Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy: a new treatment approach for adult patients with asthma

ABSTRACT

Background: An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combination plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed for symptom relief is recommended for persistent asthma. Additionally, budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART, AstraZeneca, Sweden) has been approved for adults in the European Union. This option is well tolerated and offers greater reductions in asthma exacerbations together with similar improvements in daily symptom control, at a lower overall steroid load, compared with fixed-dose ICS/LABA plus SABA.

Scope: Two large clinical trials investigated the use of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever compared with medium or high doses of an ICS/LABA combination as controller plus SABA as reliever in adults (aged ≥ 12 years). COMPASS was a 6-month, double blind, randomized trial while COSMOS was a 1?year, dose titration study which reflected routine clinical practice. The current review focuses on the findings in both studies, among adult patients only (aged ≥ 18 years).

Findings: Among adults, the studies confirmed a 21–39% reduction in severe exacerbations in patients treated with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with titrated salmeterol/fluticasone plus SABA (COSMOS) or fixed higher budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone plus SABA (COMPASS), respectively. Similar levels of daily asthma control were achieved with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy at a significantly lower overall steroid load compared with salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol plus SABA. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy was as well tolerated as combination therapies.

Conclusions: In adult patients, budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy is a safe and simplified approach to asthma management, using a single inhaler, which reduces severe exacerbations and maintains similar daily asthma control at a lower drug load compared with the traditional strategy of ICS/LABA plus SABA.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fixed combination treatments for asthma in Finland

ABSTRACT

Background: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy has shown its effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe asthma.

Objective: To explore the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy as compared to fixed combination therapies (budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone) with terbutaline as needed in the treatment of asthma in Finland.

Methods: Patients without asthma exacerbations during a 6-month period were used as the effectiveness variable in the within-trial economic analysis. Finnish unit costs were applied to pooled resource use data, and multinomial cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curves were formed based on bootstrapping.

Results: Use of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations as compared with a fixed dose of budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone and terbutaline as needed. Total costs over 6 months were €496 per patient for those who used the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy treatment model, which was €78–101 lower than the cost of fixed combinations of salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol with terbutaline as needed. The results indicate that the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy achieves a high probability (> 93%) of cost effectiveness irrespective of willingness to pay level.

Conclusions: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy may be considered in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma instead of conventional treatment with combination products in view of its good clinical efficacy and a high probability of cost-effectiveness in the Finnish setting. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis with a longer time horizon, more Finnish-specific data, and ICS + short/long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist as an additional comparator is still warranted.     

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate to severe asthma

SUMMARY

Background: Current asthma guidelines recommend that patients are educated to adjust their medication according to their asthma severity using physician-guided self-management plans. However, many patients take a fixed dose of their controller medication and adjust their reliever medication according to asthma symptoms.

Objectives: This study examined whether asthma control improved if patients adjusted the maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler 160/4.5 |ig) according to asthma severity compared with traditional fixed dosing (FD) regimens.

Methods: Symptomatic patients with asthma (n?=?658, mean symptom score 1.5, mean inhaled corticosteroids 735|ig/day, mean forced expiratory volume in 1?second [FEV1] 84% predicted) were randomised after 2 weeks' run-in to either: budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD), budesonide/formoterol FD or salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide Diskust 50/250 |ig) FD. In a 4-week double-blind period, both budesonide/formoterol AMD and FD groups received two inhalations twice daily (bid) and salmeterol/fluticasone FD patients received one inhalation bid. In the following 6-month open extension, both FD groups continued with the same treatment. Patients in the AMD group with well-controlled asthma stepped down to one inhalation bid; others continued with two inhalations bid. All AMD patients could increase to four inhalations bid for 7-14 days if symptoms worsened. All patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for symptom relief throughout. The primary variable was the odds of achieving a well-controlled asthma week (WCAW).

Results: The odds ratio for achieving a WCAW did not differ between the FD regimens; however, during the open period, budesonide/formoterol AMD increased the odds of achieving a WCAW vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (odds ratio 1.335; 95% CI: 1.001,1.783; p?=?0.049) despite a 15% reduction in average study drug use. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients had a lower exacerbation rate over the study: 40% lower vs. salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p?=?0.018); 32% lower vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (NS). During the double-blind period, there were no clinically relevant differences between the budesonide/formoterol FD and salmeterol/fluticasone FD groups. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients used less reliever medication in the open extension: 0.58 vs. 0.92 occasions/day for budesonide/formoterol FD (p?=?0.001) and 0.80 occasions/day for salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p?=?0.011).

