Dataset Information

Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Mild Asthma: Data from the Two Phase III SYGMA Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Budesonide-formoterol taken as needed is an emerging treatment for mild asthma.

Objective

We used data from the SYGMA studies to assess the safety of As-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with As-needed terbutaline and compared with maintenance budesonide.

Methods

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies in patients aged ≥ 12 years with physician-assessed mild asthma. Patients were randomized to As-needed budesonide-formoterol 200/6 μg, twice-daily budesonide 200 μg as maintenance plus As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg, and As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs (DAEs), and study-defined asthma-related discontinuations from corresponding treatment groups in both studies were pooled. SYGMA 1 data were used for comparisons with As-needed terbutaline alone.

Results

The pooled analysis included 3366 patients in the As-needed budesonide-formoterol group and 3369 in the budesonide maintenance group, with AEs in 40.8% and 42.5% of patients, respectively. Common AEs included viral upper respiratory tract infection (viral URTI) and URTI. SAE, DAE, and asthma-related discontinuation rates were similar with As-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide. Potential local and systemic corticosteroid class effects were reported in ≤ 1% of patients for each budesonide-containing regimen. In SYGMA 1, AEs were more common in the As-needed terbutaline (n = 1277) than As-needed budesonide-formoterol (n = 1277) groups (42.7 vs. 38.0%), as were DAEs (2.9 vs. 0.8%) and asthma-related discontinuations (1.6 vs. 0.3%).

Conclusions

Budesonide-formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever therapy is generally well-tolerated in patients with mild asthma and has a safety profile similar to that of daily budesonide. No new safety signals were identified. CLINICALTRIAL.

Gov identifiers

NCT02149199 (SYGMA 1) and NCT02224157 (SYGMA 2).

SUBMITTER: FitzGerald JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7994217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In many patients with mild asthma, the low frequency of symptoms and the episodic nature of exacerbations make adherence to regular maintenance treatment difficult. This often leads to over-reliance on short-acting ?2-agonist (SABA) reliever medication and under-treatment of the underlying inflammation, with poor control of asthma symptoms and increased risk of exacerbations. The use of budesonide/formoterol 'as needed' in response to symptoms may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with mild asthma.The SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) programme consists of two 52-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma for at least 6 months, who would qualify for treatment with regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). SYGMA1 aims to recruit 3750 patients who will be randomised to placebo twice daily (bid) plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 ?g, placebo bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg, or budesonide 200 ?g bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over as-needed terbutaline for asthma control, as measured by well-controlled asthma weeks; a secondary objective is to establish the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline using the same outcome measure. SYGMA2 aims to recruit 4114 patients who will be randomised to placebo bid plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 ?g, or budesonide 200 ?g bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over budesonide bid plus as-needed terbutaline as measured by the annualised severe exacerbation rate. In both studies, use of all blinded study inhalers will be recorded electronically using Turbuhaler® Usage Monitors.Given the known risks of mild asthma, and known poor adherence with regular inhaled corticosteroids, the results of the SYGMA programme will help to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide/formoterol therapy in mild asthma. Patient recruitment is complete, and completion of the phase 3 studies is planned in 2017.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02149199 SYGMA1 and NCT02224157 SYGMA2. Registered on 16 May 2014 and 19 August 2014, respectively.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma.MethodsA Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 μg to twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results.ResultsAs-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses.ConclusionsAs-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Project description:BackgroundBudesonide and formoterol (BF) Spiromax® is a dry powder inhaler designed to deliver BF with maximum ease of use for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.MethodsA phase 3b, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial in patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma.Primary objectiveto demonstrate non-inferiority of twice-daily BF Spiromax 160/4.5 mcg to BF Turbuhaler® 200/6 mcg in change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary endpoints included: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire scores, change from baseline in evening PEF, trough forced expiratory volume in one second, percentage of symptom-free and rescue-free 24-hour periods, and safety.ResultsThe analysis was based on the per-protocol population (BF Spiromax, n = 290; BF Turbuhaler, n = 284). The least squares mean change from baseline to week 12 in morning PEF was: BF Spiromax, 18.8 L/min and BF Turbuhaler, 21.8 L/min. Non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler was demonstrated (the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval was -9.02 L/min, which is greater than -15 L/min [the criteria specified for non-inferiority]). The mean difference in the total performance domains scores for BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler were 0.248 at baseline and 0.353 at week 12 (both, p <0.001), indicating statistical superiority for BF Spiromax. No statistical or numerical differences were recorded in the total convenience domain score between the two devices. Scores for 'device preference' and 'willingness to continue' supported BF Spiromax at baseline and at week 12 (p = 0.0005 vs BF Turbuhaler). No significant between-group differences were observed in the other secondary efficacy endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in adverse events or asthma exacerbations.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler in patients (≥12 years) with asthma. More patients preferred the Spiromax device over Turbuhaler for its performance, and were willing to continue therapy with BF Spiromax beyond the 12-week study period.Trial registrationNCT01803555; February 28, 2013.

Project description:Bronchodilator therapy is the backbone of the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In some patients, inhaled corticosteroids can be prescribed in combination with bronchodilators. Through a subgroup analysis of pooled data from two large phase III clinical trials of bronchodilator therapy according to concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use (user vs. non-user), we sought to evaluate the clinical benefit of adding inhaled corticosteroids to dual bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The primary focus of this analysis of pooled data from the phase III ACLIFORM and AUGMENT studies was to evaluate the efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol on lung function stratified by inhaled corticosteroid use. We found that lung-function end points were significantly improved regardless of concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use among patients treated with the dual bronchodilator aclidinium/formoterol 400/12?µg twice daily compared with placebo and both monotherapies. Together with the previously reported observations that aclidinium/formoterol 400/12?µg reduces exacerbations vs. placebo in inhaled corticosteroid users and improves dyspnoea compared to monotherapy in inhaled corticosteroid non-users, these data suggest that both groups achieve lung function improvements, which translates to different clinical benefits depending on whether or not a patient is receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroids.CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE: 'TRIPLE' THERAPY COULD PROVE BENEFICIAL: A dual bronchodilator therapy taken together with corticosteroid inhalers may benefit patients with severe chronic lung disease. Bronchodilator drugs relax the lungs and widen airways in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While recent studies have shown that a dual bronchodilator therapy containing aclidinium and formoterol significantly improves lung function in COPD, little is known about combining the dual therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Anthony D'Urzo at the University of Toronto, Canada, and co-workers analysed data from 3394 patients with COPD undergoing dual therapy trials. Of these, 1180 were already taking ICSs. The team compared symptoms in the ICS group with those not taking ICSs. The dual therapy improved lung function across both groups regardless of ICS use, though patients gained different clinical benefits depending on ICS use and disease severity.