Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol Versus Fluticasone/Salmeterol in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol (BF) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FS) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing BF versus FS in the treatment of COPD from inception to July 17, 2023. Outcomes, including exacerbations, hospitalizations, pneumonia, emergency department (ED) visits for COPD, length of hospitalization, and number of exacerbations, were compared using risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 12.0. RESULTS: Ten studies comprising a total of 136,369 participants were included. Compared with those treated with FS, patients with COPD treated with BF experienced a reduced number of exacerbations (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00]; p = 0.040), hospitalizations (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.88]; p < 0.001), and frequency of pneumonia (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.92]; p = 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between BF and FS in terms of ED visits for COPD (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.69-1.10]; p = 0.243), length of hospitalization (WMD -0.18 [95% CI -0.62-0.27]; p = 0.437), and number of exacerbations (WMD -0.06 [95% CI -0.28-0.16]; p = 0.602). Notably, no significant heterogeneity was noted in length of hospitalization between the two groups, whereas clear heterogeneity was observed in other outcomes (I2 > 50%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with FS, BF therapy appears to be a more promising treatment strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD; however, this should be verified in further high-quality studies.

Bronchodilator reversibility testing in morbidly obese non-smokers: a comparative study- few concerns.

This is a letter in response to an article by Ahmed et al., which concluded that in comparison to salbutamol, Fluticasone/salmeterol combination increases FEV1, FEV1% of predicted, and FEV1/FVC ratio, however it did not offer novel insights, as both agents met the 12%- and 200-mL reversibility benchmarks and Concerns about incorporating a combination medication that includes an inhaled corticosteroid, inhaled corticosteroids are not typically associated with bronchodilation.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist fixed-dose combinations vs. long-acting muscarinic antagonist in bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in bronchiectasis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of bronchiectasis patients initiating ICS/LABA FDC or LAMA between 2007 and 2021. All bronchiectasis diagnoses were made by radiologists using high-resolution computed tomography. RESULTS: Of the 1,736 patients, 1,281 took ICS/LABA FDC and 455 LAMA. Among the 694 propensity score matched patients, ICS/LABA FDC had comparable outcomes to LAMA, with HRs of 1.22 (95% CI 0.81-1.83) for hospitalized respiratory infection, 1.06 (95% CI 0.84-1.33) for acute exacerbation, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.66-1.02) for all-cause hospitalization. Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) led to a lower risk of acute exacerbation compared to fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL) (BEC/FOR HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; BUD/FOR HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). BEC/FOR resulted in lower risks of hospitalized respiratory infection (HR 0.48, 95% 0.26-0.86) and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.55, 95% 0.37-0.80) compared to FLU/SAL. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide important evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ICS/LABA FDC compared with LAMA for bronchiectasis. BEC/FOR and BUD/FOR were associated with better outcomes than FLU/SAL.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment. METHODS: Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events. CONCLUSION: Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

Dupilumab suppresses relapsing chronic eosinophilic pneumonia with severe asthma.

Dupilumab-induced hypereosinophilia is mediated by blockade of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway, which reduces eosinophil migration from peripheral blood. The increase in peripheral blood eosinophils may lead to chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (CEP) and/or eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, but a direct causal connection between dupilumab and eosinophilic lung diseases has not been established. A 33-year-old Japanese woman with bronchial asthma since age three was treated with fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol twice daily after several asthma exacerbations at age 17. Her course was complicated by CEP at age 33 which resolved without the need for systemic steroids. However, in the four months following resolution of her CEP, the patient had three asthma exacerbations, and a recurrence of CEP, with blood leukocytes of 8500/µL, of which 25.0% were eosinophils. She was treated with prednisolone 50 mg/day, but she could not continue this dose due to the onset of myalgia. Then she had relapsing CEP twice within three months. She was treated with prednisolone 15 mg/day for CEP, but she had persistent asthma for more than one month; dupilumab was added at 600 mg, followed by 300 mg every two weeks. In the first month of treatment with dupilumab, the patient's asthma symptoms resolved completely, and she had only one relapse of CEP. In 12 months of follow-up, she had neither an asthma exacerbation nor another relapse of CEP. Dupilumab may be a promising treatment for patients with refractory asthma complicated by recurring CEP and undesirable steroid side effects.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216). CONCLUSIONS: This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

Use of Drugs Considering Route of Administration on Drug Prescription Pattern for Bronchial Asthma in a Tertiary Level Hospital.

