Efficacy and Safety of Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate Combination Delivered by the Diskustrade mark or Pressurised Metered-Dose Inhaler in Children with Asthma

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

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.

Comparison of the clinical effects of combined salmeterol/fluticasone delivered by dry powder or pressurized metered dose inhaler

The salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) inhaler is currently the most widely used maintenance drug for asthmatics worldwide. Although the effectiveness of SFC as either a dry powder inhaler (DPI) or a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) is well documented, there is limited data comparing the clinical efficacies of the two devices. To address this issue, we carried out a randomized crossover trial in which asthmatic patients (n = 47; mean age, 62.5 ± 16.5 years old) received a 12-week treatment of SFC DPI (50/250 μg twice daily) or SFC pMDI (four puffs of 25/125 μg daily). After a 4-week washout period, patients received another crossover treatment for 12 weeks. Respiratory resistance and reactance were measured by forced oscillation technique (MostGraph-01), spirometry, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and an asthma control test (ACT) every 4 weeks. The mean forced expiratory volume1.0 at the baseline was 2.16 ± 0.86 (L). Respiratory system resistance at 5 Hz (R5), the difference between R5 and R at 20 Hz (R5 - R20), and FeNO improved in both treatment groups, while reactance at 5 Hz (X5) and ACT score improved only in the pMDI group. In patients >70 years old (n = 21), R5, R5 - R20, ΔX5, and FeNO improved only in the pMDI group. These results suggest that SFC by pMDI produces a stronger anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory effect even in patients whose asthma is well controlled by SFC delivered by DPI.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

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. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Device type and real-world effectiveness of asthma combination therapy: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Selection of inhaler device type appears to influence real-world effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but data are lacking on the role of inhaler device in ICS and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy for asthma.

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study compared 1-year asthma outcomes for UK patients initiating fixed-dose combination (FDC) fluticasone-salmeterol delivered by pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Patients with asthma aged 4-80 years receiving a first prescription for FDC fluticasone-salmeterol by pMDI or DPI were matched on baseline demographic and asthma severity measures. Co-primary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no recorded hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection) and exacerbation rate.

RESULTS

Compared with the DPI cohort (n = 1567), patients in the pMDI cohort (n = 1567) had significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control during the outcome year (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.40). Exacerbation rate was lower but not significantly in the pMDI cohort (adjusted rate ratio for pMDI cohort, 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00). The odds of treatment success (defined as no exacerbations and no change in asthma therapy) was significantly greater in the pMDI cohort (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

For UK primary care patients, pMDIs appear to achieve better asthma control outcomes than DPIs for delivery of FDC fluticasone-salmeterol. Pragmatic trials are needed to further investigate real-world outcomes with different inhaler devices for combination therapy.

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

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

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate vs. double dose fluticasone propionate on lung function and asthma control in children

There is a large body of data to support the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist vs. increasing the dose of ICS in adults, but less data in children. This double-blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared lung function and asthma control, based on Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, in children receiving either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) 50/100 microg bd (n = 160) or fluticasone propionate (FP) 200 microg bd (n = 161) for 12 wks. Change from baseline in mean morning peak expiratory flow increased following both treatments, but was significantly greater in the SFC group compared with FP [Adjusted mean change (s.e.) (l/min): SFC: 26.9 (2.13), FP: 19.3 (2.12); treatment difference: 7.6 (3.01); 95% CI: 1.7, 13.5; p = 0.012)]. Asthma control improved over time in both groups. Mean pre-bronchodilator maximal-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity and percentage rescue-free days showed significantly greater improvements in the SFC group compared with FP. All other efficacy indices showed comparable improvements in each group. Treatment with SFC 50/100 microg bd compared with twice the steroid dose of FP (200 microg bd), was at least as effective in improving individual clinical outcomes and overall asthma control, in asthmatic children previously uncontrolled on low doses of ICS.

Add-on salmeterol compared to double dose fluticasone in pediatric asthma: a double-blind, randomized trial (VIAPAED)

RATIONALE

In asthmatic children whose symptoms are uncontrolled on standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines recommend to either increase the ICS dose or to add further controller medication, e.g. a long acting ss2-agonist (LABA). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of ICS (fluticasone proprionate FP 200 microg twice daily) with adding a long-acting beta-2 agonist to the ICS (SFC, salmeterol 50 microg/ FP 100 microg twice daily) in children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Children between 4 and 16 years of age were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel-group study. During a 14-day run-in phase, all children inhaled FP 100 microg b.i.d. Patients with persistent symptoms on > or =7 of 14 days were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with a Diskus(R) containing either SFC 50 microg/100 microg b.i.d. or FP 200 microg b.i.d.. The primary endpoint was the mean change in morning (a.m.) PEF from baseline. The initial statistical hypothesis of non-inferiority of SFC vs. FP was confirmed in an adaptive interim analysis, so that the study was terminated prematurely.

