Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy versus budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial of efficacy and safety

Asthma management with triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination to reduce the risk of exacerbation: an umbrella review compliant with the PRIOR statement

INTRODUCTION

According to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) should be considered as add-on therapy in patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled, despite treatment with medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. In patients ≥ 18 years, LAMA may be added in triple combination with an ICS and a LABA. To date, the precise efficacy of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination remains uncertain concerning the impact on exacerbation risk in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, an umbrella review was performed to systematically summarize available data on the effect of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination on the risk of asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

An umbrella review has been performed according to the PRIOR statement.

RESULTS

The overall results obtained from 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduces the risk of asthma exacerbation. HD-ICS showed a greater effect particularly in reducing severe asthma exacerbation, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this umbrella review suggest an optimization of ICS dose in triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination, based on the severity of exacerbation and type 2 biomarkers expression.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Administered via a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and a Novel Breath-Actuated Inhaler in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol) exposures, following administration of Flutiform^® K-haler^®, a breath-actuated inhaler (BAI), were compared with the Flutiform pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with/without spacer in two healthy volunteer studies. In addition, formoterol-induced systemic pharmacodynamic (PD) effects were examined in the second study. Methods: Study 1: single-dose, three-period, crossover pharmacokinetic (PK) study with oral charcoal administration. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg was administered via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI with spacer (pMDI+S). Pulmonary exposure for BAI was deemed no less than for pMDI (primary comparator) if the lower limit of 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) for BAI:pMDI maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt) ratios was ≥80%. Study 2: two-stage adaptive design, both stages being single-dose, crossover without charcoal administration. The PK stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S. The primary comparisons were as follows: BAI versus pMDI+S for fluticasone and BAI versus pMDI for formoterol. Systemic safety with BAI was deemed no worse than primary comparator if the upper limit of 94.12% CIs for Cmax and AUCt ratios was ≤125%. PD assessment was to be conducted if BAI safety was not confirmed in the PK stage. Based on PK results, only formoterol PD effects were evaluated. The PD stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 1500/60 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S; fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 μg pMDI; and formoterol 60 μg pMDI. The primary endpoint was maximum reduction in serum potassium within 4 hours postdose. Equivalence was defined as 95% CIs for BAI versus pMDI+S and pMDI ratios within 0.5-2.0. Results: Study 1: lower limit of 94.12% CIs for BAI:pMDI ratios >80%. Study 2, PK stage: upper limit of 94.12% CIs for fluticasone (BAI:pMDI+S) ratios <125%; upper limit of 94.12% CIs for formoterol (BAI:pMDI) ratios >125% (for Cmax, not AUCt). Study 2, PD stage: 95% CIs for serum potassium ratios 0.7-1.3 (BAI:pMDI+S) and 0.4-1.5 (BAI:pMDI). Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol BAI performance was within the range observed for the pMDI with/without a spacer. Sponsor: Mundipharma Research Ltd. EudraCT 2012-003728-19 (Study 1) and 2013-000045-39 (Study 2).

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Comparing the Asthma Control and Anti-inflammatory Effects of Different Fixed Combinations of Inhaled Corticosteroids Plus Long-acting Beta 2 Agonist; A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Asthma is the most common chronic inflammatory disease of the pulmonary system. The prevalence of asthma is growing enormously worldwide posing a significant health and economic burden. Asthma treatment guidelines recommend a combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta 2 agonist (LABA). However, there is little guidance for clinicians on selecting a specific ICS/LABA combination. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of three fixed dose ICS/LABA combination therapies i.e., fluticasone/salmeterol, fluticasone/formoterol and budesonide/formoterol for the management of moderate to severe asthma. Design: This was a prospective interventional, three-armed, parallel group, open label, and randomized clinical trial Methods: Adult asthmatic patients of both genders (n=135) were randomly allocated to the three ICS/LABA treatment groups: fluticasone/salmeterol-treated group (n=45) , fluticasone/formoterol-treated group (n=45) and budesonide/formoterol-treated group (n=45). All groups were treated for three months. The main outcome parameters included lung function (FEV1, FEV1%, FEV1/FVC), inflammatory state (hs-CRP, ECP) and asthma control (ACT). Results: After 3 months of treatment, fluticasone/formoterol significantly increased FEV1 compared to fluticasone/salmeterol (p<0.01) and FEV1% compared to budesonide/formoterol (p<0.01). Both fluticasone-containing combinations significantly increased FEV1/FVC (p<0.001, p<0.001), decreased serum hs-CRP (p<0.01, p<0.001), and serum ECP (p<0.05, p<0.001) and improved ACT (p<0.05, p<0.01) compared to budesonide. Fluticasone/formoterol significantly reduced ECP in comparison to fluticasone/salmeterol (p<0.05). Conclusion: Our study showed a superiority for fluticasone-containing combinations over budesonide for the treatment of moderate to severe asthma. Within the former combinations, fluticasone/formoterol was better than fluticasone/salmeterol.