Bronchial asthma is one of the much known long-term respiratory conditions. Incidence is increasing, in developing countries like Bangladesh. Cross-sectional type of observational study was carried out over one year (July 2017 to June 2018) in the department of Pharmacology with collaboration of the department of Respiratory Medicine and Medicine, Mymensingh Medical College and Hospital, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. A total of 160 patients were selected non-randomly for the study. Inhalation route (52.35%) was the most preferred one over oral route (47.65%). In total 245 drugs, 131 FDC drugs (Salmeterol + Fluticasone) were prescribed with inhalation therapy which is 53.46%, another 9 FDC drugs that is (Ipratropium bromide + Salbutamol) were prescribed with inhalation therapy which is 3.67%, 101 drugs (Salbutamol) were prescribed with inhalation therapy that is 41.23%, 4 drugs (Beclomethasone) were prescribed with inhalation therapy that is 1.64%. Majority of patient were taking inhalation form of anti-asthmatic drugs.

The assessment of effectiveness, tolerance, and patient satisfaction with the use of a new fixed-dose combination product, containing salmeterol and fluticasone propionate, Salflumix Easyhaler® in the treatment of asthma in the daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of a fix-dose salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy in asthma was previously shown for the original product. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of a second entry DPI - dry powder inhaler (Salflumix Easyhaler) in patients with asthma in everyday clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter Investigator-Initiated Study that enrolled 2,037 adult outpatients with asthma treated with Salflumix Easyhaler, was conducted by 220 pulmonologists across Poland. Asthma control was assessed during 3 visits with 6 ± 2 weeks intervals based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT). In addition, patient Satisfaction with Asthma Treatment Questionnaire (SATQ) and adherence and adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: During the observation (86 ± 30 days) the percentage of patients with controlled asthma (ACT 20-25 pts) increased from 35.5% at the first visit to 86.5% at the third visit (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, there were more patients not obtaining asthma control among patients that switched from the treatment with other devices than in naive ones. Global SATQ scores increased from 5.8 ± 0.7 to 6.2 ± 0.6 during the observation. Patients' satisfaction with the use of the Salflumix Easyhaler was high. Adherence exceeded 95%. Eight AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Salflumix Easyhaler is highly effective and well-tolerated by naïve patients with asthma and those switching from another device. In general, patients show good compliance with medical product and are satisfied with the use of this new device, and not reporting difficulties and errors related to its' use. Their physicians' overall perception of Salflumix Easyhaler use is very positive.

[Pharmacoeconomics analysis of using a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol in patients with asthma in the health care system of the Russian Federation].

AIM: To evaluate the budgetary impact of using budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) as maintenance therapy in real clinical practice compared with standard therapy for asthma of varying severity: for mild asthma with on-demand salbutamol; for moderate and severe asthma with the drug salmeterol + fluticasone and salbutamol on demand. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A static mathematical model was built to assess the impact on the budget when introducing the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) in the treatment of asthma into clinical practice from the point of view of the state. Demographic data was taken from the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service. Direct medical costs included the cost of medicines, the cost of hospitalization of patients associated with the development of asthma exacerbations, and the cost of scheduled outpatient visits. Indirect costs considered the loss of GDP due to hospitalization of patients against the background of asthma exacerbations. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Assessment of direct costs in the treatment of mild, moderate and severe asthma showed that a gradual increase in the proportion of patients receiving the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) over the years to 5.5, 7.7 and 9.7% accordingly, led to an increase in the cost of pharmacotherapy over 3 years by 1.7 billion rubles, while direct non-drug costs associated with the treatment of complications that developed during the treatment of asthma decreased by 8.3 billion rubles. Thus, the reduction in total direct costs amounted to RUB 6.7 billion. At the same time, indirect costs decreased by 6.0 billion rubles. The total reduction in all costs (direct and indirect) when switching patients to budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) amounted to 12.5 billion rubles. In addition, the use of the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) resulted in a decrease in the number of exacerbations: in the first year by 3137, in the second by 4393 and in the third by 5534 cases. A total of 13 064 asthma exacerbations were prevented over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Increasing the proportion of patients with asthma of varying severity receiving therapy with budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) will reduce the financial burden on both the healthcare system and the budgetary system.

Impact of inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on health-related quality of life in asthma: A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared fixed-dose, twice daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Sal) vs. inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and other ICS/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) treatments, including when administered using maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) regimens, in terms of improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The relationship between changes in asthma control and HRQoL was assessed. METHODS: Articles published between 2001 and 2021, reporting change from baseline (CFB) in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, were identified by a systematic review. Random effects Bayesian NMAs derived estimates of the mean difference in CFB in AQLQ vs. other interventions connected to the network (included 15 studies). Sensitivity analyses explored the impacts of differences in follow-up duration, baseline asthma control, the inclusion of observational studies, adjusting for baseline FEV1, and low-medium ICS dose arms only. Linear regression analysis compared CFBs in AQLQ and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score. RESULTS: Mean CFB in AQLQ with FP/Sal vs. comparators demonstrated expected ranked effects: mean difference 0.65 [95% credible interval: 0.54, 0.78] versus placebo, 0.58 [ 0.33, 0.84] versus LABA, 0.21 [ 0.13, 0.31] versus ICS alone, 0.06 [-0.04, 0.19] versus other ICS/LABA, and 0.00 [-0.13, 0.14] versus ICS/formoterol MART. Sensitivity analyses largely showed consistent results. Improvements in AQLQ and ACQ were strongly correlated (R = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: This NMA demonstrates that HRQoL is responsive to treatment, is strongly related to asthma control and that it can be well-managed in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma using regular treatment with inhaled FP/Sal.

