PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (781119)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on asthma exacerbations 
This randomised, double-blind, 6-month study compared budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with salmeterol/fluticasone and a fixed maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol, both with terbutaline for relief. Following a 2-week run-in, 3335 symptomatic adults and adolescents (mean FEV1 73% predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid dose 745 μg/day) received budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg one inhalation bid plus additional inhalations as needed, salmeterol/fluticasone 25/125 μg two inhalations bid plus as-needed terbutaline or budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg one inhalation bid plus as-needed terbutaline. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, emergency room treatment or oral steroids (primary variable) vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol (p = 0.0034 and p = 0.023 respectively; log-rank test). Exacerbation rates were 19, 16 and 12 events/100 patients/6 months for salmeterol/fluticasone, fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief, respectively, [rate reduction vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (0.61; 95% CI 0.49–0.76, p < 0.001) and vs. fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol (0.72; 95% CI 0.57–0.90, p = 0.0048)]. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and relief patients used less inhaled corticosteroid vs. salmeterol/fluticasone and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol patients. All treatments provided similar marked improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduces asthma exacerbations and maintains similar daily asthma control at a lower overall drug load compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01338.x
PMCID: PMC1920547  PMID: 17362472
2.  Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events 
Background
An increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta2-agonists) in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in comparison with placebo in previous Cochrane reviews. This increase was significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid. However, systematic reviews of trials in which each drug was randomised with an inhaled corticosteroid did not demonstrate significant increases in serious adverse events. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to be sure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta2-agonists completely safe; there were fewer participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials to come to a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.
Objectives
We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment.
Search methods
We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers’ websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was August 2011.
Selection criteria
We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks duration.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors.
Main results
Ten studies on 6769 adults and adolescents met the eligibility criteria of the review. Seven studies (involving 5935 adults and adolescents) compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone. All but one study administered the products as a combined inhaler, and most used formoterol 12 μg and budesonide 400 μg twice daily versus salmeterol 50 μg and fluticasone 250 μg twice daily. There were two deaths overall (one on each combination) and neither were thought to be related to asthma.
There was no significant difference between treatment groups (formoterol/budesonide versus salmeterol/fluticasone) for non-fatal serious adverse events, either all-cause (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59, I2 = 26%) or asthma-related (Peto OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26, I2 = 33%). Over 23 weeks the rates for all-cause serious adverse events were 2.6% on formoterol and budesonide and 2.3% on salmeterol and fluticasone, and for asthma-related serious adverse events, 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.
There was one study (228 adults) comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone, but there were no deaths or hospital admissions. One study (404 adults) compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone for 52 weeks, but the small number of events leaves considerable uncertainty about the comparative safety of the two products. Similarly one study (202 adults) compared formoterol and fluticasone with salmeterol and fluticasone, but there was only one serious adverse event in each group.
No studies were found in children.
Authors’ conclusions
The seven identified studies in adults did not show any significant difference in safety between formoterol and budesonide in comparison with salmeterol and fluticasone. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths. There was a single, small study comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, a single study comparing formoterol and mometasone with salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, and a single study comparing formoterol and fluticasone with salmeterol and fluticasone in adults.
No studies were found in children, so no conclusion can be drawn for this age group.
Overall there is insufficient evidence to decide whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclometasone, fluticasone or mometasone have equivalent or different safety profiles from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007694.pub2
PMCID: PMC4015852  PMID: 20091646
Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol [administration & dosage; adverse effects; *analogs & derivatives]; Androstadienes [administration & dosage; adverse effects]; Anti-Asthmatic Agents [administration & dosage; *adverse effects]; Asthma [*drug therapy; mortality]; Budesonide [administration & dosage; adverse effects]; Drug Therapy, Combination [adverse effects]; Ethanolamines [administration & dosage; *adverse effects]; Glucocorticoids [administration & dosage; *adverse effects]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adolescent; Adult; Humans
3.  A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany 
Aims:
This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting.
Methods:
Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting β2-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as ≥1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.
Results:
There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n=1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n=982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (−33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (−31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (−13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion:
This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01895.x
PMCID: PMC2680329  PMID: 18803555
4.  Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid versus beta2-agonist as relief medication for chronic asthma in adults and children 
Background
Formoterol has a fast onset of action and can therefore be used to relieve symptoms of asthma. A combination inhaler can deliver formoterol with different doses of inhaled corticosteroid; when used as a reliever both drugs will be delivered more frequently when asthma symptoms increase. This has the potential to treat both bronchoconstriction and inflammation in the early stages of exacerbations.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy and safety of combined inhalers containing both formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid when used for reliever therapy in adults and children with chronic asthma.
Search methods
We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in April 2009, and no new studies were found for inclusion in the review.
Selection criteria
Randomised trials in adults and children with chronic asthma, where a combination inhaler containing formoterol and inhaled corticosteroid is compared with fast-acting beta2-agonist alone for the relief of asthma symptoms. This should be the only planned difference between the trial arms.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes.
Main results
Three trials involving 5905 participants were included. In patients with mild asthma who do not need maintenance treatment, no clinically important advantages of budesonide/formoterol as reliever were found in comparison to formoterol as reliever.