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Objectives. The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. Methods. The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. Results. A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, "patient suitability" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. Conclusions. Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perspective on the Budgetary Impact of FP/FORM pMDI on Treatment and Management of Exacerbation in Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients in Singapore

Purpose

Reducing the risk of exacerbation is a long-term goal of managing moderate-to-severe asthma. The use of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FORM) pressurized metered-dose (pMDI, Flutiform^®), a type of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination, has been associated with lower oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbation rates than other ICS/LABA fixed-dose combinations, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/FORM). This study presents the first budget impact analysis of drug and exacerbation management cost savings associated with the increased access to FP/FORM compared to the currently available ICS/LABAs for treating moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore.

Patients and Methods

A budget impact model showed changes to annual drug and exacerbation costs over 5 years for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma in Singapore, following the inclusion of FP/FORM on a government subsidy list. The eligible patient population was identified based on national statistics data. Different treatment costs pertaining to the population were applied according to the usage data (IQVIA Singapore National Sales Data) for different scenarios. Drug costs were obtained from public-sector hospitals. Exacerbation management costs were obtained from literature searches.

Results

The analysis showed that increased access to FP/FORM as a result of switching from FP/SAL could help achieve drug (S$1,042,289) and exacerbation management (S$223,550) cost savings over 5 years. In the scenario where patients switched from BUD/FORM, greater drug (S$2,572,797) and exacerbation management (S$256,781) cost savings were observed over 5 years.

Conclusion

The analysis provides a perspective that the increased access to FP/FORM could help achieve drug and exacerbation cost savings for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma.

Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence

Asthma is the commonest chronic disease affecting airways in humans and has an increasing global disease burden. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line therapeutic option for asthma, and addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) has been shown to improve asthma control. A combination of the two agents in a single inhaler is beneficial with regard to ease of administration and patient compliance. Various ICS-LABA formulations are available across various countries in the world, one among them being formoterol-fluticasone. Both formoterol and fluticasone have pharmacologic peculiarities which places the combination in a uniquely advantageous position when it comes to asthma therapy. The present review focuses on some of the, hitherto, less explored aspects of this combination inhaler such as real-world efficacy, impact on budget allocation, results of switch-over therapy, and potential to improve adherence to asthma treatment. It also provides practical recommendations on positioning it in real-world asthma management.

Comparative Safety Profile of the Fixed-Dose Combination Corticosteroid and Long-acting β2-Agonist Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate: A 36-Month Longitudinal Cohort Study in UK Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

The inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform^®) has been available as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy for asthma patients aged ≥ 12 years in the UK since 2012. This post-authorisation safety study examined adverse outcomes and prescribing practices for FP/FORM and other FDC ICS/LABA therapies in a real-life clinical setting over 36 months.

METHODS

Historical, longitudinal cohort database study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, for patients initiated on or switched to an FDC ICS/LABA (ENCePP study number: EUPAS12330). The main cohort was adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma. The primary outcome was incidence of new adverse outcomes after initiation of ICS/LABA; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for FP/FORM versus other FDC ICS/LABAs using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 241,007 patients with an FDC ICS/LABA prescription were identified. In the adult asthma cohort (N = 41,609), the incidence rate of new adverse outcomes [in 100 patient-years (py)] was significantly lower for FP/FORM (24.75) versus fluticasone/salmeterol metered-dose inhaler [8.86; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)], fluticasone/salmeterol dry powder inhaler [31.19; HR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29)], budesonide/formoterol [25.16; HR: 1.13 (1.03, 1.25)] and beclometasone/formoterol [25.47; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)]. The overall prescribing rate was lower for FP/FORM (13.85 per 1000/py) than licensed FDC ICS/LABA comparators (20.30-28.13 per 1000/py). Of those prescribed FP/FORM, 80.8% were adults with asthma and < 7% were prescribed FP/FORM "off-label".

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that FP/FORM was associated with an overall lower adverse outcome rate than the licensed comparators.

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for paediatric asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) for paediatric asthma remains controversial.

Aim

We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma.

