Salmeterol/fluticasone stable-dose treatment compared with formoterol/budesonide adjustable maintenance dosing: impact on health-related quality of life

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Assessment of various second-line medications in addition to inhaled corticosteroid in asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

Many patients with persistent asthma cannot achieve the treatment goal for asthma with a single controller medication. The aim of the present study was to assess lung function and rescue medication use in asthma patients receiving four different categories of drugs in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. Patients recruited to the study were randomized into four groups to receive budesonide with either formoterol, doxofylline, montelukast or tiotropium for a period of 3 months. Lung function (i.e. forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 )) and rescue medication use were determined at baseline and on Day 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 of treatment. A total of 297 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all groups. On Day 90, between-group differences showed that the improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for patients receiving budesonide + formoterol, followed by budesonide + montelukast and budesonide + doxofylline, and least for those receiving budesonide + tiotropium. Similarly, within- and between-group comparisons showed significant (P < 0.05) reductions in rescue medication use in all groups. However, the magnitude of the decrease was greater in the budesonide + formoterol group, followed by the budesonide + montelukast, budesonide + doxofylline and budesonide + tiotropium groups. Based on our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide with either montelukast or doxofylline was found to be better than budesonide + tiotropium in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a longer duration are likely to be useful.

Pulmonary function assessment in mild to moderate persistent asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is no comparative study among asthma patients receiving first-line versus various second-line treatment regimens for mild to moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the pulmonary function in asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide in a pilot group.

METHODS

Patients were recruited as per the study criteria and randomly allocated to 4 groups to receive budesonide (400 µg) with formoterol (12 µg), doxofylline (400 mg), montelukast (10 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg) for a period of 3 months. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and rescue medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were recruited; among them, 123 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all the groups. At day 90, between-group difference revealed that improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) high for budesonide plus formoterol followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and, lastly, budesonide plus tiotropium. Similarly, within-group comparison revealed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in rescue medication use in all the groups. The intensity in decrease was more in budesonide plus formoterol group followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and budesonide plus tiotropium groups.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide plus doxofylline and budesonide plus montelukast was found to be better than budesonide plus tiotropium in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a larger sample size are likely to be useful.

Effect of depressive symptoms on asthma intervention in urban teens

BACKGROUND

The literature suggests that depression is an important comorbidity in asthma that can significantly influence disease management and quality of life (QOL).

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of coexisting depressive symptoms on the effectiveness of self-management interventions in urban teens with asthma.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial of Puff City, a web-based, tailored asthma management intervention for urban teens, to determine whether depression modulated intervention effectiveness for asthma control and QOL outcomes. Teens and caregivers were classified as depressed based on responses collected from baseline questionnaires.

RESULT

Using logistic regression analysis, we found that a lower percentage of treatment students had indicators of uncontrolled asthma compared with controls (adjusted odds ratios <1). However, for teens depressed at baseline, QOL scores at follow-up were significantly higher in the treatment group compared with the control group for the emotions domain (adjusted relative risk, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.63; P = .01; interpreted as emotional QOL for treatment students increased by a factor of 2.08 above controls). Estimates for overall QOL and symptoms QOL were borderline significant (adjusted relative risk, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.63; P = .09; and adjusted relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-3.15; P = .08; respectively). Among teens not depressed at baseline, no significant differences were observed between treatment and control groups in QOL domains at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that depression modified the relationship between the effectiveness of an asthma intervention and emotional QOL in urban teens. Further assessment of self-management behavioral interventions for asthma should explore the mechanism by which depression may alter the intervention effect.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

