RESUMEN
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 26.2â 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 17.3â 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.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Broncodilatadores , Budesonida , Huella de Carbono , Inhaladores de Polvo Seco , Fumarato de Formoterol , Humanos , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Adulto , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Budesonida/administración & dosificación , Administración por Inhalación , Fumarato de Formoterol/administración & dosificación , Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Albuterol/administración & dosificación , Albuterol/uso terapéutico , Inhaladores de Dosis Medida , Resultado del Tratamiento , Combinación Budesonida y Fumarato de Formoterol/administración & dosificación , Combinación Budesonida y Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Método Doble Ciego , AncianoRESUMEN
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).
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative bronchodilator, systemic beta2-agonist, cardiovascular and adverse effects of salbutamol 200â µg and budesonide/formoterol 200/6â 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 200â µg via MDI at t=0, 30, 60, 90â min, then salbutamol 2.5â mg via nebuliser at t=120, 140, 160 and 420â min; or budesonide/formoterol 200/6â µg one actuation via Turbuhaler at t=0, 30, 60, 90â min, two actuations at t=120, 140, 160 and 420â min. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 180â 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 180â 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 240â min, but lesser FEV1 at 360 and 420â 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 200â µgâdose-1 and budesonide/formoterol 200/6â µg differed depending on the time of measurement. Salbutamol caused greater systemic beta2-agonist and cardiovascular effects and more adverse events.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Humanos , Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Budesonida/uso terapéutico , Etanolaminas/uso terapéutico , Administración por Inhalación , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Combinación de Medicamentos , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Background: In New Zealand a progressive increase in budesonide/formoterol dispensing, accompanied by a reduction in dispensing of short-acting ß2-agonists (SABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and other ICS/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICSs/LABAs), occurred in the 18-month period following publication of the 2020 New Zealand asthma guidelines, which recommended budesonide/formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever therapy. Objective: Our aim was to investigate more recent trends in asthma medication use and asthma hospital discharges in New Zealand. Methods: New Zealand national dispensing data for inhalers for the period from January 2010 to December 2022 were reviewed for patients aged 12 years and older. Monthly rates of dispensing of budesonide/formoterol, ICSs, other ICS/LABAs, and SABAs were displayed graphically by locally weighted scatterplot smoother plots. The rates of dispensing and hospital discharge for asthma were compared between the past 6 months for which dispensing data were available (July-December 2022) and the corresponding period from July to December 2019. Results: There has been a progressive increase in dispensing of budesonide/formoterol since 2019, with a 108% increase between the period from July to December 2019 and the period from July to December 2022 in adolescents and adults. In contrast, there was a reduction in rates of dispensing of other ICS/LABAs, ICSs, and SABAs by 3%, 18%, and 5%, respectively. During this period, there was a 17% reduction in hospital discharges for asthma. Conclusion: There has been a further widespread uptake of ICS/formoterol reliever and/or maintenance therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma in New Zealand. The changes in prescribing practice have been temporally associated with a reduction in hospital admissions for asthma.
RESUMEN
Background: Asthma is the most common chronic childhood respiratory condition globally. Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever-based regimens reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations compared with conventional short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever-based regimens in adults and adolescents. The current limited evidence for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also applicable to children. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. Objective: The study aim is to determine the efficacy and safety of budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) compared with standard therapy: budesonide or budesonide-formoterol maintenance, both with terbutaline reliever, in children aged 5 to 11â years with mild, moderate and severe asthma. Methods: A 52-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel group, phase III, two-sided superiority RCT will recruit 400 children aged 5 to 11â years with asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol 100/6â µg Turbuhaler reliever alone or MART; or budesonide or budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler maintenance, with terbutaline Turbuhaler reliever. The primary outcome is moderate and severe asthma exacerbations as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes are asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. Assessment of Turbuhaler technique and cost-effectiveness analysis are also planned. Conclusion: This will be the first RCT to compare the efficacy and safety of a step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or MART regimen with conventional inhaled ICS or ICS-long-acting ß-agonist maintenance plus SABA reliever in children. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of asthma in children.
RESUMEN
The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta2-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Adulto , Adolescente , Humanos , Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Budesonida/uso terapéutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Administración por Inhalación , Etanolaminas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In June 2020, the New Zealand (NZ) adolescent and adult asthma guidelines recommended budesonide/formoterol, taken as maintenance and/or reliever therapy, as the preferred therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether these recommendations were associated with changes in clinical practice indicated by asthma medication use trends. METHODS: NZ national dispensing data for inhaler medications from January 2010 to December 2021 were reviewed. Monthly "dispensings" of inhaled budesonide/formoterol, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), other ICS/long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA), and inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA), for the 12+ age group, were displayed graphically with piecewise regression used to produce plots of rates by time with a July 1, 2020, break point. The number of dispensings in the last 6 months that data were available (July-December 2021) was compared with the corresponding period, July-December 2019. RESULTS: Budesonide/formoterol dispensing increased markedly after July 1, 2020 (regression coefficient 41.1 inhalers dispensed/100,000 population per month [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.3-45.6, P < .0001]; 64.7% increase in the number of dispensings between July-December 2019 and July-December 2021), in contrast to "other ICS/LABA" (regression coefficient: -15.9 [95% CI: -22.2 to -9.6, P < .0001]; -1.7% decrease) and SABA (regression coefficient: -14.7 [95% CI: -29.7 to 0.3, P = .055]; -10.6% decrease), respectively. CONCLUSION: In NZ, a progressive increase in budesonide/formoterol dispensing, accompanied by a reduction in SABA and "other ICS/LABA" dispensing, occurred after publication of the 2020 NZ asthma guidelines. While acknowledging the limitations in the interpretation of temporal associations, these findings suggest that the transition to ICS/formoterol reliever-based therapy can be achieved if recommended and promoted as the preferred therapeutic approach in national guidelines.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Adulto , Adolescente , Humanos , Nueva Zelanda/epidemiología , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Asma/epidemiología , Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Combinación Budesonida y Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Budesonida/uso terapéutico , Administración por Inhalación , Etanolaminas/uso terapéutico , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Combinación de MedicamentosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: (1) Assess the distribution of skin-to-deltoid-muscle distance (SDMD) at the deltoid intramuscular (IM) injection site; (2) its relationship with demographic and anthropometric variables and (3) Consider the findings in relation to clinical guidance on IM injection, such as COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: Systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and SCOPUS between June and July 2021 with no publication date limit. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reporting measurements of the SDMD in living adults aged 16 years and older, at the deltoid IM injection site, published in English were considered. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed each stage of screening, data extraction and quality assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. RESULTS: 16 105 papers were identified, of which 11 studies were suitable for review, representing 1414 participants. Heterogeneity in the definition of the deltoid IM injection site, locations measured and methods of measurement precluded meta-analysis. Evidence from ultrasound SDMD measurements demonstrated some patients in all but 'underweight' body mass index (BMI) categories, may require needles longer than 25 mm for successful IM injection. Calliper measurements overestimated SDMD compared with ultrasound. Female sex, higher BMI categories and greater weight in women were associated with greater SDMD. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed evidence was insufficient to inform definitive needle length 'cut points' for IM injection based on demographic or anthropomorphic variables. Contemporary clinical guidance currently based on this evidence, including the site of injection and choice of needle length, may result in subcutaneous administration in a small proportion of recipients, particularly if obese or of female sex. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264625.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Inyecciones Intramusculares/métodos , Estudios Transversales , AgujasRESUMEN
Background: The stepwise approach to long-term asthma management, which traditionally incorporates short-acting ß2-agonist reliever therapy, has been a core feature of asthma guidelines for over 30â years. There have been no studies, however, directly investigating the use of an entire guideline-recommended track. Recently, inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol has been recommended as the preferred reliever therapy in adult asthma, in accordance with a stepwise "Anti-Inflammatory Reliever" (AIR) treatment track. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the AIR stepwise approach recommended by the New Zealand adolescent and adult asthma guidelines, in combination with a novel algorithm for transitioning between treatment steps. Methods: This 52-week, open-label, single-group study will recruit 100 adults aged 18 to 75â years with mild, moderate and moderate-severe asthma (ACTRN12620001010987). Participants will be allocated to budesonide-formoterol 200/6â µg, one actuation as needed (Step 1), one actuation twice daily and as needed (Step 2), or two actuations twice daily and one as needed (Step 3). Treatment steps will be adjusted throughout the study, in response to reliever use and asthma attacks, according to a stepwise AIR algorithm. Following a 26-week period of investigator-led transitions, participants will adjust their own treatment step. The primary outcome is participant satisfaction as measured by the Global Satisfaction score of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. Secondary outcomes will assess efficacy and safety, and describe patterns of medication use and participant flow through the treatment steps. Conclusion: This is the first trial to assess the AIR treatment track and algorithm. The results will provide knowledge to guide the clinical use of this approach.