Material and methods

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

Results

Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for paediatric asthma, FP/FORM and FP/SAL demonstrate a comparable influence on FEVj (Std. MD = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03; p = 0.62), FVC (Std. MD = 0; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.87), FEF25 (Std. MD = -1.69; 95% CI: -6.69 to 3.31; p = 0.51), FEF50 (Std. MD = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.33; p = 0.37), FEF75 (Std. MD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.24; p = 0.91), asthma symptom scores (Std. MD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.04; p = 0.43), sleep disturbance scores (Std. MD = 0.03; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.24; p = 0.81) and adverse events (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.38; p = 0.61).

Conclusions

FP/FORM and FP/SAL show a comparable efficacy for paediatric asthma.

Efficacy and Safety of a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler in Older Asthmatics: Comparison to a Dry Powder Inhaler in a 12-Week Randomized Trial

Purpose

Asthma control in older asthmatics is often less effective, which may be attributed to small airway dysfunction and poor inhalation technique. We compared the efficacy of 2 inhalers (fluticasone propionate/formoterol treatment using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler [p-MDI group] vs. fluticasone propionate/salmeterol treatment using a dry powder inhaler [DPI group]) in older asthmatics.

Methods

We conducted a 12-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-designed trial in older patients (over 55 years old) with moderate-to-severe asthma, and compared the efficacy and safety for asthma control between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses on disease duration and air trapping were performed. Clinical parameters, including changes in lung function parameters, inhaler technique and adherence, were compared with monitoring adverse reactions between the 2 groups.

Results

A total of 68 patients underwent randomization, and 63 (30 in the p-MDI group and 33 in the DPI group) completed this study. The p-MDI group was non-inferior to the DPI group with regard to the rate of well-controlled asthma (53.3% vs. 45.5%, P < 0.001; a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%). In subgroup analyses, the proportion of patients who did not reach well-controlled asthma in the p-MDI group was non-inferior to that in the DPI group; the difference was 12.7% among those with a longer disease duration (≥ 15 years) and 17.5% among those with higher air-trapping (RV/TLC ≥ 45%), respectively (a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lung function parameters, inhalation techniques, adherence and adverse reactions between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the p-MDI group may be comparable to the DPI group in the management of older asthmatics in aspects of efficacy and safety.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in treating pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during a 12-week treatment cycle.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL in treating pediatric asthma were searched systematically using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

Results

Two articles including 546 patients were evaluated. The FP/SAL group showed obvious improvements in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) from day 0 to 84, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores compared with the FP/FORM group; however, the FP/FORM group had improved peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). In terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ from day 0 to 84, 2-hour forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and 2-hour forced vital capacity, we observed no significant differences between the two groups. For safety, including patients with at least one adverse event, bronchitis, cough, or pharyngitis, both groups had similar incidences, differing only in incidence of nasopharyngitis.

Conclusion

Compared with FP/FORM, FP/SAL showed a clear improvement in pre-dose FEV₁, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores. However, FP/FORM resulted in improved PEFR with a lower incidence of nasopharyngitis.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management

Introduction:

In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform^®) was conducted.

Methods:

This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.

Results:

The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusion:

In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

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

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of current maintenance therapies consisting of different regimens of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with asthma. Methods: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to January 1, 2017. Randomized clinical trials comparing LABA combined with ICS in patients with asthma were selected. Results: Seventeen trials were included in the analysis, comprising 10,961 patients and seven treatment regimens. Our NMA revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between agents regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations. For adverse effects, there were no significant differences between the included studies. Moreover, six of the results showed no statistically significant differences between agents regarding symptom-free days. The heterogeneity and inconsistency analysis of the outcomes showed that there were no differences between the regimens. Conclusions: Our findings have shown that there were no statistically significant differences between the different regimens of LABA + ICS regarding the frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations, adverse events, and symptom-free days.

Pulmonary deposition of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in healthy volunteers, asthmatics and COPD patients with a novel breath-triggered inhaler

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) has been incorporated within a novel, breath-triggered device, named K-haler^®. This low resistance device requires a gentle inspiratory effort to actuate it, triggering at an inspiratory flow rate of approximately 30 L/min; thus avoiding the need for coordination of inhalation with manual canister depression. The aim of the study was to evaluate total and regional pulmonary deposition of FP/FORM when administered via the K-haler device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve healthy subjects, 12 asthmatics, and 12 COPD patients each received a single dose of 2 puffs ^99mtechnetium-labelled FP/FORM 125/5 μg. A gamma camera was used to obtain anterior and posterior two-dimensional images of drug deposition. Prior transmission scans (using a^99mtechnetium flood source) allowed the definition of regions of interest and calculation of attenuation correction factors. Image analysis was performed per standardised methods.