Patient-centered care and its effect on outcomes in the treatment of asthma

Patient-centered care may be pivotal in improving health outcomes for patients with asthma. In addition to increased attention in both research and clinical forums, recent legislation also highlights the importance of patient-centered outcomes research in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, whether patient-centered care has been shown to improve outcomes for this population is unclear. To answer this question, we performed a systematic review of the literature that aimed to define current patient-focused management issues, characterize important patient-defined outcomes in asthma control, and identify current and emerging treatments related to patient outcomes and perspectives. We used a parallel search strategy via Medline(®), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL(®) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO(®), complemented with a reference review of key articles that resulted in a total of 133 articles; 58 were interventions that evaluated the effect on patient-centered outcomes, and 75 were descriptive studies. The majority of intervention studies demonstrated improved patient outcomes (44; "positive" results); none showed true harm (0; "negative"); and the remainder were equivocal (14; "neutral"). Key themes emerged relating to patients' desires for asthma knowledge, preferences for tailored management plans, and simplification of treatment regimens. We also found discordance between physicians and patients regarding patients' needs, beliefs, and expectations about asthma. Although some studies show promise regarding the benefits of patient-focused care, these methods require additional study on feasibility and strategies for implementation in real world settings. Further, it is imperative that future studies must be, themselves, patient-centered (eg, pragmatic comparative effectiveness studies) and applicable to a variety of patient populations and settings. Despite the need for further research, enough evidence exists that supports incorporating a patient-centered approach to asthma management, in order to achieve improved outcomes and patient health.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Anthroposophic therapy for asthma: A two-year prospective cohort study in routine outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Anthroposophic treatment for asthma includes special artistic and physical therapies and special medications.

METHODS

We studied consecutive outpatients starting anthroposophic treatment for asthma under routine conditions in Germany. Main outcomes were average asthma severity (0-10, primary outcome); symptoms (1-4); and asthma-related quality of life at 12-month follow-up (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ] overall score, 1-7, for adults; KINDL Questionnaire for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents, asthma module, 0-100, for children) at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Ninety patients (54 adults, 36 children) were included. Anthroposophic treatment modalities used were medications (88% of patients, n = 79/90); eurythmy therapy (22%); art therapy (10%); and rhythmical massage therapy (1%). Median number of eurythmy/art/massage sessions was 12 (interquartile range 10-20), median therapy duration was 120 days (84-184). From baseline to 12-month follow-up, all outcomes improved significantly (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Average improvements were: average asthma severity 2.61 points (95% confidence interval CI: 1.90-3.32); cough 0.93 (95% CI: 0.60-1.25); dyspnea 0.92 (95% CI: 0.56-1.28); exertion-induced symptoms 0.95 (95% CI: 0.64-1.25); frequency of asthma attacks 0.78 (95% CI: 0.41-1.14); awakening from asthma 0.90 (95% CI: 0.58-1.21); AQLQ overall score 1.44 (95% CI: 0.97-1.92); and KINDL asthma module 14.74 (95% CI: 9.70-19.78). All improvements were maintained until last follow-up after 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with asthma under anthroposophic treatment had long-term improvements of symptoms and quality of life.

Impact of asthma controller medications on clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively evaluate clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes associated with various therapeutic classes of asthma controller medications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This observational study, which used administrative claims data from US commercial health plans, included patients with asthma aged 18 through 64 years who filled a prescription for at least 1 asthma controller medication from September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2005. Outcome metrics included the use of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), the use of oral corticosteroids, inpatient (INP)/emergency department (ED) visits, and asthma-related health care costs. A subset of 5000 patients was randomly selected for a survey using the Mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, and the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 56,168 eligible patients, 823 returned completed questionnaires. Compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), leukotriene modifiers (LMs) were associated with lower odds of INP/ED visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; P<.001), lower odds of using 6 or more SABA canisters (OR, 0.81; P<.001), and higher annual cost ($193; P<.001). In the subgroup analysis of adherent patients, LMs were associated with higher odds of INP/ED visits (OR, 1.74; P=.04), lower odds of using 6 or more SABA canisters (OR, 0.46; P<.001), and higher annual cost ($235; P<.001). Inhaled corticosteroids and LMs had a comparable impact on all patient-reported outcomes. For combination therapy, ICS plus a long-acting beta-agonist consistently showed at least equivalent or better outcomes in the use of SABAs and oral corticosteroids, the risk of INP/ED visits, cost, asthma control level, quality of life, and impairment in productivity and activity.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled corticosteroids were associated with a lower risk of INP/ED visits, and a lower cost if adherence was achieved. When adherence cannot be achieved, LMs may be a reasonable alternative. Combination therapy with ICS plus a long-acting beta-agonist was associated with better or equivalent clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes.

