Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Combination Rescue Inhaler for Asthma.

BACKGROUND: As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 80 µg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 80 µg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg and 40 µg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 µg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 µg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 µg of albuterol and 160 µg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.).

Prevalence, Diagnostic Utility and Associated Characteristics of Bronchodilator Responsiveness.

Rationale: The prevalence and diagnostic utility of bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in a real-life setting is unclear. Objective: To explore this uncertainty in patients aged ⩾12 years with physician-assigned diagnoses of asthma, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or COPD in NOVELTY, a prospective cohort study in primary and secondary care in 18 countries. Methods: The proportion of patients with a positive BDR test in each diagnostic category was calculated using 2005 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC ⩾12% and ⩾200 ml) and 2021 (ΔFEV1 or ΔFVC >10% predicted) European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria. Measurements and Main Results: We studied 3,519 patients with a physician-assigned diagnosis of asthma, 833 with a diagnosis of asthma + COPD, and 2,436 with a diagnosis of COPD. The prevalence of BDR was 19.7% (asthma), 29.6% (asthma + COPD), and 24.7% (COPD) using 2005 criteria and 18.1%, 23.3%, and 18.0%, respectively, using 2021 criteria. Using 2021 criteria in patients diagnosed with asthma, BDR was associated with higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide; lower lung function; higher symptom burden; more frequent hospital admissions; and greater use of triple therapy, oral corticosteroids, or biologics. In patients diagnosed with COPD, BDR (2021) was associated with lower lung function and higher symptom burden. Conclusions: BDR prevalence in patients with chronic airway diseases receiving treatment ranges from 18% to 30%, being modestly lower with the 2021 than with the 2005 European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria, and it is associated with lower lung function and greater symptom burden. These observations question the validity of BDR as a key diagnostic tool for asthma managed in clinical practice or as a standard inclusion criterion for clinical trials of asthma and instead suggest that BDR be considered a treatable trait for chronic airway disease.

The carbon footprint of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in mild asthma: a post hoc analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and asthma exacerbations necessitating healthcare reviews contribute substantially to the global carbon footprint of healthcare. It is possible that a reduction in carbon footprint could be achieved by switching patients with mild asthma from salbutamol pMDI reliever therapy to inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) reliever therapy, as recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). METHODS: This post hoc analysis included all 668 adult participants in the Novel START trial, who were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with: as-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI, as-needed salbutamol pMDI, or maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI. The primary outcome was carbon footprint of asthma management, expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kgCO2e), per person year. Secondary outcomes explored the effect of baseline symptom control and adherence (maintenance budesonide DPI arm only) on carbon footprint. RESULTS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI was associated with 95.8% and 93.6% lower carbon footprint compared with as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least squares mean 1.1 versus 26.2 kgCO2e; difference -25.0, 95% CI -29.7 to -20.4; p<0.001) and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least squares mean 1.1 versus 17.3 kgCO2e; difference -16.2, 95% CI -20.9 to -11.6; p<0.001), respectively. There was no statistically significant evidence that treatment differences in carbon footprint depended on baseline symptom control or adherence in the maintenance budesonide DPI arm. CONCLUSIONS: The as-needed budesonide-formoterol DPI treatment option was associated with a markedly lower carbon footprint than as-needed salbutamol pMDI and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Conservative Oxygen Therapy during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are undergoing mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) often receive a high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) and have a high arterial oxygen tension. The conservative use of oxygen may reduce oxygen exposure, diminish lung and systemic oxidative injury, and thereby increase the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free from mechanical ventilation). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1000 adult patients who were anticipated to require mechanical ventilation beyond the day after recruitment in the ICU to receive conservative or usual oxygen therapy. In the two groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) was 90%. In the conservative-oxygen group, the upper limit of the Spo2 alarm was set to sound when the level reached 97%, and the Fio2 was decreased to 0.21 if the Spo2 was above the acceptable lower limit. In the usual-oxygen group, there were no specific measures limiting the Fio2 or the Spo2. The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 28. RESULTS: The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the conservative-oxygen group and the usual-oxygen group, with a median duration of 21.3 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.3) and 22.1 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.2), respectively, for an absolute difference of -0.3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 1.6; P = 0.80). The conservative-oxygen group spent more time in the ICU with an Fio2 of 0.21 than the usual-oxygen group, with a median duration of 29 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 78) and 1 hour (interquartile range, 0 to 17), respectively (absolute difference, 28 hours; 95% CI, 22 to 34); the conservative-oxygen group spent less time with an Spo2 exceeding 96%, with a duration of 27 hours (interquartile range, 11 to 63.5) and 49 hours (interquartile range, 22 to 112), respectively (absolute difference, 22 hours; 95% CI, 14 to 30). At 180 days, mortality was 35.7% in the conservative-oxygen group and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group, for an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.37). CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, the use of conservative oxygen therapy, as compared with usual oxygen therapy, did not significantly affect the number of ventilator-free days. (Funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand; ICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000957594.).