Fluticasone/formoterol compared with other ICS/LABAs in asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics. METHODS: The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage. CONCLUSION: FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.

Budesonide/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone for asthma in children: an effectiveness and safety analysis.

Background: The efficacy of budesonide + formoterol therapy compared with high-dose salmeterol + fluticasone therapy plus short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) has not been evaluated specifically in children. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide + formoterol combination therapy two times a day plus as needed compared with salmeterol + fluticasone two times a day plus SABA (as needed) in children in China. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 164 children with persistent asthma (aged 12-17 years) who had experienced a minimum of one asthma exacerbation in 12 months prior to the study. The primary outcome was the time to the first severe exacerbation. Results: Eighty-two children were assigned to each of two groups. The exacerbation rate per 100 patients per year was not found to be significantly different. The number of patients with hospitalization/emergency room therapy was lower in budesonide + formoterol group, but the risk difference was not statistically significant. Asthma control measures showed comparable effects. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusion: No significant differences were observed in the outcome measures between the groups. Budesonide + formoterol therapy is a favorable approach in terms of a low load of ICS, steroid exposure, need for multiple inhalers and cost.

Computerized Tomography Image Feature under Convolutional Neural Network Algorithm Evaluated for Therapeutic Effect of Clarithromycin Combined with Salmeterol/Fluticasone on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

This study was to explore the use of convolutional neural network (CNN) for the classification and recognition of computerized tomography (CT) images of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the therapeutic effect of clarithromycin combined with salmeterol/fluticasone. First, the clinical data of COPD patients treated in hospital from September 2018 to December 2020 were collected, and CT and X-ray images were also collected. CT-CNN and X ray-CNN single modal models were constructed based on the LeNet-5 model. The randomized fusion algorithm was introduced to construct a fused CNN model for the diagnosis of COPD patients, and the recognition effect of the model was verified. Subsequently, the three-dimensional reconstruction of the patient's bronchus was performed using the classified CT images, and the changes of CT quantitative parameters in COPD patients were compared and analyzed. Finally, COPD patients were treated with salmeterol/fluticasone (COPD-C) and combined with clarithromycin (COPD-T). In addition, the differences between patients' lung function indexes, blood gas indexes, St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, and the number of acute exacerbations (AECOPD) before and after treatment were evaluated. The results showed that the randomized fusion model under different iteration times and batch sizes always had the highest recognition rate, sensitivity, and specificity compared to the two single modal CNN models, but it also had longer training time. After CT images were used to quantitatively evaluate the changes of the patient's bronchus, it was found that the area of the upper and lower lung lobes of the affected side of COPD patients and the ratio of the area of the tube wall to the bronchus were significantly changed. The lung function, blood gas index, and SGRQ score of COPD-T patients were significantly improved compared with the COPD-C group (P < 0.05), but there was no considerable difference in AECOPD (P > 0.05). In summary, the randomized fusion-based CNN model can improve the recognition rate of COPD, and salmeterol/fluticasone combined with clarithromycin therapy can significantly improve the clinical treatment effect of COPD patients.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs. INTERPRETATION: Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

The Role of ICS/LABA Fixed-Dose Combinations in the Treatment of Asthma and COPD: Bioequivalence of a Generic Fluticasone Propionate-Salmeterol Device.

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are inflammatory chronic respiratory conditions with high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The objectives of this review are to briefly describe the pathophysiology and epidemiology of asthma and COPD, discuss guideline recommendations for uncontrolled disease, and review a new generic option for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Although mild forms of these diseases may be controlled with as-needed pharmacotherapy, uncontrolled or persistent asthma and moderate or severe COPD uncontrolled by bronchodilators with elevated eosinophilia or frequent exacerbations may require intervention with combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs), according to international guidelines. Fixed-dose combinations of ICS/LABA are commonly prescribed for both conditions, with fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol forming a cornerstone of many treatment plans. An oral inhalation powder containing the combination of FP and salmeterol has been available as Advair Diskus® in the United States for almost 20 years, and the first and only substitutable generic version of this product has recently been approved for use: Wixela™ Inhub™. Bioequivalence of Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus has been established. Furthermore, the Inhub inhaler was shown to be robust and easy to use, suggesting that Wixela Inhub may provide an alternative option to Advair Diskus for patients with asthma or COPD requiring intervention with an ICS/LABA.

