different types of studies that were included in this review: 1) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with no systemic corticosteroids given to either treatment group, 2) studies comparing ICS vs. placebo, with systemic corticosteroids given to both treatment groups, and 3) studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroids. For the analysis, the first two types of studies were included as separate subgroups in the primary analysis (ICS vs. placebo), while the third type of study was included in the secondary analysis (ICS vs. systemic corticosteroid).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors if the authors were unable to verify the validity of extracted information. Missing data were obtained from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the paper. Where appropriate, individual and pooled dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, individual and pooled continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. The primary analysis employed a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model was used for sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity is reported using I-squared (I(2)) statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analysis (13 paediatric, seven adult), with a total number of 1403 patients. Patients treated with ICS were less likely to be admitted to hospital (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62; 12 studies; 960 patients) and heterogeneity (I(2) = 27%) was modest. This represents a reduction from 32 to 17 hospital admissions per 100 patients treated with ICS in comparison with placebo. Subgroup analysis of hospital admissions based on concomitant systemic corticosteroid use revealed that both subgroups indicated benefit from ICS in reducing hospital admissions (ICS and systemic corticosteroid versus systemic corticosteroid: OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81; 5 studies; N = 433; ICS versus placebo: OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.52; 7 studies; N = 527). However, there was moderate heterogeneity in the subgroup using ICS in addition to systemic steroids (I(2) = 52%). Patients receiving ICS demonstrated small, significant improvements in peak expiratory flow (PEF: MD 7%; 95% CI 3% to 11%) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1): MD 6%; 95% CI 2% to 10%) at three to four hours post treatment). Only a small number of studies reported these outcomes such that they could be included in the meta-analysis and most of the studies in this comparison did not administer systemic corticosteroids to either treatment group. There was no evidence of significant adverse effects from ICS treatment with regard to tremor or nausea and vomiting. In the secondary analysis of studies comparing ICS alone versus systemic corticosteroid alone, heterogeneity among the studies complicated pooling of data or drawing reliable conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICS therapy reduces hospital admissions in patients with acute asthma who are not treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids. They may also reduce admissions when they are used in addition to systemic corticosteroids; however, the most recent evidence is conflicting. There is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy results in clinically important changes in pulmonary function or clinical scores when used in acute asthma in addition to systemic corticosteroids. Also, there is insufficient evidence that ICS therapy can be used in place of systemic corticosteroid therapy when treating acute asthma. Further research is needed to clarify the most appropriate drug dosage and delivery device, and to define which patients are most likely to benefit from ICS therapy. Use of similar measures and reporting methods of lung function, and a common, validated, clinical score would be helpful in future versions of this meta-analysis.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2012 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This an updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have updated guidelines, which are simple to understand and easy to use by non-asthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. This new version includes updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of Asthma Control Test in the management of asthma, and a new section on "difficult-to-treat asthma." Further, the section on asthma in children was re-written to cover different aspects in this age group. The SINA panel is a group of Saudi experts with well-respected academic backgrounds and experience in the field of asthma. The guidelines are formatted based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There was an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan. The approach adopted by the SINA group is mainly based on disease control as it is the ultimate goal of treatment.

Markers for step-down of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for all stages of persistent asthma. However, it is unknown whether ICS dose reduction in adult asthmatics is compatible with maintaining asthma control. Moreover, there are no predictors of efficacy in maintaining asthma control upon ICS reduction.

METHODS

We recruited 90 adult patients with moderate or severe asthma but no clinical symptoms of asthma for at least 6 months. All patients reduced their ICS doses by half but continued taking other asthma-related medications. As a primary outcome, we measured asthma exacerbations during the 12 months following ICS reduction. We also further monitored patients from the above study who had maintained total asthma control for 12 months after ICS reduction and who had continued on their reduced doses of ICS or had further reduced, or stopped, their ICS.

RESULTS

Forty of ninety patients (44.4%) experienced exacerbations after ICS reduction (time to first exacerbation: 6.4 ± 3.6 months). Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed a rank order of predictors of success in ICS reduction while retaining asthma control: acetylcholine (ACh) PC(20) (p < 0.01); length of time with no clinical symptoms before ICS reduction (p < 0.01); FeNO (p = 0.028); and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1); % predicted) (p = 0.03). Finally thirty-nine of 50 patients maintained total asthma control for at least 2 years after the initial ICS reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma patients with normalized AChPC(20) of 20mg/mL or 10mg/mL and no clinical symptoms for at least 12 or 24 months it may be possible to successfully reduce ICS without increasing exacerbations for long time.