Two studies enrolled patients with more severe asthma who were not controlled on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (around 700 mcg/day in adults), and had suffered a clinically important asthma exacerbation in the past year. Hospitalisations related to asthma in the two studies comparing budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with the same dose of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance with terbutaline for relief yielded an odds ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.16), which was not a statistically significant reduction. In adults there was a reduction in exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids compared to terbutaline, odds ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.65), which translates into a number needed to treat over 12 months of 15 (95% CI 13 to 21). The study in children found less serious adverse events with budesonide/formoterol used for maintenance and relief. There was no significant difference in annual growth in children using budesonide/formoterol reliever in comparison to terbutaline.
Authors’ conclusions
In mild asthma it is not yet known whether patients who use a budesonide/formoterol inhaler for relief of asthma symptoms derive any clinically important benefits. In more severe asthma, two studies enrolled patients who were not controlled on inhaled corticosteroids, and had suffered an exacerbation in the previous year, and then had their maintenance inhaled corticosteroids reduced in both arms of the study. Under these conditions the studies demonstrated a reduction in the risk of exacerbations that require oral corticosteroids with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in comparison with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and terbutaline or formoterol for relief. The incidence of serious adverse events in children was also less using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief in one study, which similarly enrolled children who were not controlled on inhaled corticosteroids, and who had their maintenance inhaled corticosteroids reduced at the start of the study. This study also compared an explorative maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol that is not approved for treatment.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007085.pub2
PMCID: PMC4023854  PMID: 19160317
Administration, Inhalation; Anti-Asthmatic Agents [*administration & dosage]; Asthma [*drug therapy]; Bronchial Diseases [drug therapy]; Bronchodilator Agents [*administration & dosage]; Budesonide [*administration & dosage]; Chronic Disease; Constriction, Pathologic [drug therapy]; Drug Combinations; Ethanolamines [*administration & dosage]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terbutaline [administration & dosage]; Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans
5.  Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol in the treatment of asthma, but has a more rapid onset of action: an open-label, randomized study 
Background
The inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (formoterol) are being made available as a combination product (fluticasone/formoterol, flutiform®) in a single aerosol inhaler. This 12-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the commercially available combination product fluticasone/salmeterol.
Methods
Patients aged ≥ 18 years (N = 202) with mild-to-moderate–severe, persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in the study. After a screening phase (4–10 days), eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive fluticasone/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol during the 12-week treatment period. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol, measured by pre-dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), at week 12.
Results
Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary efficacy endpoint, mean pre-dose FEV1 at week 12. The new combination was also comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for change from baseline to week 12 in pre-dose FEV1, change from pre-dose FEV1 at baseline to 2-hour post-dose FEV1 at week 12 and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Importantly, fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone/salmeterol in time to onset of action throughout the duration of the study. The two treatments demonstrated similar results for various other secondary efficacy parameters, including other lung function tests, patient-reported outcomes, rescue medication use, asthma exacerbations and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Fluticasone/formoterol was well tolerated and had a good safety profile that was similar to fluticasone/salmeterol.
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that fluticasone/formoterol is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol, and has a more rapid onset of action, reflecting the faster bronchodilatory effects of formoterol compared with those of salmeterol. If patients perceive the benefits of therapy with fluticasone/formoterol more rapidly than with fluticasone/salmeterol, this could have a positive impact on preference and adherence.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00476073
doi:10.1186/1471-2466-11-28
PMCID: PMC3146950  PMID: 21605396
6.  Formoterol versus short-acting beta-agonists as relief medication for adults and children with asthma 
Background
Formoterol is a long-acting beta2-agonist but because it has a fast onset of action it can also be used as a relief medication.
Objectives
To asses the efficacy and safety of formoterol as reliever therapy in comparison to short-acting beta2-agonists in adults and children with asthma.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and websites of clinical trial registers (for unpublished trial data), and we checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2010.
Selection criteria
Randomised, parallel-arm trials of at least 12 weeks duration in patients of any age and severity of asthma. Studies randomised patients to any dose of as-needed formoterol versus short-acting beta2-agonist. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids or other maintenance medication was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. We sought unpublished data on primary outcomes.
Main results
This review includes eight studies conducted in 22,604 participants (mostly adults). Six studies compared formoterol as-needed to terbutaline whilst two studies compared formoterol with salbutamol as-needed. Background maintenance therapy varied across the trials. Asthma exacerbations and serious adverse events showed a direction of treatment effect favouring formoterol, of which one outcome reached statistical significance (exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids). In patients on short-acting beta2-agonists, 117 people out of 1000 had exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over 30 weeks, compared to 101 (95% CI 93 to 108) out of 1000 for patients on formoterol as-needed. In patients on maintenance inhaled corticosteroids there were also significantly fewer exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids on formoterol as-needed (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.91). There was one death per 1000 people on formoterol or on short-acting beta2-agonists.
Authors’ conclusions
In adults, formoterol was similar to short-acting beta2-agonists when used as a reliever, and showed a reduction in the number of exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids. Clinicians should weigh the relatively modest benefits of formoterol as-needed against the benefits of single inhaler therapy and the potential danger of long-term use of long-acting beta2-agonists in some patients. We did not find evidence to recommend changes to guidelines that suggest that long-acting beta2-agonists should be given only to patients already taking inhaled corticosteroids.