RESULTS

Of 36 subjects, 35 provided evaluable post-dose scintigraphic data. Mean subject ages were 35.7 (healthy), 44.5 (asthma) and 61.7 years (COPD); mean FEV₁% predicted values were 109.8%, 77.4% and 43.2%, respectively. Mean pulmonary deposition was 26.6% (healthy), 44.7% (asthma), 39.0% (COPD) of the delivered dose. The respective mean penetration indices (peripheral:central ratio normalised to a transmission lung scan) were 0.44, 0.31 and 0.30.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM administration via the K-haler device resulted in high lung deposition in patients with obstructive lung disease but somewhat lesser deposition in healthy subjects. Regional deposition data demonstrated drug deposition in both the central and peripheral regions in all subject populations.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2015-000744-42.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Real-life effectiveness of asthma treatment with a fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler - Results from a non-interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, non-interventional study of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) across a spectrum of community-based patients with asthma in a real-life setting.

METHODS

In FP/FORM-treated patients aged ≥12 years, asthma control (Asthma Control Test™ [ACT]), incidence of severe exacerbations, lung function, quality of life (asthma quality of life questionnaire [AQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over one year.

RESULTS

Almost 40% (n = 555) of the full analysis population (N = 1410) were receiving ICS/LABA therapy prior to enrolment; 69.8% completed the study. Asthma control (mean ACT ± standard deviation) improved from 16.3 ± 5.0 at baseline to 19.8 ± 4.5 at study end. ACT scores were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than baseline at all observation timepoints, including the first assessment at 4-6 weeks. The percentage of patients with asthma control increased (baseline: 30.9%; study end: 62.4%), and the percentage of patients with ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation decreased (12 months before: 35.8%; during study: 5.9%). Lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow) improved from baseline to each observation timepoint (p < 0.0001 for all). Improvement in asthma status was accompanied by ameliorated quality of life: AQLQ scores improved significantly from baseline to all observation timepoints (p < 0.0001 for all). AEs accorded with the summary of product characteristics. After study completion, 70% of patients continued FP/FORM treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this one-year study, FP/FORM treatment was associated with clinically relevant improvements in asthma status in a diverse population of patients under real-life conditions.

A Randomized, Crossover Trial Evaluating Patient Handling, Preference, and Ease of Use of the Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Breath-Triggered Inhaler

BACKGROUND

Appropriate inhaler selection is of fundamental importance in obstructive lung disease management. Key factors in device selection include a patient's capacity to operate a particular device and their preference for it.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover study (NCT01739387) compared the ability of adolescent and adult patients with obstructive lung disease to correctly handle the fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform^®) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and FP/FORM K-haler^®, a novel breath-triggered inhaler (BTI), following a simple, standardized training regimen. The primary endpoint was the ability to perform all steps correctly at the first attempt. Secondary endpoints included the ability to perform all critical steps correctly at the first attempt, the requisite number of attempts to successfully use the inhaler, the ability to be trained within 15 minutes, and the ability to trigger the K-haler BTI to actuate at the first attempt. Ease of device use and device preference versus patients' usual maintenance inhalers were also assessed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

At the first attempt, an identical proportion (77.2% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.1, 81.8]) of 307 patients performed all pMDI and K-haler BTI handling steps correctly, whereas the corresponding proportions performing all critical steps correctly were 82.4% (95% CIs: 77.7, 86.5) and 87.0% (95% CI: 82.7, 90.5), respectively. For both devices, >90% of patients required only two attempts to master device usage; >99% of patients could be trained to correctly use each device within 15 minutes. Virtually all patients (99.0% [95% CIs: 97.2, 99.8]) were able to successfully trigger the K-haler BTI's dose-release mechanism at first attempt. Ease of use and preference data for FP/FORM pMDI challenged the perceived wisdom that dry powder inhalers are necessarily simpler to use, whereas the corresponding data for FP/FORM K-haler strongly favored this novel BTI over the Turbuhaler^®, Accuhaler^®, and other pMDIs.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

[Fixed-dose combination fluticasone propionate/formoterol for the treatment of asthma: a review of its pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability]

