Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality). MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12

Deep Brain Stimulation of Medial Dorsal and Ventral Anterior Nucleus of the Thalamus in OCD: A Retrospective Case Series

The current notion that cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits are involved in the pathophysiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has instigated the search for the most suitable target for deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, despite extensive research, uncertainty about the ideal target remains with many structures being underexplored. The aim of this report is to address a new target for DBS, the medial dorsal (MD) and the ventral anterior (VA) nucleus of the thalamus, which has thus far received little attention in the treatment of OCD.In this retrospective trial, four patients (three female, one male) aged 31-48 years, suffering from therapy-refractory OCD underwent high-frequency DBS of the MD and VA. In two patients (de novo group) the thalamus was chosen as a primary target for DBS, whereas in two patients (rescue DBS group) lead implantation was performed in a rescue DBS attempt following unsuccessful primary stimulation.Continuous thalamic stimulation yielded no significant improvement in OCD symptom severity. Over the course of thalamic DBS symptoms improved in only one patient who showed "partial response" on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive (Y-BOCS) Scale. Beck Depression Inventory scores dropped by around 46% in the de novo group; anxiety symptoms improved by up to 34%. In the de novo DBS group no effect of DBS on anxiety and mood was observable.MD/VA-DBS yielded no adequate alleviation of therapy-refractory OCD, the overall strategy in targeting MD/VA as described in this paper can thus not be recommended in DBS for OCD. The magnocellular portion of MD (MDMC), however, might prove a promising target in the treatment of mood related and anxiety disorders