Impact of asthma controller medications on clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively evaluate clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes associated with various therapeutic classes of asthma controller medications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This observational study, which used administrative claims data from US commercial health plans, included patients with asthma aged 18 through 64 years who filled a prescription for at least 1 asthma controller medication from September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2005. Outcome metrics included the use of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), the use of oral corticosteroids, inpatient (INP)/emergency department (ED) visits, and asthma-related health care costs. A subset of 5000 patients was randomly selected for a survey using the Mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, and the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 56,168 eligible patients, 823 returned completed questionnaires. Compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), leukotriene modifiers (LMs) were associated with lower odds of INP/ED visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; P<.001), lower odds of using 6 or more SABA canisters (OR, 0.81; P<.001), and higher annual cost ($193; P<.001). In the subgroup analysis of adherent patients, LMs were associated with higher odds of INP/ED visits (OR, 1.74; P=.04), lower odds of using 6 or more SABA canisters (OR, 0.46; P<.001), and higher annual cost ($235; P<.001). Inhaled corticosteroids and LMs had a comparable impact on all patient-reported outcomes. For combination therapy, ICS plus a long-acting beta-agonist consistently showed at least equivalent or better outcomes in the use of SABAs and oral corticosteroids, the risk of INP/ED visits, cost, asthma control level, quality of life, and impairment in productivity and activity.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled corticosteroids were associated with a lower risk of INP/ED visits, and a lower cost if adherence was achieved. When adherence cannot be achieved, LMs may be a reasonable alternative. Combination therapy with ICS plus a long-acting beta-agonist was associated with better or equivalent clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes.

The impact of GINA suggested drugs for the treatment of asthma on Health-Related Quality of Life: a GA(2)LEN review

Asthma represents a serious global health problem. People of all ages in countries throughout the world are affected by this chronic airway disorder that, when uncontrolled, can place severe limits on daily life and can even be fatal. Asthma cannot be removed, but asthmatic symptoms can be cured; as for many other chronic diseases, pharmacotherapy is important to reduce the risk of asthma-related mortality, decrease disability and improve symptoms and quality of life. The action of antiasthmatic drugs directly contributes to decrease symptoms severity, improve spirometric results, reduce airway hyperresponsiveness and prevent irreversible airway remodelling. Antiasthmatic therapy is necessary for long-term control of asthma symptoms. Asthma and antiasthmatic drugs can influence patient's quality of life: this is why healthcare systems have recently focused on research studies about Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in asthmatic patients. Numerous validated questionnaires are available and many studies have been performed evaluating HRQL in people affected by asthma, thus testifying a great interest in this topic. The aims of the present review are to examine the scientific literature of the last 4 years (January 2004-December 2007) dealing with the impact of asthma treatments suggested by Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines on patients' quality of life, and to identify the unexplored or not fully investigated areas concerning this issue.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.

Inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in adult asthma: a winning combination in all?

In the recent years, considerable insight has been gained in to the optimal management of adult asthma. Most adult patients with asthma have mild intermittent and persistent disease, and it is acknowledged that many patients do not reach full control of all symptoms and signs of asthma. Those with mild persistent asthma are usually not well controlled without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Studies have provided firm evidence that these patients can be well controlled when receiving ICS, especially when disease is of recent onset. This treatment should be given on a daily basis at a low dose and when providing a good response should be maintained to prevent severe exacerbations and disease deterioration. Intermittent ICS treatment at the time of an exacerbation has also been suggested as a strategy for mild persistent asthma, but it is less effective than low-dose regular treatment for most outcomes. Adding a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) to ICS appears to be unnecessary in most of these patients for optimising control of their asthma. Patients with moderate persistent asthma can be regarded as those who are not ideally controlled on low-dose ICS alone. The combination of an ICS and LABA is preferred in these patients, irrespective of the brand of medicine, and this combination is better than doubling or even quadrupling the dose of ICS to achieve better asthma control and reduce exacerbation risks. An ICS/LABA combination in a single inhaler represents a safe, effective and convenient treatment option for the management of patients with asthma unstable on inhaled steroids alone. Ideally, once asthma is under full control, the dose of inhaled steroids should be reduced, which is possible in many patients. The duration of treatment before initiating this dose reduction has, however, not been fully established. One of the combinations available to treat asthma (budesonide and formoterol) has also been assessed as both maintenance and rescue therapy with a further reduction in the risk for a severe exacerbation. Clinical effectiveness in the real world now has to be established, since this approach likely improves compliance with regular maintenance therapy.