The fixed-dose combination fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FPF) is a novel combination of a widely known and used inhaled glucocorticoid (IGC) and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), available for the first time in a single device. This fixed-dose combination of FPF has a demonstrated efficacy and safety profile in clinical trials compared with its individual components and other fixed-dose combinations of IGC/LABA and is indicated for the treatment of persistent asthma in adults and adolescents. FPF is available in a wide range of doses that can adequately cover the therapeutic steps recommended by treatment guidelines, constituting a fixed-dose combination of GCI/LABA that is effective, rapid, well tolerated and with a reasonable acquisition cost. Various assessment agencies of the Spanish Autonomous Communities consider this combination to be an appropriate alternative therapy for asthma in the primary care setting.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

A primary goal of asthma management is the reduction of exacerbation risk. We assessed the occurrence of oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbations (OCS exacerbations) with long-term fluticasone/formoterol therapy, and compared it with the occurrence of similar events reported with other inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations.

METHODS

The occurrence of OCS exacerbations was assessed in two open-label trials of fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol administered for between 26 to 60 weeks in adults and adolescents with asthma. The incidence of OCS exacerbations with fluticasone/formoterol was compared with those reported in three recent Cochrane meta-analyses of other ICS/LABAs.

RESULTS

The pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations with long-term fluticasone/formoterol was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1, 3.2%, n/N = 16/752). In only two of the nineteen treatment arms summarized by Cochrane did OCS exacerbation incidence approximate that seen in the two fluticasone/formoterol trials (single-inhaler fluticasone/salmeterol [2.9%]; separate inhaler budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus formoterol [3.4%]). In Lasserson's review the pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations for single-inhaler combinations was 9.5% (95% CI: 8.4, 10.6%; n/N = 239/2516) for fluticasone/salmeterol, and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.3, 11.8%; n/N = 257/2433) for budesonide/formoterol. In Ducharme's and Chauhan's meta-analyses (primarily incorporating separate inhaler combinations [fluticasone, budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus salmeterol or formoterol]), the pooled incidences of OCS exacerbations were 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 17.8%, n/N = 258/1615) and 16.7% (95% CI: 14.9, 18.5, n/N = 275/1643), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of exacerbations in two fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol studies was low and less than in the majority of comparable published studies involving other ICS/LABA combinations. This difference could not be readily explained by differences in features of the respective studies and may be related to the favorable pharmacological/mechanistic characteristics of the constituent components fluticasone and formoterol compared to other drugs in their respective classes.

Fixed-Dose combination of the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist therapy in adults with persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a respiratory condition characterized by airway inflammation, airflow obstruction, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The standard treatment of asthma comprises inhaled corticosteroid and beta2-agonist. Inhaled short-acting-beta2-agonists have been used as rescue medication for exacerbation. However, long-acting-beta2-agonists (LABA) used as monotherapy for asthma had been reported for having a safety concern. Consequently, it had been recommended as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in moderate to severe persistent asthma. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ICS and LABA has been approved since the year 2000. Evidences revealed using the combination of these medications is more effective in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

The rational and phase III onward randomized-controlled studies were reviewed. Sources of evidences were from studies published in Medline until November 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

There are six FDC inhaler regimens approved worldwide. The significant synergistic effects of ICS and LABA in one device are well evidenced. A FDC reduces the daily dosage of ICS and asthma exacerbation. It is safe to use regularly as controller. The efficacy of each individual combination on asthma treatment is generally similar. Clinical experience, ease of use, cost and side effects of medication would guide the clinician's preferences.

Health-related quality of life measurement in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of the 2009-2014 literature

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are frequent in the general population. These diseases can worsen the quality of life of people suffering from them, limiting their daily activities and disrupting their sleep at night. Some questionnaires to measure the impact of the diseases on the daily life of patients are available. The measurements of subjective outcomes have become a part of clinical practice, and are used very frequently in clinical trials. Our aim was to describe how data on HRQoL in asthma and COPD are reported in papers published in the medical literature.

METHODS

We identified papers on the recent respiratory drugs (chemical, not biological), that reported the HRQoL measurement and that were published from 2009 to April 2014. We planned to describe data about HRQoL, and we had no intention of comparing the degree of efficacy of drugs.

RESULTS

The most used questionnaires are the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). These tools, administered at the baseline and at the end of the study (and interim evaluations in the longer studies) allowed for the identification of improvements as perceived by the patient after the treatment, even if in some cases these improvements were limited and not clinically relevant. Subjective measurements have always been placed among the secondary endpoints and the number of patients (estimated for the main endpoint) has often statistically overestimated the result. In addition, it is clear that subjective data is normally reported, but rarely commented on.

