As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mild asthma often rely on inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists for symptom relief and have poor adherence to maintenance therapy. Another approach might be for patients to receive a fast-acting reliever plus an inhaled glucocorticoid component on an as-needed basis to address symptoms and exacerbation risk. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients 12 years of age or older who had mild asthma and were eligible for treatment with regular inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed or budesonide maintenance therapy with twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed. The primary analysis compared budesonide-formoterol used as needed with budesonide maintenance therapy with regard to the annualized rate of severe exacerbations, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1.2. Symptoms were assessed according to scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). RESULTS: A total of 4215 patients underwent randomization, and 4176 (2089 in the budesonide-formoterol group and 2087 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis set. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to budesonide maintenance therapy for severe exacerbations; the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.13) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14), respectively (rate ratio, 0.97; upper one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). The median daily metered dose of inhaled glucocorticoid was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group (66 µg) than in the budesonide maintenance group (267 µg). The time to the first exacerbation was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). The change in ACQ-5 score showed a difference of 0.11 units (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15) in favor of budesonide maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to twice-daily budesonide with respect to the rate of severe asthma exacerbations during 52 weeks of treatment but was inferior in controlling symptoms. Patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had approximately one quarter of the inhaled glucocorticoid exposure of those in the budesonide maintenance group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224157 .).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 µg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and peak change from baseline in FEV1 within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed. RESULTS: For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV1 (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV1, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV1. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.