RESULTS

441 patients from 39 centers entered the run-in phase, and 64% of these were randomized to treatment (N = 138 to SFC and N = 145 to FP). After 8 weeks, patients on SFC had significantly better results for primary and secondary endpoints: The mean increase in morning PEF was 30.4 +/- 34.1 L/min in the SFC group and 16.7 +/- 35.8 L/min in the fluticasone group, and the mean (95% CI) improvement from baseline a.m. PEF in the ITT group was significantly larger after SFC (+8.6 L/min, CI: [1.3; infinity]). Patients in the SFC group experienced 8.7% (CI: [1.2;16.3]) more days without asthma symptoms and 8.0% (CI: [0.6;15.3]) more days without salbutamol than patients receiving FP. Good asthma control was achieved for a longer period in the SFC (3.4 +/- 2.7 weeks) group than in the FP group (2.7 +/- 2.7, P = 0.02). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Asthma exacerbations were recorded in 3 and 6 and SAEs in 2 and 1 patients from the SFC and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on low dose ICS alone, adding a long acting beta-2-agonist to ICS in a single inhaler was more effective than doubling the ICS dose. These results support recommendations of adding LABA to low-dose ICS as the preferred controller option for children older than 4 years with symptomatic asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

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 was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

The Diskus: a review of its position among dry powder inhaler devices

The use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to administer treatments for respiratory diseases has increased significantly in recent years. There is now a wide range of DPIs available that vary considerably in design, required operational techniques, output characteristics and drug delivery across a range of inhalation patterns. Different patient populations may find individual types of DPI easier to use correctly than others and selecting the right DPI for particular patient requirements will improve compliance with therapy. For example, some DPIs offer a greater resistance against inspirational flow rate than others which affects the total emitted dose and also fine particle mass of the aerosol released. An individual patient may therefore receive different amounts of drug when inhaling from different DPIs. Therefore, it is important that the prescriber is fully aware of the characteristics of the different types of DPI, so that he or she can prescribe the device that is most appropriate to an individual patient's needs. This review explores the characteristics of currently available DPIs and evaluates their efficacy and patient acceptability. The differences in output characteristics, ease of use and patient preferences between available devices is shown to affect treatment efficacy and patient compliance with therapy. Changing the DPI prescribed to a patient to a cheaper or generic device may therefore adversely affect disease control and thereby increase the cost of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of a new pressurised metered-dose inhaler formulation of budesonide/formoterol in children with asthma: a superiority and therapeutic equivalence study

AIM

This paediatric asthma study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol dry-powder inhaler (DPI).

METHODS

The study was a 12-week, multinational, double-blind trial involving children (aged 6-11 years) with symptomatic asthma on inhaled corticosteroids (375-1000 microg/day), with a history of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and peak expiratory flow (PEF) > or =50% of predicted. Patients were randomised (two inhalations twice daily) to budesonide pMDI 100 microg, budesonide/formoterol DPI 80/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning PEF.

RESULTS

Overall, 622 patients were randomised. Increases in morning PEF with budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide/formoterol DPI were therapeutically equivalent (29.5 versus 30.2l/min, respectively; 95% confidence interval: -6.0 to 4.6; P=0.78, also confirmed by per-protocol analysis). Improvements in secondary efficacy endpoints with both budesonide/formoterol formulations were not significantly different. Significantly greater improvement was achieved with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI for morning PEF (+9.6l/min; P<0.001) and other lung function parameters. The safety profile of budesonide/formoterol pMDI was favourable and similar to that of budesonide/formoterol DPI and budesonide pMDI.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol, administered via the therapeutically equivalent hydrofluoroalkane pMDI or DPI, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for children with asthma.

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, administered twice daily via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Seretide/Advair Diskus), Seretide Accuhaler or metered-dose hydrofluoroalkane (chlorofluorocarbon-free) inhaler (Seretide Evohaler), is a combination of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (beta(2)-agonist) [LABA] salmeterol and the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. Maintenance therapy with combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is at least as effective in improving lung function and symptoms and is as well tolerated in patients with asthma as concurrent salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate. In patients previously receiving as-required short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was significantly more effective in providing asthma control than fluticasone propionate and in improving lung function and asthma symptoms than inhaled corticosteroids (at equivalent or higher dosages), salmeterol or montelukast (as monotherapy or in combination with fluticasone propionate). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective in improving asthma symptoms than adjusted-dose budesonide/formoterol in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA in a well designed 1-year study. In pharmacoeconomic analyses, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compared favourably with inhaled corticosteroids and mono- or combination therapy with oral montelukast. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is, therefore, an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma.