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-based therapy to inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) reliever therapy, as recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma. 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.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

Comparison of Budesonide/formoterol versus Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol as maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma control: a real-world observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported reduced acute exacerbation rates and improved symptom control in asthma patients treated using inhaled corticosteroids plus formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VIL) also provide rapid bronchodilation and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, however no studies have investigated FF/VIL as MART for asthma control. METHODS: From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2023, this retrospective study included asthma patients classified as step 3 or 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, who were then divided into two groups. One group received BUD/FOR as MART, while the other received FF/VIL as MART. Pulmonary function tests, exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, and blood eosinophil counts were measured before and after 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included, of whom 36 received BUD/FOR twice daily as MART, and 125 received FF/VIL once daily as MART. After 12 months of treatment, the FF/VIL group showed a significant increase in ACT scores by 1.57 (p < 0.001), while the BUD/FOR group had an increase of 0.88 (p = 0.11). In terms of FeNO levels, the BUD/FOR group experienced a decline of -0.2 ppb (p = 0.98), whereas the FF/VIL group had a mild increase of + 0.8 ppb (p = 0.7). Notably, there was a significant difference in the change of FeNO between the two groups (∆ FeNO: -0.2 ppb in BUD/FOR; + 0.8 ppb in FF/VIL, p < 0.001). There were no significant alterations observed in FEV1, blood eosinophil count, or acute exacerbation decline in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, patients treated with FF/VIL as MART showed improvements in ACT scores, while those treated with BUD/FOR as MART exhibited a reduction in FeNO levels. However, the difference between the two treatment groups did not reach clinical significance. Thus, FF/VIL as MART showed similar effectiveness to BUD/FOR as MART.

Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol Versus Fluticasone/Salmeterol in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol (BF) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FS) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing BF versus FS in the treatment of COPD from inception to July 17, 2023. Outcomes, including exacerbations, hospitalizations, pneumonia, emergency department (ED) visits for COPD, length of hospitalization, and number of exacerbations, were compared using risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 12.0. RESULTS: Ten studies comprising a total of 136,369 participants were included. Compared with those treated with FS, patients with COPD treated with BF experienced a reduced number of exacerbations (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00]; p = 0.040), hospitalizations (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.88]; p < 0.001), and frequency of pneumonia (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.92]; p = 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between BF and FS in terms of ED visits for COPD (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.69-1.10]; p = 0.243), length of hospitalization (WMD -0.18 [95% CI -0.62-0.27]; p = 0.437), and number of exacerbations (WMD -0.06 [95% CI -0.28-0.16]; p = 0.602). Notably, no significant heterogeneity was noted in length of hospitalization between the two groups, whereas clear heterogeneity was observed in other outcomes (I2 > 50%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with FS, BF therapy appears to be a more promising treatment strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD; however, this should be verified in further high-quality studies.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216). CONCLUSIONS: This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

Effectiveness and quality of life in asthmatic patients treated with budesonide/formoterol via Elpenhaler® device in primary care. The "SKIRON" real world study.

Aim: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy is used for the effective control of asthma. Aim of this study was to collect data on the effectiveness, safety, quality of life, and patient satisfaction from a fixed dose combination of budesonide/formoterol administered with the Elpenhaler® device following 3-months' treatment.Methods: A 3-month real-life, multicentre, one-arm, prospective observational study (SKIRON study-NCT03055793) was conducted, using the following questionnaires: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) for asthma control assessment, MiniAQLQ questionnaire for QoL assessment, and Feeling of Satisfaction with Inhaler questionnaire (FSI-10) for patients' satisfaction with the inhaler device. Comorbidities and safety data were also recorded during the study.Results: We enrolled 1,174 asthmatic patients following standard clinical practice in primary care from 126 sites in urban and rural areas of Greece. The majority of patients (71.5%) had at least one comorbidity. A statistically significant improvement in the ACQ-6 score was noted at 3 months compared to the baseline evaluation (mean ± SD 2.19 ± 0.97 at baseline vs. 0.55 ± 0.56 at 3 months; mean change -1.64 (95%CI -1.69, -1.57), p < 0.0001). MiniAQLQ score was statistically and clinically significantly improved, compared to baseline, (4.55 ± 1.04 at baseline vs. 6.37 ± 0.64 at 3 months; mean change 1.82 (95%CI 1.75, 1.87), p < 0.0001). The mean FSI-10 score of 44.2 ± 5.4 indicated patient satisfaction and ease-of-use of the Elpenhaler® device.Conclusions: In this large real-world study of inadequately-controlled asthma patients in primary care settings, the treatment with budesonide/formoterol FDC with the Elpenhaler® device was associated with significant improvement in patients' asthma control and quality of life.

