Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide: a randomized controlled trial in black patients with asthma

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.

Health Disparities: Interventions for Pulmonary Disease - A Narrative Review

There is expansive literature documenting the presence of health disparities, but there are disproportionately few studies describing interventions to reduce disparity. In this narrative review, we categorize interventions to reduce health disparity in pulmonary disease within the US health care system to support future initiatives to reduce disparity. We identified 211 articles describing interventions to reduce disparity in pulmonary disease related to race, income, or sex. We grouped the studies into the following four categories: biologic, educational, behavioral, and structural. We identified the following five main themes: (1) there were few interventional trials compared with the breadth of studies describing health disparities, and trials involving patients with asthma who were Black, low income, and living in an urban setting were overrepresented; (2) race or socioeconomic status was not an effective marker of individual pharmacologic treatment response; (3) telehealth enabled scaling of care, but more work is needed to understand how to leverage telehealth to improve outcomes in marginalized communities; (4) future interventions must explicitly target societal drivers of disparity, rather than focusing on individual behavior alone; and (5) individual interventions will only be maximally effective when specifically tailored to local needs. Much work has been done to catalog health disparities in pulmonary disease. Notable gaps in the identified literature include few interventional trials, the need for research in diseases outside of asthma, the need for high quality effectiveness trials, and an understanding of how to implement proven interventions balancing fidelity to the original protocol and the need to adapt to local barriers to care.

Genome-wide association studies of exacerbations in children using long-acting beta2-agonists

BACKGROUND

Some children with asthma experience exacerbations despite long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment. While this variability is partly caused by genetic variation, no genome-wide study until now has investigated which genetic factors associated with risk of exacerbations despite LABA use in children with asthma. We aimed to assess whether genetic variation was associated with exacerbations in children treated with LABA from a global consortium.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (meta-GWAS) was performed in 1,425 children and young adults with asthma (age 6-21 years) with reported regular use of LABA from six studies within the PiCA consortium using a random effects model. The primary outcome of each study was defined as any exacerbation within the past 6 or 12 months, including at least one of the following: 1) hospital admissions for asthma, 2) a course of oral corticosteroids or 3) emergency room visits because of asthma.

RESULTS

Genome-wide association results for a total of 82 996 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, MAF ≥1%) with high imputation quality were meta-analysed. Eight independent variants were suggestively (P-value threshold ≤5 × 10^-6 ) associated with exacerbations despite LABA use.

CONCLUSION

No strong effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on exacerbations during LABA use were identified. We identified two loci (TBX3 and EPHA7) that were previously implicated in the response to short-acting beta2-agonists (SABA). These loci merit further investigation in response to LABA and SABA use.

Uncovering Outcome Disparities of β2 Adrenergic Agonists in Blacks: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This review assessed systematic variation in β₂ agonist treatment outcomes among Blacks compared to other groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting differential response to β₂ agonists among Blacks, including studies identifying pharmacogenetic variants.

RESULTS

Of 3158 papers, 20 compared safety or efficacy of β₂ agonists among Blacks as compared with other subgroups. Six papers evaluating efficacy of short-acting β₂ agonists (SABA) found similar or improved results among Blacks compared with other groups, while one small study found reduced response to SABA therapy among Blacks. Reports of safety and efficacy of long-acting β₂ agonists (LABA) indicated similar results among Blacks in four papers, while four reports found reduced safety among Blacks, as compared with other groups. Four papers assessed genomic variation and relative treatment response in Blacks, with two finding significant effects of the p.Arg16Gly variant in ADRB2 on β₂ agonist response and one finding significant gene-gene IL6/IL6R interaction effects on albuterol response.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests the potential for differences in β₂ agonist outcomes among Blacks compared with other groups. This literature, however, remains small and significantly underpowered for substantive conclusions. There are notable opportunities for adequately-powered investigations exploring safety and efficacy of β₂ agonists among Blacks, including pharmacogenomic modifiers of response.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of formoterol/budesonide pMDI versus its mono-components and other LABA/ICS in patients with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) are effective drug delivery devices prescribed in obstructive airway diseases due to their convenience, portability, ease of enabling multiple doses in a single formulation, and storage in any orientation. For the management of asthma, the fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) has been recommended by Global Initiative for Asthma guideline as a preferred treatment option for patients who are uncontrolled with only ICS doses. One of the available LABA/ICS combinations is the formoterol/budesonide (FB).

AREAS COVERED

This article systematically reviews the efficacy and safety of the FB pMDI compared with the FB dry powder inhaler (DPI), individual mono-components (formoterol and budesonide) or salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) combination in the treatment of asthma among paediatric and adult patients. PubMed was searched with the string: ''((Budesonide) AND Formoterol) AND ((((pMDI) OR MDI) OR Pressurised Metered-dose inhaler) OR Metered-dose inhaler)'', in ALL fields. Screening of all the articles was done till February 2020. We have included 24 articles from the total of 142 hits received.

CONCLUSIONS

The FB pMDI is efficacious for the long-term management of asthma in patients 6 years of age and above. It has been shown to improve lung function and asthma control, and to reduce daytime and night-time symptoms, the number of rescue medication doses and asthma exacerbations. It also showed rapid onset of bronchodilatory effect with a dose-response relationship that allows patients to utilise it as a Single Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) regimen.

