Positioning As-needed Budesonide-Formoterol for Mild Asthma: Effect of Prestudy Treatment in Pooled Analysis of SYGMA 1 and 2.

Rationale: The SYGMA (Symbicort Given as Needed in Mild Asthma) studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide (BUD)-formoterol (FORM) in patients whose asthma was uncontrolled on as-needed inhaled short-acting bronchodilators (subgroup 1) or controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (subgroup 2). Objectives: To assess the influence of prestudy treatment in a post hoc analysis of the SYGMA studies. Methods: In the SYGMA 1 (NCT022149199) and SYGMA 2 (NCT02224157) 52-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group studies, 6,735 patients with mild asthma were randomized to as-needed BUD-FORM, low-dose BUD + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1 only). Exacerbation rates and changes in symptom control and lung function were compared among treatments for both subgroups. Results: In a pooled analysis of SYGMA 1 and 2, the annual severe exacerbation rate in subgroup 1 was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM (0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06-0.10]) than with BUD maintenance (0.10 [95% CI, 0.09-0.13]) (rate ratio [RR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.98]; P = 0.03), and similar results were shown in subgroup 2 with BUD-FORM (0.12 [95% CI, 0.10-0.14]) and BUD maintenance (0.10 [95% CI, 0.09-0.13]) (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.86-1.41]; P = 0.44). In SYGMA 1, the annual severe exacerbation rate in both subgroups was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM than with as-needed terbutaline (subgroup 1: RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.20-0.58]; P < 0.001; subgroup 2: RR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25-0.54]; P < 0.001). The number needed to treat to prevent one severe exacerbation with as-needed BUD-FORM and BUD maintenance versus as-needed terbutaline were 20 and 34 in subgroup 1 and 13 and 12 in subgroup 2, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that, for patients with mild asthma currently receiving short-acting ß2-agonists alone, as-needed low-dose ICS-FORM should be preferred over maintenance ICS as initial controller treatment. For patients whose asthma is controlled on maintenance low-dose ICS, as-needed BUD-FORM is an alternative to maintenance ICS without the need for daily treatment, and both of these options are safer than switching to short-acting ß2-agonist-only treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Adolescents with Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is challenging for adolescents. In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol (BUD-FORM) reduces severe exacerbations compared with as-needed short-acting beta2-agonists, similar to the reduction with maintenance budesonide. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc pooled analysis of Symbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 and 2 assessed the efficacy and safety of as-needed BUD-FORM in adolescents. METHODS: SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind studies (NCT022149199; NCT02224157) in patients 12 years or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomized to twice-daily placebo + as-needed BUD-FORM 200/6 µg, twice-daily BUD 200 µg + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or twice-daily placebo + as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Annualized severe exacerbation rates, maintenance treatment adherence, and safety (including change in height) were compared between treatment groups in adolescents (aged ≥12 to <18 years). RESULTS: Severe exacerbation rate was similar with as-needed BUD-FORM and BUD maintenance (pooled analysis: 0.08 vs 0.07/y; P = .634), and was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM versus as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1: 0.04 vs 0.17/y; P = .005). Median adherence was 73% in SYGMA 1 and 51% in SYGMA 2. Change in height from baseline in adolescents aged ≥12 years to <14 years was significantly greater with as-needed BUD-FORM (4.8 cm) versus BUD maintenance (3.9 cm) (pooled: P < .046), and was similar between as-needed BUD-FORM (4.5 cm) and as-needed terbutaline (4.1 cm) (SYGMA 1: P = .500). No new or unexpected safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents with mild asthma, as-needed BUD-FORM was superior to as-needed terbutaline for severe exacerbation reduction, with similar efficacy to BUD maintenance. As-needed BUD-FORM provides an alternative treatment option for adolescents with mild asthma, without needing daily treatment.

Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Mild Asthma: Data from the Two Phase III SYGMA Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Budesonide-formoterol taken as needed is an emerging treatment for mild asthma. OBJECTIVE: We used data from the SYGMA studies to assess the safety of As-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with As-needed terbutaline and compared with maintenance budesonide. METHODS: SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies in patients aged ≥ 12 years with physician-assessed mild asthma. Patients were randomized to As-needed budesonide-formoterol 200/6 µg, twice-daily budesonide 200 µg as maintenance plus As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg, and As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs (DAEs), and study-defined asthma-related discontinuations from corresponding treatment groups in both studies were pooled. SYGMA 1 data were used for comparisons with As-needed terbutaline alone. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 3366 patients in the As-needed budesonide-formoterol group and 3369 in the budesonide maintenance group, with AEs in 40.8% and 42.5% of patients, respectively. Common AEs included viral upper respiratory tract infection (viral URTI) and URTI. SAE, DAE, and asthma-related discontinuation rates were similar with As-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide. Potential local and systemic corticosteroid class effects were reported in ≤ 1% of patients for each budesonide-containing regimen. In SYGMA 1, AEs were more common in the As-needed terbutaline (n = 1277) than As-needed budesonide-formoterol (n = 1277) groups (42.7 vs. 38.0%), as were DAEs (2.9 vs. 0.8%) and asthma-related discontinuations (1.6 vs. 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide-formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever therapy is generally well-tolerated in patients with mild asthma and has a safety profile similar to that of daily budesonide. No new safety signals were identified. CLINICALTRIAL. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02149199 (SYGMA 1) and NCT02224157 (SYGMA 2).

Effect of a single day of increased as-needed budesonide-formoterol use on short-term risk of severe exacerbations in patients with mild asthma: a post-hoc analysis of the SYGMA 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol reduces long-term exacerbation risk compared with as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), with a similar or increased reduction versus maintenance with budesonide plus as-needed SABA, despite a lower budesonide dose. In this post-hoc analysis of the SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 study, we investigated the short-term risk of severe exacerbations after a single day with various levels of reliever use. METHODS: SYGMA 1 was a 52-week, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, in which patients aged 12 years or older with mild asthma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to placebo twice daily plus as-needed terbutaline 0·5 mg, placebo twice daily plus as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 µg, or budesonide 200 µg twice daily plus as-needed terbutaline (ie, budesonide maintenance group). In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed the frequency of reliever use and the risk of a severe exacerbation in the 21 days after first use of more than two, four, six, or eight reliever inhalations in 24 h. SYGMA 1 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02149199, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Of 5721 patients enrolled in SYGMA 1, 3849 were randomly assigned to as-needed terbutaline (n=1280), as-needed budesonide-formoterol (n=1279), or budesonide maintenance (n=1290), of whom 3836 had evaluable data (n=1277 as-needed terbutaline, n=1277 as needed budesonide-formoterol, and n=1282 budesonide maintenance). Median reliever use was 0·32 (IQR 0·08-0·91) inhalations per day for the as-needed terbutaline group, 0·29 (0·07-0·72) for the as-needed budesonide-formoterol group, and 0·16 (0·04-0·52) for the budesonide maintenance group. Compared with as-needed terbutaline, after adjustment for age, sex, randomly assigned treatment, pre-study treatment group, baseline % predicted post-bronchodilator FEV1, and severe exacerbation in the 12 months before enrolment in the study, the hazard ratio (HR) for severe exacerbation in the 21 days after a single day with more than two as-needed inhalations was 0·27 (95% CI 0·12-0·58; p=0·0008) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·39 (0·19-0·79; p=0·0091) with budesonide maintenance; after a single day of more than four as-needed inhalations the HR was 0·24 (0·10-0·62; p=0·0030) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·30 (0·13-0·72; p=0·0065) with budesonide maintenance; and after a single day of more than six as-needed inhalations the HR was 0·14 (0·02-1·06; p=0·057) with as-needed budesonide-formoterol and 0·43 (0·14-1·26; p=0·12) with budesonide maintenance. HRs were not calculated for more than eight as-needed inhalations due to the small number of events. INTERPRETATION: In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol reduces the short-term risk of severe exacerbations after a single day of higher use (more than two as-needed inhalations), even when overall use is infrequent. Use of an anti-inflammatory reliever might reduce the risk of short-term severe exacerbations by the timely provision of increased doses of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol when symptoms occur. These findings should be further assessed in prospective randomised clinical trials. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs budesonide pMDI in asthmatic children (6-<12 years).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) have been demonstrated in patients with asthma at least 12 years old. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 formoterol doses added to budesonide as fixed combinations vs budesonide alone in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma. METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT02091986; CHASE 3) included children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma previously receiving a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS plus a long-acting ß2-agonist. Children symptomatic during a 7-28-day run-in on low-dose ICS, 1 inhalation of budesonide dry powder inhaler 90 µg twice daily (BID), were randomized to receive 2 inhalations of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 µg (160/9 µg) BID (n = 92), budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/2.25 µg (160/4.5 µg) BID (n = 95), or budesonide pMDI 80 µg (160 µg) BID (n = 92) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 1 hour after dosing (primary end point), change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second 15 minutes after dosing, and peak expiratory flow 1 hour after dosing at week 12 were statistically significantly greater for budesonide/formoterol 160/9 µg vs budesonide (P ≤ .015 for all comparisons), but not for budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg vs budesonide. Bronchodilator effects, evident 15 minutes after the dose on day 1, were maintained at week 12. Incidence of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations and improvements in asthma symptom-related and quality-of-life outcomes were similar across treatments. There were no notable safety differences among treatments. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 µg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful lung function improvements vs budesonide pMDI 160 µg, demonstrating appropriateness as a therapeutic option for children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma symptomatic on ICS alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02091986.

