Budesonide inhalation suspension versus montelukast in children aged 2 to 4 years with mild persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) and montelukast provide acceptable asthma control, whereas overall measures favored BIS in children aged 2 to 8 years with mild persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: We compared BIS and montelukast over a 1-year period in children aged 2 to 4 years with asthma. METHODS: Data were derived from a 52-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter study (NCT00641472). Children with mild asthma received either BIS 0.5 mg or montelukast 4 to 5 mg once daily. Patients were stepped up to twice-daily BIS or oral corticosteroids for mild or severe asthma worsening, respectively. Primary efficacy assessment was time to first additional asthma medication for exacerbation over 52 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients, age 2 to 4 years, received BIS (n = 105) or montelukast (n = 97). No difference was observed between the BIS and montelukast groups in median time to first additional asthma medication over 52 weeks (183 vs 86 days). Statistically significant differences were observed in favor of BIS over montelukast in the percentage of patients requiring oral steroids at 52 weeks (21.9% vs 37.1%; P = .022), the rate (number/patient/year) of additional courses of medication (1.35 vs 2.30; P = .003), the rate of additional oral steroid therapy (0.44 vs 0.88; P = .008), and caregivers' ability to manage the patient's symptoms (P = .026). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: BIS and montelukast provided acceptable asthma control in children aged 2 to 4 years with mild persistent asthma with no significant difference between treatments in the primary end point; however, several secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences (and many had numerical differences) in favor of BIS over montelukast.

Budesonide/formoterol via Turbuhaler® versus formoterol via Turbuhaler® in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: phase III multinational study results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was evaluated. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study (NCT01069289), patients with moderate to severe COPD for ≥2 years received either budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg two inhalations twice daily via Turbuhaler® or formoterol 4.5 µg two inhalations twice daily via Turbuhaler® for 12 weeks. Salbutamol was available as reliever medication. Primary outcome variable: change from baseline to average during treatment in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ). RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were randomized (budesonide/formoterol n = 636; formoterol n = 657). Both budesonide/formoterol and formoterol increased pre-dose FEV1 versus baseline (improvements of 4.6% and 1.5% over baseline, respectively), with the increase from baseline being significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol (budesonide/formoterol:formoterol ratio 1.032; 95% confidence interval: 1.013-1.052; P = 0.0011). The budesonide/formoterol group had a significantly prolonged time to first exacerbation versus the formoterol group (hazard ratio: 0.679; 95% confidence interval: 0.507-0.909; P = 0.0094) and significantly greater improvements in many secondary outcome measures. Both treatments were well tolerated; the incidence and type of adverse events were similar: most commonly reported (budesonide/formoterol vs formoterol): COPD (8.0% vs 9.4%) and nasopharyngitis (5.5% vs 4.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg two inhalations twice daily was effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD, offering benefits over formoterol alone in terms of improved lung function and reduced risk of exacerbation.

The poorly explored impact of uncontrolled asthma.

The goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control; however, despite the availability of effective and safe medications, for many patients asthma remains uncontrolled. One reason for this is the fear of long-term side effects from the regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Adverse effects of poorly controlled asthma (for example, obesity, pneumonia, and risks to the fetus) can be perceived as side effects of ICSs. Poorly controlled asthma adversely affects children's cardiovascular fitness, while children with well-controlled asthma perform at the same level as their peers. Children with uncontrolled asthma also have a higher frequency of obesity than children with controlled asthma. Stress can affect asthma control, and children with poorly controlled asthma are more likely to have learning disabilities compared with those with good control. In adults, focused attention and concentration are negatively affected in patients with untreated asthma, and patients with asthma are at greater risk for depression. Also, poorly controlled asthma increases the risks of severe asthma exacerbations following upper respiratory and pneumococcal pulmonary infections. ICSs used to improve asthma control have been demonstrated to improve all of these outcomes. Lastly, the risks of uncontrolled asthma during pregnancy are substantially greater than the risks of recommended asthma medications. Treatments to maintain asthma control are the best approach to optimize maternal and fetal health in the pregnancies of women with asthma. The maintenance of asthma control has significant advantages to patients and greatly outweighs the potential risks of treatment side effects.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy via Turbuhaler versus fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline in patients with asthma: phase III study results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever therapy versus budesonide/formoterol maintenance plus terbutaline in adults with persistent asthma not adequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy alone. METHODS: In this 12-month, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study (NCT00839800), patients (age ≥ 16 years; receiving maintenance ICS; ≥ 1 severe exacerbation in the 12 months prior to study entry) were randomized to either budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 1 inhalation twice daily plus budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg as-needed or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 1 inhalation twice daily plus terbutaline 0.4 mg as-needed for 12 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME: time to first severe asthma exacerbation; secondary outcomes included: lung function, asthma symptom variables and tolerability. RESULTS: Two thousand and ninety-one patients were randomized: 170 (16%) receiving budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy experienced 259 severe exacerbations versus 229 patients (22%) receiving budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline who experienced 363 severe exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation versus budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline (P = 0.0007) and reduced the instantaneous risk of an exacerbation by 30% (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.85, P = 0.0003). Times to first oral steroid use, first hospitalization and first emergency room treatment were all significantly prolonged in the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever group versus budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline. Both treatment groups were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy provided more effective asthma control, including a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, than budesonide/formoterol plus terbutaline and was well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy also improved lung function and asthma symptoms.

Onset of action of formoterol versus salmeterol via dry powder inhalers in moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilator therapy is central to the symptomatic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and treatment with short-acting bronchodilators is recommended in patients with mild COPD. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the onset of effect of single-dose formoterol 9 µg versus single-dose salmeterol 50 µg in patients with moderate COPD. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-way single-dose crossover study, patients ≥40 years of age with moderate COPD were randomized to single-dose formoterol 9 µg via Turbuhaler® plus placebo via Diskus®, single-dose salmeterol 50 µg via Diskus® plus placebo via Turbuhaler® or placebo via Turbuhaler® and Diskus® (washout period 2-7 days). Terbutaline 0.5 mg/actuation via Turbuhaler® was used as reliever medication throughout. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 5 minutes post-dose. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving ≥12% increase in FEV1 at 5 minutes post-dose. RESULTS: 109 patients were randomized, and 108 completed the study. The increase in FEV1 5 minutes post-dose versus pre-dose was 7.2% for formoterol, 4.1% for salmeterol and 0.7% for placebo, and significantly greater for formoterol versus salmeterol (ratio of treatment effects: 1.030; 95% CI 1.008, 1.052; p = 0.009), for formoterol versus placebo (1.064, 95% CI 1.041, 1.087; p < 0.001) and for salmeterol versus placebo (1.033, 95% CI 1.011, 1.056; p = 0.003). The proportions of patients with ≥12% increase in FEV1 5 minutes post-dose were 23.1%, 9.2% and 6.4% for formoterol, salmeterol and placebo, respectively; this was statistically significantly larger after formoterol than salmeterol (p = 0.008) or placebo (p < 0.001). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In COPD patients, formoterol 9 µg has an onset of bronchodilatory effect that is more rapid than salmeterol 50 µg based on FEV1 at 5 minutes post-dose. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01048333; AstraZeneca study code: D5127C00001.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide.