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.

Pharmacogenetics of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists in asthma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are recommended in asthma therapy; however, not all asthma patients respond well to LABA. We performed a systematic review on genetic variants associated with LABA response in patients with asthma.

METHODS

Articles published until April 2017 were searched by two authors using PubMed and EMBASE. Pharmacogenetic studies in patients with asthma and LABA response as an outcome were included.

RESULTS

In total, 33 studies were included in this systematic review; eight focused on children (n = 6051). Nineteen studies were clinical trials, while 14 were observational studies. Studies used different outcomes to define LABA response, for example, lung function measurements (FEV₁ , PEF, MMEF, FVC), exacerbations, quality of life, and asthma symptoms. Most studies (n = 30) focused on the ADRB2 gene, encoding the beta2-adrenergic receptor. Thirty studies (n = 14 874) addressed ADRB2 rs1042713, 7 ADRB2 rs1042714 (n = 1629), and 3 ADRB2 rs1800888 (n = 1892). The association of ADRB2 rs1042713 and rs1800888 with LABA response heterogeneity was successfully replicated. Other variants were only studied in three studies but not replicated. One study focused on the ADCY9 gene. Five studies and a meta-analysis found an increased risk of exacerbations in pediatrics using LABA carrying one or two A alleles (OR 1.52 [1.17; 1.99]). These results were not confirmed in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRB2 rs1042713 variant is most consistently associated with response to LABA in children but not adults. To assess the clinical value of ADRB2 rs1042713 in children with asthma using LABA, a randomized clinical trial with well-defined outcomes is needed.

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.

Therapeutic equivalence of budesonide/formoterol delivered via breath-actuated inhaler vs pMDI

RATIONALE

To assess equivalence of twice daily (bid) budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) 160/4.5 μg via breath-actuated metered-dose inhaler (BAI) versus pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI).

METHODS

This 12-week, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study, randomized adolescents and adults (aged ≥12 years) with asthma (and ≥3 months daily use of inhaled corticosteroids) to BUD/FM BAI 2 × 160/4.5 μg bid, BUD/FM pMDI 2 × 160/4.5 μg bid, or BUD pMDI 2 × 160 μg bid. Inclusion required prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ≥45 to ≤85% predicted, and reversibility of ≥12% in FEV1 (ages 12 to <18 years) or ≥12% and 200 mL (ages ≥18 years). Confirmation that 60-min postdose FEV1 response to BUD/FM pMDI was superior to BUD pMDI was required before equivalence testing. Therapeutic equivalence was shown by treatment effect ratio of BUD/FM BAI vs BUD/FM pMDI on 60-min postdose FEV1 and predose FEV1 within confidence intervals (CIs) of 80-125%.

RESULTS

Mean age of 214 randomized patients was 42.7 years. BUD/FM pMDI was superior to BUD pMDI (60-min postdose FEV1 treatment effect ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14; p < 0.001). Treatment effect ratios for BUD/FM BAI versus pMDI for 60-min postdose FEV1 (1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05) and predose FEV1 (1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.08) were within predetermined CIs for therapeutic equivalence. Adverse event profiles, tolerability, and patient-reported ease of use were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

BUD/FM 2 × 160/4.5 μg bid BAI is therapeutically equivalent to BUD/FM conventional pMDI. The introduction of BUD/FM BAI would expand options for delivering inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy to patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01360021.

Reaching beyond disparity: safely improving asthma control in the at-risk African-American population

In the United States, substantial racial disparities exist in asthma prevalence, etiology, morbidity and mortality, particularly between African Americans and white Americans. African-American patients with asthma have inadequate access to appropriate healthcare, insufficient asthma management guidance from their physicians and poor adherence to asthma medications-all factors that may contribute to disproportionate morbidity. Historically, African Americans have been under-represented in clinical asthma studies, and a paucity of data exists surrounding asthma treatment response. One controversial study from 2006 suggests an increased safety risk with the use of long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) in African Americans. More recently, several studies have evaluated the use of LABAs in combination with an ICS in African-American populations. This article reviews the existing data on asthma treatment outcomes, with particular emphasis on the recently published short- and long-term studies of ICS/LABA products conducted in African-American populations with moderate-to-severe asthma. Overall, evidence suggests that if African-American patients with asthma are provided with access to well-trained physicians, appropriate asthma management and effective medications, existing disparities in asthma control between African-American and white populations may be overcome.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. This is an updated Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in people with chronic asthma given regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data; Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design were included if they randomly allocated people of any age and severity of asthma to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Following the 2012 update, we have included 20 studies on 10,578 adults and adolescents and seven studies on 2788 children and adolescents. We found data on all-cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events for all studies, and we judged the overall risk of bias to be low.Six deaths occurred in participants taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and one in a participant administered regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 16.03, low-quality evidence). All deaths were reported in adults, and one was believed to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar for each treatment in adults (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27, moderate-quality evidence), and weak evidence suggested an increase in events in children on regular formoterol (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, moderate-quality evidence).In contrast with all-cause serious adverse events, the addition of new trial data means that asthma-related serious adverse events associated with formoterol are now significantly fewer in adults taking regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids (Peto OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.88, moderate-quality evidence). Although a greater number of asthma-related events were reported in children receiving regular formoterol, this finding was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the evidence in this review, it is not possible to reassure people with asthma that regular use of inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison with use of inhaled corticosteroids alone. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of serious harm, and only one asthma-related death was registered during more than 4200 patient-years of observation with formoterol.In adults, no significant difference in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events was noted with regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, but a significant reduction in asthma-related serious adverse events was observed in comparison with inhaled corticosteroids alone.In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to allow determination of whether the increased risk of all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in a previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids.We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

The effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler on predefined criteria for worsening asthma in four different patient populations with asthma

Background Previous studies have shown disparities between Black and Hispanic patients compared with other populations in response to asthma medications.

Objective: The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (BUD/FM pMDI) and BUD on predefined criteria for asthma worsening, an asthma control metric generally aligned with definitions of moderate asthma exacerbations, across four different populations.

Methods: Data were from four 12-week, randomized, double-blind,US studies of BUD/FM pMDI treatment in patients aged 12 years or older with varying asthma severities and of varying races. Predefined asthma events and withdrawals due to predefined events were assessed as secondary study endpoints. Study I (NCT00651651) includes data from predominantly White patients with mild to moderate asthma who were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 160/9 μg twice daily (bid; n = 123) or BUDpMDI 160 μg bid (n = 121). Study II (NCT00652002) includes data from predominantly White patients withmoderate to severe asthma who were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 320/9 μg bid (n = 124) or BUD pMDI 320 μg bid (n = 109). Study III (NCT00702325) included self-reported Black patients with moderate to severe asthma who were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 320/9 μg bid (n = 153) or BUD dry powder inhaler 360 μg bid (n = 148). Study IV (NCT00419757) included self-reported Hispanic patients with moderate to severe asthma who were randomized to BUD/FM pMDI 320/9 μg bid (n = 127) or BUD pMDI 320 μg bid (n = 123). Patients were to be withdrawn from the studies if they developed an asthma event, as determined by predefined criteria, except for night-time awakenings, where withdrawal was left to the study physician’s judgment.

Results: Overall, fewer patients in the studies (study I, II, III, and IV, respectively) experienced ≧1 asthma event in the BUD/FM group (18.7%, 29.8%, 37.3%, 25.2%) versus the BUD group (21.5%, 44.0%, 45.3%, 31.7%); only study II results showed a statistically significant difference between treatments. Fewer patients with moderate to severe asthma (studies II, III, and IV) were withdrawn due to ≧1 asthma event in the BUD/FM group (10.5%, 11.8%, 3.1%, respectively) than in the BUD group (20.2%, 18.9%, 6.5%, respectively); however, percentages were similar in the BUD/FM (7.3%) and BUD (6.6%) groups in patients with mild to moderate asthma (study I).

Conclusions: Predefined asthma event rates were numerically or significantly lower for patients with asthma receiving BUD/FMpMDI versusBUD, regardless of race or disease severity. Differences between the BUD/FM pMDI and BUD groupswere smaller in patients with mild to moderate asthma than in those with moderate to severe asthma, most likely because patients with milder disease had lower asthma event rates. Overall, these findings support the efficacy of BUD/FM pMDI in achieving asthma control in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Long-term safety and asthma control measures with a budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in African American asthmatic patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Information surrounding the long-term safety of combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonist medications in African American asthmatic patients is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess safety and asthma control with a budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus budesonide over 1 year in African American patients.

METHODS

This 52-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3B safety study (NCT00419952) was conducted in 742 self-reported African American patients 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe asthma previously receiving medium- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. After 2 weeks using a 320 μg twice-daily budesonide pMDI, patients were randomized 1:1 to 320/9 μg twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI or 320 μg twice-daily budesonide pMDI.

RESULTS

Both treatments were well tolerated. Asthma exacerbation incidence and rate (per patient-treatment year) were lower with budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide (incidence, 7.7% vs 14.0% [P= .006]; rate ratio, 0.615 [P= .002]). Time to first asthma exacerbation was longer (P= .018) with budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide. The most common adverse events, regardless of study drug relationship, were headache (9.5% and 7.7%), nasopharyngitis (6.9% and 8.0%), sinusitis (4.0% and 6.3%), and viral upper respiratory tract infection (5.8% and 4.4%) for budesonide/formoterol and budesonide, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 12 and 15 patients, respectively; none were considered drug related. No substantial or unexpected patterns of abnormalities were observed in laboratory, electrocardiographic, or Holter monitoring assessments. Hospitalization caused by asthma exacerbation occurred in 0 and 4 patients in the budesonide/formoterol and budesonide groups, respectively. Pulmonary function and asthma control measures generally favored budesonide/formoterol.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population budesonide/formoterol pMDI was well tolerated over 12 months, with a safety profile similar to that of budesonide; the asthma exacerbation rate was reduced by 38.5% versus budesonide.