1
|
Laitano R, Calzetta L, Matino M, Pistocchini E, Rogliani P. Asthma management with triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination to reduce the risk of exacerbation: an umbrella review compliant with the PRIOR statement. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2024; 25:1071-1081. [PMID: 38864834 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2366991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2024] [Accepted: 06/07/2024] [Indexed: 06/13/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION According to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) should be considered as add-on therapy in patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled, despite treatment with medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. In patients ≥ 18 years, LAMA may be added in triple combination with an ICS and a LABA. To date, the precise efficacy of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination remains uncertain concerning the impact on exacerbation risk in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, an umbrella review was performed to systematically summarize available data on the effect of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination on the risk of asthma exacerbation. METHODS An umbrella review has been performed according to the PRIOR statement. RESULTS The overall results obtained from 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduces the risk of asthma exacerbation. HD-ICS showed a greater effect particularly in reducing severe asthma exacerbation, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this umbrella review suggest an optimization of ICS dose in triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination, based on the severity of exacerbation and type 2 biomarkers expression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rossella Laitano
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Luigino Calzetta
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Respiratory Disease and Lung Function Unit, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | - Matteo Matino
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Elena Pistocchini
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| | - Paola Rogliani
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Oba Y, Anwer S, Patel T, Maduke T, Dias S. 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 8:CD013797. [PMID: 37602534 PMCID: PMC10441001 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013797.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuji Oba
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Sumayya Anwer
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Tarang Patel
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Tinashe Maduke
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Sofia Dias
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Oba Y, Anwer S, Maduke T, Patel T, Dias S. 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 12:CD013799. [PMID: 36472162 PMCID: PMC9723963 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013799.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuji Oba
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Sumayya Anwer
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| | - Tinashe Maduke
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Tarang Patel
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
| | - Sofia Dias
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chapman K, van Zyl-Smit R, Maspero J, Kerstjens HAM, Gon Y, Hosoe M, Tanase AM, Pethe A, Shu X, D'Andrea P. One time a day mometasone/indacaterol fixed-dose combination versus two times a day fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: pooled analysis from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies. BMJ Open Respir Res 2021; 8:8/1/e000819. [PMID: 34452934 PMCID: PMC8404447 DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Accepted: 07/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite currently available standard-of-care inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist therapies, a substantial proportion of patients with asthma remain inadequately controlled. This pooled analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate (MF/IND) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FLU/SAL) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. METHODS This analysis included patients from PALLADIUM (NCT02554786) and IRIDIUM (NCT02571777) studies who received high-dose MF/IND (320/150 µg) or medium-dose MF/IND (160/150 µg) one time a day or high-dose FLU/SAL (500/50 µg) two times a day for 52 weeks. Reduction in asthma exacerbations, improvement in lung function, asthma control, and safety were evaluated for 52 weeks. RESULTS In total, 3154 patients (high-dose MF/IND, n=1054; medium-dose MF/IND, n=1044; high-dose FLU/SAL, n=1056) were included. High-dose MF/IND showed 26%, 22% and 19% reductions in rate of severe, moderate or severe, and all (mild, moderate and severe) exacerbations versus high-dose FLU/SAL, respectively, over 52 weeks (all, p<0.05). High-dose MF/IND improved trough FEV1 versus high-dose FLU/SAL at weeks 26 (Δ, 43 mL, p=0.001) and 52 (Δ, 51 mL, p<0.001). Reductions in asthma exacerbation rate and improvement in trough FEV1 with medium-dose MF/IND were comparable with high-dose FLU/SAL over 52 weeks. All treatments improved Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 score from baseline to 52 weeks with no difference between treatments. Safety was comparable between high-dose MF/IND and high-dose FLU/SAL. CONCLUSIONS One time a day, single-inhaler, high-dose MF/IND reduced asthma exacerbations and improved lung function versus two times a day, high-dose FLU/SAL in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Similarly, improved outcomes were seen with one time a day, medium-dose MF/IND and two times a day, high-dose FLU/SAL, but at a lower ICS dose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kenneth Chapman
- Division of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Richard van Zyl-Smit
- Division of Pulmonology and UCT Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Jorge Maspero
- Allergy and Respiratory Research Unit, Fundación Centro Investigacion de Enfermedades Alergicas y Respiratorias, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Huib A M Kerstjens
- Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, and Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Yasuhiro Gon
- Division of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | - Abhijit Pethe
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA
| | - Xu Shu
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA
| | - Peter D'Andrea
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
O'Shea O, Stovold E, Cates CJ. Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD007694. [PMID: 33852162 PMCID: PMC8095067 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007694.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments. OBJECTIVES To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 24 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orlagh O'Shea