Conclusions: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provides more effective asthma control by reducing exacerbations and reliever medication usage compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone.     

The effect of adjustable dosing with budesonide/formoterol on health-related quality of life and asthma control compared with fixed dosing

SUMMARY

Background: Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is an effective therapy for asthma. We investigated whether adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol could maintain health-related quality of life (HRQL) and asthma control.

Patients/methods: Asthma patients (n = 4025) received budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort* 160/4.5?µg) 2 inhalations twice daily (bid) for 4?weeks during run-in of this open, multicentre study. Patients were randomised to adjustable dosing (budesonide/formoterol 1 inhalation bid; stepping up to 2 or 4 inhalations bid for 1?week if asthma worsened) or fixed dosing (budesonide/formoterol 2 inhalations bid), for 12?weeks. Change in HRQL (standardised Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, AQLQ[S], score) during randomised treatment was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary variables included asthma control (peak expiratory flow [PEF], symptom-severity score, nocturnal awakenings, reliever-medication use) and study-medication intake.

Results: Clinically significant (≥ 0.5) improvements in AQLQ(S) score (mean 0.73), morning and evening PEF (mean 42.5 and 24.8?L/min, respectively), and symptom-severity score (mean 0.36) were achieved during run-in. The improvements were maintained in both groups although, overall, adjustable-dosing patients took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than fixed-dosing patients (mean 2.63 versus 3.82, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol maintains HRQL and asthma control as effectively as fixed dosing and is associated with a reduced drug load overall.     

Pharmacokinetics of budesonide and formoterol administered via a series of single-drug and combination inhalers: four open-label, randomized, crossover studies in healthy adults

Objective: To investigate the pharmacokinetics of budesonide and formoterol administered concomitantly in healthy adults. Methods: Three single-dose, open-label crossover studies (n=28 each) were conducted (Study I: budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, budesonide pMDI+formoterol DPI; Study II: budesonide/formoterol pMDI, budesonide pMDI+formoterol DPI; Study III: budesonide/formoterol pMDI [three budesonide formulation strengths; constant formoterol]). Study IV (n=28) assessed steady state pharmacokinetics (budesonide/formoterol pMDI [two/four inhalations twice daily, 5-day treatment; four inhalations, single-dose]). Results: Study I: no pharmacokinetic interactions were observed between budesonide and formoterol. Study II: AUC ratios were 97.9% (budesonide) and 82.2% (formoterol) (budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI+formoterol DPI). Study III: formoterol AUC was comparable across budesonide/formoterol pMDI formulation strengths; budesonide AUC increased with formulation strength in proportion to fine particle dose. Study IV: dose proportionality was demonstrated for budesonide (AUC ratio, 104.3%) and suggested for formoterol (AUC ratio, 117.6%) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (steady state); budesonide and formoterol AUC was higher with repeated versus single-dose budesonide/formoterol pMDI (four inhalations). Conclusions: No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed between budesonide and formoterol. Budesonide dose variation in budesonide/formoterol pMDI did not affect formoterol exposure. Steady state budesonide/formoterol pMDI dose-doubling yielded proportional increases in budesonide and formoterol exposure. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of adjustable dosing with budesonide/formoterol on health-related quality of life and asthma control compared with fixed dosing

BACKGROUND: Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is an effective therapy for asthma. We investigated whether adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol could maintain health-related quality of life (HRQL) and asthma control. PATIENTS/METHODS: Asthma patients (n = 4025) received budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort 160/4.5 microg) 2 inhalations twice daily (b.i.d.) for 4 weeks during run-in of this open, multicentre study. Patients were randomised to adjustable dosing (budesonide/formoterol 1 inhalation b.i.d.; stepping up to 2 or 4 inhalations bid for 1 week if asthma worsened) or fixed dosing (budesonide/formoterol 2 inhalations b.i.d.), for 12 weeks. Change in HRQL (standardised Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, AQLQ[S], score) during randomised treatment was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary variables included asthma control (peak expiratory flow [PEF], symptom-severity score, nocturnal awakenings, reliever-medication use) and study-medication intake. RESULTS: Clinically significant (> or = 0.5) improvements in AQLQ(S) score (mean 0.73), morning and evening PEF (mean 42.5 and 24.8 L/min, respectively), and symptom-severity score (mean 0.36) were achieved during run-in. The improvements were maintained in both groups although, overall, adjustable-dosing patients took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than fixed-dosing patients (mean 2.63 versus 3.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol maintains HRQL and asthma control as effectively as fixed dosing and is associated with a reduced drug load overall.     