Clinical Outcomes in People with Difficult-to-Control Asthma Using Electronic Monitoring to Support Medication Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence in difficult-to-control asthma can be identified using 7-day FeNO suppression testing where patients take additional fluticasone via Diskus with an Inhaler Compliance Assessment (INCA) acoustic monitoring device attached, and self-measure FeNO at home. However, this is inconvenient for patients attending a tertiary center and limited by FeNO meter availability. It is not known if this approach alters clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine patient acceptability and the effectiveness of replacing usual combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy with a fluticasone/salmeterol Diskus 500+INCA for 28 days as the initial intervention, compared with the 7-day FeNO suppression test, and to explore clinical outcomes after INCA monitoring. METHODS: A service evaluation of FeNO suppression testing was undertaken in clinical practice. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 23 subjects offered replacement of their usual ICS/LABA with fluticasone/salmeterol+INCA as the initial intervention accepted and completed 28 days of monitoring. Fourteen (66.6%) patients reduced their FeNO by >42% (FeNO suppressors), accompanied by improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and blood eosinophils, similar to the 7-day test (n = 74). Twenty-two of 62 (35.5%) FeNO suppressors progressed to biological therapy, compared with 24 of 33 (72.7%) nonsuppressors (P = .0006). FeNO suppressors taking maintenance prednisolone (n = 13) who did not receive biological therapy reduced the median baseline dose from 10 to 3 mg, with further reductions limited by adrenal suppression. CONCLUSION: Replacing existing inhaled therapy with fluticasone/salmeterol+INCA for 28 days is acceptable to the majority of people with difficult-to-control asthma and identifies prior medication nonadherence. INCA monitoring coupled with clinical support potentially improves patient adherence and asthma control, preventing unnecessary progression to biological therapy.

A generic fluticasone propionate and salmeterol dry powder inhaler: Evidence of usability, function, and robustness.

Background: A generic combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate inhalation powder in a premetered, multidose, nonreusable inhaler was recently approved. Objective: To assess the performance of the generic device. Methods: Findings from three studies with regard to device usability, function, and robustness were reviewed. Results: In a study to assess device function in patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device was successfully used by patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were either dry powder inhaler users or dry powder inhaler-naive, even though they were not trained beyond being provided the instructions for use. In a study to measure inhaled flow rates generated by patients and healthy volunteers, the generic device consistently simulated the delivery of a full dose of drug, even to patients with severe respiratory disease and reduced inspiratory flow rates. Although the generic device had a slightly higher airflow resistance, this study demonstrated that this difference did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of drug delivery. Pressure drop, a key parameter that drives the fluidization and aerosolization of the powder dose, was found to be comparable between the devices. In an open-label study, the generic device met all U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifications for device robustness after 21.5 days of twice-daily dosing via oral inhalation among 111 participants with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All inhalers tested demonstrated conformity with a pharmacopeia with respect to key quality parameters (assay, delivered dose uniformity, aerodynamic size distribution). There was no evidence of chemical degradation of the active ingredients, nor of microbial or water ingress into the powder, as a result of inhaler use.

Budesonide/Formoterol Anti-Inflammatory Reliever and Maintenance or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Plus As-Needed, Short-Acting ß2 Agonist: Real-World Effectiveness in pAtients without Optimally Controlled asThma (REACT) Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the prospective, observational, 16-week REACT study conducted between October 21, 2008 and May 12, 2011, we compared the real-world effectiveness of anti-inflammatory reliever and maintenance therapy with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort® Turbuhaler) and maintenance therapy with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide®) plus as-needed, short-acting ß2 agonists (SABAs) in Taiwanese patients with inadequate asthma control. METHODS: Asthma control was assessed using the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) and standardized pulmonary function testing. Assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 4-5 and 12-16. Overall, we enrolled 842 patients at 11 clinics, 723 of whom were included in analyses (budesonide/formoterol, 563.3±1.3 µg/d, n=551; fluticasone/salmeterol, 1013.8±1.4 µg/d, n=172). RESULTS: At baseline, 72.5% and 27.5% of all patients had "partly" and "uncontrolled" asthma, respectively. Mean±SD ACQ-5 scores were 1.54±1.06 and 1.46±1.28 in the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups, respectively. ACQ-5 scores significantly improved from baseline (ie, decreased) in both groups at weeks 4 and 16. ACQ-5 difference scores were significantly lower in the budesonide/formoterol group (-0.91±1.11) than the fluticasone/salmeterol group (-0.69±1.27) at the end of the study (p=0.027). Peak expiratory flow rate significantly improved from baseline in the budesonide/formoterol but not the fluticasone/salmeterol group at the end of the study. Severe exacerbation rates and medical resource utilization were comparable between the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups. CONCLUSION: Collectively, results indicate the real-world effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever and maintenance therapy is better than fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol plus as-needed SABA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00784953.