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).

Functional respiratory imaging assessment of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhalers in patients with COPD: the value of inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), greater improvements in lung function have been demonstrated for triple versus dual inhaled therapies in traditional spirometry studies. This study was the first to use functional respiratory imaging (FRI), known for increased sensitivity to airway changes versus spirometry, to assess the effect of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component (budesonide) on lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and a blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/mm3. METHODS: Patients in this Phase IIIb (NCT03836677), randomized, double-blind, crossover study received twice-daily budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) 320/18/9.6 µg fixed-dose triple therapy and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) 18/9.6 µg fixed-dose dual therapy over 4 weeks, each delivered via a single metered dose Aerosphere inhaler. Primary endpoints were the improvements from baseline for each treatment in specific (i.e. corrected for lobar volume) image-based airway volume (siVaw) and resistance (siRaw) measured via FRI taken at total lung capacity (Day 29). Secondary outcomes included spirometry and body plethysmography. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat analysis (mean age 64.9 years, 78.3% males, 43.5% current smokers, mean predicted post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 63.6%). BGF and GFF both statistically significantly increased siVaw from baseline at Day 29 (geometric mean ratio [GM], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72 [1.38, 2.13] and 1.53 [1.28, 1.83], respectively, both p < 0.0001), with a greater increase observed for BGF versus GFF (GM, 95% CI 1.09 [1.03, 1.16], p = 0.0061). Statistically significant reductions in siRaw were also observed with both BGF and GFF (GM, 95% CI 0.50 [0.39, 0.63] and 0.52 [0.40, 0.67], respectively, both p < 0.0001). Additionally, significant improvements from baseline in post-dose FEV1 were observed with BGF and GFF (mean 346 mL, p = 0.0003 and 273 mL, p = 0.0004, respectively). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of BGF and GFF. CONCLUSIONS: As observed using FRI, triple therapy with BGF resulted in greater increases in airway volume, and reductions in airway resistance versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy with GFF, reflecting the ICS component's contribution in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03836677. Registered 11 February 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03836677.

Budesonide inhalado para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 / Inhaled budesonide for treating COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: En los primeros informes de China, Italia y Estados Unidos que describen a los pacientes con COVID-19 ingresados en el hospital, los pacientes con asma y enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) estaban significativamente sub-representados.3-6 Surgió entonces la hipótesis que esta subrepresentación de las primeras cohortes, podría deberse al uso generalizado de glucocorticoides inhalados en esta población. 7 El uso de glucocorticoides inhalados en pacientes con asma y EPOC tiene la finalidad de disminuir la inflamación de las vías aéreas y de este modo contribuir a reducir las exacerbaciones, que a menudo se deben a infecciones de origen viral. 8 Los estudios in vitro han demostrado que los glucocorticoides inhalados reducen la replicación de SARS-CoV-2 en las células epiteliales de las vías respiratorias, además de la regulación en menos de la expresión de los genera ACE2 y TMPRSS2, que son críticos para la entrada de células virales en este epitelio.9 Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) para la prevención de los síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Se realizó una evaluación de tecnología sanitaria, basada en evidencia proveniente de revisiones sistemáticas vivas y guías de práctica clínica de alta calidad metodológica para brindar parámetros actualizados y balanceados que sean de utilidad para la toma de decisiones en los diferentes niveles de gestión. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma Love de Epistemonikos para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente.10 De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos separando los efectos del tratamiento sobre pacientes con COVID-19 (mortalidad, ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica, duración de estadía hospitalaria, tiempo a la resolución de síntomas o mejoría clínica al día 7-28 y eventos adversos graves) y la certeza en dichos efectos. Adicionalmente se extractaron datos relacionados a efectos de subgrupo potencialmente relevantes para la toma de decisión, con especial énfasis en el tiempo de evolución y la severidad de la enfermedad. Implementación: Este domino contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Recomendaciones: se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. Se seleccionaron aquellas guías con rigor metodológico apropiado según la herramienta AGREE II (> 70%) y se incorporaron sus recomendaciones al informe. RESULTADOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplen con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe y que reportan sobre budesonide inhalado para pacientes con COVID-19. Se identificaron 2 ECA que incluyeron 1929 participantes en los que budesonide inhalado se comparó con la atención estándar u otros tratamientos. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de evidencia disponible hasta el momento sugiere que budesonide inhalado podría mejorar el tiempo de resolución de los síntomas y disminuir las hospitalizaciones. Existe incertidumbre en el efecto de budesonide inhalado sobre la mortalidad, los efectos advsersos severos o el ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica. Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por ANMAT para el tratamiento de síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Su costo comparativo es bajo y no se identificaron recomendaciones que aborden el uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de COVID-19.

Dual-combination maintenance inhaler preferences in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A patient-centered benefit-risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: A variety of dual-combination maintenance inhalers are used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Understanding patient preferences for treatment attributes may help select an optimal treatment from the patient perspective. METHODS: Patient preferences for maintenance inhaler device and medication attributes were elicited through a discrete choice experiment and used in benefit-risk assessments to calculate predicted choice probabilities (PrCPs) for 14 dual-combination maintenance inhalers in four treatment classes: lower- and higher-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) inhalers for asthma, and ICS/LABA and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA inhalers for COPD. RESULTS: For all treatment classes, reduced exacerbations and faster onset of action were the most important attributes. For all classes, patients were willing to tolerate an extra yearly exacerbation to decrease the medication's onset of action from 30 to 5 min. For patients with asthma using lower-dose ICS/LABA (n = 497), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (80 µg/4.5 µg) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) had the highest PrCP (28.4%), and for those using a higher-dose ICS/LABA (n = 285), PrCPs were highest for mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (200 µg/5 µg) pMDI (27.0%) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 µg/4.5 µg) pMDI (26.9%). For patients with COPD using an ICS/LABA (n = 574), budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (160 µg/4.5 µg) pMDI had the highest PrCP (56.6%), and for those using a LAMA/LABA inhaler (n = 217), tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5 µg/2.5 µg) soft mist inhaler had the highest PrCP (42.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference data for maintenance inhaler attributes can be used to identify a preference order of inhalers in different treatment classes.

Efficacy of local budesonide therapy in the management of persistent hyposmia in COVID-19 patients without signs of severity: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of local intranasal treatment with budesonide (nasal irrigation), in addition to olfactory rehabilitation, in the management of loss of smell in COVID-19 patients without signs of severity and with persistent hyposmia 30 days after the onset of symptoms. To search for an association between the presence of an obstruction on MRI and the severity of olfactory loss, at inclusion and after 30 days of treatment. TRIAL DESIGN: Two center, open-label, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group randomized controlled superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria - Patient over 18 years of age; - Patient with a suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, whether or not confirmed by PCR, or close contact with a PCR-confirmed case, typical chest CT scan (unsystematic frosted glass patches with predominantly sub-pleural appearance, and at a later stage, alveolar condensation without excavation or nodules or masses) or positive serology ; - Patient with isolated sudden onset hyposmia persisting 30 days after the onset of symptoms of CoV-2 SARS infection; - Affiliate or beneficiary of a social security scheme; - Written consent to participate in the study. Non-inclusion criteria - Known hypersensitivity to budesonide or any of the excipients; - Hemostasis disorder or epistaxis; - Oral-nasal and ophthalmic herpes virus infection; - Long-term corticosteroid treatment; - Treatment with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ketoconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, clarithromycin, telithromycin, nefazodone and HIV protease inhibitors); - Severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 with respiratory or other signs; - Hyposmia persisting for more than 90 days after the onset of symptoms - Other causes of hyposmia found on interrogation or MRI; - Patient benefiting from a legal protection measure; - Pregnant or breastfeeding women. The participants will be recruited from: Hôpital Fondation Adolphe de Rothschild and Hôpital Lariboisière in Paris, France INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Experimental group: Nasal irrigation with budesonide and physiological saline (Budesonide 1mg/2mL diluted in 250mL of physiological saline 9°/00): 3 syringes of 20mL in each nasal cavity, morning and evening, for 30 days, in addition to olfactory rehabilitation twice a day. CONTROL GROUP: Nasal irrigation with physiological saline 9°/00 only: 3 syringes of 20cc in each nasal cavity, morning and evening, for 30 days, in addition to olfactory rehabilitation twice a day. MAIN OUTCOMES: Percentage of patients with an improvement of more than 2 points on the ODORATEST score after 30 days of treatment. RANDOMISATION: Patients will be randomized (1:1) between the experimental and control groups, using the e-CRF. The randomization list will be stratified by centre. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants and caregivers are aware of the group assignment. People assessing the outcomes are blinded to the group assignment Numbers to be randomised (sample size) 120 patients are planned to be randomized into two groups of 60 patients. TRIAL STATUS: MDL_2020_10. Version number 2, May 22, 2020. Recruitment started on May 22, 2020. The trial will finish recruiting by August 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT number: 2020-001667-85; date of trial registration: 15 May 2020 Protocol registered on ClinicalTrial.gov, registration number: NCT04361474 ; date of trial registration: 24 April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide inhalation suspension and montelukast in children with mild asthma in Korea.

Objective: The comparative effectiveness of low-dose budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) versus oral montelukast (MON) in managing asthma control among children with mild asthma was assessed in Korea.Methods: Claims from Korea's national health insurance database for children (2-17 years) with mild asthma (GINA 1 or 2) who initiated BIS or MON during 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and post-index windows were 1 year each. Adherence, persistency, asthma control, asthma-related health-care resource utilization, and costs were evaluated using unadjusted descriptive statistics and propensity score-matched regression analyses.Results: The number of children identified was 26,052 for unmatched (n = 1,221 BIS; n = 24,831 MON) and 2,290 for matched populations (n = 1,145 per cohort). Medication adherence, measured by proportion of days covered, was low for both cohorts but significantly higher for MON versus BIS (13.8% vs. 4.5%; p < .001). Time to loss of persistency was longer for MON versus BIS (82.3 vs. 78.4 days, respectively; p < .001). Mean number of post-index asthma-related office visits was 6.6 for BIS versus 8.3 for MON (p < .001). However, a greater proportion of patients in the BIS cohort had an asthma exacerbation-related office visit than the MON cohort (78.3% vs. 56.1%; p < .001). Asthma-related total health-care costs were higher with MON versus BIS (₩ 190,185 vs. ₩ 167,432, respectively; p < .001), likely driven by higher pharmaceutical costs associated with MON (₩ 69,113 vs. ₩ 49,225; p < .001).Conclusions: Montelukast patients had better adherence, a longer time to loss of persistency, and were less likely to experience an exacerbation-related office visit in the post-index period than BIS patients.

Comparative assessment of budesonide-MMX and mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIMS: The comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias. RESULTS: We identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low. CONCLUSION: Budesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.

Comparative analysis of medical expenditure with nebulized budesonide versus systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and is a leading cause of disability in China. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a leading cause of hospitalizations, and account for a substantial proportion of medical expenditure. Corticosteroids are commonly used to manage AECOPD in hospitalized patients, so our objective was to analyze the total medical expenditure associated with nebulized budesonide (nBUD) vs. systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in this population. Patients and methods: A post-hoc analysis was carried out in 1,577 and 973 patients diagnosed with COPD who had received "any" nBUD or SCS regimen for AECOPD during hospitalization, respectively. Regimens included monotherapy, sequential therapy, and sequential-combination therapy. Comparative total medical expenditure was analyzed using a generalized linear model controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, smoking history, and respiratory failure or pneumonia on admission. Results: The total medical expenditure per capita with any nBUD or SCS regimen was CN¥11,814 (US$1,922) and CN¥12,153 (US$1,977), respectively. Any nBUD regimen was associated with a significant saving of 5.1% in expenditure compared with any SCS regimen (P=0.0341). Comorbidities, Type II respiratory failure, or pneumonia were patient factors associated with higher total medical expenditure (P<0.0001). In a subgroup analysis of the patients who received monotherapy, total medical expenditure was CN¥10,900 (US$1,773) for nBUD and CN¥11,581 (US$1,884) for SCS; nBUD was associated with a significant saving of 8.7% in expenditure compared with SCS (P=0.0013). Similarly, in patients with respiratory failure, treatment with any nBUD regimen was associated with a 10.6% saving in expenditure over any SCS regimen (P=0.0239); however, the same comparison was not significant in patients without respiratory failure (3.4%; P=0.2299). Conclusion: AECOPD is a leading cause of hospitalization in China, which places substantial burden on the healthcare system. This post-hoc analysis suggests that nBUD regimens are associated with lower medical expenditure than SCS regimens in hospitalized patients with AECOPD, and may reduce the financial burden of COPD. However, prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of nBUD therapies are warranted.

Budesonide with multi-matrix technology as second-line treatment for ulcerative colitis: evaluation of long-term cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Budesonide with multi-matrix technology (MMX) is an oral corticosteroid, shown to have high topical activity against ulcerative colitis (UC) while maintaining low systemic bioavailability with few adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX versus commonly used corticosteroids, in the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An eight-state Markov model with an 8 week cycle length captured remission, four distinct therapy stages, hospitalization, possible colectomy and mortality. Remission probability for budesonide MMX was based on the CORE-II study. Population characteristics were derived from the Dutch Inflammatory Bowel Disease South Limburg cohort (n = 598) and included patients with proctitis (39%), left-sided (42%) and extensive disease (19%). Comparators (topical budesonide foam and enema, oral budesonide and prednisolone) were selected based on current Dutch clinical practice. Treatment effects were evaluated by network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 5 year time horizon from a societal perspective, with costs, health-state and adverse event utilities derived from published sources. Outcomes were weighted by disease extent distribution and corresponding comparators. RESULTS: Budesonide MMX was associated with comparable quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus foam and oral formulations (+0.01 QALYs) in the total UC population, whilst being cost-saving (EUR 366 per patient). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated an 86.6% probability of budesonide MMX being dominant (cost-saving with QALY gain) versus these comparators. Exploratory analysis showed similar findings versus prednisolone. LIMITATIONS: Differing definitions of trial end-points and remission across trials meant indirect comparison was not ideal. However, in the absence of head-to-head clinical data, these comparisons are reasonable alternatives and currently offer the only comparison of second-line UC treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis, budesonide MMX was shown to be cost-effective versus comparators in the total UC population, for the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands.

Budesonide + formoterol delivered via Spiromax® for the management of asthma and COPD: The potential impact on unscheduled healthcare costs of improving inhalation technique compared with Turbuhaler®.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2 agonists are commonly used for the treatment of asthma and COPD. However, the most frequently prescribed dry powder inhaler delivering this medicine - Symbicort® (budesonide and formoterol, BF) Turbuhaler® - is associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to poor disease control and high disease management costs. A recent study showed that patients make fewer inhaler errors when using the novel DuoResp® (BF) Spiromax® inhaler, compared with BF Turbuhaler®. Therefore switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® could improve inhalation technique, and potentially lead to better disease control and healthcare cost savings. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of reducing poor inhalation technique by switching asthma and COPD patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® over three years in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK. The model estimated changes to the number, and associated cost, of unscheduled healthcare events. The model considered two scenarios: in Scenario 1, all patients were immediately switched from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax®; in Scenario 2, 4%, 8% and 12% of patients were switched in years 1, 2 and 3 of the model, respectively. RESULTS: In Scenario 1, per patient cost savings amounted to €60.10, €49.67, €94.14 and €38.20 in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Total cost savings in each country were €100.86 million, €19.42 million, €36.65 million and €15.44 million over three years, respectively, with an estimated 597,754, 151,480, 228,986 and 122,368 healthcare events avoided. In Scenario 2, cost savings totalled €8.07 million, €1.55 million, €2.93 million and €1.23 million over three years, respectively, with 47,850, 12,118, 18,319, and 9789 healthcare events avoided. Savings per patient were €4.81, €3.97, €7.53 and €3.06. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that reductions in poor inhalation technique by switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® are likely to improve patients' disease control and generate considerable cost savings through healthcare events avoided.

The economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the impact of poor inhalation technique with commonly prescribed dry powder inhalers in three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, which impose a substantial burden on healthcare systems and society. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2 agonists (LABA), often administered using dry powder inhalers (DPIs), are frequently prescribed to control persistent asthma and COPD. Use of DPIs has been associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to increased healthcare resource use and costs. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the healthcare resource use and costs associated with asthma and COPD management in people using commonly prescribed DPIs (budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler(®) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler(®)) over 1 year in Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). The model considered direct costs (inhaler acquisition costs and scheduled and unscheduled healthcare costs), indirect costs (productive days lost), and estimated the contribution of poor inhalation technique to the burden of illness. RESULTS: The direct cost burden of managing asthma and COPD for people using budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler(®) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler(®) in 2015 was estimated at €813 million, €560 million, and €774 million for Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Poor inhalation technique comprised 2.2-7.7 % of direct costs, totalling €105 million across the three countries. When lost productivity costs were included, total expenditure increased to €1.4 billion, €1.7 billion and €3.3 billion in Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively, with €782 million attributable to poor inhalation technique across the three countries. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion of patients prescribed ICS and LABA FDCs, and least sensitive to differences in the number of antimicrobials and oral corticosteroids prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of managing asthma and COPD using commonly prescribed DPIs is considerable. A substantial, and avoidable, contributor to this burden is poor inhalation technique. Measures that can improve inhalation technique with current DPIs, such as easier-to-use inhalers or better patient training, could offer benefits to patients and healthcare providers through improving disease outcomes and lowering costs.