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND: Current asthma guidelines recommend that patients are educated to adjust their medication according to their asthma severity using physician-guided self-management plans. However, many patients take a fixed dose of their controller medication and adjust their reliever medication according to asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether asthma control improved if patients adjusted the maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler* 160/4.5 microg) according to asthma severity compared with traditional fixed dosing (FD) regimens. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 658, mean symptom score 1.5, mean inhaled corticosteroids 735 microg/day, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 84% predicted) were randomised after 2 weeks' run-in to either: budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD), budesonide/formoterol FD or salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide Diskus dagger 50/250 microg) FD. In a 4-week double-blind period, both budesonide/formoterol AMD and FD groups received two inhalations twice daily (bid) and salmeterol/fluticasone FD patients received one inhalation bid. In the following 6-month open extension, both FD groups continued with the same treatment. Patients in the AMD group with well-controlled asthma stepped down to one inhalation bid; others continued with two inhalations bid. All AMD patients could increase to four inhalations bid for 7-14 days if symptoms worsened. All patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for symptom relief throughout. The primary variable was the odds of achieving a well-controlled asthma week (WCAW). RESULTS: The odds ratio for achieving a WCAW did not differ between the FD regimens; however, during the open period, budesonide/formoterol AMD increased the odds of achieving a WCAW vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (odds ratio 1.335; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.783; p = 0.049) despite a 15% reduction in average study drug use. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients had a lower exacerbation rate over the study: 40% lower vs. salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.018); 32% lower vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (NS). During the double-blind period, there were no clinically relevant differences between the budesonide/formoterol FD and salmeterol/fluticasone FD groups. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients used less reliever medication in the open extension: 0.58 vs. 0.92 occasions/day for budesonide/formoterol FD (p = 0.001) and 0.80 occasions/day for salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provides more effective asthma control by reducing exacerbations and reliever medication usage compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone.     

Budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of asthma

Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort^®, AstraZeneca plc) is a novel treatment for asthma, combining an inhaled corticosteroid – budesonide, and a long-acting β₂-agonist – formoterol, in a single inhaler, the Turbuhaler^®. Randomised, clinical studies in patients with asthma have demonstrated that budesonide/formoterol is more effective than the inhaled corticosteroids, budes-onide and fluticasone alone, and at least as effective as both monocomponents in separate inhalers. Results from clinical studies suggest a synergistic effect when both drugs are administered via one inhaler, although the mechanisms for this are not fully understood. Budesonide/formoterol has a rapid onset of effect, apparent within 1 min of treatment, which is largely because of the properties of formoterol. Once- and twice-daily dosing with budesonide/formoterol are effective treatment options for patients with mild or moderate asthma. Studies have also shown that the beneficial safety profiles and dose relationships of both budesonide and formoterol allow dose adjustments of budesonide/formoterol in response to variations in the patient’s asthma. Findings from the budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing programme, comparing fixed and adjustable, symptom-guided dosing regimens, demonstrate that patients achieve equally good asthma control with adjustable dosing (from one inhalation twice-daily to more than four inhalations twice-daily), but at a significantly lower overall drug load. Adverse events, mainly expected inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β₂agonist class effects, have been few in number and mild in nature. In addition, there is growing evidence that budesonide/formoterol is also effective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The future for treatment with budesonide/formoterol may include as-needed administration in addition to maintenance therapy.     

The effect of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler on patient-reported outcomes in adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the effects of budesonide and formoterol administered via one pressurized metered-dose inhaler (budesonide/formoterol pMDI) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and to determine the contributions of budesonide and formoterol to those effects in adults with asthma.

Research design and methods: A 12-week, random­ized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was conducted in 480 patients aged ≥?12 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. After a 2-week run-in period during which current asthma therapy was discontinued, patients were randomized to receive two inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formo­terol pMDI 80/4.5?μg (160/9?μg), budesonide pMDI 80?μg (160?μg), formoterol via dry powder inhaler (DPI) 4.5?μg (9?μg), or placebo.

Main outcome measures: Analyses included a subpopulation of 405 patients aged ≥?18 years. PROs included the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale, the Patient Satisfaction with Asthma Medication (PSAM) questionnaire, and asthma control variables (recorded via electronic diaries), such as asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings due to asthma. Patient and physician global assessments were collected at the end of the study.

