Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus inhaled steroid maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children (Review)

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 Authors or manufacturers were asked to supply unpublished data in relation to primary outcomes.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

Acute and Chronic Effects of Smoking on Inflammation Markers in Exhaled Breath Condensate in Current Smokers

Background: Long-term cigarette smoking is associated with pulmonary inflammation, but the acute effects of smoking have been less well studied. Analysis of the exhaled breath condensate (EBC) can provide noninvasive markers that might be indicative of inflammation. Objectives: The aim of the study was to determine whether the pH, electrical conductivity and the levels of ammonium and interleukin 8 (IL-8) of EBC were altered in smokers and whether they changed after smoking a single cigarette. Methods: We included 19 healthy nonsmokers (controls), 29 asymptomatic smokers, 10 patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) {[}Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages (GOLD) stages II-III], and 10 patients with exacerbated COPD. In 13 smokers, EBC was also analyzed before and after smoking. EBC was obtained during 10 min tidal breathing with a cooled RTube (TM). pH was determined after deaeration with argon. Results: Acute smoking did not alter the pH or ammonium and IL-8 levels, but raised conductivity. As in COPD patients, the pH was significantly decreased in chronic smokers with a history of at least 10 pack-years compared to controls. Conclusions: EBC can be used to detect the acute and chronic effects of smoking. The increased conductivity of EBC after smoking suggests acute inflammatory effects. The reduced pH in chronic smokers shows cigarette-induced inflammation. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Base

Long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta2-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.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 resultsFive trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta2-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta2-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV1 showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta2-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist to long-acting beta2-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.Authors' conclusionsThe results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist compared to long-acting beta2-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta2-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium

Combination formoterol and inhaled steroid versus beta(2)-agonist as relief medication for chronic asthma in adults and children (Review)

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

Highlights and hot topics in the management of COPD: where are we heading?

Proceedings of the First World Lung Disease Summit, Lisbon, Portugal, November 2013 The First World Lung Disease Summit took place in Lisbon over two days in November 2013. This inaugural meeting, of what is hoped to be a long-running annual series, brought together experts in respiratory medicine to explore many of the issues and challenges faced by clinicians when managing lung diseases, particularly asthma and COPD. The aim of the series is to present and discuss innovative science through a scientifically balanced program, and to explore how recent developments can inform clinical practice and improve patient care. The program for the inaugural meeting emphasized ongoing work in basic, clinical, and translational science as it evolves to bring about a more complete understanding of the pathology of asthma and COPD

Comparison of two devices and two breathing patterns for exhaled breath condensate sampling.

Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a noninvasive method to access the epithelial lining fluid of the lungs. Due to standardization problems the method has not entered clinical practice. The aim of the study was to assess the comparability for two commercially available devices in healthy controls. In addition, we assessed different breathing patterns in healthy controls with protein markers to analyze the source of the EBC. EBC was collected from ten subjects using the RTube and ECoScreen Turbo in a randomized crossover design, twice with every device--once in tidal breathing and once in hyperventilation. EBC conductivity, pH, surfactant protein A, Clara cell secretory protein and total protein were assessed. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to display the influence of different devices or breathing patterns and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The volatile organic compound profile was measured using the electronic nose Cyranose 320. For the analysis of these data, the linear discriminant analysis, the Mahalanobis distances and the cross-validation values (CVV) were calculated. Neither the device nor the breathing pattern significantly altered EBC pH or conductivity. ICCs ranged from 0.61 to 0.92 demonstrating moderate to very good agreement. Protein measurements were greatly influenced by breathing pattern, the device used, and the way in which the results were reported. The electronic nose could distinguish between different breathing patterns and devices, resulting in Mahalanobis distances greater than 2 and CVVs ranging from 64% to 87%. EBC pH and (to a lesser extent) EBC conductivity are stable parameters that are not influenced by either the device or the breathing patterns. Protein measurements remain uncertain due to problems of standardization. We conclude that the influence of the breathing maneuver translates into the necessity to keep the volume of ventilated air constant in further studies

Excess Costs of Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Comorbidities are often reported in patients with COPD and may influence the cost of care. Yet, the extent by which comorbidities affect costs remains to be determined. Objectives To review, quantify and evaluate excess costs of comorbidities in COPD. Methods Using a systematic review approach, Pubmed and Embase were searched for studies analyzing excess costs of comorbidities in COPD. Resulting studies were evaluated according to study characteristics, comorbidity measurement and cost indicators. Mark-up factors were calculated for respective excess costs. Furthermore, a checklist of quality criteria was applied. Results Twelve studies were included. Nine evaluated comorbidity specific costs;three examined index-based results. Pneumonia, cardiovascular disease and diabetes were associated with the highest excess costs. The mark-up factors for respective excess costs ranged between 1.5 and 2.5 in the majority of cases. On average the factors constituted a doubling of respective costs in the comorbid case. The main cost driver, among all studies, was inpatient cost. Indirect costs were not accounted for by the majority of studies. Study heterogeneity was high. Conclusions The reviewed studies clearly show that comorbidities are associated with significant excess costs in COPD. The inclusion of comorbid costs and effects in future health economic evaluations of preventive or therapeutic COPD interventions seems highly advisable