AIMS: A hydrofluoroalkane formulation of budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler has been developed to replace the existing chlorofluorocarbon one. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of both formulations. METHODS: Systemic bioavailability and bioactivity of both hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations at 800 µg twice daily was determined during a randomized crossover systemic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study at steady state in healthy volunteers. Measurements included the following: plasma cortisol AUC(24h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-24 h)], budesonide AUC(0-12h) and C(max) . Clinical efficacy was determined during a randomized crossover pharmacodynamic study in asthmatic patients receiving 200 µg followed by 800 µg budesonide via chlorofluorocarbon or hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler each for 4 weeks. Methacholine PC(20) (primary outcome), exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, peak expiratory flow and symptoms were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic study, there were no differences in cortisol, AUC(0-12h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-12 h)], T(max) (time to maximum concentration) or C(max) (peak serum concentration) between the hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler. The ratio of budesonide hydrofluoroalkane vs. chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler for cortisol AUC(24h) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.11) and budesonide AUC(0-12h) was 1.03 (90% confidence interval 0.9-1.18). In the asthma pharmacodynamic study, there was a significant dose response (P < 0.0001) for methacholine PC(20) (provocative concentration of methacholine needed to produce a 20% fall in FEV(1) ) with a relative potency ratio of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.49-2.66), and no difference at either dose. No significant differences between formulations were seen with the secondary outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide were therapeutically equivalent in terms of relative lung bioavailability, airway efficacy and systemic effects.

Risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking inhaled corticosteroids.

RATIONALE: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma treatment. Studies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported increased rates of pneumonia with ICS. Concerns exist about an increased pneumonia risk in patients with asthma taking ICS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking ICS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis evaluated studies of the ICS budesonide in asthma. The primary data set were all double-blind, placebo-controlled trials lasting at least 3 months, involving budesonide (26 trials, n = 9,067 for budesonide; n = 5,926 for the comparator) sponsored by AstraZeneca. A secondary data set evaluated all double-blind trials lasting at least 3 months but without placebo control (60 trials, n = 33,496 for budesonide, n = 2,773 for fluticasone propionate). Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to estimate the relative effect of ICS on pneumonia adverse events (AEs) or serious adverse events (SAEs). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the primary data set, the occurrence of pneumonia AEs was 0.5% (rate 10.0 events/1,000 patient-years [TPY]) for budesonide and 1.2% (19.3 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.76; P < 0.001); the occurrence of pneumonia SAEs was 0.15% (2.9 per TPY) for budesonide and 0.13% (2.1 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.12; P = 0.58). In the secondary data set, the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia AEs was 0.70% (12.7 per TPY), whereas the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia SAEs was 0.17% (3.1 per TPY). There was no increased risk with higher budesonide doses or any difference between budesonide and fluticasone. CONCLUSIONS: There is no increased risk of pneumonia in patients with asthma, identified as an AE or SAE, in clinical trials using budesonide.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered via two dry powder inhalers.

BACKGROUND: The dry powder inhaler (DPI) device for budesonide inhalation powder 200 microg (DPI-A) was redesigned to improve dosing consistency and provide new features (budesonide inhalation powder 90 microg and 180 microg; DPI-B). OBJECTIVE: Two multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, 12-week studies compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered via each DPI versus placebo, and the systemic exposure of budesonide from each device. METHODS: Asthmatic adults with mild-to-moderate asthma (N = 621) and patients 6-17 years with mild asthma (N = 516) received budesonide DPI-B 360 microg or DPI-A 400 microg twice-daily (total daily dose 720 microg or 800 microg), budesonide DPI-B 180 microg or DPI-A 200 microg once daily (total daily dose 180 microg or 200 microg), or matching placebo. Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and secondary variables (asthma symptoms, beta(2)-adrenergic agonist use, peak expiratory flow [PEF], and withdrawals due to worsening asthma) versus placebo were measured. RESULTS: In both studies, FEV(1) significantly (p < 0.05) improved for all active treatments versus placebo except once-daily budesonide DPI-B 180 mug in adults. In the adult study, significantly (p < 0.05) greater improvements in all secondary variables occurred with all active treatments versus placebo. In the pediatric/adolescent study, improvements in AM/PM PEF were significantly (p or= 6 years with very mild asthma and adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. The study is limited by the evaluation of only two doses for each product in both studies. Additionally, the studies were not designed to test equivalence or noninferiority between the active products. Pharmacokinetic characterization was limited because of the small sample sizes.