CONCLUSIONS

There are some methodology aspects that should be discussed in more depth, for example the necessity to express variations in the subjective perception, not as p-value but as effect-size.

New and future strategies to improve asthma control in children

Symptomatic asthma in childhood has lifelong effects on lung function and disease severity, emphasizing the need for improved pediatric asthma control. Control of pediatric risk and impairment domains can be achieved through increased medication adherence or new therapeutic strategies. Developing electronic monitoring device technology with reminders might be a key noninvasive resource to address poor adherence in children and adolescents in a clinical setting. In patients who have persistently poor control despite optimal medication compliance, newly emerging pharmaceuticals, including inhaled therapies and biologics, might be key to their treatment. However, barriers exist to their development in the pediatric population, and insights must be drawn from adult studies, which has its own unique limitations. Biomarkers to direct the use of such potentially expensive therapies to those patients most likely to benefit are imperative. In this review the current literature regarding strategies to improve pediatric asthma control is addressed with the goal of exploring the potential and pitfalls of strategies that might be available in the near future.

A valid option for asthma control: Clinical evidence on efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol combination in a single inhaler

A good level of asthma control improves the quality of life of asthmatic patients and may prevent future risk in term of exacerbations and decline of pulmonary function. However, in a real-life setting, several factors contribute to generally low compliance to the treatment. A rapid-onset, long-lasting medication with few adverse effects may contribute to improve adherence to therapy, along with an effective patient education and a good physician-patient communication. Many clinical studies demonstrated the comparable efficacy of the new fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/F) combination in a single inhaler to other combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and β2agonists and the superiority of FP/F as compared to its individual components. Also the safety profile of this combination was encouraging in all studies, even at higher doses. By effectively and safely targeting both airway inflammation and smooth muscle dysfunction, the two pathological facets of asthma, and allowing the patient to adapt dose strength, FP/F combination in a single device represents a valid option to improve asthma control in patients with different levels of asthma severity.

Fluticasone-formoterol: a systematic review of its potential role in the treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the available published data regarding the efficacy and safety of a combination product containing fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP-F) in order to establish its potential role compared with other inhaled combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta2 receptor agonists for the maintenance treatment of asthma.

METHODS

A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted using the terms "fluticasone propionate", "formoterol fumarate", "Flutiform(®)", and "asthma" in July 2014 to identify trials using this combination specifically for the treatment of asthma. Additional information was gathered from references cited in the identified publications, the package insert, and the ClinicalTrials. gov registry. All randomized controlled clinical trials for humans in asthma were evaluated for inclusion. Data from animal trials, clinical trials for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and non-English sources were excluded.

RESULTS

Seven short-term safety and efficacy trials of FP-F compared with its individual components and two comparison trials of FP-F versus other combination products were identified. Generally, the incidence of drug-related adverse events was low and consistent with previously reported drug class-related adverse events (ie, pharyngitis, dysphonia, and headache). The combination of FP-F was shown to be noninferior to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for improving predose forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) and 2 hours post dose FEV1. FP-F was also noninferior to budesonide/formoterol in improving predose FEV1. Other clinical endpoints, including various symptom scores, asthma control, quality of life, and subjects' assessment of the medications were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Poor asthma control is common. The data from short-term studies indicate that this inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 receptor agonist combination product is non-inferior to similar combination products available. As FP-F is available in different strengths, the corticosteroid dose can be titrated without changing devices. A potential advantage is that those with good technique, the same type of device could be used for both their controller and rapid relief inhaler medicines. The choice of this combination versus other similar products may be based primarily on cost.

A review of standard pharmacological therapy for adult asthma – Steps 1 to 5

The aim of pharmacological therapy for asthma is to improve symptoms and lung function and minimize the risk of asthma attacks. The intensity of treatment is based on the level of asthma control and the potential risk of future deterioration. In the British asthma guidelines, treatments are divided into steps 1 to 5, with each step signifying a need for an increase in therapy in response to symptoms or to prevent exacerbations. Treatments comprise of inhaled or systemic medications. Inhaled therapy includes short-acting and long-acting medication to improve symptoms and inhaled corticosteroids that reduce airway inflammation. Systemic treatments include medications that act on specific biological pathways, such as the leukotriene or immunoglobulin E pathways, or systemic corticosteroids. In choosing a particular therapy, treatment benefits are balanced by the potential risks of medication-related adverse effects. This review will provide a practical guide to the key pharmacological therapies for adult asthma at steps 1 to 5 based on British guidelines and consider future options for new treatments.

