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

BACKGROUND: The long-acting β(2)-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 (FEV(1)) 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 FEV(1 )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 FEV(1 )(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

Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provide similar rapid relief in patients with acute asthma showing refractoriness to salbutamol

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort(®)) with formoterol (Oxis(®)) in the treatment of patients with acute asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to short-acting β(2)-agonist therapy. METHODS: In a 3 hour, randomized, double-blind study, a total of 115 patients with acute asthma (mean FEV(1 )40% of predicted normal) and a refractory response to salbutamol (mean reversibility 2% of predicted normal after inhalation of 400 μg), were randomized to receive either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 1280/36 μg]) or formoterol (9 μg, 2 inhalations at t = -5 minutes and 2 inhalations at 0 minutes [total dose 36 μg]). The primary efficacy variable was the average FEV(1 )from the first intake of study medication to the measurement at 90 minutes. Secondary endpoints included changes in FEV(1 )at other timepoints and change in respiratory rate at 180 minutes. Treatment success, treatment failure and patient assessment of the effectiveness of the study medication were also measured. RESULTS: FEV(1 )increased after administration of the study medication in both treatment groups. No statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was apparent for the primary outcome variable, or for any of the other efficacy endpoints. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for treatment success, treatment failure or patient assessment of medication effectiveness. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol and formoterol provided similarly rapid relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma who showed evidence of refractoriness to a short-acting β(2)-agonist

Is it possible to diagnose the therapeutic adherence of patients with COPD in clinical practice? A cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Therapeutic adherence of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is poor. It is therefore necessary to determine the magnitude of non-adherence to develop strategies to correct this behaviour. The purpose of this study was to analyse the diagnostic validity of indirect adherence methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sample: 195 COPD patients undergoing scheduled inhaled treatment attending 5 Primary Care Centres of Malaga, Spain. Variables: Sociodemographic profile, illness data, spirometry, quality of life (St. George Respiratory Questionnaire: SGRQ), and inhaled medication counting (count of dose/pill or electronic monitoring) were collected. The patient's knowledge of COPD (Batalla test:BT),their attitude towards treatment (Morisky-Green test: MGT) and their self-reported therapeutic adherence (Haynes-Sackett test: HST) were used as methods of evaluating adherence. The follow-up consisted four visits over one year (the recruitment visit: V0; and after 1 month:V1; 6 months:V2; and 1 year:V3).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean age was 69.59 (95% CI, 68.29-70.89) years old and 93.8% were male. Other findings included: 85.4% had a low educational level, 23.6% were smokers, 71.5% mild-moderate COPD stage with a FEV1 = 56.86 (SD = 18.85); exacerbations per year = 1.41(95% CI, 1-1.8). The total SGRQ score was 44.96 (95% CI, 42.46-47.46), showing a mild self-perceived impairment in health. The prevalence of adherence (dose/pill count) was 68.1% (95% CI, 60.9-75.3) at V1, 80% (95% CI, 73-87) at V2 and 84% (95% CI, 77.9) at V3. The MGT showed a specificity of 67.34% at V1, 76.19% at V2 and 69.62% at V3. The sensitivity was 53.33% at V1, 66.66% at V2 and 33.33% at V3.The BT showed a specificity of 55.1% at V1, 70.23% at V2 and 67.09% at V3. The sensitivity was 68.88% at V1, 71.43% at V2 and 46.66% at V3. Considering both tests together, the specificity was 86.73% at V1, 94.04% at V2 and 92.49% at V3 and the sensitivity was 37.77% at V1, 47.62% at V2 and 13.3% at V3.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The prevalence of treatment adherence changes over time. Indirect methods (dose/pill count and self-reported) can be useful to detect non-adherence in COPD patients. The combination of MGT and BT is the best approach to test self-reported adherence.</p

Inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in adult asthma: a winning combination in all?

In the recent years, considerable insight has been gained in to the optimal management of adult asthma. Most adult patients with asthma have mild intermittent and persistent disease, and it is acknowledged that many patients do not reach full control of all symptoms and signs of asthma. Those with mild persistent asthma are usually not well controlled without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Studies have provided firm evidence that these patients can be well controlled when receiving ICS, especially when disease is of recent onset. This treatment should be given on a daily basis at a low dose and when providing a good response should be maintained to prevent severe exacerbations and disease deterioration. Intermittent ICS treatment at the time of an exacerbation has also been suggested as a strategy for mild persistent asthma, but it is less effective than low-dose regular treatment for most outcomes. Adding a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) to ICS appears to be unnecessary in most of these patients for optimising control of their asthma. Patients with moderate persistent asthma can be regarded as those who are not ideally controlled on low-dose ICS alone. The combination of an ICS and LABA is preferred in these patients, irrespective of the brand of medicine, and this combination is better than doubling or even quadrupling the dose of ICS to achieve better asthma control and reduce exacerbation risks. An ICS/LABA combination in a single inhaler represents a safe, effective and convenient treatment option for the management of patients with asthma unstable on inhaled steroids alone. Ideally, once asthma is under full control, the dose of inhaled steroids should be reduced, which is possible in many patients. The duration of treatment before initiating this dose reduction has, however, not been fully established. One of the combinations available to treat asthma (budesonide and formoterol) has also been assessed as both maintenance and rescue therapy with a further reduction in the risk for a severe exacerbation. Clinical effectiveness in the real world now has to be established, since this approach likely improves compliance with regular maintenance therapy

