Combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone in mild asthma : a placebo-controlled comparison

The safety of long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the safety of long-term use of ICS in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of asthma with ICS, compared with non-ICS treatment (placebo or other active drugs), were reviewed.

RESULTS

Eighty-six RCTs (enrolling 51,538 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Oral or oropharyngeal candidiasis (RR 2.58, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.33), and dysphonia/hoarseness (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.85) were less frequent in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, influenza, decline in bone mineral density, and fractures between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the mild local adverse events, the long-term use of ICS was safe in patients with asthma.

Relative efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended as first-line controller medications for persistent asthma. However, guidelines on the initial ICS doses, step-up and step-down algorithms, and when to switch to combination therapy vary.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the ideal starting doses of ICS therapy based on current evidence and to systematically compare low, moderate, and high starting doses of ICSs as monotherapy and in combination with long-acting β-agonists with respect to efficacy and safety.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant English-language articles published from 1980 to November 17, 2018. Randomized controlled trials with adult, steroid-naive, ICS-free (for ≥4 weeks) patients with asthma and a duration of 4 weeks or longer with an ICS treatment arm (monotherapy or combination therapy) were included. Separate fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted on the extracted data for peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event.

RESULTS

A total of 31 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. All starting doses of ICSs were comparable with respect to nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. Significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed with high-dose ICSs and with low- and moderate-dose ICSs and long-acting β-agonists than with low-dose ICSs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a high starting dose of ICSs had no additional clinical benefit in 3 of the 4 efficacy parameters compared with low or moderate ICS doses for controlling moderate to severe asthma but might have potential safety concerns.

Efficacy and Safety of Tiotropium in Children and Adolescents

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, with a high proportion of patients demonstrating poor control despite the availability of disease management guidelines. Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines include tiotropium as an add-on therapy option at Steps 4 and 5 in patients aged ≥ 12 years with a history of exacerbations, and tiotropium delivered via the Respimat® Soft Mist™ Inhaler has recently been approved for use as once-daily maintenance therapy for children with asthma over the age of 6 years in the USA. A large clinical trial program has been conducted in children, adolescents, and adults across the spectrum of asthma severity. Findings from these clinical studies and pooled analyses in children and adolescents with symptomatic moderate or severe asthma have demonstrated that tiotropium Respimat® as add-on to inhaled corticosteroids, with or without other maintenance therapies, is a well-tolerated and efficacious bronchodilator, showing improved lung function and trends towards improved asthma control, mirroring findings in adult studies. This review discusses the evidence to date for tiotropium Respimat® for the management of asthma in adolescents and children with symptomatic moderate and severe asthma, and considers the challenges of asthma management in these patients. Factors affecting this population group, such as poor adherence, underreporting of symptoms, and social and psychological issues, are highlighted, along with the need for active review and management of treatment to help achieve optimal control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Safety of regular use of long-acting beta agonists as monotherapy or added to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Safety of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) has been questioned and recent evidence suggested a detrimental effect on asthma control as well as an increased risk of death.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of regular use of LABA compared with placebo or LABA added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared with ICS in persistent asthma.

METHODS

Randomized studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were identified. Additionally, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and FDA clinical trials databases were searched. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations (AE) requiring systemic corticosteroids or hospitalization, life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths.

RESULTS

We identified 92 randomized clinical trials with 74,092 subjects. LABA (as monotherapy) reduced exacerbations requiring corticosteroids (Relative Risk [RR]=0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), without detrimental effects on hospitalizations or life-threatening episodes. Contrarily, LABA showed a significant increase in asthma-related deaths (Relative Risk=3.83; 95% CI, 1.21-12.14). Subgroup analysis suggests that children, patients receiving salmeterol, and a duration of treatment>12 weeks are associated with a higher risk of serious adverse effects; also there was a protective effect of concomitant use of ICS. On the other hand, combination of LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and hospitalizations (RR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Combined therapy was also equivalent to ICS in terms of life-threatening episodes and asthma-related deaths. Again, children and use of salmeterol were associated with an increased risk of some severe outcomes as compared with adults and formoterol users, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reinforced the international recommendations in terms of the use of LABA remains the preferred add-on therapy to ICS for patients whose disease cannot adequately controlled with ICS, and that LABA cannot be prescribed as a monotherapy. Nevertheless, in spite of the protective effect of the ICS, children and salmeterol use still show an increased risk of non-fatal serious adverse events.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate via Diskus once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in patients with mild asthma not previously receiving maintenance corticosteroids

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) therapy have been well established in the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma. Once-daily administration of SFC could also be appropriate in patients with mild persistent asthma. This study aimed to investigate whether once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg was at least as effective as fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 microg twice daily, and more effective than twice-daily placebo, over 52 weeks as initial maintenance therapy in patients with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study carried out in primary and secondary care. Patients aged between 12 and 79 years with a documented clinical history of asthma for > or =6 months who were currently receiving inhaled short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists only were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either once-daily inhaled SFC 50 microg/100 microg, twice-daily inhaled FP 100 microg (i.e. twice the dose of FP compared with SFC) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), as recorded by patients prior to the use of bronchodilator or study medication, and the rate of investigator-recorded asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Patients receiving twice-daily FP and once-daily SFC showed greater improvements in mean morning PEF compared with those receiving placebo (FP, difference in means 20.1 L/min; 95% CI 14.7, 25.5; p < 0.001; SFC, difference in means 14.8 L/min; 95% CI 9.4, 20.2; p < 0.001). The difference in adjusted mean PEF between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP was -5.3 L/min (95% CI -9.1, -1.6). PEF results showed that once-daily SFC was non-inferior to twice-daily FP. Over 52 weeks, there was a 35% reduction in exacerbation rates with once-daily SFC, which in this respect demonstrated superiority over placebo (p < 0.001). Non-inferiority between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP with respect to exacerbation rates was not shown. Once-daily SFC significantly improved clinic forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (difference in means 0.129 L/s; p < 0.001) and clinic PEF (difference in means 10.8 L/min; p < 0.001) compared with twice-daily FP. Both treatments were well tolerated and the safety profile of each was similar to that seen with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild persistent asthma not previously receiving maintenance therapy, once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg is an effective treatment compared with placebo, and was non-inferior to twice-daily FP 100 microg with respect to mean morning PEF. However, in this study, once-daily SFC was not as efficacious as twice-daily FP in reducing asthma exacerbation rates. This study confirms the benefits of regular maintenance treatment in patients with mild persistent asthma.