Comparison of vilanterol, a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, with placebo and a salmeterol reference arm in asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

The Impact of a Forced Non-Medical Switch of Inhaled Respiratory Medication Among Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Patient Survey on Experience with Switch, Therapy Satisfaction, and Disease Control

PURPOSE

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) was removed from a Medicare Part D formulary, and patients switched to fluticasone-based dry powder inhaler (DPI) therapies. This study describes the experience, satisfaction, and disease control among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who switched due to removal from the formulary.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A patient survey was conducted among adults with asthma or COPD who used budesonide/formoterol pMDI for ≥3 months prior to the formulary block and the new medication for ≥3 weeks after switching, recruited by providers in a research panel. Survey comprised both validated instruments (PASAPQ, OEQ, ACQ-6, and CAT) and stand-alone questions. Patient characteristics, switch experience, device and treatment satisfaction, onset of effect, and disease control were compared between disease (asthma and COPD) and medication (once and twice daily) cohorts. Minimal significance for group differences: P≤0.05.

RESULTS

Among 100 patients, 93% received communication from their doctor or nurse about the switch and 73% received training on using the new inhaler. Patients used their new treatment for an average of 7 months prior to completing the survey. Patient satisfaction with the new therapy was high (PASAPQ; mean overall satisfaction: 6.2 for asthma; 6.0 for COPD; P=0.338). However, asthma was not well controlled (ACQ-6) in 62% of patients with asthma, and 56% of patients with COPD reported high/very high impact of their illness on their lives (CAT). Sixty-eight percent and 70% of patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, required reliever medication (≥3 puffs) most days during the week prior to the survey. There were no significant differences in disease control (ACQ-6, CAT) between once-daily and twice-daily treatments (P>0.05 for both asthma and COPD).

CONCLUSION

Even when reporting satisfaction with their new medication, objective measures showed substantial morbidity, regardless of DPI device or dosing regimen.

Ultra-LABAs for the treatment of asthma

The term ultra-LABA indicates once-daily β2-AR agonists (abediterol, indacaterol, olodaterol and vilanterol) that are single enantiomers of the (R)-configuration. All have a near full-agonist profile at human β2-AR. They can be prescribed in asthmatics only when associated with an with ICS, although further confirmations need to clarify what really these agents add if used in association to ICS and in what asthmatic patients this association may have more value. They are also under development in triple inhalers that include an ultra-LABA, a LAMA and an ICS. The once-daily posology might increase adherence in long-term treatment of asthma but superiority to twice-daily LABAs has not yet been fully demonstrated. In any case, still no ultra-LABA can be recommended as preferred.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

Current approaches to the discovery of novel inhaled medicines

Inhaled administration is underutilised because the drug discovery process is viewed as challenging, risky, and expensive. However, unmet medical need continues to grow, and significant opportunities exist to discover novel inhaled medicines delivering the required lung concentrations while minimising systemic exposure. This profile could be achieved by a combination of properties, including lung retention and low oral bioavailability. Property-based rules exist for orally administered compounds, but there has been limited progress defining in silico predictors to guide the discovery of novel inhaled drugs. Recently, the use of informative cell- and tissue-based screens has greatly facilitated the identification of compounds with optimal characteristics for inhaled delivery. Here, we address opportunities for novel inhaled drugs, and the key challenges and uncertainties hampering progress.

Next generation beta adrenoreceptor agonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

A fixed-dose inhalation of a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is commonly recommended for moderate to severe asthmatic patients not adequately controlled by an ICS only. In order to improve the patients' adherence and the control of disease there is a noteworthy interest for the next generation inhaled β adrenoreceptor agonists maintaining an over 24 hours bronchodilatation and used once-daily (ultra-LABAs). This review focuses on the currently available evidences on the clinical role of any single ultra-LABAs in the treatment of asthmatic patients. Areas covered: New ultra-LABAs have been developed in recent years for the treatment of asthma. In particular, several evidences in asthmatic patients include indacaterol, vilanterol, olodaterol, and abediterol. Expert opinion: Pharmacologically, all new ultra-LABAs considered have demonstrated a good ability to maintain a true bronchodilatation for over 24 hours and a good safety profile. This aspect could be a key point to improve the patient's perspective, the adherence to the treatment regimens and therefore the control of disease. At this time, however, limited data are available and no ultra-LABA+ICS may be recommended as preferred.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: design, development, and potential place in therapy