There was insufficient information reported from children in the included trials to come to any conclusion on the safety or efficacy of formoterol as relief medication for children with asthma.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008418.pub2
PMCID: PMC4034434  PMID: 20824877
7.  A systematic review of economic evaluations of therapy in asthma 
Background:
Asthma’s cost-effectiveness is a major consideration in the evaluation of its treatment options. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of asthma medications.
Methods:
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OHE-HEED, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessments Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Web of Science and reviewed references from key articles between 1990 and Jan 2008.
Results:
A total of 49 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Maintenance therapy with inhaled corticosteroids was found to be very cost-effective and in uncontrolled asthmatics patients currently being treated with ICS, the combination of an ICS/LABA represents a safe, cost-effective treatment. The simplified strategy using budesonide and formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy was also found to be as cost-effective as salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol. Omalizumab was found to be cost-effective. An important caveat with regard to the published literature is the relatively high proportion of economic evaluations which are funded by the manufacturers of specific drug treatments.
Conclusion:
Future studies should be completed independent of industry support and ensure that the comparator arms within studies should include dosages of drugs that are equivalent.
PMCID: PMC3047905  PMID: 21437038
asthma; medication; cost-effectiveness; cost of illness; economic costs
8.  Onset of relief of dyspnoea with budesonide/formoterol or salbutamol following methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction in adults with asthma: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study 
Respiratory Research  2006;7(1):141.
Background
The long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) formoterol has an onset of effect comparable to that of salbutamol. Consequently, the combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler, approved for maintenance use, can potentially be used for reliever therapy. This study compared the onset of relief from induced bronchospasm with a single dose of budesonide/formoterol versus standard salbutamol therapy in patients with asthma.
Methods
In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 32 patients with asthma underwent a methacholine provocation test leading to a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥30% at enrolment (Visit 1) and three subsequent study visits (Visits 2–4). Immediately after each provocation at Visits 2–4, patients received one of three test treatments: one inhalation of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg (via Turbuhaler®), two inhalations of salbutamol 100 μg (via a pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI]) or placebo. All patients received each of the test treatments in a randomised order, after separate methacholine provocations. The effect of treatment on FEV1 and breathlessness (using the Borg scale) was measured at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after test treatment.
Results
Following methacholine provocation, Borg score increased from a baseline value of below 0.5 to 3.03, 3.31 and 3.50 before treatment with budesonide/formoterol, salbutamol and placebo, respectively. Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol reversed methacholine-induced dyspnoea (breathlessness) rapidly. At 1 minute after inhalation, statistically significant decreases in Borg score were observed for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol (p = 0.0233 and p < 0.0001, respectively, versus placebo), with similar rapid increases in FEV1 (both active treatments p < 0.0001 versus placebo). The median time to 50% recovery in Borg score after methacholine provocation was 3 minutes with budesonide/formoterol, 2 minutes with salbutamol and 10 minutes with placebo. All treatments and procedures were well tolerated.
Conclusion
Single doses of budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol both provided rapid relief of dyspnoea and reversal of severe airway obstruction in patients with asthma with experimentally induced bronchoconstriction. The perception of relief, as confirmed by objective lung function assessment, provides evidence that budesonide/formoterol can be used as reliever medication in asthma.
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-7-141
PMCID: PMC1713239  PMID: 17144916
9.  Budesonide/formoterol as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol in acute exacerbations of COPD A double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study 
Respiratory Research  2009;10(1):11.
Background
Oral corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators with or without antibiotics represent standard treatment of COPD exacerbations of moderate severity. Frequent courses of oral steroids may be a safety issue. We wanted to evaluate in an out-patient setting whether a 2-week course of inhaled budesonide/formoterol would be equally effective for treatment of acute COPD exacerbations as standard therapy in patients judged by the investigator not to require hospitalisation.
Methods
This was a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing two treatment strategies; two weeks' treatment with inhaled budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, qid) was compared with prednisolone (30 mg once daily) plus inhaled formoterol (9 μg bid) in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD attending a primary health care centre. Inclusion criteria were progressive dyspnoea for less than one week, FEV1 30–60% of predicted normal after acute treatment with a single dose of oral corticosteroid plus nebulised salbutamol/ipratropium bromide and no requirement for subsequent immediate hospitalisation, i.e the clinical status after the acute treatment allowed for sending the patient home.
A total of 109 patients (mean age 67 years, 33 pack-years, mean FEV1 45% of predicted) were randomized to two weeks' double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol or prednisolone plus formoterol and subsequent open-label budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg bid) for another 12 weeks. Change in FEV1 was the primary efficacy variable. Non-inferiority was predefined.
Results
Non-inferiority of budesonide/formoterol was proven because the lower limit of FEV1-change (97.5% CI) was above 90% of the efficacy of the alternative treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, treatment failures, need for reliever medication (and exacerbations during follow-up) did not differ between the groups. No safety concerns were identified.
Conclusion
High dose budesonide/formoterol was as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol for the ambulatory treatment of acute exacerbations in non-hospitalized COPD patients. An early increase in budesonide/formoterol dose may therefore be tried before oral corticosteroids are used.
Clinical trial registration
NCT00259779
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-10-11
PMCID: PMC2653467  PMID: 19228428
10.  Outcomes and costs of treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with inhaled fixed combinations: the Italian perspective of the PATHOS study 
Purpose
Fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists have proven to prevent and reduce chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. The aim of this analysis was to explore the clinical consequences and direct health care costs of applying the findings of the PATHOS (An Investigation of the Past 10 Years Health Care for Primary Care Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) study to the Italian context.