Efficacy of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in the treatment of asthma: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate have been combined in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) for the maintenance treatment of asthma. This pooled analysis assessed the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone in patients who previously received inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Data were pooled from five randomised studies in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years) treated for 8 or 12 weeks with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10, 250/10 or 500/20 μg b.i.d.; n = 528 delivered via pMDI) or fluticasone alone (100, 250 or 500 μg b.i.d.; n = 527).

RESULTS

Fluticasone/formoterol provided significantly greater increases than fluticasone alone in mean morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at study end (least-squares mean [LSM] treatment difference: 0.146L; p < 0.001) and in pre-dose FEV1 from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 0.048 L; p = 0.043). Compared with fluticasone, fluticasone/formoterol provided greater increases in the percentage of asthma control days (no symptoms, no rescue medication use and no sleep disturbance due to asthma) from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 8.6%; p < 0.001), and was associated with a lower annualised rate of exacerbations (rate ratio: 0.71; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, fluticasone/formoterol provides clinically significant improvements in lung function and asthma control measures, with a lower incidence of exacerbations than fluticasone alone.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol: a fixed-combination therapy with flexible dosage

International guidelines describe asthma control as the main outcome of asthma management. Prevention of symptoms, improved quality of life, and reduction of exacerbations are the main components, consequently decreasing health care costs. However, many of these objectives remain unmet in real life: several surveys show that a large proportion of asthmatic patients are not well controlled despite the efficacy of current available treatment. Several randomized controlled clinical trials indicate that combining inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists, by means of a single inhaler, greatly improves the management of the disease. The results of 9 multicenter phase III clinical studies demonstrate that the fixed combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in a single inhaler is effective in terms of lung function and symptom control. These studies highlight the dose flexibility, safety and tolerability of this new inhaled combination. These characteristics meet the recommendations of international guidelines, and the preferences of respiratory physicians who identified these aspects as critical components of a successful asthma therapy. Combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in a single inhaler provides potent anti-inflammatory activity of fluticasone propionate and rapid onset of action of the β2-agonist formoterol making this association a viable treatment option both in terms of effectiveness and compliance.

Clinical utility and development of the fluticasone/formoterol combination formulation (Flutiform(®)) for the treatment of asthma

Pharmacologic treatment of asthma should be done with a stepwise approach recommended in treatment guidelines. If inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone are not adequate, ICSs in combination with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) are now established and widely used as the next step in effective controller therapy. Fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations in a single device are the preferred form of delivery and improve compliance by enabling patients to get symptom relief from the LABA while receiving the anti-inflammatory benefits of ICSs. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate is one of the newest fixed-dose combinations. It has been in use in Europe in 2012, but is still under regulatory review in the US. Fluticasone is a synthetic ICS with potent anti-inflammatory effects, while formoterol is a selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist with a rapid onset of bronchodilation within 5-10 minutes and a 12-hour duration of action. Fluticasone/formoterol has shown superior efficacy when compared to fluticasone or formoterol alone in multiple well-designed studies. The combination has shown comparable or "noninferior" benefits in lung function, clinical symptoms, and asthma control when compared with fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently in separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol provides similar efficacy with fluticasone/salmeterol, but with more rapid symptom relief. It has been compared directly with budesonide/formoterol with comparable results. Fluticasone/formoterol is well tolerated, with no unusual or increased safety concerns versus each individual component or other available ICS/LABA combinations. Fluticasone/formoterol is the latest entry into a relatively crowded market of branded fixed-dose preparations. Upcoming generic fixed-dose combinations and once-daily agents pose significant market challenges. In clinical practice, most practitioners consider all the currently available fixed-dose preparations to be of comparable efficacy and safety.

Newer glucocorticosteroids and corticosteroid resistance reversal in asthma

Inflammation is the hallmark of asthma. Glucocorticosteroids inhibit this inflammation and are the mainstay of therapy in asthma, however, they suffer from their own drawbacks. They possess high potency but their continued use has a negative influence on health. Hence, quest for a steroid with good potency but without the undesirable effects is ongoing. Besides, steroid resistance is a problem in a substantial proportion of severe asthmatics. Deeper insight into the molecular mechanism of this refractoriness has led to the successful trial of certain drugs to overcome this problem. This review attempts to discuss some of the patents related to improved glucocorticoids and those agents that have the potential to restore steroid sensitivity in severe asthmatics.