Conservative versus Interventional Treatment for Spontaneous Pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: Whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to interventional management for uncomplicated, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients 14 to 50 years of age with a first-known, unilateral, moderate-to-large primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate interventional management of the pneumothorax (intervention group) or a conservative observational approach (conservative-management group) and were followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was lung reexpansion within 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients underwent randomization (154 patients to the intervention group and 162 to the conservative-management group). In the conservative-management group, 25 patients (15.4%) underwent interventions to manage the pneumothorax, for reasons prespecified in the protocol, and 137 (84.6%) did not undergo interventions. In a complete-case analysis in which data were not available for 23 patients in the intervention group and 37 in the conservative-management group, reexpansion within 8 weeks occurred in 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) with interventional management and in 118 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 0.5; P = 0.02 for noninferiority); the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -9 percentage points. In a sensitivity analysis in which all missing data after 56 days were imputed as treatment failure (with reexpansion in 129 of 138 patients [93.5%] in the intervention group and in 118 of 143 [82.5%] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -11.0 percentage points (95% CI, -18.4 to -3.5) was outside the prespecified noninferiority margin. Conservative management resulted in a lower risk of serious adverse events or pneumothorax recurrence than interventional management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary outcome was not statistically robust to conservative assumptions about missing data, the trial provides modest evidence that conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management, with a lower risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others; PSP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000184976.).

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma.

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting ß2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

Can we predict who will benefit most from biologics in severe asthma? A post-hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Individualized prediction of treatment response may improve the value proposition of advanced treatment options in severe asthma. This study aimed to investigate the combined capacity of patient characteristics in predicting treatment response to mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from two multinational phase 3 trials of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma. We fitted penalized regression models to quantify reductions in the rate of severe exacerbations and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) score. The capacity of 15 covariates towards predicting treatment response was quantified by the Gini index (measuring disparities in treatment benefit) as well as observed treatment benefit within the quintiles of predicted treatment benefit. RESULTS: There was marked variability in the ability of patient characteristics to predict treatment response; covariates explained greater heterogeneity in predicting treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation frequency (Gini index 0.35 v. 0.24). Key predictors for treatment benefit for severe exacerbations included exacerbation history, blood eosinophil count, baseline ACQ5 score and age, and those for symptom control included blood eosinophil count and presence of nasal polyps. Overall, the average reduction in exacerbations was 0.90/year (95%CI, 0.87‒0.92) and average reduction in ACQ5 score was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.02‒0.35). Among the top 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 2.23/year (95% CI, 2.03‒2.43) and ACQ5 score were reduced by 0.59 (95% CI, 0.19‒0.98). Among the bottom 20% of patients for predicted treatment benefit, exacerbations were reduced by 0.25/year (95% CI, 0.16‒0.34) and ACQ5 by -0.20 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.11). CONCLUSION: A precision medicine approach based on multiple patient characteristics can guide biologic therapy in severe asthma, especially in identifying patients who will not benefit as much from therapy. Patient characteristics had a greater capacity to predict treatment response to asthma control than to exacerbation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521 (registered September 24, 2012) and NCT01000506 (registered October 23, 2009).