Efficacy and safety of a CXCR2 antagonist, AZD5069, in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Airway neutrophilic inflammation is a pathological feature in some patients with severe asthma. Stimulation of the chemokine receptor CXCR2 mediates neutrophil migration into the airways. We investigated the safety and efficacy of AZD5069, a CXCR2 antagonist, as an add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with uncontrolled asthma despite combination therapy with long-acting ß2 agonists and medium-dose or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients were randomised in a 1:1:1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive 5, 15, or 45 mg oral AZD5069 twice daily or matched placebo. The primary endpoint was the number of severe asthma exacerbations in 6 months. Safety was assessed in the 6-month treatment period and an optional 6-month safety extension. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704495. FINDINGS: 640 patients with a mean age of 52 (SD 11·8) years were randomised, 478 to receive AZD5069 (5 mg n=160, 15 mg n=156, and 45 mg n=162) and 162 placebo. No dose of AZD5069 reduced the rate of severe exacerbations compared with placebo (rate ratio for 5 mg 1·29, 90% CI 0·79-2·11; for 15 mg 1·53, 0·95-2·46; and for 45 mg 1·56, 0·98-2·49). Treatment with AZD5069 was generally well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse event overall was nasopharyngitis, seen in 18 (11·5%) receiving 5 mg, 13 (8·5%) receiving 15 mg, and 18 (11·2%) receiving 45 mg AZD5069, and 31 (19·5%) of those receiving placebo. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with this selective CXCR2 antagonist did not reduce the frequency of severe exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. These findings bring into question the role of CXCR2-mediated neutrophil recruitment in the pathobiology of exacerbations in severe refractory asthma. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A randomised, placebo-controlled study of the CXCR2 antagonist AZD5069 in bronchiectasis.

This randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group multicentre phase IIa study evaluated the effect of the CXCR2 antagonist AZD5069 on sputum neutrophil counts in adults with bronchiectasis.Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive AZD5069 80 mg or placebo orally twice daily for 28 days. Assessments included blood cell counts, inflammatory markers in blood, morning spontaneous sputum, lung function, safety and tolerability and patients completed daily BronkoTest diary cards. The primary outcome measure was the change in absolute sputum neutrophil count.Of 52 randomised patients, 45 completed treatment, 20 (76.9%) out of 26 receiving AZD5069 and 25 (96.2%) out of 26 receiving placebo. AZD5069 reduced the absolute neutrophil cell count in morning sputum by 69% versus placebo (p=0.004); percentage sputum neutrophil count was reduced by 36% (p=0.008). The number of infections/exacerbations was similar with AZD5069 and placebo (nine versus eight), but these led to more study discontinuations with AZD5069 (four versus zero). Sputum interleukin (IL)-6 and growth-regulated oncogene (GRO)-α and serum GRO-α, IL-1ß and IL-8 levels increased with AZD5069 versus placebo (all p<0.001), while serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels did not change. AZD5069 was well tolerated.AZD5069 markedly reduced absolute sputum neutrophil counts in bronchiectasis patients, although this was not associated with improvements in clinical outcomes in this exploratory study.

Clinical outcomes according to baseline blood pressure in patients with a low ejection fraction in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Program.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (or=141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (or=81 mm Hg). RESULTS: Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP.

Benefits and safety of candesartan treatment in heart failure are independent of age: insights from the Candesartan in Heart failure--Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme.