Health Care Utilization and Costs After Initiating Budesonide/Formoterol Combination or Fluticasone/Salmeterol Combination Among COPD Patients New to ICS/LABA Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects approximately 15 million people in the United States and accounts for approximately $36 billion in economic burden, primarily due to medical costs. To address the increasing clinical and economic burden, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease emphasizes the use of therapies that help prevent COPD exacerbations, including inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care costs and utilization among COPD patients newly initiating ICS/LABA combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (BFC) or fluticasone/salmeterol (FSC) in a managed care system. METHODS: COPD patients aged 40 years and older who initiated BFC (160/4.5 µg) or FSC (250/50 µg) treatment between March 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012, were identified using claims data from major U.S. health plans. BFC and FSC patients were propensity score matched (1:1) on age, sex, prior asthma diagnosis, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs and utilization were analyzed during the 12-month follow-up period. Post-index costs were assessed with generalized linear models (GLMs) with gamma distribution. Health care utilization data were analyzed via logistic regression (any event vs. none) and GLMs with negative binomial distribution (number of visits) and were adjusted for the analogous pre-index variable as well as pre-index characteristics that remained imbalanced after matching. RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 3,697 patients balanced on age (mean 64 years), sex (female 52% BFC and 54% FSC), asthma and other comorbid conditions, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. During the 12-month follow-up, COPD-related costs averaged $316 less for BFC versus FSC patients ($4,326 vs. $4,846; P = 0.003), reflecting lower inpatient ($966 vs. $1,202; P < 0.001), pharmacy ($1,482 vs. $1,609; P = 0.002), and outpatient/office ($1,378 vs. $1,436; P = 0.048) costs, but higher emergency department ($257 vs. $252; P = 0.033) costs. Pneumonia-related health care costs were also lower on average for BFC patients ($2,855 vs. $3,605; P < 0.001). Similarly, initiating BFC was associated with lower all-use health care costs versus initiating FSC ($21,580 vs. $24,483; P < 0.001, respectively). No differences in health care utilization were found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, although no difference was observed in rates of health care utilization, COPD patients initiating BFC treatment incurred lower average COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs versus FSC initiators, which was driven by cumulative differences in inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs.

Development and assessment of countermeasure formulations for treatment of lung injury induced by chlorine inhalation.

Chlorine is a commonly used, reactive compound to which humans can be exposed via accidental or intentional release resulting in acute lung injury. Formulations of rolipram (a phosphodiesterase inhibitor), triptolide (a natural plant product with anti-inflammatory properties), and budesonide (a corticosteroid), either neat or in conjunction with poly(lactic:glycolic acid) (PLGA), were developed for treatment of chlorine-induced acute lung injury by intramuscular injection. Formulations were produced by spray-drying, which generated generally spherical microparticles that were suitable for intramuscular injection. Multiple parameters were varied to produce formulations with a wide range of in vitro release kinetics. Testing of selected formulations in chlorine-exposed mice demonstrated efficacy against key aspects of acute lung injury. The results show the feasibility of developing microencapsulated formulations that could be used to treat chlorine-induced acute lung injury by intramuscular injection, which represents a preferred route of administration in a mass casualty situation.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and tiotropium bromide among COPD patients new to these controller treatments.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended first-line therapies for preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC, an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination) vs tiotropium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) in the US has not yet been studied. METHODS: Using US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, COPD patients (with or without comorbid asthma) ≥40 years old initiating BFC or tiotropium between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2012 and at risk for exacerbation were identified and followed for 12 months. Patients were propensity score matched on demographics and COPD disease severity indicators. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included COPD exacerbation rate, health care resource utilization, and costs. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model for time to first exacerbation yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (95% CI =[0.70, 0.87], P<0.001), indicating a 22% reduction in risk of COPD exacerbation associated with initiation of BFC versus tiotropium. A post hoc sensitivity analysis found similar effects in those who had a prior asthma diagnosis (HR =0.72 [0.61, 0.86]) and those who did not (HR =0.83 [0.72, 0.96]). BFC initiation was associated with lower COPD-related health care resource utilization and costs ($4,084 per patient-year compared with $5,656 for tiotropium patients, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In COPD patients new to controller therapies, initiating treatment with BFC was associated with improvements in health and economic outcomes compared with tiotropium.

Real-life use of budesonide/formoterol in clinical practice: a 12-month follow-up assessment in a multi-national study of asthma patients established on single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MRT) has been demonstrated in phase III clinical studies, but limited data are available in a real-life setting. We examined the pattern of maintenance and as-needed inhaler use in routine clinical practice among patients with asthma receiving budesonide/formoterol MRT (NCT00505388). METHODS: This 12-month European observational study enrolled patients prescribed budesonide/formoterol MRT and grouped them based on regimen: 80/4.5 µg one inhalation twice daily (b.i.d.); 160/4.5 µg one inhalation b.i.d.; 160/4.5 µg two inhalations b.i.d. (all plus as needed). Patient data were collected daily using an interactive voice- or web-response system. The primary outcome measure was total number of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day. RESULTS: Overall, 4,581 patients were included (64% female; mean age 48.4 years; regimen: 80/4.5 µg, n = 119; 160/4.5 µg, n = 3,106; 2 x 160/4.5 µg, n = 1,355). Mean (median) total numbers of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day were 2.48 (2.11), 2.53 (2.14), and 4.27 (4.05) for 80/4.5 µg b.i.d., 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., and 2 x 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., respectively; corresponding mean (median) number of as-needed inhalations/day were 0.68 (0.17), 0.73 (0.26), and 1.08 (0.45), respectively. As-needed budesonide/formoterol use was generally low with a mean of 61 - 66% of reliever-free days; over 4 reliever inhalations/day occurred on a mean of 0.4 - 2.5% of days for all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Inroutine clinical practice, all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens were associated with a high proportion of reliever-free days and low incidence of high reliever-use days, indicating acceptable levels of asthma control with this symptom-adjusted controller regimen.

Voice Assessment After Treatment of Subacute and Chronic Cough With Inhaled Steroids.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled steroids are widely used for persistent cough treatment. Although the side effects of long-term inhaled steroids have been well described in the literature, their laryngeal side effects after short-term use have not yet been defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 1 month application of inhaled steroid treatment on voice parameters in patients with subacute or chronic cough. Furthermore, the efficacy of inhaled steroids on cough was investigated, as well. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 46 patients (27 females and 19 males) with a persistent cough lasting at least 3 weeks and treated with inhaled steroids. All patients were examined by a pulmonologist and lung auscultation where a posteroanterior chest X-ray and spirometry were performed. The patients were also examined by an otolaryngologist. Anterior rhinoscopy, flexible fiberoptic nasopharyngoscopy, and laryngostroboscopy were performed. Also, the patients' acoustic voice analyses were performed and recorded using a multidimensional voice program. Cough symptom index (CSI) scores were used to evaluate the response to treatment. Patients with an underlying disease that was unresponsive to inhaled steroids were excluded from study. The 46 patients were administered inhaled budesonide 400 mcg twice a day, for 1 month, and their acoustic voice analyses were performed again at the end of the treatment. In addition, CSI scores were determined after stopping medication. RESULTS: When pretreatment and posttreatment acoustic voice analysis parameters (Fo, Jita, Jitt, Shim, APQ, vAm, and NHR) were compared, statistically significant differences were detected for vAm (P = 0.001) and F0 (P0.003). After treatment with inhaled steroids, the CSI score reduced from 3 to 1 (median), and the difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled budesonide treatment in the proper dose seems to be an effective treatment for persistent cough, in the selected patient group. In addition, short-term budesonide application did not cause any negative effects on the voice parameters in these patients. These findings may be related to the steroid formulation used, the application method, and the duration of treatment. Further studies are needed on a larger group of patients with different formulations of inhaled steroids to clarify aforementioned issues.

Assessment of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide for the treatment of asthma: which is the best among the second-line treatment? A randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Data comparing various second-line treatments for asthma with subjective and objective assessment are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with a low-dose budesonide in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. METHODS: Patients, all of whom were concurrently using inhaled budesonide (400 µg), were treated for 6 months with formoterol (12 µg), montelukast (10 mg), doxofylline (400 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg). Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, asthma symptom scores (daytime and nighttime), and assessment of tolerability and rescue medication use. FINDINGS: A total of 297 patients completed the study. In all 4 groups, significant improvements were observed in all the outcome measures, with formoterol treatment having greater and earlier improvements than the other 3 second-line controller medications with budesonide. Among the second-line treatments, monteradlukast improved the FEV1 from day 45 (P < 0.01), SGRQ scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), daytime scores from day 30 (P < 0.05), nighttime scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), and rescue medication use from day 15 (P < .0001) at a faster rate than doxofylline or tiotropium with budesonide. No patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse reactions. IMPLICATIONS: Among the tested second-line treatment regimens, the budesonide/montelukast combination was found to be superior to either the budesonide/doxofylline or budesonide/tiotropium combination in all the outcome measures without adversely affecting the tolerability of the patients. Further clinical studies with blinding techniques are likely to be useful.