Patients and methods
Effectiveness data from the PATHOS study, a population-based, retrospective, observational registry study conducted in Sweden, in terms of reduction in COPD and pneumonia-related hospitalizations, were considered, in order to estimate the differences in resource consumption between patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol. The base case considers the average dosages of the two drugs reported in the PATHOS study and the actual public price in charges to the Italian National Health Service, while the difference in hospitalization rates reported in the PATHOS study was costed based on Italian real-world data.
Results
The PATHOS study demonstrated a significant reduction in COPD hospitalizations and pneumonia-related hospitalizations in patients treated with budesonide/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol (−29.1% and −42%, respectively). In the base case, the treatment of a patient for 1 year with budesonide/formoterol led to a saving of €499.90 (€195.10 for drugs, €193.10 for COPD hospitalizations, and €111.70 for pneumonia hospitalizations) corresponding to a −27.6% difference compared with fluticasone/salmeterol treatment.
Conclusion
Treatment of COPD with budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone/salmeterol could lead to a reduction in direct health care costs, with relevant improvement in clinical outcomes.
doi:10.2147/COPD.S65693
PMCID: PMC4051514  PMID: 24940053
disease management; pharmacoeconomics; direct health care costs; hospitalizations
11.  The effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on the risk of severe asthma exacerbations following episodes of high reliever use: an exploratory analysis of two randomised, controlled studies with comparisons to standard therapy 
Respiratory Research  2012;13(1):59.
Background
Divergent strategies have emerged for the management of severe asthma. One strategy utilises high and fixed doses of maintenance treatment, usually inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA), supplemented by a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) as needed. Alternatively, budesonide/formoterol is used as both maintenance and reliever therapy. The latter is superior to fixed-dose treatment in reducing severe exacerbations while achieving similar or better asthma control in other regards. Exacerbations may be reduced by the use of budesonide/formoterol as reliever medication during periods of unstable asthma. We examined the risk of a severe exacerbation in the period after a single day with high reliever use.
Methods
Episodes of high reliever use were quantified and exacerbations occurring post-index day with these episodes were examined post hoc in two double-blind studies comparing the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART™, Turbuhaler®) 160/4.5 μg twice daily plus as needed with similar or higher maintenance doses of ICS/LABA plus SABA or formoterol.
Results
Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the risk of episodes of high reliever use (>6 inhalations/day) vs. all alternative ICS/LABA regimens. With conventional fixed-dose treatment the need for exacerbation treatment within 21 days ranged from 6.0–10.1% of days post-index for all regimens compared with 2.5–3.4% of days with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy.
Conclusions
Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces the incidence of high reliever episodes and the exacerbation burden immediately following these episodes vs. alternative ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at up to double the maintenance dose of ICS.
Trial registration
These studies do not have registration numbers as they were conducted before clinical trial registration was required
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-13-59
PMCID: PMC3561645  PMID: 22816878
Asthma; Asthma in primary care
12.  Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews 
Background
Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.
Objectives
We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.
Methods
We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).
The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.
Main results
We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.
Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.
We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I2 = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I2 = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I2 = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I2 = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).
We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta2-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.
We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).
Authors’ conclusions
We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.
Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.
The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010005.pub2
PMCID: PMC4022036  PMID: 23076961
Albuterol [administration & dosage; adverse effects; *analogs & derivatives]; Anti-Asthmatic Agents [administration & dosage; *adverse effects]; Asthma [drug therapy; mortality]; Drug Therapy, Combination [methods]; Ethanolamines [administration & dosage; *adverse effects]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Child; Humans
13.  Pneumonia and pneumonia related mortality in patients with COPD treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long acting β2 agonist: observational matched cohort study (PATHOS) 
Objective To investigate the occurrence of pneumonia and pneumonia related events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with two different fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2 agonist.
Design Observational retrospective pairwise cohort study matched (1:1) for propensity score.
Setting Primary care medical records data linked to Swedish hospital, drug, and cause of death registry data for years 1999-2009.
Participants Patients with COPD diagnosed by a physician and prescriptions of either budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol.
Main outcome measures Yearly pneumonia event rates, admission to hospital related to pneumonia, and mortality.
Results 9893 patients were eligible for matching (2738 in the fluticasone/salmeterol group; 7155 in the budesonide/formoterol group), yielding two matched cohorts of 2734 patients each. In these patients, 2115 (39%) had at least one recorded episode of pneumonia during the study period, with 2746 episodes recorded during 19 170 patient years of follow up. Compared with budesonide/formoterol, rate of pneumonia and admission to hospital were higher in patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol: rate ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.57 to 1.90; P<0.001) and 1.74 (1.56 to 1.94; P<0.001), respectively. The pneumonia event rate per 100 patient years for fluticasone/salmeterol versus budesonide/formoterol was 11.0 (10.4 to 11.8) versus 6.4 (6.0 to 6.9) and the rate of admission to hospital was 7.4 (6.9 to 8.0) versus 4.3 (3.9 to 4.6). The mean duration of admissions related to pneumonia was similar for both groups, but mortality related to pneumonia was higher in the fluticasone/salmeterol group (97 deaths) than in the budesonide/formoterol group (52 deaths) (hazard ratio 1.76, 1.22 to 2.53; P=0.003). All cause mortality did not differ between the treatments (1.08, 0.93 to 1.14; P=0.59).