AIMS: Ageing may affect drug efficacy and safety in patients with heart failure (HF). The Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme offered an opportunity to study the relationship between increasing age and the efficacy and safety of treatment in an uniquely broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic HF and either reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 7599 patients in NYHA Class II-IV HF were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo, including 3169 patients age >70 years. Mean follow-up was 37.7 months. The proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect on efficacy and safety within five age groups: <50 years (n = 605) (8% of all study patients), 50-59 years (n = 1474) (19%), 60-69 years (n = 2351) (31%), 70-79 years (n = 2474) (33%), and > or =80 years (n = 695) (9%). The risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome) increased from 24% in the lowest age group to 46% in the highest age group (and mortality from 13 to 42%). The relative reduction in risk of the primary outcome with candesartan (15% in the overall study population) was similar irrespective of age. Consequently, the absolute benefit was greater with advancing age (3.8 patients avoided a primary outcome per 100 patients treated in the lowest age group compared with 6.8 in the highest). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were more frequent in the candesartan group: placebo/candesartan risk (%), lowest compared with highest age category: hyperkalemia (0.0/1.6 vs. 0.6/2.7), increased serum creatinine (1.0/3.9 vs. 6.1/5.4) and hypotension (1.7/2.0 vs. 2.8/5.7). CONCLUSION: Older patients were at a greater absolute risk of adverse CV mortality and morbidity outcomes but derived a similar relative risk reduction and, therefore, a greater absolute benefit from treatment with candesartan, despite receiving a somewhat lower mean daily dose of candesartan. Adverse effects were more common with candesartan than with placebo, although the relative risk of adverse effects was similar across age groups. The benefit to risk ratio for candesartan was thus favourable across all age groups.

Efficacy and tolerability of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure already receiving an angiotensin-converting inhibitor plus aldosterone antagonist, with or without a beta blocker. Findings from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in heart failure (HF) patients already taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor (ACE-I) plus an aldosterone antagonist is uncertain (especially if taking a beta blocker as well). The CHARM-Added trial describes the largest experience of using multiple inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) together. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2548 HF patients, taking an ACE-I (936 no spironolactone/no beta blocker; 1175 no spironolactone/beta blocker; 199 spironolactone/no beta blocker; 238 sprionolactone/beta blocker), were randomized to placebo or candesartan and followed for 41 months (median). The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. In patients taking both a beta blocker and spironolactone (in addition to an ACE-I) at baseline, the candesartan:placebo hazard ratio was 0.85(95% CI 0.56, 1.29), compared to 0.85(95% CI 0.75, 0.96) in all randomized patients (interaction p value 0.49). The relative risk of discontinuation of candesartan (compared to placebo) because of hypotension, increased serum creatinine or hyperkalemia was not increased in patients taking spironolactone at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: An ARB may provide added benefit, at acceptable risk, in HF patients already taking spironolactone as well as an ACE-I and beta blocker. These findings must be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial before this approach can be recommended, routinely.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure by candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequent in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Experimental and small patient studies have demonstrated that blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may prevent AF. In the CHARM program, the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were evaluated in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic CHF. CHARM provided the opportunity to prospectively determine the effect of candesartan on the incidence of new AF in this CHF population. METHODS: 7601 patients with symptomatic CHF and reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo in the 3 component trials of CHARM. The major outcomes were cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The incidence of new AF was a prespecified secondary outcome. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. A conditional logistic regression model for stratified data was used. RESULTS: 6379 patients (83.9%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.15%) developed AF during follow-up, 177 (5.55%) in the candesartan group and 215 (6.74%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.812, 95% CI 0.662-0.998, P = .048). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the odds ratio was 0.802 (95% CI 0.650-0.990, P = .039). There was no heterogeneity of the effects of candesartan in preventing AF between the 3 component trials (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan reduced the incidence of AF in a large, broadly-based, population of patients with symptomatic CHF.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results from the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program, which enrolled patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and a broad range of ejection fractions (EFs). BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of adverse CV outcomes in patients with CHF and reduced EF. The risk of AF in patients with CHF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (PEF) is unknown. METHODS: A total of 7,599 patients with symptomatic CHF were randomized to candesartan or placebo. Patients were divided by baseline EF (< or =40% or >40%) in low or preserved EF groups. Major outcomes were cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. RESULTS: A total of 670 (17%) patients in the low EF group and 478 (19%) in the PEF group had AF at baseline. Atrial fibrillation predicted a high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality regardless of baseline EF. Patients with AF and low EF had the highest absolute risk for adverse CV outcomes. However, AF was associated with greater relative increased risk of the major outcomes in patients with PEF than in patients with low EF: hazard ratio 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45 to 2.06) versus 1.29 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.46), respectively. The same was true for the risk of all-cause mortality. Candesartan was associated with similar treatment effects regardless of baseline rhythm. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of CV outcomes in patients with CHF and either reduced EF or PEF. Candesartan improved outcomes similarly regardless of baseline rhythm.