Evaluating the affordability of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis medicines in a middle-income country.

BACKGROUND: A heavy financial burden is imposed on patients suffering from chronic diseases due to medicine out-of-pocket payments. OBJECTIVES: This study focuses on assessing the affordability of medications used for chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cystic fibrosis (CF) in Iran, specifically on the category R medicines listed in the 2017 Iran drug list (IDL) that are used for the treatment of these diseases, based on the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) drug code. METHODS: The affordability of medicines in mono and combination therapy approaches was assessed in CRDs using the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. Accordingly, if out-of-pocket payment for 30-days of pharmacotherapy exceeds one day for the lowest-paid unskilled government worker (LPGW), it's considered non-affordable. RESULTS: Based on the monotherapy approach, our finding demonstrates that all generic medicines of category R were affordable. However, branded drugs such as Symbicort®, Pulmicort Respules®, Flusalmex®, Seretide®, Fluticort Plus®, Seroflo®, and Salmeflo® cost between 1.2 and 2.5 days' wage of LPGW and considered unaffordable despite 70% insurance coverage. Moreover, based on the affordability ratio in the combination therapy approach, all medicines used in asthma, COPD, and CF patients with mild respiratory problems are affordable except omalizumab (inj), which is non-affordable due to its high price and no insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the existing insurance coverage does not protect households from hardship, so more considerations are needed such as different insurance schedules and patient support programs.

Effect of budesonide formoterol combined with tiotropium bromide on pulmonary function and inflammatory factors in patients with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of combining budesonide formoterol with tiotropium bromide for treating asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (AOCS). METHODS: The data of 104 patients with AOCS admitted to our hospital from December 2019 to December 2020 were assessed, randomly and divided into an experimental group (comprising 52 patients, receiving drug combination therapy) and a conventional group (comprising 52 patients, receiving drug therapy alone). Patients' clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, fractioned exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), immune function, endothelial function, serum lipid peroxidation injury indexes, adverse reactions, and quality of life scores were compared. RESULTS: Prior to treatment, no significant differences were observed in various pulmonary function indicators, FeNO, immune function, endothelial function, and lipid peroxidation injury indexes between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, after treatment, all observation indexes in both groups improved to different levels, with the experimental group -demonstrating -significantly superior improvement, compared to the conventional group (P < 0.05). We also observed that adverse reactions in the experimental group were significantly lower than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of budesonide formoterol to tiotropium bromide in treating asthma-COPD overlap syndrome may significantly improve pulmonary function, endothelial function, and immune status of patients and encourage the recovery of serum lipid peroxidation injury; therefore, this may deserve widespread adoption and application.

Effects of omalizumab combined with budesonide formoterol on clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, immune function, and adverse reactions in children with moderate and severe allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combining omalizumab with budesonide formoterol to treat children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, and investigate the effect of this combination therapy on pulmonary and immune functions. METHODS: The data of 88 children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, who were admitted to our hospital between July 2021 and July 2022, were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned either to control group (n = 44; received budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) or experimental group (n = 44; received omalizumab subcutaneous injection + budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) using computer-generated randomization. The clinical efficacy, asthma control (measured using childhood Asthma-Control Test [C-ACT] score), pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow), immune function (cluster of differentiation 3 cells [CD3+ cells], cluster of differentiation 4 cells [CD4+ cells], immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, and immunoglobulin E), and adverse reactions were observed and compared between both groups. RESULTS: After treatment, the experimental group had improved levels of pulmonary function and immune function indexes, higher C-ACT scores, and a higher overall response rate than the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions was not significantly different between both groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of omalizumab with budesonide formoterol for treating moderate and severe allergic asthma in children demonstrated promising clinical efficacy and improved their pulmonary and immune functions, leading to more rational asthma control. The combined regimen demonstrated satisfactory clinical safety and deserved clinical promotion.

Effects of treatment with montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both in cough variant asthma.

BACKGROUND: Whether cysteinyl-leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a similar antitussive effect to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), and that LTRA plus ICS/LABA is superior to LTRAs alone or ICS/LABA alone in treating cough variant asthma (CVA) remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy of montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and the combination of both in the treatment of CVA. METHODS: Ninety-nine CVA patients were assigned randomly in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive montelukast (M group: 10 mg, once daily), budesonide/formoterol (BF group: 160/4.5 µg, one puff, twice daily), or montelukast plus budesonide/formoterol (MBF group) for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes were changes in the cough visual analogue scale (VAS) score, daytime cough symptom score (CSS) and night-time CSS, and the secondary outcomes comprised changes in cough reflex sensitivity (CRS), the percentage of sputum eosinophils (sputum Eos%) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). CRS was presented with the lowest concentration of capsaicin that induced at least 5 coughs (C5). The repeated measure was used in data analysis. RESULTS: The median cough VAS score (median from 6.0 to 2.0 in the M group, 5.0 to 1.0 in the BF group and 6.0 to 1.0 in the MBF group, all p < 0.001), daytime CSS (all p < 0.01) and night-time CSS (all p < 0.001) decreased significantly in all three groups after treatment for 8 weeks. Meanwhile, the LogC5 and sputum Eos% improved significantly in all three groups after 8 weeks treatment (all p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the changes of the VAS score, daytime and night-time CSSs, LogC5 and sputum Eos% among the three groups from baseline to week 8 (all p > 0.05). The BF and MBF groups also showed significant decreases in FeNO after 8 weeks treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively), while no significant change was found in the M group (p = 0.457). Treatment with MBF for 8 weeks significantly improved the FEV1/FVC as well as the MMEF% pred and decreased the blood Eos% (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both were effective in improving cough symptom, decreasing cough reflex sensitivity and alleviating eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with CVA, and the antitussive effect and anti-eosinophilic airway inflammation were similar. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01404013.

Budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate triple therapy prevents pulmonary hypertension in a COPD mouse model via NFκB inactivation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a health problem that results in death, commonly due to the development of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Here, by utilizing a mouse model of intratracheal elastase-induced emphysema that presents three different phases of COPD, we sought to observe whether budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate (BGF) triple therapy could prevent COPD-PH in addition to ameliorating COPD progression. METHODS: We utilized intratracheal elastase-induced emphysema mouse model and performed experiments in three phases illustrating COPD progression: inflammatory (1 day post-elastase), emphysema (3 weeks post-elastase) and PH (4 weeks post-elastase), while treatments of BGF and controls (vehicle, one-drug, and two-drug combinations) were started in prior to elastase instillation (inflammatory phase), at day 7 (emphysema), or at day 14 (PH phase). Phenotype analyses were performed in each phase. In vitro, A549 cells or isolated mouse lung endothelial cells (MLEC) were treated with TNFα with/without BGF treatment to analyze NFκB signaling and cytokine expression changes. RESULTS: We observed significant reductions in the proinflammatory phenotype observed in the lungs and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) 1 day after elastase administration in mice treated with BGF compared with that in mice administered elastase alone (BALF neutrophil percentage, p = 0.0011 for PBS/Vehicle vs. PBS/Elastase, p = 0.0161 for PBS/Elastase vs. BGF). In contrast, only BGF treatment significantly ameliorated the elastase-induced emphysematous lung structure and desaturation after three weeks of elastase instillation (mean linear intercept, p = 0.0156 for PBS/Vehicle vs. PBS/Elastase, p = 0.0274 for PBS/Elastase vs. BGF). Furthermore, BGF treatment prevented COPD-PH development, as shown by improvements in the hemodynamic and histological phenotypes four weeks after elastase treatment (right ventricular systolic pressure, p = 0.0062 for PBS/Vehicle vs. PBS/Elastase, p = 0.027 for PBS/Elastase vs. BGF). Molecularly, BGF acts by inhibiting NFκB-p65 phosphorylation and subsequently decreasing the mRNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines in both alveolar epithelial and pulmonary endothelial cells. CONCLUSION: Our results collectively showed that BGF treatment could prevent PH in addition to ameliorating COPD progression via the inhibition of inflammatory NFκB signaling.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

Narrative Review of the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Inhaler Handling Errors in the Control of Asthma and COPD.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are chronic respiratory diseases that remain uncontrolled in many patients, despite the wide range of therapeutic options available. This review analyzes the available clinical evidence on 3 budesonide/formoterol DPI devices, Spiromax®, Turbuhaler®, and Easyhaler®, in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), inhaler errors, and asthma and COPD control. RECENT FINDINGS: The effectiveness of dry powder inhalers (DPI) depends largely on the device and the patient's inhaler technique. Equally important are the patient's perception of the inhaler and adherence. Given the high burden of these diseases, it is important that efforts be made to select the best DPI for each patient and to analyze the impact of these variables to help improve the health and quality of life of our patients. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present knowledge about PROs, inhaler handling errors, and asthma and COPD control achieved by Spiromax®, Turbuhaler®, and Easyhaler®.

SYmbicort given as needed in mild asthma (SYGMA study): a retrospective subanalysis of the Russian population.

INTRODUCTION: While mild asthma is generally better controlled than more severe disease, patients with mild asthma may experience severe exacerbations. Definite differences between countries in terms of asthma severity and control were described previously. Since SYGMA was a global study, this sub-analysis was conducted in geographic region to investigate potential regional specificities. METHODS: The SYGMA2 trial is double-blind multicenter study involving patients ≥12 years of age with mild asthma (n = 4176), eligible for regular treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). We conducted an open-label descriptive subanalysis of the baseline characteristics of the Russian population (n = 579) comparing to rest of participants of SYGMA2 trial from other 24 countries. The subanalysis is solely descriptive and will be used for hypothesis generation. RESULTS: The Russian population of patients with mild asthma hardly differs from the population in other countries in terms of baseline demographic and anthropometric characteristics, smoking status, and duration of asthma. At the study entry few patients from Russia received maintenance therapy with ICS and had symptom control, but the majority was uncontrolled on short-acting bronchodilators, thus the uncontrolled/controlled ratio was 52%/48% vs 45%/55% in other countries. More patients with mild asthma in the Russian group had faced at least one severe exacerbation in the previous year (30.1% vs 20.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The subanalysis revealed a delayed prescription of controller (ICS) therapy and overuse of short-acting bronchodilators in the Russian population with mild asthma. These factors can lead to insufficient symptom control and higher risk of severe exacerbation in the Russian population with mild asthma.

Real-life association between inhaler technique, patient preference and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma switched to budesonide/formoterol DuoResp® Spiromax® combination.

Objective: In asthma, treatment effectiveness is strongly influenced by the quality of inhaler use. New devices such as Spiromax® have been specifically developed to improve ease of use. It is crucial to determine whether switching to such a device improves inhaler technique and clinical outcomes, and to identify factors associated with handling errors.Methods: This observational study assessed inhaler device handling errors in 1435 asthma patients recruited via 135 participating physicians in France, before and after switching therapy from the Symbicort Turbuhaler® or Seretide® Diskus® to DuoResp® Spiromax®. Patients received training in the use of their new device at baseline and were re-assessed after three months.Results: After three months of use, 67% of patients were using the DuoResp® Spiromax® with no handling errors, and 88% with no critical errors. The presence of comorbidities was associated with handling errors overall. Concurrent illness potentially affecting device handling and previous training were associated with critical device handling errors. Most patients (85.4%) preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® over their previous device. Levels of inadequately controlled or uncontrolled asthma were reduced from baseline among patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® (8.6% versus 64.6%), and were higher in patients with critical handling errors.Conclusions: Effective patient education, correct inhaler technique, treatment adherence and devices associated with high patient satisfaction are interrelated factors key to the successful delivery of inhaled asthma therapy. Inhaler technique and patient device satisfaction should be routinely assessed in treated patients with uncontrolled asthma. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at publisher's website.

Symptom control in patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or budesonide/formoterol) in the US: a retrospective matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy, reduces the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improves lung function and symptom control in patients with asthma. However, real-world data remain limited among asthma patients in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study propensity score (PS) matched adult asthma patients initiating once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with patients initiating twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (B/F) 160/4.5 mcg using a US claims database (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2018). Asthma control was measured by the mean number of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) canisters dispensed per patient-year (PPY) during follow-up. Time to first, and rates of, overall and severe asthma exacerbations were also measured. RESULTS: After PS matching, 18,531 patients receiving FF/VI were matched to 18,531 patients receiving B/F. Mean SABA canisters dispensed PPY was significantly lower for FF/VI users compared with B/F users (FF/VI: 1.47, B/F: 1.64; p < 0.001). FF/VI use resulted in 13% significantly lower risk of having an overall asthma-related exacerbation and 22% lower risk of a severe exacerbation versus B/F use (overall exacerbation hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.87 [0.82-0.92], p < 0.001; severe exacerbation HR [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.63-0.97], p = 0.027). Asthma-related exacerbation rates per 100 patient-days were also significantly lower for the FF/VI group compared with the B/F group (overall: 0.0475 vs. 0.0558, p < 0.001; severe: 0.0026 vs. 0.0033, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, initiation of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg in adults with asthma was associated with lower use of SABA and fewer asthma-related exacerbations, which may indicate better asthma control, when compared with use of twice-daily B/F 160/4.5 mcg.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries. METHODS: A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year). RESULTS: Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

Adherence and quality of life assessment in patients with asthma treatment with budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device: the COMPLETE study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that causes recurring episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing. Inhaled drugs on a daily basis are the cornerstone of asthma treatment, therefore, patient adherence is very important. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open, non-interventional, observational, prospective study of 716 adult patients diagnosed with asthma receiving FDC (Fixed-dose combination) budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device. We assessed the adherence to treatment at 3 and 6 months (based on the MMAS-8: 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale), the quality of life and change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the patients showed medium to high adherence throughout the study. The mean (SD) MMAS-8 score at 6 months was 6.85 (1.54) and we observed a statistically significant shift of patients from the low adherence group to the high adherence group at 6 months. Moreover, after 6 months of treatment with FDC budesonide/formoterol, we observed an increase in the patients' quality of life that as expressed by a change 2.01 (95%CI 1.93-2.10) units in Mini AQLQ (p < 0.0001) that was more pronounced in the high adherence group. The same trend was also observed in terms of spirometry (mean FEV1 2.58 L (0.85) at the end of the study, increased by 220 mL from baseline) with a higher improvement in the medium and high adherence groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FDC of budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device was associated with improvement in asthma-related quality of life and lung function over 6 months that were more prominent in patients with higher adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2017-HAL-EL-74 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03300076).

[Pharmacoeconomics analysis of using a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol in patients with asthma in the health care system of the Russian Federation].

AIM: To evaluate the budgetary impact of using budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) as maintenance therapy in real clinical practice compared with standard therapy for asthma of varying severity: for mild asthma with on-demand salbutamol; for moderate and severe asthma with the drug salmeterol + fluticasone and salbutamol on demand. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A static mathematical model was built to assess the impact on the budget when introducing the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) in the treatment of asthma into clinical practice from the point of view of the state. Demographic data was taken from the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service. Direct medical costs included the cost of medicines, the cost of hospitalization of patients associated with the development of asthma exacerbations, and the cost of scheduled outpatient visits. Indirect costs considered the loss of GDP due to hospitalization of patients against the background of asthma exacerbations. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Assessment of direct costs in the treatment of mild, moderate and severe asthma showed that a gradual increase in the proportion of patients receiving the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) over the years to 5.5, 7.7 and 9.7% accordingly, led to an increase in the cost of pharmacotherapy over 3 years by 1.7 billion rubles, while direct non-drug costs associated with the treatment of complications that developed during the treatment of asthma decreased by 8.3 billion rubles. Thus, the reduction in total direct costs amounted to RUB 6.7 billion. At the same time, indirect costs decreased by 6.0 billion rubles. The total reduction in all costs (direct and indirect) when switching patients to budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) amounted to 12.5 billion rubles. In addition, the use of the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) resulted in a decrease in the number of exacerbations: in the first year by 3137, in the second by 4393 and in the third by 5534 cases. A total of 13 064 asthma exacerbations were prevented over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Increasing the proportion of patients with asthma of varying severity receiving therapy with budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) will reduce the financial burden on both the healthcare system and the budgetary system.

Cost-utility of as-needed ICS-formoterol versus to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Recent asthma guidelines, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), recommend in adult patients as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The introduction of these recommendations concerns whether using as-needed budesonide-formoterol would be more cost-effective than to maintenance ICS. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.37 QALYs and per patient per year on as-needed ICS-formoterol and a reduction in the discounted cost per person-year, of as-needed ICS-formoterol to maintenance ICS, of US$40. This position of dominance of as-needed ICS-formoterol negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: Low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients with mild asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.