Propionato de fluticasona para o tratamento de crianças e adultos com asma moderada a grave / Fluticasone propionate for the treatment of children and adults with moderate to severe asthma

CONTEXTO: A asma é uma doença inflamatória crônica das vias aéreas associada à hiperresponsividade das vias aéreas, que leva a episódios recorrentes de sibilos, dispneia, opressão torácica e tosse, particularmente à noite ou no início da manhã. A asma brônquica é uma das doenças crônicas mais comuns, acometendo crianças e adultos, ao redor do mundo. Estima-se que existam 20 milhões de asmáticos no Brasil, considerando-se uma prevalência global de 10%. A base do tratamento medicamentoso da asma persistente, em consonância com o conhecimento atual da fisiopatologia, é o uso continuado de medicamentos com ação anti-inflamatória, também chamados controladores, sendo corticosteroides inalatórios os principais deles. No Brasil, está em vigor o Protocolo Clínico e Diretriz Terapêutica de asma por meio da Portaria SAS/MS nº 1.317 - 25/11/2013 (alterado pela Portaria SAS/MS nº 603, de 21 de julho de 2014), na qual são recomendados os seguintes fármacos: beclometasona, budesonida, fenoterol, formoterol, formoterol associado à budesonida, salbutamol, salmeterol, prednisona e prednisolona. O demandante apresentou dossiê técnico solicitando a incorporação do Flixotide® (propionato de fluticasona) à relação de fármacos disponíveis no SUS, como mais uma opção clínica no arsenal terapêutico de tratamento de asma no Brasil, alegando que, além de ser mais uma alternativa, essa incorporação geraria economia e competitividade no mercado de corticoides inalatórios. EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: Analisou-se o conjunto de evidências encaminhado pelo demandante, no qual foram incluídas três revisões sistemáticas e 18 ensaios clínicos randomizados, sendo que nove deles compararam o propionato de fluticasona com a beclometasona e os outros nove com a budesonida. Os resultados dos estudos mostraram que não há diferença estatisticamente significante tanto para eficácia, medida pela função pulmonar, como para a segurança entre os medicamentos comparados. De acordo com os resultados dos estudos, a efetividade deste medicamento é similar àquela de outros corticoides inalatórios, não apresentando diferenças expressivas nos eventos adversos, quando utilizados em doses equipotentes. RECOMENDAÇÃO DA CONITEC: A CONITEC, em sua 37ª reunião ordinária realizada no dia 02/07/2015, deliberou por unanimidade recomendar a não incorporação da fluticasona para a redução dos sintomas e exacerbações da asma em pacientes tratados com broncodilatadores isolados ou outra terapia profilática. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Foram recebidas 99 contribuições na consulta pública, sendo 88 de paciente/responsável e 11 de conteúdo técnico-científico. Em geral, as contribuições foram a favor da incorporação da fluticasona. Os principais motivos citados incluem mais uma opção para o tratamento de asma, menor dose necessária para obter os efeitos desejados e que a fluticasona tem um menor impacto no crescimento de crianças. A empresa fabricante da tecnologia fez uma contribuição com observações sobre o cálculo da estimativa de impacto orçamentário, essas observações foram analisadas e o impacto orçamentário foi revisado, chegando a uma estimativa que varia entre uma economia de aproximadamente R$ 16 milhões e gasto adicional de R$ 110 milhões no primeiro ano após incorporação, e entre uma economia de R$ 89 milhões e gasto adicional de R$ 583 milhões no total dos próximos 5 anos após a incorporação. DELIBERAÇÃO FINAL: Aos 03 (três) dias do mês de setembro de 2015, reuniu-se a Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias no Sistema Único de Saúde ­ CONITEC, regulamentada pelo Decreto nº 7.646, de 21 de dezembro de 2011, que, na presença dos membros, deliberou por unanimidade recomendar a não incorporação da fluticasona para a redução dos sintomas e exacerbações da asma em pacientes tratados com broncodilatadores isolados ou outra terapia profilática. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº142/2015. DECISÃO: Não incorporar a fluticasona para a redução dos sintomas e exacerbações da asma em pacientes tratados com broncodilatadores isolados ou outra terapia profilática no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS. Portaria nº 46, de 29 de setembro de 2015.