Conclusions There is an intra-class difference between fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2 agonist with regard to the risk of pneumonia and pneumonia related events in the treatment of patients with COPD.
Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov NCT01146392.
doi:10.1136/bmj.f3306
PMCID: PMC3666306  PMID: 23719639
14.  Single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) of asthma: a critical appraisal 
Thorax  2010;65(8):747-752.
The use of a combination inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol as both maintenance and quick relief therapy (SMART) has been recommended as an improved method of using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy. Published double-blind trials show that budesonide/formoterol therapy delivered in SMART fashion achieves better asthma outcomes than budesonide monotherapy or lower doses of budesonide/formoterol therapy delivered in constant dosage. Attempts to compare budesonide/formoterol SMART therapy with regular combination ICS/LABA dosing using other compounds have been confounded by a lack of blinding and unspecified dose adjustment strategies. The asthma control outcomes in SMART-treated patients are poor; it has been reported that only 17.1% of SMART-treated patients are controlled. In seven trials of 6–12 months duration, patients using SMART have used quick reliever daily (weighted average 0.92 inhalations/day), have awakened with asthma symptoms once every 7–10 days (weighted average 11.5% of nights), have suffered asthma symptoms more than half of days (weighted average 54.0% of days) and have had a severe exacerbation rate of one in five patients per year (weighted average 0.22 severe exacerbations/patient/year). These poor outcomes may reflect the recruitment of a skewed patient population. Although improvement from baseline has been attributed to these patients receiving additional ICS therapy at pivotal times, electronic monitoring has not been used to test this hypothesis nor the equally plausible hypothesis that patients who are non-compliant with maintenance medication have used budesonide/formoterol as needed for self-treatment of exacerbations. Although the long-term consequences of SMART therapy have not been studied, its use over 1 year has been associated with significant increases in sputum and biopsy eosinophilia. At present, there is no evidence that better asthma treatment outcomes can be obtained by moment-to-moment symptom-driven use of ICS/LABA therapy than conventional physician-monitored and adjusted ICS/LABA therapy.
doi:10.1136/thx.2009.128504
PMCID: PMC2975956  PMID: 20581409
Budesonide; formoterol; compliance; asthma control; exacerbation; study design; asthma; asthma guidelines; asthma pharmacology; perception of asthma/breathlessness
15.  The bioavailability and airway clearance of the steroid component of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone after inhaled administration in patients with COPD and healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial 
Respiratory Research  2009;10(1):104.
Background
Airway absorption and bioavailability of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) may be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetic properties such as lipophilicity and patient characteristics such as lung function. This study aimed to further investigate and clarify the distribution of budesonide and fluticasone in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by measuring the systemic availability and sputum concentration of budesonide and fluticasone, administered via combination inhalers with the respective long-acting β2-agonists, formoterol and salmeterol.
Methods
This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover, multicenter study. Following a run-in period, 28 patients with severe COPD (mean age 65 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] 37.5% predicted normal) and 27 healthy subjects (mean age 31 years, FEV1 103.3% predicted normal) received two single-dose treatments of budesonide/formoterol (400/12 μg) and salmeterol/fluticasone (50/500 μg), separated by a 4–14-day washout period. ICS concentrations were measured over 10 hours post-inhalation in plasma in all subjects, and over 6 hours in spontaneously expectorated sputum in COPD patients. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) of budesonide and fluticasone plasma concentrations in COPD patients relative to healthy subjects.
Results
Mean plasma AUC values were lower in COPD patients versus healthy subjects for budesonide (3.07 μM·hr versus 6.21 μM·hr) and fluticasone (0.84 μM·hr versus 1.50 μM·hr), and the dose-adjusted AUC (geometric mean) ratios in healthy subjects and patients with severe COPD for plasma budesonide and fluticasone were similar (2.02 versus 1.80; primary end point). In COPD patients, the Tmax and the mean residence time in the systemic circulation were shorter for budesonide versus fluticasone (15.5 min versus 50.8 min and 4.41 hrs versus 12.78 hrs, respectively) and Cmax was higher (1.08 μM versus 0.09 μM). The amount of expectorated fluticasone (percentage of estimated lung-deposited dose) in sputum over 6 hours was significantly higher versus budesonide (ratio 5.21; p = 0.006). Both treatments were well tolerated.
Conclusion
The relative systemic availabilities of budesonide and fluticasone between patients with severe COPD and healthy subjects were similar. In patients with COPD, a larger fraction of fluticasone was expectorated in the sputum as compared with budesonide.
Trial registration
Trial registration number NCT00379028
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-10-104
PMCID: PMC2780403  PMID: 19878590
16.  Cost-effectiveness and healthcare budget impact in Italy of inhaled corticosteroids and brochodilators for severe and very severe COPD patients 
Current practice guidelines for the treatment of COPD recommend the use of combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators in severe and very severe patients (GOLD stages III and IV). The aim of this study was to evaluate, through a simulation model, the economic consequences of this recommendation in Italy. We developed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) on five alternative therapeutic strategies (salmeterol/fluticasone, SF; formoterol/budesonide, FB; salmeterol alone, S; fluticasone alone, F; control, C). Published data on the Italian COPD population and efficacy data from international reference trials were fitted in a disease progression model based on a Markov chain representing severity stages and death. The yearly total direct costs of treating COPD patients in Italy was estimated at approximately €7 billion, with a mean cost per patient per year of around €2450. Mean survival of the cohort is 11.5 years. The C and F strategies were dominated (ie, are associated with worse outcomes and higher costs) by all alternatives. SF and FB were the most effective strategies, with a slight clinical superiority of SF, but they were also marginally more expensive than S. Incremental cost-effectiveness of SF vs S was €679.5 per avoided exacerbation and €3.3 per symptom-free day. Compared with current practice, the recommended use of combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators for severe and very severe COPD patients has the potential for improving clinical outcomes without increasing healthcare costs.