The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research

This article provides a broad and multifaceted review of the received literature on business models in which the authors examine the business model concept through multiple subject-matter lenses. The review reveals that scholars do not agree on what a business model is and that the literature is developing largely in silos, according to the phenomena of interest of the respective researchers. However, the authors also found emerging common themes among scholars of business models. Specifically, (1) the business model is emerging as a new unit of analysis; (2) business models emphasize a system-level, holistic approach to explaining how firms “do business”; (3) firm activities play an important role in the various conceptualizations of business models that have been proposed; and (4) business models seek to explain how value is created, not just how it is captured. These emerging themes could serve as catalysts for a more unified study of business models

Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smoking is a known cause of the outcomes COPD, chronic bronchitis (CB) and emphysema, but no previous systematic review exists. We summarize evidence for various smoking indices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Based on MEDLINE searches and other sources we obtained papers published to 2006 describing epidemiological studies relating incidence or prevalence of these outcomes to smoking. Studies in children or adolescents, or in populations at high respiratory disease risk or with co-existing diseases were excluded. Study-specific data were extracted on design, exposures and outcomes considered, and confounder adjustment. For each outcome RRs/ORs and 95% CIs were extracted for ever, current and ex smoking and various dose response indices, and meta-analyses and meta-regressions conducted to determine how relationships were modified by various study and RR characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 218 studies identified, 133 provide data for COPD, 101 for CB and 28 for emphysema. RR estimates are markedly heterogeneous. Based on random-effects meta-analyses of most-adjusted RR/ORs, estimates are elevated for ever smoking (COPD 2.89, CI 2.63-3.17, n = 129 RRs; CB 2.69, 2.50-2.90, n = 114; emphysema 4.51, 3.38-6.02, n = 28), current smoking (COPD 3.51, 3.08-3.99; CB 3.41, 3.13-3.72; emphysema 4.87, 2.83-8.41) and ex smoking (COPD 2.35, 2.11-2.63; CB 1.63, 1.50-1.78; emphysema 3.52, 2.51-4.94). For COPD, RRs are higher for males, for studies conducted in North America, for cigarette smoking rather than any product smoking, and where the unexposed base is never smoking any product, and are markedly lower when asthma is included in the COPD definition. Variations by sex, continent, smoking product and unexposed group are in the same direction for CB, but less clearly demonstrated. For all outcomes RRs are higher when based on mortality, and for COPD are markedly lower when based on lung function. For all outcomes, risk increases with amount smoked and pack-years. Limited data show risk decreases with increasing starting age for COPD and CB and with increasing quitting duration for COPD. No clear relationship is seen with duration of smoking.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results confirm and quantify the causal relationships with smoking.</p

Systematic review of the evidence relating FEV1 decline to giving up smoking

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The rate of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) decline ("beta") is a marker of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk. The reduction in beta after quitting smoking is an upper limit for the reduction achievable from switching to novel nicotine delivery products. We review available evidence to estimate this reduction and quantify the relationship of smoking to beta.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies were identified, in healthy individuals or patients with respiratory disease, that provided data on beta over at least 2 years of follow-up, separately for those who gave up smoking and other smoking groups. Publications to June 2010 were considered. Independent beta estimates were derived for four main smoking groups: never smokers, ex-smokers (before baseline), quitters (during follow-up) and continuing smokers. Unweighted and inverse variance-weighted regression analyses compared betas in the smoking groups, and in continuing smokers by amount smoked, and estimated whether beta or beta differences between smoking groups varied by age, sex and other factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-seven studies had relevant data, 28 for both sexes and 19 for males. Sixteen studies started before 1970. Mean follow-up was 11 years. On the basis of weighted analysis of 303 betas for the four smoking groups, never smokers had a beta 10.8 mL/yr (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.9 to 12.8) less than continuing smokers. Betas for ex-smokers were 12.4 mL/yr (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7) less than for continuing smokers, and for quitters, 8.5 mL/yr (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.4) less. These betas were similar to that for never smokers. In continuing smokers, beta increased 0.33 mL/yr per cigarette/day. Beta differences between continuing smokers and those who gave up were greater in patients with respiratory disease or with reduced baseline lung function, but were not clearly related to age or sex.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The available data have numerous limitations, but clearly show that continuing smokers have a beta that is dose-related and over 10 mL/yr greater than in never smokers, ex-smokers or quitters. The greater decline in those with respiratory disease or reduced lung function is consistent with some smokers having a more rapid rate of FEV₁decline. These results help in designing studies comparing continuing smokers of conventional cigarettes and switchers to novel products.</p

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus conventional best practice.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART) reduces asthma exacerbations and symptoms versus fixed-dose regimens plus short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABA) in double-blind trials. Information is lacking regarding its effectiveness versus conventional best practice (CBP). This pooled analysis of six 6-month, randomized, open-label studies examined asthma control and exacerbation risk in asthmatics (aged> or =12 years). Patients (N=7855) symptomatic on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or stable/symptomatic on ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) received budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (160/4.5microg bid and as needed) or CBP (ICS or ICS/LABA+/-other agents at an approved dose plus as-needed SABA). Overall asthma control was assessed comparing the incidence of exacerbations and levels of asthma control using the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ). Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy did not significantly reduce time to first severe exacerbation (primary variable) versus CBP (P=0.062). However, patients in this group experienced 15% fewer exacerbations (0.20 versus 0.24/patient/year; P=0.021) and used 27% less ICS (P<0.0001). Odds of remaining well controlled (ACQ< or =0.75) over 6 months were higher with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus CBP (45% versus 41%, odds ratio [OR] 1.29; P<0.01) while risk of remaining uncontrolled decreased (25% versus 29%, OR 0.81; P<0.01). Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy improves key aspects of asthma control versus physicians' choice of CBP