Efectividad y seguridad del corticosteroide nasal mometasona comparado con beclometasona, budesonida, ciclesonida y fluticasona para el tratamiento de pólipos nasales en adultos y niños / Effectiveness and safety of nasal corticosteroid mometasone compared to beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide and fluticasone for the treatment of nasal polyps in adults and children

Introducción: los pólipos nasales son una manifestación de la inflamación crónica de la mucosa nasal y senos paranasales. Generalmente surgen desde la mucosa que rodea al meato medio y muchas veces causan bloqueo nasal y restricción al flujo de aire a través de las fosas nasales. Su prevalencia ha sido reportada entre un 0.5% y un 4% en la población general. El principal objetivo del tratamiento de la poliposis nasal es aliviar los síntomas nasales debido a la eliminación o reducción en el tamaño del pólipo. Debido a sus propiedades antiinflamatorias, los corticoesteroides son el pilar del tratamiento de la poliposis nasal. Objetivo: esta evaluación de tecnología tiene como objetivo examinar los beneficios y riesgos del uso del corticosteroide tópico nasal Mometasona en comparación con otros corticoesteroides nasales para el tratamiento de poliposis nasal. Metodología: se realizó una búsqueda sistemática y exhaustiva de literatura. Todo el proceso se acogió a los estándares de calidad internacional utilizados por la Colaboración Cochrane. Resultados: de las búsquedas, se obtuvieron 166 referencias, de las que, luego de tamización de título y resumen, se obtuvieron 5 para evaluar en texto completo, y de las cuáles se excluyeron 3, para incluir dos en éste reporte. Las razones por las cuales fueron excluidas las anteriores referencias se describen a continuación: 1) versión anterior de una de las RSL incluidas en los resultados del reporte, 2) la población no respondía a los criterios de inclusión, y 3) un reporte era un resumen de conferencia. Conclusiones: no se encontró evidencia directa, ni indirecta, que permitiera conocer las diferencias entre mometasona y el resto de los CEN. En general, los corticoesteroides nasales son mejores que el placebo en efectividad sobre casi todos los desenlaces clínicos importantes y críticos. En general todos los CEN presentaron más efectos adversos que el placebo, aunque todos fueron leves. No se encontró evidencia de diferencias en cuanto a eventos adversos entre los CEN entre sí.(AU)

Feasibility assessment of using oxygen-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the effect of pharmacological treatment in COPD.

OBJECTIVES: Oxygen-enhanced MRI (OE-MRI) biomarkers have potential value in assessment of COPD, but need further evaluation before treatment-induced changes can be interpreted. The objective was to evaluate how OE-MRI parameters of regional ventilation and oxygen uptake respond to standard pharmacological interventions in COPD, and how the response compares to that of gold standard pulmonary function tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: COPD patients (n=40), mean FEV1 58% predicted normal, received single-dose inhaled formoterol 9µg, or placebo, followed by 8 weeks treatment bid with a combination of budesonide and formoterol Turbuhaler(®) 320/9µg or formoterol Turbuhaler(®). OE-MRI biomarkers were obtained, as well as X-ray computed tomography (CT) biomarkers and pulmonary function tests, in a two-center study. An ANCOVA statistical model was used to assess effect size of intervention measurable in OE-MRI parameters of lung function. RESULTS: OE-MRI data were successfully acquired at both study sites. 8-week treatment with budesonide/formoterol significantly decreased lung wash-out time by 31% (p<0.01), decreased the change in lung oxygen level upon breathing pure oxygen by 13% (p<0.05) and increased oxygen extraction from the lung by 58% (p<0.01). Single-dose formoterol increased both lung wash-out time (+47%, p<0.05) and lung oxygenation time (+47%, p<0.05). FEV1 was improved by single-dose formoterol (+12%, p<0.001) and 8 weeks of budesonide/formoterol (+ 18%, p<0.001), consistent with published studies. CONCLUSIONS: In COPD, OE-MRI parameters showed response to both single-dose bronchodilatory effects of a ß2-agonist, formoterol, and 8-week treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide, and the measurements are feasible in a small-scale multi-center trial setting.