Extrafine Versus Fine Inhaled Corticosteroids in Relation to Asthma Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Real-Life Studies.

BACKGROUND: The particle size of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) may affect airway drug deposition and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of extrafine ICSs (mass median aerodynamic diameter, <2 µm) versus fine-particle ICSs administered as ICS monotherapy or ICS-long-acting ß-agonist combination therapy by conducting a meta-analysis of observational real-life asthma studies to estimate the treatment effect of extrafine ICSs. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were reviewed for asthma observational comparative effectiveness studies from January 2004 to June 2016. Studies were included if they reported odds and relative risk ratios and met all inclusion criteria (Respiratory Effectiveness Group/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology quality standards, comparison of extrafine ICSs with same or different ICS molecule, ≥12-month follow-up). End-point data (asthma control, exacerbations, prescribed ICS dose) were pooled. Random-effects meta-analysis modeling was used. The study protocol is published in the PROSPERO register CRD42016039137. RESULTS: Seven studies with 33,453 subjects aged 5 to 80 years met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Six studies used extrafine beclometasone propionate and 1 study used both extrafine beclometasone propionate and extrafine ciclesonide as comparators with fine-particle ICSs. The overall odds of achieving asthma control were significantly higher for extrafine ICSs compared with fine-particle ICSs (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46). Overall exacerbation rate ratios (0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and ICS dose (weighted mean difference, -170 µg; 95% CI, -222 to -118 µg) were significantly lower for extrafine ICSs compared with fine-particle ICSs. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that extrafine ICSs have significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control with lower exacerbation rates at significantly lower prescribed doses than fine-particle ICSs.

Add-on LABA in a separate inhaler as asthma step-up therapy versus increased dose of ICS or ICS/LABA combination inhaler.

Asthma management guidelines recommend adding a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) or increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as step-up therapy for patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS monotherapy. However, it is uncertain which option works best, which ICS particle size is most effective, and whether LABA should be administered by separate or combination inhalers. This historical, matched cohort study compared asthma-related outcomes for patients (aged 12-80 years) prescribed step-up therapy as a ≥50% extrafine ICS dose increase or add-on LABA, via either a separate inhaler or a fine-particle ICS/LABA fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler. Risk-domain asthma control was the primary end-point in comparisons of cohorts matched for asthma severity and control during the baseline year. After 1:2 cohort matching, the increased extrafine ICS versus separate ICS+LABA cohorts included 3232 and 6464 patients, respectively, and the fine-particle ICS/LABA FDC versus separate ICS+LABA cohorts included 7529 and 15 058 patients, respectively (overall mean age 42 years; 61-62% females). Over one outcome year, adjusted OR (95% CI) for achieving asthma control were 1.25 (1.13-1.38) for increased ICS versus separate ICS+LABA and 1.06 (1.05-1.09) for ICS/LABA FDC versus separate ICS+LABA. For patients with asthma, increased dose of extrafine-particle ICS, or add-on LABA via ICS/LABA combination inhaler, is associated with significantly better outcomes than ICS+LABA via separate inhalers.

Small-particle Inhaled Corticosteroid as First-line or Step-up Controller Therapy in Childhood Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Because randomized controlled trials of established pediatric asthma therapies are expensive and difficult to perform, observational studies may fill gaps in the evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of representative small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with that of standard size-particle ICS for children initiating or stepping up ICS therapy for asthma (analysis 1) and to compare the effectiveness of ICS dose step-up using small-particle ICS with adding long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) to the ICS (analysis 2). METHODS: These historical matched cohort analyses drew on electronic medical records of children with asthma aged 5 to 11 years. Variables measured during 2 consecutive years (1 baseline year for confounder definition and 1 outcome year) included risk-domain asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, acute oral corticosteroids, or lower respiratory tract infection requiring antibiotics) and rate of severe exacerbations (asthma-related emergency, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroids). RESULTS: In the initiation population (n = 797 in each cohort), children prescribed small-particle ICS versus standard size-particle ICS experienced greater odds of asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02) and lower severe exacerbation rate (adjusted rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88). Step-up outcomes (n = 206 in each cohort) were also significantly better for small-particle ICS, with asthma control adjusted odds ratio of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.23-4.03) and exacerbations adjusted rate ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.89). The number needed to treat with small-particle ICS to achieve 1 additional child with asthma control was 17 (95% CI, 9-107) for the initiation population and 5 (95% CI, 3-78) for the step-up population. Outcomes were not significantly different for stepped-up small-particle ICS dose versus ICS/LABA combination (n = 185 in each cohort). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating or stepping up the ICS dose with small-particle ICS rather than with standard size-particle ICS is more effective and shows similar effectiveness to add-on LABA in childhood asthma.

Increased Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroid versus Add-On Long-acting ß-Agonist for Step-Up Therapy in Asthma.

RATIONALE: Guidelines advocate adding long-acting ß-agonist (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid as the preferred step-up therapy to increasing inhaled corticosteroid dose for patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. However, less than 5% of patients with asthma qualify for the randomized controlled trials on which guidelines are based. Thus, real-world data are needed to complement the results of randomized trials with narrow entry criteria. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of stepping up asthma therapy with an increased dose of various types of inhaled corticosteroid as compared with add-on LABA. METHODS: We performed a historical matched cohort study using large primary care databases to compare asthma step-up therapy with small- and standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid versus added LABA for patients 12-80 years old. As outcomes, we examined a composite of asthma control and rates of severe exacerbations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The odds of asthma control and rates of severe exacerbations over one outcome year were comparable with increased inhaled corticosteroid dose versus added LABA. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for achieving asthma control with increased inhaled corticosteroid dose versus inhaled corticosteroid/LABA were 0.99 (0.88-1.12) for small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (n = 3,036 per cohort) and 0.85 (0.67-1.07) for standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid (n = 809 per cohort). The adjusted rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for severe exacerbations, compared with inhaled corticosteroid/LABA combination inhaler, were 1.04 (0.91-1.20) and 1.18 (0.92-1.54), respectively. The results were not affected by smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to a broad primary care population, antiinflammatory therapy using increased doses of small- or standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid is as effective as adding LABA, as measured by outcomes important to both patients and providers. Real-world populations and outcomes need to be taken into consideration when formulating treatment recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of initiating extrafine- or standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid for asthma in two health-care systems: a retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-life studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies in clinical practice. AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with standard size-particle ICS in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US). METHODS: These retrospective matched cohort analyses used large electronic databases to study asthma-related outcomes for patients in the UK (12-60 years old; n=1730) and US (12-80 years; n=10,312) prescribed extrafine beclomethasone or fluticasone as their first ICS therapy for asthma. Patients were matched on demographic characteristics and asthma severity during 1 baseline year, and asthma control and asthma-related costs were compared during 1 outcome year. RESULTS: In both the UK and US, adjusted odds of risk-domain asthma control were similar, whereas the odds of overall control (no hospitalisation or oral steroids for asthma, no antibiotics for lower respiratory infection, limited reliever use) were greater for extrafine ICS in both countries (UK odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.50). Asthma-related annual costs, adjusted for baseline, were significantly lower for extrafine-particle ICS cohorts in both countries (UK difference, -£66 (95% CI,-93 to -37)). Cost-effectiveness analyses using the two measures of asthma control found 92 and 98% probabilities of extrafine-particle ICS being the preferred treatment strategy (less costly and more effective than standard size-particle ICS) in the UK, and 84 and 100% probabilities in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating ICS therapy for asthma as extrafine-particle ICS seems the dominant treatment option (less costly and more effective) compared with standard size-particle ICS in both the UK and the US.