Heart rate variability as a marker of autonomic nervous system activity in young people with eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: An imbalance in autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity may play a role in asthma, but it is unclear whether this is associated with specific pathophysiology. This study assessed ANS activity by measuring heart rate variability (HRV) in eosinophilic (EA) and non-eosinophilic asthma (NEA) and people without asthma. METHODS: HRV, combined hypertonic saline challenge/sputum induction, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), skin prick tests to measure atopy, and spirometry tests were conducted in teenagers and young adults (14-21 years) with (n = 96) and without (n = 72) generally well-controlled asthma. HRV parameters associated with sympathetic and parasympathetic ANS branches were analyzed. EA and NEA were defined using a 2.5% sputum eosinophil cut-point. Airway hyperreactivity (AHR) was defined as ≥15% reduction in FEV1 following saline challenge. RESULTS: HRV parameters did not differ between asthmatics and non-asthmatics or EA and NEA. They were also not associated with markers of inflammation, lung function or atopy. However, increased absolute low frequency (LFµs2; representing increased sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity) was found in asthmatics who used ß-agonist medication compared to those who did not (median: 1611, IQR 892-3036 vs 754, 565-1592; p < 0.05) and increased normalized low frequency (LF nu) was found in those with AHR compared to without AHR (64, 48-71 vs 53, 43-66; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ANS activity (as measured using HRV analysis) is not associated with pathophysiology or inflammatory phenotype in young asthmatics with generally well-controlled asthma. However, enhanced SNS activity can be detected in asthmatics with AHR or who use ß-agonist medication.

The treatable traits approach to adults with obstructive airways disease in primary and secondary care.

The treatable traits approach is based on the recognition that the different clinical phenotypes of asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) are a heterogeneous group of conditions with different underlying mechanisms and clinical manifestations, and that the identification and treatment of the specific clinical features or traits facilitates a personalised approach to management. Fundamentally, it recognises two important concepts. Firstly, that treatment for obstructive lung disease can achieve better outcomes if guided by specific clinical characteristics. Secondly, that in patients with a diagnosis of asthma, and/or COPD, poor respiratory health may also be due to numerous overlapping disorders that can present with symptoms that may be indistinguishable from asthma and/or COPD, comorbidities that might require treatment in their own right, and lifestyle or environmental factors that, if addressed, might lead to better control rather than simply increasing airways directed treatment. While these concepts are well accepted, how best to implement this personalised medicine approach in primary and secondary care within existing resource constraints remains uncertain. In this review, we consider the evidence base for this management approach and propose that the priority now is to assess different prototype templates for the identification and management of treatable traits in both asthma and COPD, in primary, secondary and tertiary care, to provide the evidence that will guide their use in clinical practice in different health care systems.

Controlled Trial of Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed for Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, budesonide-formoterol used on an as-needed basis resulted in a lower risk of severe exacerbation of asthma than as-needed use of a short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA); the risk was similar to that of budesonide maintenance therapy plus as-needed SABA. The availability of data from clinical trials designed to better reflect clinical practice would be beneficial. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial involving adults with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: albuterol (100 µg, two inhalations from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler as needed for asthma symptoms) (albuterol group); budesonide (200 µg, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler twice daily) plus as-needed albuterol (budesonide maintenance group); or budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol, one inhalation through a Turbuhaler as needed) (budesonide-formoterol group). Electronic monitoring of inhalers was used to measure medication use. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: The analysis included 668 of 675 patients who underwent randomization. The annualized exacerbation rate in the budesonide-formoterol group was lower than that in the albuterol group (absolute rate, 0.195 vs. 0.400; relative rate, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.72; P<0.001) and did not differ significantly from the rate in the budesonide maintenance group (absolute rate, 0.195 in the budesonide-formoterol group vs. 0.175 in the budesonide maintenance group; relative rate, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.79; P = 0.65). The number of severe exacerbations was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group than in both the albuterol group (9 vs. 23; relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.86) and the budesonide maintenance group (9 vs. 21; relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.96). The mean (±SD) dose of inhaled budesonide was 107±109 µg per day in the budesonide-formoterol group and 222±113 µg per day in the budesonide maintenance group. The incidence and type of adverse events reported were consistent with those in previous trials and with reports in clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-label trial involving adults with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was superior to albuterol used as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Novel START Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000999538.).

