Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

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

Abstract

available in

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; I2 = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I2 = 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; I2 = 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.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Plain language summary

available in

For people with chronic asthma, is a single combination inhaler for both regular and "as‐needed" treatment better than two separate inhalers?

Background for the review
Asthma is a chronic inflammation of the airways that causes flare‐ups of wheezing, chest tightness and coughing. Treatment with inhaled steroids and other inhaled drugs that relax the airways (bronchodilators) often gives good control of symptoms, prevents serious flare‐ups and improves quality of life. Several steroids and bronchodilators (long‐ and short‐acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler.

This review focusses on a particular inhaled therapy called 'single‐inhaler therapy' (SiT), sometimes called SMART therapy. The idea is that the SiT is taken once or twice a day and also anytime it is needed for relief of symptoms. In theory, this improves compliance, controls asthma symptoms and prevents exacerbations while allowing lower overall exposure to inhaled steroids. The drugs contained in SiT are budesonide and formoterol.

This review aimed to find out whether SiT is as safe and effective as a combination inhaler (containing a steroid and a long‐acting beta‐agonist (LABA)) plus another inhaler for relief of symptoms. The review looked at the effects of these treatments for adults and children with chronic asthma.

What did we find?
Four studies including 9130 adults and adolescents were included. None of the studies included children younger than age 12. The studies lasted for six months to a year, and all were funded by one drug company. Studies included more women than men, with average age of about 40. Three studies recruited people with quite similar symptoms, but one study included people with less severe asthma. The studies were well conducted, although two did not hide which treatments were being taken (known as blinding), which might have affected the results. The amount of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups using two types of inhalers. Overall, we believe that the quality of the evidence was high to moderate.

Main findings
Fewer people taking SiT had flare‐ups that needed a hospital stay or a visit to the ER (one fewer per 100 treated than in the control group, 95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) or a course of oral steroids (two fewer per 100 treated, 95% CI one to three fewer). If more studies are published, it is unlikely that our opinions on these main findings will change. However, we could not tell whether one treatment caused more serious adverse events than the other.

Other findings
SiT had a small benefit on one measure of lung function (predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)). However, for several other measures, not enough information was available to show which treatment was better (amount of medication taken on an 'as needed' basis, various symptom measures and quality of life).

In conclusion, SiT reduces the need for a hospital stay or an ER visit and for courses of oral steroids for asthma flare‐ups. SiT did not increase the quantity of inhaled steroids taken overall, and it was unclear whether it increases or decreases serious side effects. Currently no data are available for the use of SiT in children younger than age 12.