PMCID: PMC2695615  PMID: 18044689
severe COPD; pharmacoeconomics; Markov chain; inhaled corticosteroids; inhaled bronchodilators; cost-effectiveness
17.  Protective effect of budesonide/formoterol compared with formoterol, salbutamol and placebo on repeated provocations with inhaled AMP in patients with asthma: a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study 
Respiratory Research  2010;11(1):66.
Background
The budesonide/formoterol combination is successfully used for fast relief of asthma symptoms in addition to its use as maintenance therapy. The temporarily increased corticosteroid dose during increasing inhaler use for symptom relief is likely to suppress any temporary increase in airway inflammation and may mitigate or prevent asthma exacerbations. The relative contribution of the budesonide and formoterol components to the improved asthma control is unclear.
Methods
The acute protective effect of inhaled budesonide was tested in a model of temporarily increased airway inflammation with repeated indirect airway challenges, mimicking an acute asthma exacerbation. A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study design was used. Asthmatic patients (n = 17, mean FEV1 95% of predicted) who previously demonstrated a ≥30% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after inhaling adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP), were challenged on four consecutive test days, with the same dose of AMP (at 09:00, 12:00 and 16:00 hours). Within 1 minute of the maximal AMP-induced bronchoconstriction at 09:00 hours, the patients inhaled one dose of either budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg), formoterol (4.5 μg), salbutamol (2 × 100 μg) or placebo. The protective effects of the randomised treatments were assessed by serial lung function measurements over the test day.
Results
In the AMP provocations at 3 and 7 hours after inhalation, the budesonide/formoterol combination provided a greater protective effect against AMP-induced bronchoconstriction compared with formoterol alone, salbutamol and placebo. In addition all three active treatments significantly increased FEV1 within 3 minutes of administration, at a time when inhaled AMP had induced the 30% fall in FEV1.
Conclusions
A single dose of budesonide/formoterol provided a greater protective effect against inhaled AMP-induced bronchoconstriction than formoterol alone, both at 3 and at 7 hours after inhalation. The acute protection against subsequent bronchoconstrictor stimuli such as inhaled AMP and the rapid reversal of airway obstruction supports the use of budesonide/formoterol for both relief and prevention in the treatment of asthma.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00272753
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-11-66
PMCID: PMC2890647  PMID: 20509942
18.  Step-down from high dose fixed combination therapy in asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial 
Respiratory Research  2012;13(1):54.
Background
Asthma guidelines suggest that therapy can be reduced once asthma is controlled. Despite these recommendations, asthmatic patients are seldom stepped down in clinical practice, and questions remain about when and how to reduce asthma therapy. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate lung function and asthma control in patients who were stepped down from the highest recommended dose of inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2 agonist combination therapy.
Methods
This was a prospective, randomised, controlled, two-arm parallel group study. Asthmatic patients who were fully controlled with a high daily dose (1000/100 μg) of fluticasone/salmeterol were randomly assigned to 6 months of open-label treatment with either 500/100 μg fluticasone/salmeterol Diskus daily or 400/24 μg extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol pMDI daily. The primary outcome was the change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) values between baseline and the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes included asthma control and exacerbation frequency.
Results
Four hundred twenty-two patients were included in the analysis. The PEF values remained above 95% of the predicted values throughout the study. The end-study morning PEF rates showed equivalence between the groups (difference between means, 2.49 L/min; 95% CI, -13.43 to 18.42). No changes from baseline were detected in PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured at the clinics, in the symptom scores or in the use of rescue medication. Asthma control was maintained in 95.2% of the patients at 6 months. No significant differences between the groups were detected in any other parameter, including exacerbation frequency and adverse events.
Conclusions
Stepping down patients whose asthma is controlled with the highest recommended dose of fluticasone/salmeterol to either 500/100 μg fluticasone/salmeterol daily or 400/24 μg extra-fine beclomethasone/formoterol daily provides comparable maintenance of lung function and asthma control.
Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov NCT00497237
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-13-54
PMCID: PMC3431221  PMID: 22731754
Beclomethasone; Extrafine; Fluticasone; Formoterol; Salmeterol
19.  Treatment of moderate to severe asthma: patient perspectives on combination inhaler therapy and implications for adherence 
Symptom control in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma is essential to reduce the significant morbidity associated with the disease. Poor adherence to controller medications has been identified as a major contributing factor to the high level of uncontrolled asthma. This review examines patient perspectives on, and preferences for, controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β2-agonist combinations [ICS/LABA]), and how this may affect adherence to therapy. Fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol, the currently available ICS/LABA combination products, have similar efficacy and tolerability based on a recent meta-analysis of asthma trials. Adherence is higher with the combination ICS/LABAs than when the components are administered separately. Investigations into patient preferences for desirable attributes of asthma medications indicate that an effective reliever with a fast onset and long duration of action is preferred and may lead to improved adherence. This rapid onset of effect was perceived and highly valued in patient surveys, and was associated with greater patient satisfaction. Thus, future research should be directed at therapy that offers both anti-inflammatory activity and a rapid onset of bronchodilator effect. To further improve patient adherence and treatment outcome, the effect of these characteristics as well as other factors on adherence should also be investigated.
