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

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.ObjectivesThe aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.Search strategyTrials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.Selection criteriaControlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions.Main resultsThe review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.Authors' conclusionsNo significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects

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

Background Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. Objectives The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Search strategy Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Selection criteria Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. Main results The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low.Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma-related. The difference was not statistically significant. Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)]. Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 ( 95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant. Authors' conclusions It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma-related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta-analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects

Knowledge of actions of inhaled corticosteroids in patients who did not persist drug treatment early

Objective To evaluate, among new users of inhaled corticosteroids that did not persist treatment, knowledge of inhaled corticosteroids' actions and whether they were instructed on the use of their inhaler. Setting Fifteen community pharmacies in The Netherlands. Methods Patients were interviewed by telephone. Their general practitioners provided diagnostic information and automated dispensing records were retrieved. Main outcome measures Knowledge of patients about the actions of inhaled corticosteroids. Results 230 (80.1%) of 287 patients were willing to participate. The majority (79.1%) of 230 patients was not aware of the anti-inflammatory actions of inhaled corticosteroids. Most patients were instructed on the use of their inhaler, predominantly by their physician (53%) or pharmacy (35.2%). Conclusions Although most patients reported inhaler instruction by at least one health care provider, the majority was unaware of inhaled corticosteroids' actions. Physicians and pharmacists should reconsider the instructions they provide especially to patients who should continuously use inhaled corticosteroids

The use of inhaled corticosteroids in wheezy pre-school age children : current practice and literature review

Preschool children and infants frequently suffer wheezy episodes, mostly associated with viral respiratory tract infections. There is no evidence to support the use of maintenance low dose inhaled corticosteroids to prevent or manage episodic mild wheeze caused by such viral infections. However, infants and young children with recurrent episodic wheeze and a positive asthma risk index (i.e. risk factors associated with a predisposition for the future development of asthma) should be considered for a short, three-month trial of an inhaled corticosteroid. Failure to respond to an inhaled corticosteroid should prompt its discontinuation and not an increase in the drug dose. Persistent wheezing should suggest a possibility of an alternate diagnosis and the child should be referred for further investigations. Some recurrently wheezy infants and children simply do not respond to inhaled corticosteroids and most symptoms remit spontaneously after the age of five years, especially among those who do not have an atopic predisposition. The use of large doses of inhaled corticosteroids in young children whose wheezing persists should be discouraged due to the significant risk of long-term effects.peer-reviewe

Inhaled Corticosteroids

Inhalacijski kortikosteroidi (ICS) prva su linija terapije u liječenju kronične astme. Njihovo djelovanje na različite sastavnice procesa upale pridonosi smanjenju pojave simptoma, smanjenju hiperreaktivnosti dišnih putova, smanjenju potrebe za primjenom sistemskih kortikosteroida i bolničkog liječenja, poboljšava plućnu funkciju te unapređuje kontrolu bolesti i kvalitetu života. Inhalacijski kortikosteroidi jedini su osnovni lijekovi koji smanjuju smrtnost od astme. Najdjelotvorniji su lijekovi trenutačno raspoloživi u liječenju astme. Brojne studije potvrđuju njihov dugotrajni učinak u kontroli astme u djece i odraslih. ICS se razlikuju po svojim farmakokinetskim i farmakodinamskim karakteristikama te po jakosti. Klinička dobrobit ovih pripravaka uvelike nadilazi rizik od njihovih nuspojava. Potrebni su redoviti kontrolni pregledi za ranu detekciju eventualnih nuspojava.Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first line treatment in chronic asthma. The broad action of ICSs on the inflammatory process may account for their efficacy. Their clinical effects include reduction in severity of symptoms, diminished airway hyperresponsiveness, prevention of exacerbations, reduction in systemic corticosteroid courses and hospitalizations, and improvement in lung function tests, asthma control and quality of life. The ICSs are the only long-term controllers associated with a reduction in the risk of dying from asthma. They are the most effective drugs currently available in asthma treatment. Numerous studies proved their long lasting effects in asthma control in adults and children. Inhaled glucocorticoids manifest different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics as well as potency. The clinical benefits of these agents by far surpass their side effects. Clinical follow- up is essential for the early detection of side effects

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.ObjectivesWe compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta2-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.Main resultsWe included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).Authors' conclusionsIn adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta2-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat are the effects of long-acting beta2-agonists compared with anti-leukotrienes when added to inhaled steroids?People who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite regularly taking inhaled corticosteroids are a challenge for management. It is not clear whether the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) such as formoterol or salmeterol would provide more benefit in comparison with an oral anti-leukotriene agent (LTRA), for example zafirlukast or montelukast.Seventeen trials (16 in adults and one in children) were included in this review and were of good quality. We found that the addition of a LABA provides significantly greater protection against exacerbations requiring oral steroids when compared with a LTRA for adults. Based on the results of our analyses, approximately 38 adults (with a range of between 22 and 244) would need to be treated with a LABA rather than a LTRA for 48 weeks to prevent one experiencing an exacerbation needing a course of oral steroids. The trial on children did not contribute data on the main outcome and therefore we could not draw any conclusions for children.LABAs also led to a greater improvement in lung function, improvement in symptoms, use of rescue medication, quality of life and symptoms compared to the use of LTRAs. The magnitude of the improvements was modest. Serious adverse events were more frequent with LABA than with LTRAs although this result was imprecise. Based on our analyses, around 78 people would need to be treated for 48 weeks with a LABA rather than a LTRA for one of them to experience a serious adverse event. However, due to the lack of precision around our result, the true number could be between 33 and infinity. There are currently insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of these drugs in children

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta -agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review).

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review)

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropiumare commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.Main resultsOne trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.Authors' conclusionsThe relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.ObjectivesWe 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 methodsWe 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 criteriaWe 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 analysisTwo 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 resultsThe 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 mu g versus salmeterol 50 mu g 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' conclusionsWe 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