Epinephrine (adrenaline) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: International asthma guidelines recommend against epinephrine (adrenaline) administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angio-oedema. However, administration of intramuscular epinephrine in addition to nebulised selective ß2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many prehospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of epinephrine in comparison to selective ß2-agonist in acute asthma. METHODS: We included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared epinephrine by any route to selective ß2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, including hospitalisation, need for intubation or death. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 1140 studies were included. Overall quality of evidence was low. Seventeen studies contributed data on 1299 participants to the meta-analysis. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled Peto's OR for treatment failure with epinephrine versus selective ß2-agonist was 0.99 (0.75 to 1.32), p=0.95. There was strong evidence that recruitment age group was associated with different estimates of the odds of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having lower odds of treatment failure with epinephrine. It was not possible to determine whether epinephrine in addition to selective ß2-agonist improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: The low-quality evidence available suggests that epinephrine and selective ß2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to determine whether addition of intramuscular epinephrine to inhaled or nebulised selective ß2-agonist improves outcome. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017079472.

Single dose of budesonide/formoterol turbuhaler compared to salbutamol pMDI for speed of bronchodilator onset in asthma: a randomised cross-over trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare bronchodilator response after to salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in adults with stable asthma. METHODS: A double-blind, cross-over, single-centre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Adults with stable asthma were randomised to different orders of two treatment regimens: two actuations of placebo via MDI and one actuation of budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg via turbuhaler; and one actuation of placebo turbuhaler and two actuations of salbutamol 100 µg via MDI. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 2 min. Secondary outcome measures included FEV1, mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score and visual analogue score for breathlessness over 30 min. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 50 potential participants were randomised. One participant withdrew following the first intervention visit and another could not be randomised due to COVID-19 restrictions. The mean (SD) change from baseline FEV1 2 min after treatment administration for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol was 0.08 (0.14) L, n=49, and 0.17 (0.18) L, n=48, respectively, mean (95% CI) paired difference of -0.097 L (-0.147 to -0.047), p=0.07, against a non-inferiority bound of -0.06 L. In the secondary analysis, FEV1 over 30 min was lower for budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol, difference (95% CI): -0.10 (-0.12 to -0.08) L, p<0.001. There were no differences in Visual Analogue Scale score or mBorg Dyspnoea Scale score between treatments. CONCLUSION: The results do not support the primary hypothesis of non-inferiority at the boundary of -0.06 L for the difference between budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg compared with salbutamol 200 µg for FEV1 at 2 min, and could be consistent with inferiority with a p value of 0.07. For the secondary analysis of FEV1 measurements over time, the FEV1 was higher with salbutamol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12619001387112).

Repeated dose budesonide/formoterol compared to salbutamol in adult asthma: A randomised cross-over trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative bronchodilator, systemic beta2-agonist, cardiovascular and adverse effects of salbutamol 200 µg and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg when taken repeatedly in stable asthma. METHODS: This open-label, cross-over, single-centre, controlled trial, randomised adults with asthma to different orders of two treatment regimens: salbutamol 200 µg via MDI at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, then salbutamol 2.5 mg via nebuliser at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min; or budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg one actuation via Turbuhaler at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, two actuations at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 180 min. Secondary outcomes included repeat measures of FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and adverse events RESULTS: Of 39 patients randomised, two withdrew due to adverse events (QTCF prolongation and T wave abnormalities) after the first intervention with salbutamol. The mean (sd) change from baseline FEV1 180 min after randomisation for salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol regimens was 0.71 (0.46) L, N=38, and 0.58 (0.45) L, N=37, respectively; with a mean (sd) paired difference of -0.10 (0.40) L, N=37, and a model-based estimated difference (95% CI) -0.12 (-0.25 to 0.02) L, p=0.088. In the main secondary analysis, salbutamol resulted in significantly greater FEV1 from 30 to 240 min, but lesser FEV1 at 360 and 420 min. Salbutamol resulted in a significantly lower serum potassium, and a higher heart rate and number of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The comparative bronchodilator responses of repeated administration of salbutamol 200 µg dose-1 and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg differed depending on the time of measurement. Salbutamol caused greater systemic beta2-agonist and cardiovascular effects and more adverse events.