PMCID: PMC3048599  PMID: 21437145
budesonide/formoterol; fluticasone/salmeterol; adherence; onset of effect; patient satisfaction
20.  Efficacy and Tolerability of Budesonide/Formoterol in One Hydrofluoroalkane Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 
Drugs  2012;69(5):549-565.
Background: Combination therapy with a long-acting bronchodilator and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have frequent exacerbations. The efficacy and tolerability of the combination of budesonide/formoterol have been demonstrated in patients with COPD when administered via the dry powder inhaler (DPI) in a 1-year study and when administered via the hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in a 6-month study.
Objective: This study assessed the long-term efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol HFA pMDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.
Methods: This was a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre study (NCT00206167) of 1964 patients aged ≥40 years with moderate to very severe COPD conducted from 2005 to 2007 at 237 sites in the US, Europe and Mexico. After 2 weeks of treatment based on previous therapy (ICSs, short-acting bronchodilators allowed), patients received one of the following treatments twice daily: budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 μg × two inhalations (320/9 μg); budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 μg × two inhalations (160/9 μg); formoterol DPI 4.5 μg × two inhalations (9 μg); or placebo.
Main outcome measures: The co-primary efficacy variables were pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and 1-hour post-dose FEV1.
Results: Budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg demonstrated greater improvements in pre-dose FEV1 versus formoterol (p = 0.008), and both budesonide/formoterol doses demonstrated greater improvements in 1-hour post-dose FEV1 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The rate of COPD exacerbations was lower in both budesonide/formoterol groups compared with formoterol and placebo (p ≤ 0.004). Both budesonide/formoterol doses were more effective than placebo (p ≤ 0.006) for controlling dyspnoea and improving health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire). All treatments were generally well tolerated. The incidence of pneumonia was not different for active (3.4–4.0%) and placebo (5.0%) groups.
Conclusions: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI (320/9 μg and 160/9 μg) improved pulmonary function and reduced symptoms and exacerbations over 1 year in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Only budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 μg demonstrated greater efficacy for both co-primary variables compared with formoterol DPI 9 μg. Both budesonide/formoterol pMDI dosages were well tolerated relative to formoterol and placebo.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.2165/00003495-200969050-00004 and is accessible for authorized users.
doi:10.2165/00003495-200969050-00004
PMCID: PMC3580134  PMID: 19368417
21.  Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children 
Background
Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has been considered as preventer and reliever therapy. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in a single inhaler introduces the possibility of using a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy).
Objectives
The aim of this review is to compare formoterol and corticosteroid in single inhaler for maintenance and relief of symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids for maintenance and a separate reliever inhaler.
Search methods
We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in September 2008.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with chronic asthma.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted the characteristics and results of each study. Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes.
Main results
Five studies on 5,378 adults compared single inhaler therapy with current best practice, and did not show a significant reduction in participants with exacerbations causing hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.45) or treated with oral steroids (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). Three of these studies on 4281 adults did not show a significant reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07). These trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids with single inhaler therapy (mean reduction ranged from 107 to 267 micrograms/day, but the trial results were not combined due to heterogeneity). The full results from four further studies on 4,600 adults comparing single inhaler therapy with current best practice are awaited.
Three studies including 4,209 adults compared single inhaler therapy with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. No significant reduction was found with single inhaler therapy in the risk of patients suffering an asthma exacerbation leading to hospitalisation (Peto OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09), but fewer patients on single inhaler therapy needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64). These results translate into an eleven month number needed to treat of 14 (95% CI 12 to 18), to prevent one patient being treated with oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of long-acting beta2-agonists, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in.
One study included children (N = 224), in which single inhaler therapy was compared to higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with single inhaler therapy, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the single inhaler therapy group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the single inhaler therapy group, [95% CI 0.3 to 1.7 cm].
There was no significant difference found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons.
Authors’ conclusions
Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroids. Guidelines and common best practice suggest the addition of regular long-acting beta2-agonist to inhaled corticosteroids for uncontrolled asthma, and single inhaler therapy has not been demonstrated to significantly reduce exacerbations in comparison with current best practice, although results of five large trials are awaiting full publication. Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007313.pub2
PMCID: PMC4053857  PMID: 19370682
Administration; Inhalation; AdrenalCortexHormones [*administration & dosage]; Anti-Asthmatic Agents [*administration & dosage]; Asthma [*drug therapy]; Bronchodilator Agents [administration & dosage]; Budesonide [*administration & dosage]; Chronic Disease; Drug Therapy; Combination; Ethanolamines [*administration & dosage]; Terbutaline [administration & dosage]; Adult; Child; Humans
22.  A comparison of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy vs. conventional best practice in asthma management 
Objective:
To study the effectiveness and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (Symbicort SMART®, AstraZeneca, Södertalje, Sweden), a simplified management approach with one inhaler compared with conventional best practice (CBP) with multiple inhalers in patients with persistent asthma.
Design:
Open-label randomised controlled parallel group trial, 6-month treatment.
