Salbutamol use in relation to maintenance bronchodilator efficacy in COPD: a prospective subgroup analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: Short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD. METHODS: The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 µg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 µg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, < 1.5 puffs/day; high, ≥1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59-74 mL; p < 0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: - 0.56 [p < 0.001]; low: - 0.10 [p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use < 4 puffs/day. CONCLUSIONS: In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

Correction to: Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified of the below corrections to the 5th paragraph in the Discussion section.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

BACKGROUND: A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature. METHODS: This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy of asthma: a meta analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) for Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (Symbicort SMART) Turbuhaler with twice daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment, alone or in combination with a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA). METHODS: Meta analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a fixed effects model. RCTs were included if the comparator with budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief had the equivalent, or up to fourfold higher, maintenance dose of ICS. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe exacerbation (oral glucocorticosteroid treatment for > or = 3 days, emergency visit and/or hospitalisation). RESULTS: Of the seven RCTs available six met the inclusion criteria. Risk of severe exacerbations was significantly reduced: 41% vs. higher-dose budesonide alone [relative risk (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.51-0.68, p < 0.00001]; 43% vs. equivalent dose budesonide/formoterol as maintenance twice daily (RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p < 0.00001); 24% vs. higher-dose salmeterol/fluticasone twice daily (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.90, p = 0.002); and 26% vs. higher-dose budesonide/formoterol twice daily (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.96, p = 0.02). Significant heterogeneity was not detected in the primary analyses (p > 0.1). Secondary analyses also demonstrated that budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduced the most severe exacerbations, resulting in less hospitalisations/accident and emergency visits than higher-dose budesonide, equivalent dose budesonide/formoterol and higher-dose salmeterol/fluticasone twice daily. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief is significantly more effective at reducing severe exacerbations than higher-dose ICS alone, or in combination with a LABA. This has important implications for treating uncontrolled patients at steps 2 and 3 of the joint BTS/SIGN guidelines.

Effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on asthma exacerbations.

This randomised, double-blind, 6-month study compared budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with salmeterol/fluticasone and a fixed maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol, both with terbutaline for relief. Following a 2-week run-in, 3335 symptomatic adults and adolescents (mean FEV1 73% predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid dose 745 microg/day) received budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg one inhalation bid plus additional inhalations as needed, salmeterol/fluticasone 25/125 microg two inhalations bid plus as-needed terbutaline or budesonide/formoterol 320/9 microg one inhalation bid plus as-needed terbutaline. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, emergency room treatment or oral steroids (primary variable) vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol (p=0.0034 and p=0.023 respectively; log-rank test). Exacerbation rates were 19, 16 and 12 events/100 patients/6 months for salmeterol/fluticasone, fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief, respectively, [rate reduction vs. fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76, p<0.001) and vs. fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol (0.72; 95% CI 0.57-0.90, p=0.0048)]. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and relief patients used less inhaled corticosteroid vs. salmeterol/fluticasone and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol patients. All treatments provided similar marked improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduces asthma exacerbations and maintains similar daily asthma control at a lower overall drug load compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy versus a higher dose of budesonide in moderate to severe asthma.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel asthma management strategy--budesonide/formoterol for both maintenance and symptom relief (Symbicort Single Inhaler Therapy)--compared with a higher maintenance dose of budesonide in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: This was a 12-month, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 1890; mean age 43 years [range 11 years-80 years], mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV(1)] 70% of predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 746 microg/day) received either budesonide (160 microg, 2 inhalations twice daily) plus terbutaline 0.4 mg as needed or a daily maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, 2 inhalations once daily) with additional inhalations of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg as needed. Time to first severe exacerbation (hospitalisation/emergency room [ER] treatment or systemic steroids due to asthma worsening or a fall in morning peak expiratory flow [PEF] to < or = 70% of baseline on 2 consecutive days) was the primary outcome variable. RESULTS: A total of 1890 patients were randomised, of whom 1563 (83%) had severe asthma. The time to first severe exacerbation was prolonged by budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy (p < 0.001) compared with a higher dose of budesonide. The risk of having a severe exacerbation was 39% lower with budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy compared with budesonide (p < 0.001). The number needed to treat to prevent one severe exacerbation per year with budesonide/formoterol compared with budesonide was 5. The budesonide/formoterol group had 45% fewer severe exacerbations requiring medical intervention per patient compared with the budesonide group (p < 0.001). Budesonide/formoterol patients had fewer hospitalisations/ER treatments (15 vs 25 events, respectively [descriptive statistics]) and fewer treatment days with systemic steroids (1776 days vs 3177 days, respectively [descriptive statistics]) compared with budesonide patients. Budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy patients used less as-needed medication compared with budesonide patients (0.90 vs 1.42 inhalations/day; p < 0.001). The mean daily ICS dose was lower in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the budesonide group (466 microg/day vs 640 microg/day). Over the 12-month study period, the budesonide/formoterol group achieved asthma control sufficient to not require any additional as-needed medication on 60% of days. Overall, budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy gave 31 more asthma control days (a night and day with no asthma symptoms and no as-needed medication use) per patient-year and 12 additional undisturbed nights per patient-year compared with a higher dose of budesonide. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy has the potential to provide a complete asthma management approach with one inhaler, demonstrating a high level of efficacy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Once-daily budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler in adults with moderate persistent asthma.

Patients with moderate persistent asthma (n = 523; mean FEV1 77.4%) not fully controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; 400-1000 microg/day) were randomized to receive either once-daily budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, two inhalations); or twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, one inhalation); or budesonide (400 microg) once-daily for 12 weeks. Once-daily dosing was administered in the evening and twice-daily dosing was administered in the morning and evening. All patients received twice-daily budesonide (200 microg) during a 2-week run-in. Compared with budesonide alone, change in mean morning and evening peak expiratory flow was greater in the once-daily budesonide/formoterol group (27 and 171 min(-1), respectively; P < 0.001) and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol group (23 and 24 l min(-1), respectively; P < 0.001). Night awakenings, symptom-free days, reliever-use-free days and asthma-control days were all improved during once-daily budesonide/formoterol therapy vs. budesonide (P < or = 0.05). Similar improvements were also seen with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (P < or = 0.05). The risk of a mild exacerbation was reduced after once- and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs. budesonide (38% and 35%, respectively; P < 0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol, once- or twice-daily, in a single inhaler improved asthma symptoms and exacerbations compared with budesonide. In the majority of patients with moderate persistent asthma requiring ICS and long-acting beta-agonists, once-daily formoterol/budesonide provided sustained efficacy over 24 h, similar to twice-daily dosing.