[A new fixed dose combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler for the treatment of asthma]

The combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting beta-2 agonist is indicated for the regular treatment of persistent moderate-to-severe asthmatics whose asthma is not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and the occasional use of a short acting beta-2 agonist. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the rationale of combining formoterol and fluticasone and to analyze the clinical data concerning a new fixed combination of fluticasone and formoterol in a pressurised metered-dose inhaler with a dose counter (Flutiform(®)) that was approved for the treatment of asthma in France in 2013. The clinical studies provide evidence that combined fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone (Flixotide(®)) and formoterol (Foradil(®)) administered concurrently. The combination of fluticasone/formoterol gave a more rapid bronchodilatation than the combination fluticasone/salmeterol. As a whole, the combination of fluticasone/formoterol had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to the combinations of either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in fixed-dose combination for the treatment of asthma

A new combination inhaler containing fluticasone, a potent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and formoterol, a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) with rapid onset and sustained bronchodilator effect, has been approved for treatment of persistent asthma in patients ≥12 years of age requiring combination ICS-LABA therapy. The fluticasone/formoterol combination, delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler and available in three dose strengths, has demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile in trials of up to 1 year. The efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol is greater than that of fluticasone or formoterol alone and noninferior to that of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in tightly controlled 8-12-week clinical trials. Advantages of the fluticasone/formoterol combination aerosol include rapid onset of bronchodilation, an attribute preferred by patients, and emission of a high fine-particle fraction that is consistent at different flow rates, which may aid consistency of delivery (given patient variability in inhalation maneuvers) and provide real-life benefits.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate: a review of its use in persistent asthma

The corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor agonist formoterol fumarate (formoterol) have been combined in a single, pressurized, metered-dose, aerosol inhaler for the maintenance treatment of patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone/formoterol, with a brief summary of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the individual drugs. In well designed 8- and 12-week clinical trials in patients with asthma, twice-daily fluticasone/formoterol 100/10, 250/10 (adults and adolescents) or 500/20 μg (adults only) demonstrated rapid and sustained improvements in lung function and asthma control. Improvements achieved with the fixed combination were greater than those achieved with placebo or monotherapy with either of the same respective dosages of fluticasone or formoterol, and similar to those demonstrated when the individual components were administered via separate inhalers concurrently. The efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol was noninferior to that of fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol. Fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a faster onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol. Fluticasone/formoterol was generally well tolerated, including during treatment periods of up to 12 months. The tolerability profile of fluticasone/formoterol was generally similar to that of fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol.

Fluticasone/formoterol dry powder versus budesonide/formoterol in adults and adolescents with uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma

This 12-week study compared the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol (FL/F) 250/12 μg b.i.d. administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) (Libbs Farmacêutica, Brazil) to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol (BD/F) 400/12 μg b.i.d. After a 2-week run-in period (in which all patients were treated exclusively with budesonide plus formoterol), patients aged 12-65 years of age (N = 196) with uncontrolled asthma were randomized into an actively-controlled, open-labeled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III study. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority, measured by morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF). The non-inferiority was demonstrated. A statistically significant improvement from baseline was observed in both groups in terms of lung function, asthma control, and the use of rescue medication. FL/F demonstrated a statistical superiority to BD/F in terms of lung function (FEV(1)) (p = 0.01) and for asthma control (p = 0.02). Non-significant between-group differences were observed with regards to exacerbation rates and adverse events. In uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma patients, the use of a combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol via DPI for 12-weeks was non-inferior and showed improvements in FEV(1) and asthma control when compared to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol. (

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ISRCTN60408425).

Fluticasone/formoterol: a new single-aerosol combination therapy for patients with asthma

International asthma management guidelines recommend a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy. Treatment with a single inhaler containing an ICS/LABA combination is advocated because it may facilitate adherence to a regimen. When prescribing ICS/LABA combination therapy, the potency of the ICS and the speed of onset of the LABA are considered important factors; therefore, an inhaled therapy containing components with these properties may be valued by physicians. The ICS fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) has potent and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, and the LABA formoterol fumarate (formoterol) provides rapid bronchodilation; the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents have been well established in clinical practice. Fluticasone and formoterol have been combined, for the first time, in a single hydrofluoroalkane-based aerosol (flutiform®; fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate). Here, we review data from the published randomized, controlled, clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of this product. It has been shown that fluticasone/formoterol is more efficacious than fluticasone or formoterol given alone, and provides similar improvements in lung function to fluticasone and formoterol administered concurrently via separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol, but with the additional benefit of more rapid bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol.