Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children
Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.
To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.
We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.
Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.
Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.
Available from: Douglas W Mapel
- "The role of ICS/LABA combination therapy for patients with persistent asthma is well established, while the role of combination therapy in COPD is not as clear (Fig. 1). The only head-to-head comparisons of ICS/LABA combinations in asthma found that any differences in efficacy between them were slight, and in their primary endpoints, not statistically significant . In contrast, some recently reported real-world, comparative effectiveness studies have suggested that there are differences between ICS/LABA combination treatments in a variety of clinical outcomes. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (ICS/LABA) is well recognized in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite differences in the pharmacological properties between two well-established ICS/LABA products (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol), data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that these two products perform similarly under RCT conditions. In contrast, a few recently reported real-world comparative effectiveness studies have suggested that there are substantial differences between ICS/LABA combination treatments in terms of clinical and healthcare outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the benefits, as well as the limitations, of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the therapeutic area of asthma and COPD. We conducted a structured literature review of the current CER studies on ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD. These articles were then used to illustrate the unique challenges of CER studies, providing a summary of study results and limitations. We focus particularly on difficult biases and confounding factors that may be introduced before, during, and after the initiation of therapy. Beyond being a review of these two ICS/LABA combination treatments, this article is intended to help those who wish to assess the quality of CER published projects in asthma and COPD, or guide investigators who wish to design new CER studies for chronic respiratory disease treatments.
Drugs 05/2014; 74(7). DOI:10.1007/s40265-014-0214-8 · 4.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol (Symbicort AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination administered twice daily via one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of persistent asthma in patients >or=12 years of age whose asthma cannot be controlled by an ICS alone. The objective was to review efficacy, safety, and pharmacogenetic data on budesonide/formoterol pMDI in the treatment of persistent asthma.
The authors searched PubMed and respiratory meeting databases to identify asthma studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Studies involving traditional and patient-reported outcomes, safety, tolerability, or pharmacogenetics were included.
In two 12-week pivotal trials in adolescents and adults, treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg) twice daily for moderate to severe persistent asthma or 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg) twice daily for mild to moderate persistent asthma, demonstrated greater efficacy and similar tolerability compared with placebo and the same nominal dose of its monocomponents. Comparisons with formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) for predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) and with budesonide pMDI for 12-hour mean postdose FEV(1) demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory contributions of budesonide and formoterol, respectively. Evaluations of patient-reported outcomes, including asthma-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction, further supported the clinical benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. In a 52-week tolerability study of patients aged >or=12 years, budesonide/formoterol pMDI was delivered at up to double the maximum dose (640/18 microg twice daily) and demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of budesonide (640 microg twice daily), with no unexpected pattern of abnormalities. Additional studies reported that budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 microg twice daily and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 microg twice daily have similar efficacy and tolerability, with significantly more patients achieving >or=15% improvement in FEV(1) within 15 minutes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with fluticasone/salmeterol DPI. Moreover, inheritance of the Gly16Arg polymorphism of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor does not appear to affect clinical outcomes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI.
Budesonide/formoterol pMDI administered twice daily is effective and generally well tolerated in patients whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.
Journal of Asthma 05/2010; 47(4):447-59. DOI:10.3109/02770901003725684 · 1.80 Impact Factor
Available from: Jorge Maspero
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonist is recommended for treatment of patients with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on ICS monotherapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) administered through metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with persistent asthma previously on medium- to high-dose ICS.
This was a 52-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, evaluator-blinded study. At baseline, 404 patients (aged ≥12 years) were stratified according to their previous ICS dose (medium or high), then randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily treatment of MF/F (200/10 or 400/10 μg) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S; 250/50 or 500/50 μg). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients reporting any adverse event (AE). Additional safety evaluations included plasma cortisol 24-hour area under the curve (AUC(0-24 h)) and ocular changes. Pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and use of rescue medication were monitored.
The incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent AE was similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 77.3% [n= 109]; FP/S 250/50 μg, 82.4% [n= 56]; MF/F 400/10 μg, 79.2% [n= 103]; FP/S 500/50 μg, 76.9% [n= 50]). Rates of treatment-related AEs were also similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 28.4%; FP/S 250/50 μg, 23.5%; MF/F 400/10 μg, 23.1%; FP/S 500/50 μg, 20.0%). Headache (3.7%) and dysphonia (2.7%) were the most common treatment-related AEs overall. The nature and frequency of AEs and the decreases in plasma cortisol AUC(0-24 h) observed with MF/F treatment were similar to those observed with FP/S treatment. Ocular events were rare (2-6% overall incidence among treatment groups); in particular, no posterior subcapsular cataracts were reported. Only three patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related ocular AEs (two for lens disorders in the MF/F 400/10 μg group; one for reduced visual acuity in the FP/S 250/50 μg group) and no asthma-related deaths occurred. Furthermore, MF/F showed numerical improvement in lung function and clinical benefits by reducing asthma symptoms and rescue medication use.
One-year treatment with the new combination therapies - twice-daily MF/F-MDI 200/10 and 400/10 μg - is safe and well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.
Journal of Asthma 12/2010; 47(10):1106-15. DOI:10.3109/02770903.2010.514634 · 1.80 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.