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In randomised controlled trials, as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever therapy reduces severe exacerbation risk compared with maintenance ICS plus short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) reliever in adolescent and adult asthma, but results in slightly worse control of asthma symptoms, as measured by mean Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) score. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and changes in asthma control for as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA in post hoc analyses from the Novel START and PRACTICAL clinical trials. METHODS: The number and proportion of participants at study end in each ACQ-5 category ('well-controlled', 'partly controlled' or 'inadequately controlled' symptoms), and in each responder category based on the minimal clinically important difference for ACQ-5 of 0.5 (improved, no change and worse) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide plus SABA treatment were calculated. RESULTS: With last observation carried forwards, 189/214 (88.3%) and 354/434 (81.6%) of patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had 'well-controlled' or 'partly controlled' symptoms at the end of the study, vs 183/214 (85.5%) and 358/431 (83.1%) in the budesonide maintenance group, for Novel START and PRACTICAL, respectively. The proportion of patients whose symptom control was either improved or unchanged from baseline was 190/214 (88.8%) and 368/434 (84.8%) for budesonide-formoterol, vs 185/214 (86.4%) and 376/431 (87.2%) for maintenance budesonide, in Novel START and PRACTICAL respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically important differences in the proportions of patients with 'well-controlled' or 'partly controlled' asthma symptoms, or proportions who improved or maintained their level of control, with as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus SABA.
Asunto(s)
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Adolescente , Adulto , Humanos , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores , Budesonida/uso terapéutico , Combinación Budesonida y Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Etanolaminas/uso terapéutico , Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. METHODS: We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on 'no effect'. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. DISCUSSION: This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , COVID-19/prevención & control , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/efectos adversos , Pandemias/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS plus short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever at step 2 of its stepwise treatment algorithm. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of these two treatment regimens, with a focus on prevention of severe exacerbation. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing as-needed ICS-formoterol with maintenance ICS plus SABA. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from database inception to 12 December 2019. The primary outcome was time to first severe exacerbation. RCTs were excluded if they used as-needed budesonide-formoterol as part of a maintenance and reliever regimen, or did not report on severe exacerbations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier number CRD42020154680). RESULTS: Four RCTs (n=8065 participants) were included in the analysis. As-needed ICS-formoterol was associated with a prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-1.00; p=0.048) and reduced daily ICS dose (mean difference -177.3â µg, 95% CI -182.2--172.4 µg). Asthma symptom control was worse in the as-needed group (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 mean difference 0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.14), although this did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 0.50 units. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.36). CONCLUSION: As-needed ICS-formoterol offers a therapeutic alternative to maintenance low-dose ICS plus SABA in asthma and may be the preferred option when prevention of severe exacerbation is the primary aim of treatment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, many of whom are managed solely with a short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). In adults, the evidence that budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy markedly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations compared with SABA alone has contributed to the Global Initiative for Asthma recommending against SABA monotherapy in this population. The current lack of evidence in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also relevant to this demographic. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy compared with as-needed salbutamol in children aged 5 to 15â years with mild asthma, who only use a SABA. METHODS: A 52-week, open-label, parallel group, phase III RCT will recruit 380 children aged 5 to 15â years with mild asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort Rapihaler®) 50/3â µg, two actuations as needed, or salbutamol (Ventolin®) 100 â µg, two actuations as needed. The primary outcome is asthma attacks as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes assess asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. A cost-effectiveness analysis is also planned. CONCLUSION: This is the first RCT to assess the safety and efficacy of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in children with mild asthma. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of mild asthma in children.