A randomized open-label trial on the use of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) as an alternative reliever medication for mild to moderate asthmatic attacks

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, a nebulized short-acting β-2 agonist like salbutamol is often used as the reliever in acute exacerbations of asthma. However, recent worldwide respiratory outbreaks discourage routine use of nebulization. Previous studies have shown that combined budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®, AstraZeneca) is effective as both a maintenance and reliever anti-asthmatic medication.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better.

RESULTS

Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no statistical difference between using Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol as the reliever for the first 15 min post-intervention.

Acute effects of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone and in combination on airway blood flow in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

The airway contains airway smooth muscle and airway vascular smooth muscle. The acute effects of inhaled long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) alone, or in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid (ICS), on airway smooth muscle tone in asthma are known; however, to the best of our knowledge, their effect on airway vascular smooth muscle tone has not been investigated previously. The objective of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of a LABA and an ICS alone and in combination on airway blood flow (Qaw) as an index of airway vascular smooth muscle tone in patients with stable asthma.

METHODS

Fourteen subjects with moderate asthma inhaled single doses of salmeterol (50 μg), fluticasone propionate (250 μg), salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (50/250 μg), or placebo; Qaw was measured before and serially for 240 min after drug administration.

RESULTS

Mean Qaw increased after salmeterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, with peaks at 60 min of 34% and 40%, respectively, and returned to baseline by 240 min after inhalation. Fluticasone propionate alone caused a transient decrease in mean Qaw. The maximal changes in Qaw, which occurred at different times, were 60% for salmeterol, 67% for salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, and -19% for fluticasone propionate (P < .05 vs placebo for all).

CONCLUSIONS

The LABA salmeterol has an acute vasodilator action on the airway of subjects with stable asthma. The addition of fluticasone propionate, which by itself causes vasoconstriction, does not attenuate the salmeterol-induced vasodilation, suggesting that fluticasone propionate potentiates the vasodilator effect of salmeterol. The vasodilation could be of clinical benefit by promoting the vascular clearance of inflammatory mediators including spasmogens from the airway.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01231230; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide and formoterol are available in a combined inhaler that offers therapeutic advantages in the treatment of asthma. The rapid onset of bronchodilation seen with formoterol means that budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and relief therapy. This approach has been shown to reduce exacerbations and overcome the problem of patients who overuse short-acting &#x03B2;-agonists at the expense of inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns regarding safety of long-acting &#x03B2;-agonists have not been confirmed in studies of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler, and we believe the benefits of this medication clearly outweigh any possible small increased risk.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00272753

Asthma in adults

INTRODUCTION

About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? What are the effects of treatments for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 99 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions. For acute asthma: beta(2) agonists (plus ipratropium bromide, pressured metered-dose inhalers, short-acting continuous nebulised, short-acting intermittent nebulised, and short-acting intravenous); corticosteroids (inhaled); corticosteroids (single oral, combined inhaled, and short courses); education about acute asthma; generalist care; helium-oxygen mixture (heliox); magnesium sulphate (intravenous and adding isotonic nebulised magnesium to inhaled beta(2) agonists); mechanical ventilation; oxygen supplementation (controlled 28% oxygen and controlled 100% oxygen); and specialist care. For chronic asthma: beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) provides up-to-date guidelines for healthcare workers managing patients with asthma. SINA was developed by a panel of Saudi experts with respectable academic backgrounds and long-standing experience in the field. SINA is founded on the latest available evidence, local literature, and knowledge of the current setting in Saudi Arabia. Emphasis is placed on understanding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, medications, and clinical presentation. SINA elaborates on the development of patient-doctor partnership, self-management, and control of precipitating factors. Approaches to asthma treatment in SINA are based on disease control by the utilization of Asthma Control Test for the initiation and adjustment of asthma treatment. This guideline is established for the treatment of asthma in both children and adults, with special attention to children 5 years and younger. It is expected that the implementation of these guidelines for treating asthma will lead to better asthma control and decrease patient utilization of the health care system.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Non-corticosteroid therapy for the long-term control of asthma