COPD is characterized by persistent airflow obstruction caused by exposure to irritants including cigarette smoke, dust, and fumes. According to the latest GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) guidelines, a combination of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂ agonists, and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists can be used for group D COPD patients who are at high risk for exacerbations. Umeclidinium/fluticasone furoate/vilanterol is one such triple-combination therapy currently under development with some completed and several ongoing clinical trials. This review paper summarizes the pharmacologic profiles of these medications and highlights findings from clinical trials, including safety and efficacy data, while speculating on the role of this therapy in current treatment for COPD.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate for the once-daily treatment of asthma: design, development and place in therapy

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plays a key role in the treatment of asthmatic patients, and international guidelines have designated ICSs as an early maintenance therapy in controlling asthma symptoms. When asthmatic patients remain symptomatic on ICSs, one common option is to add a long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) to the maintenance treatment. Fixed combination inhalers that contain both an ICS and a LABA have been popular for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Historically, these inhalers have been dosed twice daily. However, currently, there is a once-daily combination therapy with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) and the LABA vilanterol trifenatate (VI) with indications for use in both COPD and asthma. This dry powder inhaler (DPI) comes in two doses of FF (100 or 200 μg) both combined with VI (25 μg). This article reviews the clinical trial data for FF, VI and FF/VI combination inhalers and documents the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled maintenance therapy by DPI in asthmatic patients.

Phamacology of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate combination therapy for asthma

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Vilanterol trifenate (VI) is a new inhaled, selective, long - acting β2 adrenergic agonist (LABA). It is now also marketed as a novel once daily combined ICS/LABA indicated for treatment of moderate and severe asthma.

AREAS COVERED

FF has a highly specific, fast association and slow dissociation from the glucocorticoid receptor, with a 24 hr duration of action. This, combined with a slow transport out of respiratory cells, creates a long tissue retention period. Vilanterol trifenate (VI) is a new inhaled, selective, long - acting β2 adrenergic agonist, also with a rapid onset of action with a maximal effect within 6 mins and prolonged lung retention with effects on lung function over 24 hours. Expert commentary: Multiple Phase I-III efficacy studies performed on FF and VI have shown an improvement in spirometry as well as symptom control in asthma. The development of once daily ICS/LABA combinations may potentially improve adherence to asthma therapy, but this has yet to be demonstrated.

Vilanterol and fluticasone furoate for asthma

BACKGROUND

Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta2-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.

The combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate in the management of asthma: clinical trial evidence and experience

The treatment of persistent asthma has been aided by the recent approval of new medications. The combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) powder inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol trifenatate (VI) is one of these new agents, which was recently approved as a maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This once-daily ICS/LABA inhaler has previously been approved and used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a maintenance therapy. Both FF and VI individually have been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of persistent asthma; the combination of FF/VI at the dose of 100/25 μg daily improves trough peak expiratory flows and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. It also reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The once-daily dosing is well tolerated, with limited clinically significant adverse events; the once-daily inhaled dosing regimen should also improve medication adherence. The data supporting the use of the FF/VI inhaler in persistent asthma are reviewed. The dry powder inhaler of FF/VI (100/25 μg) is an effective and well tolerated once-daily maintenance treatment for patients with persistent asthma.

New developments in inhaler devices within pharmaceutical companies: A systematic review of the impact on clinical outcomes and patient preferences

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies offer an increasing number of inhaler devices, whether or not together with new substances, for maintenance treatment of patients with COPD or asthma. However, well-designed studies to support these developments are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research was to evaluate how far new developments of inhaler devices are scientifically supported and translate into improvements of patient preferences and/or clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve randomised controlled trials in patients with COPD or asthma that studied the in-company evolution of inhaler devices. Results were tabulated and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were found comparing Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®), Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)) vs. Diskhaler(®)(Rotadisk(®)) or pMDI, Ellipta(®) vs. Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)), Nexthaler(®) vs. pMDI, or Breezhaler(®) vs. Aerolizer(®). These studies show that developments of inhaler devices may improve patient satisfaction but do not lead to demonstrable improvements in clinical efficacy. Current changes of devices are most commonly parallelled by changes in administration frequency towards once daily treatment. The only well-documented effect was found for the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler, which realises a more than 3-fold lowering of the once-daily tiotropium dose through increased performance of the inhaler device. There are however, no data on clinical efficacy or safety comparing the two devices at the same dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Future developments of inhaler devices should all require well-designed studies to demonstrate patient benefit.