Effects of inhaled JAK inhibitor GDC-4379 on exhaled nitric oxide and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Janus Kinases (JAKs) mediate activity of many asthma-relevant cytokines. GDC-0214, an inhaled small molecule JAK1 inhibitor, has previously been shown to reduce fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in patients with mild asthma, but required an excessive number of inhalations. AIM: To assess whether GDC-4379, a new inhaled JAK inhibitor, reduces FeNO and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. METHODS: This study assessed the activity of GDC-4379 in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study in patients with mild asthma. Participants included adults (18-65y) with a diagnosis of asthma for ≥6 months, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)> 70% predicted, FeNO >40 ppb, using as-needed short-acting beta-agonist medication only. Four sequential, 14-day, ascending-dose cohorts (10 mg QD, 30 mg QD, 40 mg BID, and 80 mg QD) of 12 participants each were randomized 2:1 to GDC-4379 or placebo. The primary activity outcome was percent change from baseline (CFB) in FeNO to Day 14 compared to the pooled placebo group. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers, including blood eosinophils, serum CCL17, and serum CCL18, were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 48 enrolled participants, the mean age was 25 years and 54% were female. Median (range) FeNO at baseline was 79 (41-222) ppb. GDC-4379 treatment led to dose-dependent reductions in FeNO. Compared to placebo, mean (95% CI) percent CFB in FeNO to Day 14 was: -6 (-43, 32) at 10 mg QD, -26 (-53, 2) at 30 mg QD, -55 (-78, -32) at 40 mg BID and -52 (-72, -32) at 80 mg QD. Dose-dependent reductions in blood eosinophils and serum CCL17 were also observed. Higher plasma drug concentrations corresponded with greater FeNO reductions. No serious AEs occurred. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate. The most common AEs were headache and oropharyngeal pain. Minor changes in neutrophils were noted at 80 mg QD, but were not considered clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, 14-day treatment with GDC-4379 reduced FeNO levels and peripheral biomarkers of inflammation. Treatment was well tolerated without any major safety concerns. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12619000227190.

Treatable traits in the NOVELTY study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are two prevalent and complex diseases that require personalized management. Although a strategy based on treatable traits (TTs) has been proposed, the prevalence and relationship of TTs to the diagnostic label and disease severity established by the attending physician in a real-world setting are unknown. We assessed how the presence/absence of specific TTs relate to the diagnosis and severity of 'asthma', 'COPD' or 'asthma + COPD'. METHODS: The authors selected 30 frequently occurring TTs from the NOVELTY study cohort (NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY; NCT02760329), a large (n = 11,226), global study that systematically collects data in a real-world setting, both in primary care clinics and specialized centres, for patients with 'asthma' (n = 5932, 52.8%), 'COPD' (n = 3898, 34.7%) or both ('asthma + COPD'; n = 1396, 12.4%). RESULTS: The results indicate that (1) the prevalence of the 30 TTs evaluated varied widely, with a mean ± SD of 4.6 ± 2.6, 5.4 ± 2.6 and 6.4 ± 2.8 TTs/patient in those with 'asthma', 'COPD' and 'asthma + COPD', respectively (p < 0.0001); (2) there were no large global geographical variations, but the prevalence of TTs was different in primary versus specialized clinics; (3) several TTs were specific to the diagnosis and severity of disease, but many were not; and (4) both the presence and absence of TTs formed a pattern that is recognized by clinicians to establish a diagnosis and grade its severity. CONCLUSION: These results provide the largest and most granular characterization of TTs in patients with airway diseases in a real-world setting to date.

Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand Position Statement on Acute Oxygen Use in Adults: 'Swimming between the flags'.

Oxygen is a life-saving therapy but, when given inappropriately, may also be hazardous. Therefore, in the acute medical setting, oxygen should only be given as treatment for hypoxaemia and requires appropriate prescription, monitoring and review. This update to the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) guidance on acute oxygen therapy is a brief and practical resource for all healthcare workers involved with administering oxygen therapy to adults in the acute medical setting. It does not apply to intubated or paediatric patients. Recommendations are made in the following six clinical areas: assessment of hypoxaemia (including use of arterial blood gases); prescription of oxygen; peripheral oxygen saturation targets; delivery, including non-invasive ventilation and humidified high-flow nasal cannulae; the significance of high oxygen requirements; and acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. There are three sections which provide (1) a brief summary, (2) recommendations in detail with practice points and (3) a detailed explanation of the reasoning and evidence behind the recommendations. It is anticipated that these recommendations will be disseminated widely in structured programmes across Australia and New Zealand.

Experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in a cohort of New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: To explore the experiences, patient interactions and knowledge regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand doctors in an oncology setting. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional survey undertaken between November 2019 and January 2020 across four secondary-care hospital oncology departments within New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Participants were a convenience sample of doctors; consultants, registrars, medical officers of special status and house surgeons working in oncology departments. Of 53 individuals approached, 45 participated (85% Response Rate). The primary outcome was reporteddoctor-patient interactions. Secondary outcomes included knowledge of cannabis-based products, their efficacy, prescribing regulations and educational access. RESULTS: Of 44 doctors, 37 (84%, 95% CI: 70 to 93) reported patient requests to prescribe cannabis-based products and 43 (98%, 95% CI: 88 to 100) reported patients using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. Primary request reasons were pain, nausea/vomiting and cancer treatment. 33/45 (73%, 95% CI: 58 to 85) cited knowledge of at least one cannabis-based product and 27/45 (60%, 95% CI: 44 to 74) indicated at least one condition that had evidence of efficacy. 36/44 (82%, 95% CI: 67 to 92) expressed future prescribing concerns but all were willing to use a cannabis-based product developed with traditional medical provenance. CONCLUSION: In the oncology setting, patients are asking doctors about symptomatic and curative treatment with cannabis-based products. Doctors are not biased against the use of products showing medical provenance; however, NZ-specific clinical and regulatory guidelines are essential to support patient discussions and appropriate prescribing.

Audit of oxygen administration to achieve a target oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell medical patients.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate documentation of a target oxygen saturation (SpO2) range and ability to achieve this range in acutely unwell inpatients. STUDY DESIGN: In this single-centre audit, patients with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure and exacerbation of asthma or COPD admitted to Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand between 1 June 2019 and 31 August 2019 who received oxygen were identified. In those with a documented target SpO2 range, the proportion of SpO2 measurements in the observation chart which were within, above and below range were determined as well as the maximum and minimum SpO2. Regression analysis was performed to determine whether these outcomes were influenced by the prescribed range, high-dependency care or the number of adjustments to oxygen administration. RESULTS: 268 admissions were screened. Of the 100 eligible admissions who received oxygen, a target SpO2 range was documented in 62. The mean (SD) proportion of SpO2 measurements within range was 56.2 (30.6)%. A hypercapnic target SpO2 range was associated with a higher probability of an SpO2 above range; multivariate OR 5.34 (95% CI 1.65 to 17.3, p=0.006) and a lower probability of an SpO2 below range; multivariate OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.80) p=0.02. The mean (SD) maximum SpO2 was similar in those with a target range of 92%-96% versus a hypercapnic range; 96.2 (3.0)% and 95.2 (3.4)%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen prescription and delivery in this clinical setting was suboptimal. SpO2 values above the designated range are common, particularly in patients with a hypercapnic target range.

Inhaled JAK inhibitor GDC-0214 reduces exhaled nitric oxide in patients with mild asthma: A randomized, controlled, proof-of-activity trial.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway mediates the activity of many asthma-relevant cytokines, including IL-4 and IL-13. GDC-0214 is a potent, inhaled, small-molecule JAK inhibitor being developed for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether GDC-0214 reduces fractional exhaled nitric oxide (Feno), a JAK1-dependent biomarker of airway inflammation, in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1 proof-of-activity study in adults with mild asthma and Feno higher than 40 parts per billion (ppb). Subjects were randomized 2:1 (GDC-0214:placebo) into 4 sequential ascending-dose cohorts (1 mg once daily [QD], 4 mg QD, 15 mg QD, or 15 mg twice daily). All subjects received 4 days of blinded placebo, then 10 days of either active drug or placebo. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected percent reduction in Feno from baseline to day 14. Baseline was defined as the average Feno during the blinded placebo period. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (mean age, 28 years; 54% females) were enrolled. Mean Feno at baseline across all subjects was 93 ± 43 ppb. At day 14, placebo-corrected difference in Feno was -23% (95% CI, -37.3 to -9) for 15 mg QD and -42% (95% CI, -57 to -27.4) for 15 mg twice daily. Higher plasma exposure was associated with greater Feno reduction. No dose-limiting adverse events, serious adverse events, or treatment discontinuations occurred. There were no major imbalances in adverse events or laboratory findings, or evidence of systemic JAK inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: GDC-0214, an inhaled JAK inhibitor, caused dose-dependent reductions in Feno in mild asthma and was well tolerated without evidence of systemic toxicity.