- School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Elizabeth Stovold
- Cochrane Airways, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| | - Christopher J Cates
- Cochrane Airways, Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Tian J. The efficacy and safety of different long-acting β2-agonists combined with inhaled glucocorticoid regimens in patients with asthma: a network meta-analysis. J Asthma 2018; 56:1159-1171. [PMID: 30359144 DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2018.1531991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of current maintenance therapies consisting of different regimens of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with asthma. Methods: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to January 1, 2017. Randomized clinical trials comparing LABA combined with ICS in patients with asthma were selected. Results: Seventeen trials were included in the analysis, comprising 10,961 patients and seven treatment regimens. Our NMA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between agents regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations. For adverse effects, there were no significant differences between the included studies. Moreover, six of the results showed no statistically significant differences between agents regarding symptom-free days. The heterogeneity and inconsistency analysis of the outcomes showed that there were no differences between the regimens. Conclusions: Our findings have shown that there were no statistically significant differences between the different regimens of LABA + ICS regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations, adverse events, and symptom-free days.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying Tang
- The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University , Gansu , P.R. China.,West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu , P.R. China
| | - Caiyun Zhang
- The First Hospital of Lanzhou University , Gansu , P.R. China
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- The First Hospital of Lanzhou University , Gansu , P.R. China
| | - Jinhui Tian
- Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University , Gansu , P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Aalbers R, Vogelmeier C, Kuna P. Achieving asthma control with ICS/LABA: A review of strategies for asthma management and prevention. Respir Med 2016; 111:1-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2015] [Accepted: 11/02/2015] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
8
|
Chauhan BF, Chartrand C, Ni Chroinin M, Milan SJ, Ducharme FM. Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD007949. [PMID: 26594816 PMCID: PMC9426997 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007949.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible. MAIN RESULTS We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan
- University of ManitobaFaculty of PharmacyWinnipegMBCanada
- University of ManitobaKnowledge Synthesis, George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityWinnipegMBCanada
- Sainte‐Justine University Hospital Research Center, University of MontrealDepartment of PaediatricsMontrealCanada
| | | | | | | | - Francine M Ducharme
- University of MontrealDepartment of PaediatricsMontrealQCCanada
- CHU Sainte‐JustineResearch CentreMontrealCanada
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Westergaard CG, Porsbjerg C, Backer V. A review of mometasone furoate / formoterol in the treatment of asthma. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2013; 14:339-46. [PMID: 23363416 DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2013.761976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease affecting the airways causing inflammation, airway hyperreactivity (AHR), and respiratory symptoms. Frequently, asthma can be effectively treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) but in more severe cases additional drugs are required, such as long-acting β2-agonists (LABA). Mometasone furoate (MF) is a synthetic steroid exhibiting a strong affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor as well as a low bioavailability and a high plasma protein binding. In most cases, MF only requires once daily administration. Formoterol fumarate (F) is a full β2-agonist with a rapid onset and 12 h of duration. AREAS COVERED The present paper reviews the current knowledge of the novel combination of MF and F for the treatment of asthma. Furthermore, a description of the individual components is included. EXPERT OPINION At present, only few clinical studies of MF/F are available for review and more studies of MF/F efficacy are needed, especially comparative studies on other ICS/LABA drugs. However, it does not appear from the reviewed literature that MF/F or its individual components are inferior to other equivalent treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Grabow Westergaard
- Bispebjerg Hospital, Department of Respiratory Medicine L, Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bjerg A, Lundbäck B, Lötvall J. The future of combining inhaled drugs for COPD. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2012; 12:252-5. [PMID: 22465638 DOI: 10.1016/j.coph.2012.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2012] [Revised: 03/14/2012] [Accepted: 03/14/2012] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and its prevalence is projected to continue to increase owing to trends in smoking. Treatment of COPD has evolved from the initial adaptations of drugs and treatment strategies successfully used in asthma into more specific pharmacological strategies following global guidelines. Bronchodilating anticholinergic and beta-2-stimulating agents and anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drugs delivered by inhalators are the mainstay of COPD treatment. Despite significant progress, current pharmacotherapies neither fully alleviate the airway obstruction in COPD, nor reverse the progressive nature of the disease. This review discusses inhalation therapies which have recently become clinically available or are being developed, with focus on combination therapies. There is accumulating evidence that the combination of two or all three drug classes, triple therapy, is superior to single drug therapy. Several fixed combinations of both currently available and novel molecules will be launched for clinical use within the next few years. Also, improved understanding of subgroups within the clinical spectrum of COPD, is likely to offer new potentials to improve COPD care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Bjerg
- Department of Internal Medicine, Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Box 424, S-40530 Göteborg, Sweden.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|