Efficacy and safety of the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol in patients with persistent asthma: a non-inferiority trial

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.

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

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

Asthma control in Brazil: a systematic review

Objectives: To explore asthma control in patients undergoing pharmacotherapy on studies in the last 20 years in Brazil. Asthma is a chronic airway inflammation disease with a high prevalence worldwide. Even with a variety of drug treatment improvements, attaining asthma control is challenging, since it should have a personalized approach. In Brazil, studies on the prevalence of asthma control are scarce and usually from a small sample size.Data Sources: A systematic review was performed to assess asthma control in Brazilian population. Terms related to "asthma", "asthma control" and "Brazil" were used in the search strategies in PubMed, BVSalud, Embase and Cochrane Library, including Brazilian Journal of Allergy and Immunology as data sources. A narrative synthesis was performed to report key outcome.Study Selections: In total, 23 studies were included. Most of them were conducted in the Southeastern and Northeast regions, in a short duration.Results: Pediatric and non-pediatric population were assessed, with a higher proportion of female. In pediatric population, those with poorly controlled asthma usually had severe or persistent disease. In elderly, an increased asthma severity was found, although proper treatment might be effective. Most studies (70%) also described exacerbations, hospitalizations (48%), quality of life (39%), and emergency visits (30%). Despite heterogeneity of outcomes and population, studies show an important prevalence of uncontrolled asthma even in patients being treated, with better disease control with treatment improvements.Conclusions: Studies in Brazil have shown that asthma control remains a challenge and there is still a need for improvement on disease management.

A review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fixed-dose combination

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) is one of the newer combinations among inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination formulations currently available. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of this FP/FORM combination, it is important to review all the available evidence and take a comprehensive look at the current and relevant data in the patient population suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AREAS COVERED

In this focused review, we summarize the available literature published until January 2021 using the PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM with its mono-components; concurrent administration of FP+FORM; and with other ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD patients.

EXPERT OPINION

FP/FORM combination therapy is a strong alternative in the treatment of persistent asthma and moderate-severe COPD. Extensive study of several trials has established the superior efficacy of FP/FORM combination therapy over FP or FORM monotherapy, comparable efficacy with FP+FORM and non-inferiority to other ICS/LABA fixed-dose combinations. The safety profile of FP/FORM has also been found to be comparable with respect to its mono-components and their concurrent use, and also other ICS/LABA combinations such as formoterol/budesonide and fluticasone/salmeterol.

Therapeutic preferences and factors determining the use of inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting β2-agonists in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) are a part of standard therapy of bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AIM

Assessment of the therapeutic preferences and factors determining the choice of polytherapy with ICS and LABA in patients with asthma and COPD in daily clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, post-marketing observational survey was performed nation-wide with the participation of 245 doctors and 13,800 patients with asthma or COPD on polytherapy with ICS and LABA. The study questionnaire included two parts: concerning doctors' preferences in the use of ICS and LABA and their prescription in patients as well as efficacy and tolerance of inhaled drugs during two consecutive visits.

RESULTS

The study doctors frequently declared a choice of polytherapy with formoterol and fluticasone in patients with asthma and COPD. The most important factors supporting the choice of ICS and LABA, declared by doctors, were safety and efficacy. ICS and LABA polytherapy with formoterol and fluticasone was used in 71.0% of patients with asthma and 81.4% with COPD. The most important factors explaining the choice of this drug combination were safety (75.3% and 72.5%, respectively) and efficacy (75.2% and 71.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol and fluticasone polytherapy is frequently chosen by Polish physicians in the treatment of asthma and COPD due to its high efficacy and safety. In accordance with doctors' declaration, in the study group this therapy was characterized by the highest effectiveness and the best tolerance.

Fluticasone/formoterol compared with other ICS/LABAs in asthma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics.

METHODS

The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage.

CONCLUSION

FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.

Real-world evaluation of the clinical safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol FDC via the Revolizer® in patients with persistent asthma in India

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) is widely used for the management of asthma. This prospective, open-label, non-comparative, observational, 24-week multicentre study is the first real-world study from India to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of fluticasone/formoterol (Maxiflo® 100/6 mcg or 250/6 mcg) capsules via the Revolizer® device in patients with persistent asthma. The primary efficacy analyses included mean change in Asthma Control Test (ACT™) at 4, 8, 16 and 24 weeks. Secondary efficacy analyses included mean change in morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) at the end of 4, 8, 16 and 24 weeks, number of patients having symptom-free days and nights at the end of 4, 8, 16 and 24 weeks, the number and severity of exacerbations over 24 weeks and response to the Usability Preference Satisfaction Confidence questionnaire after 1 week. Overall, 385 (of 401; 96.01%) enrolled patients completed the study. The mean change in ACT™ score was 6.7 ± 3.71 (95% CI: 6.32, 7.06; p < 0.0001) at week 24. The ACT™ score at weeks 4, 8 and 16 showed progressive and statistically significant increase from baseline. A statistically significant improvement in morning and evening PEFR at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 was reported. The proportion of patients experiencing symptom-free days and nights continuously increased from baseline to week 24. A good safety profile over the 24-week period was observed. The Revolizer® device was preferred by 94.26% patients over their current device. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate FDC capsules administered via a single-dose dry powder inhaler ([DPI], (Revolizer®) offers a novel, well-tolerated and effective treatment option for the long-term management of asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The efficacy and safety of different long-acting β2-agonists combined with inhaled glucocorticoid regimens in patients with asthma: a network meta-analysis

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.