Participants:
A total of 908 patients ≥ 12 years of age, with persistent asthma receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either alone or in conjunction with long-acting β2-agonist.
Main outcome measures:
Time to first severe asthma exacerbation and number of severe asthma exacerbations.
Results:
No difference between groups was seen in time to first severe exacerbation (p = 0.75). Exacerbation rates were low in both groups. A total of 12 patients in the Symbicort SMART® group experienced a total of 14 severe asthma exacerbations, and 19 patients in the CBP group experienced a total of 25 severe asthma exacerbations (annual rate 0.07 vs. 0.13 p = 0.09). The mean daily dose of ICS expressed in BDP equivalent was significantly lower in the Symbicort SMART® group (including as-needed use) vs. in the CBP group (749 μg vs. 1059 μg; p < 0.0001). Mean scores in Asthma Control Questionnaire, 5 question version improved significantly in the SMART group compared with the CBP group (p = 0.0026). Symbicort SMART and CBP were equally well tolerated.
The mean drug cost/patient/month was significantly lower for the patients in the Symbicort SMART group compared with patients receiving CBP (51.3 € vs. 66.5 €; p < 0.0001).
Conclusions:
In Belgian patients, a simplified regimen using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy was at least as effective at improving clinical control compared with CBP with a significantly lower ICS dose and significantly lower drug costs.
doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02185.x
PMCID: PMC2780558  PMID: 19769705
23.  Salmeterol/fluticasone stable-dose treatment compared with formoterol/budesonide adjustable maintenance dosing: impact on health-related quality of life 
Respiratory Research  2007;8(1):46.
Background
Improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is recognized as a fundamental part of asthma management. The aims of this study were to evaluate the long-term efficacy (including symptom-free days and exacerbations) and impact on HRQoL of a stable-dose regimen of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SAL/FP) and an adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD) regimen of formoterol/budesonide (FOR/BUD) where treatment is adjusted based on symptoms [SAM40056].
Methods
A total of 688 outpatients with asthma receiving regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a long-acting β2-agonist, or medium dose ICS alone participated in this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 1-year trial, which was conducted in 91 centers in 15 countries. Patients were randomized to receive 1 inhalation of SAL/FP 50/250 μg BID or 2 inhalations of FOR/BUD 6/200 μg BID during Weeks 1–4. For Weeks 5–52, patients meeting strict continuation criteria for stable asthma at Week 4 received AMD with FOR/BUD or stable-dose SAL/FP.
Results
The percentage of symptom-free days was significantly greater (58.8% vs 52.1%; p = 0.034) and the annual exacerbation rate was significantly lower (47%; p = 0.008) with stable-dose SAL/FP compared with FOR/BUD AMD. A total of 568 patients completed the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) at least once during the study. The mean change from baseline in AQLQ overall score was numerically greater with SAL/FP than FOR/BUD at week 28 and week 52, but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.121 at Week 52). However, in a post hoc logistic regression analyses for any AQLQ improvement, significant benefits with SAL/FP were seen at both time points (p = 0.038 and p = 0.009, respectively). The minimally important difference of ≥ 0.5-point improvement in AQLQ overall score was achieved by a significantly greater number of patients receiving SAL/FP at Week 28 (68% vs 60%; p = 0.049); a trend for this difference remained at Week 52 (71% vs 65%) (p = 0.205).
Conclusion
In this population of patients with persistent asthma, stable-dose SAL/FP resulted in significantly greater increases in symptom-free days, a reduction in exacerbation rates, and provided greater HRQoL benefits compared with FOR/BUD AMD.
Trial registration
Clinical Trials registration number NCT00479739
doi:10.1186/1465-9921-8-46
PMCID: PMC1924504  PMID: 17610727
24.  Treatment with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma: a focus on patient-reported outcomes 
In the United States, budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is approved for treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥12 years whose asthma is not adequately controlled with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or whose disease severity clearly warrants treatment with an ICS and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist. This article reviews studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with persistent asthma, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcomes (eg, perceived onset of effect, patient satisfaction with treatment, health-related quality of life [HRQL], global assessments, sleep quality and quantity), as these measures reflect patient perceptions of asthma control and disease burden. A search of PubMed and respiratory meetings was performed to identify relevant studies. In two pivotal budesonide/formoterol pMDI studies in adolescents and adults, greater efficacy and similar tolerability were shown with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 μg and 320/9 μg twice daily versus its monocomponents or placebo. In those studies, improvements in HRQL, patient satisfaction, global assessments of asthma control, and quality of sleep also favored budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with one or both of its monocomponents or placebo. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI has a rapid onset of effect (within 15 minutes) that patients can feel, an attribute that may have benefits for treatment adherence. In summary, budesonide/formoterol pMDI is effective and well tolerated and has additional therapeutic benefits that may be important from the patient’s perspective.
doi:10.2147/PROM.S16159
PMCID: PMC3417922  PMID: 22915968
budesonide; formoterol; patient-reported outcomes; efficacy; tolerability; onset of effect
25.  Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events 
Background
An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.
Objectives
We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.
Search methods
We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers’ websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.
Selection criteria
We included controlled, parallel-design clinical trials on patients of any age and with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks’ duration.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors.
Main results
The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children’s study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol.
Authors’ conclusions
We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007695.pub3
PMCID: PMC4015850  PMID: 22419326

Results 1-25 (781119)