Dataset Information

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in comparison with placebo in previous Cochrane reviews. This increase was significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but less certain in the smaller numbers of participants in trials that included an inhaled corticosteroid in the randomised treatment regimen.

Objectives

We 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, when each are used with an inhaled corticosteroid as part of the randomised treatment.

Search strategy

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2009.

Selection criteria

Controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

Main results

Eight studies met the eligibility criteria of the review recruiting 6,163 adults and adolescents. There were seven studies (involving 5,935 adults and adolescents) comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone. All but one study administered the products as a combined inhaler, and most used formoterol 50 mcg and budesonide 400 mcg twice daily versus salmeterol 50 mcg and fluticasone 250 mcg twice daily. There were two deaths overall (one on each combination) and neither were thought to be related to asthma.There was no significant difference between treatment groups for non-fatal serious adverse events, either all-cause (Peto OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.59, I(2) = 26%) or asthma-related (Peto OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.26, I(2) = 33%). Over 23 weeks the rates for all-cause serious adverse events were 2.6% on formoterol and budesonide and 2.3% on salmeterol and fluticasone, and for asthma-related serious adverse events, 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.There was one study (228 adults) comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone, but there were no deaths or hospital admissions.No studies were found in children.

Authors' conclusions

The seven identified studies in adults did not show any significant difference in safety between formoterol and budesonide in comparison with salmeterol and fluticasone. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths. There was a single small study comparing formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone in adults, but no serious adverse events occurred in this study. No studies were found in children.Overall there is insufficient evidence to decide whether regular formoterol and budesonide or beclomethasone have equivalent or different safety profiles from salmeterol and fluticasone.

SUBMITTER: Cates CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4015852 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) is a novel combination therapy for treatment of persistent asthma. This noninferiority trial compared the effects of MF/F and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination therapies on pulmonary function and onset of action in subjects with persistent asthma.MethodsFollowing a 2- to 4-week run-in period with MF administered via a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) 200 μg (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF-MDI 100 μg) twice daily (BID), subjects (aged ≥12 y) were randomized to MF/F-MDI 200/10 μg BID (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF/F-MDI 100/5 μg) or FP/S administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) 250/50 μg (delivered as 1 inhalation) BID for 12 weeks. The primary assessment was change from baseline to week 12 in area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured serially for 0-12 hours postdose (FEV1 AUC0-12 h). Secondary assessments included onset of action (change from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1) and patient-reported outcomes.Results722 subjects were randomized to MF/F-MDI (n = 371) or FP/S-DPI (n = 351). Mean FEV1 AUC0-12 h change from baseline at week 12 for MF/F-MDI and FP/S-DPI was 3.43 and 3.24 L × h, respectively (95% CI, -0.40 to 0.76). MF/F-MDI was associated with a 200-mL mean increase from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1, which was significantly larger than the 90-mL increase for FP/S-DPI (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period that were considered related to study therapy was similar in both groups (MF/F-MDI, 7.8% [n = 29]; FP/S-DPI, 8.3% [n = 29]).ConclusionsThe results of this 12-week study indicated that MF/F improves pulmonary function and asthma control similar to FP/S with a superior onset of action compared with FP/S. Both drugs were safe, improved asthma control, and demonstrated similar results for other secondary study endpoints.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00424008.

Project description:IntroductionThis study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma.MethodsA pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI).ResultsThe model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD.ConclusionsAt doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.