The non-corticosteroids approved for the maintenance therapy of persistent asthma include the long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists (LABAs), leukotriene modifiers, chromones, theophylline and omalizumab. This review assesses the benefits and risks of each in relation to the inhaled corticosteroids and each other. Neither the LABAs nor omalizumab should be used as monotherapy for persistent asthma. There is no evidence of clinically significant differences in efficacy between the chromones, theophylline and leukotriene modifiers as monotherapy in mild-moderate persistent asthma; thus the choice of one therapy over the other is a clinical decision based upon differences in safety, acceptability to the patient and ease of use. Although there is significant variability in response to various therapies, non response to one therapy is not predictive of response to another. Neither studies of phenotypes nor genotypes have provided acceptable determinants of response as yet. As adjunctive therapy to the inhaled corticosteroids for moderate-severe persistent asthma, the LABAs provide superior improvement in lung function and reduction in exacerbations relative to higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids and the other noncorticosteroids used as adjunctive therapy. Thus, LABAs remain the adjunctive therapy of choice in patients not adequately controlled on low-medium dose inhaled corticosteroids. Omalizumab has not been compared with the other adjunctive therapies, so its relative efficacy is unknown. However, it is the only adjunctive therapy added to the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA to demonstrate further improvement in a controlled clinical trial.

Fast onset of effect of budesonide/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone and salbutamol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and reversible airway obstruction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Data on the onset of action of COPD medications are lacking. This study compared the onset of bronchodilation following different inhaled therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and reversible airway obstruction.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study, 90 patients (aged >or=40 years; FEV(1) 30-70% predicted) were randomized to a single dose (two inhalations) of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg, salmeterol/fluticasone 25/250 microg, salbutamol 100 microg or placebo (via pressurized metered-dose inhalers) on four visits. The primary end-point was change in FEV(1) 5 min after drug inhalation; secondary end-points included inspiratory capacity (IC) and perception of onset of effect.

RESULTS

Budesonide/formoterol significantly improved FEV(1) at 5 min compared with placebo (P < 0.0001) and salmeterol/fluticasone (P = 0.0001). Significant differences were first observed at 3 min. Onset of effect was similar with budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol. Improvements in FEV(1) following active treatments were superior to placebo after 180 min (all P < 0.0001); both combinations were better than salbutamol at maintaining FEV(1) improvements (P <or= 0.0001) at 180 min. Active treatments improved IC at 15 and 185 min compared with placebo (P < 0.0001). Maximal IC was greater with budesonide/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone (P = 0.0184) at 65 min. Patients reported a positive response to the perceptions of the onset of effect question shortly after receiving active treatments (median time to onset 5 min for active treatments vs 20 min for placebo), with no significant difference between active treatments.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol has an onset of bronchodilatory effect in patients with COPD and reversible airway obstruction that is faster than salmeterol/fluticasone and similar to salbutamol.

Onset of relief of dyspnoea with budesonide/formoterol or salbutamol following methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction in adults with asthma: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) formoterol has an onset of effect comparable to that of salbutamol. Consequently, the combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler, approved for maintenance use, can potentially be used for reliever therapy. This study compared the onset of relief from induced bronchospasm with a single dose of budesonide/formoterol versus standard salbutamol therapy in patients with asthma.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 32 patients with asthma underwent a methacholine provocation test leading to a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of > or =30% at enrollment (Visit 1) and three subsequent study visits (Visits 2-4). Immediately after each provocation at Visits 2-4, patients received one of three test treatments: one inhalation of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg (via Turbuhaler), two inhalations of salbutamol 100 microg (via a pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI]) or placebo. All patients received each of the test treatments in a randomised order, after separate methacholine provocations. The effect of treatment on FEV1 and breathlessness (using the Borg scale) was measured at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after test treatment.

RESULTS

Following methacholine provocation, Borg score increased from a baseline value of below 0.5 to 3.03, 3.31 and 3.50 before treatment with budesonide/formoterol, salbutamol and placebo, respectively. Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol reversed methacholine-induced dyspnoea (breathlessness) rapidly. At 1 minute after inhalation, statistically significant decreases in Borg score were observed for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol (p = 0.0233 and p < 0.0001, respectively, versus placebo), with similar rapid increases in FEV1 (both active treatments p < 0.0001 versus placebo). The median time to 50% recovery in Borg score after methacholine provocation was 3 minutes with budesonide/formoterol, 2 minutes with salbutamol and 10 minutes with placebo. All treatments and procedures were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Single doses of budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol both provided rapid relief of dyspnoea and reversal of severe airway obstruction in patients with asthma with experimentally induced bronchoconstriction. The perception of relief, as confirmed by objective lung function assessment, provides evidence that budesonide/formoterol can be used as reliever medication in asthma.