Results: Patients aged ≥?18 years receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI reported significantly greater improvements from baseline in AQLQ overall and domain scores, MOS Sleep Scale domain scores, and asthma control variables than patients receiving placebo (?p ≤ 0.033). Improvements from baseline in AQLQ(S) overall and domain scores, daily asthma symptoms scores, percentage of symptom-free days, percentage of rescue medication-free days, and percentage of asthma control days were significantly greater in patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus formoterol DPI (?p ≤ 0.042). Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI reported significantly greater PSAM scores than did patients in all other treatment arms (?p ≤ 0.004). Study limitations may include the fact that the formoterol-alone arm used a different device and formulation than the other active arms as well as the absence of a treatment arm with budesonide and formoterol administered concomit­antly in separate inhalers. In addition, these results may not be generalized to all patients with asthma, as this analysis included only patients aged ≥?18 years.

Conclusions: Patients receiving treatment with budesonide/for­moterol pMDI experienced significantly greater improvements from baseline in asthma-related quality of life, quality of sleep, and asthma control and greater satisfaction with treatment than patients receiving placebo. The combination of budesonide and formoterol in one pMDI is beneficial in improving how a patient feels and functions as a result of treatment.     

Economic assessment of adjustable maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed treatment in asthma

OBJECTIVES: To compare the costs and effectiveness of adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed dosing in adults with asthma. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial conducted in Germany, patients with asthma received budesonide/formoterol 160 microg/4.5 microg in a single inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler with two inhalations twice daily for a 4-week run-in period. Patients were then randomised to either adjustable maintenance dosing (one inhalation twice daily, stepping up to four inhalations twice daily for 1 week if asthma worsened; n=1679) or fixed dosing (two inhalations twice daily; n=1618) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardised) during the randomised treatment period. Resource utilisation data were collected in parallel and combined with German unit costs to estimate direct and indirect costs (year 2001 values). RESULTS: Both treatment regimens were equally effective in maintaining HR-QOL and asthma control during the randomised treatment period. However, overall, patients in the adjustable maintenance dosing group took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than those in the fixed-dosing group (mean: 2.63 vs 3.82 inhalations; p<0.001). Adjustable maintenance dosing was associated with significantly lower asthma-related direct costs compared with fixed dosing (mean: 221 euro vs 292 euro; p<0.001). This pattern was maintained when patients were stratified into those with peak expiratory flow (PEF) of 60% to <80% predicted normal and those with PEF of>/=80% predicted normal and when total costs were considered. CONCLUSION: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler maintained HR-QOL in adult patients with asthma at a significantly lower cost than fixed dosing.     

Budesonide/formoterol dry powder in asthma: an option for control as maintenance and reliever therapy

Importance of the field: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with various components that may contribute to symptoms. Obtaining global control of is one of the fundamental parts of the management of this disease.

Areas covered in this review: The Cochrane trial database, Medline and Embase, were searched systematically, and approximately 20 respiratory journals and conference abstracts were searched manually. The search was limited to publications in English language of last 20 years and which included the keywords ‘budesonide’, ‘formoterol’, ‘asthma’ and ‘control’.

What the reader will gain: The purposes of this review are: i) to discuss the rationale about possibility of using combination therapy administered with a single inhaler for both daily maintenance and relief as needed of breakthrough symptoms in asthma management; ii) to give readers the current status of clinical pharmacological treatment of asthma; iii) to discuss the evidence on the use of budesonide/formoterol dry powder in one inhaler.

Take home message: Among the various inhalatory drugs, budesonide and formoterol can be conveniently delivered in one dry powder inhaler and simplify treatment by providing immediate step-up when symptoms increase. Alongside the anti-inflammatory component, formoterol provides both short- and long-acting bronchodilator effects with maintenance and reliever properties. The option of using one inhaler simplifies treatment by simultaneously providing bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activity, thus enhancing compliance. As indicated in guidelines, all these characteristics are essential for optimizing asthma treatment and control.     

Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol in the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION: Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with asthma. We compared the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of this one-inhaler regimen with that of maintenance salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide) plus salbutamol (albuterol) as needed (Seretide) Fixed Combination [SFC]). STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource-utilisation data collected prospectively in a randomised, 12-month study performed in 2143 patients in 16 countries. Resource utilisation data were pooled and unit costs (euro, year 2003 values) from Italy, France, the UK and Germany were used to generate estimates of direct and total costs per patient per year and cost per severe exacerbation avoided. METHODS: Adolescents and adults with asthma (n = 2143; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 73% predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 884 microg/day) were randomised to SMART or SFC. The effectiveness measure used was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year. Direct costs included medication use (budesonide/formoterol 160microg/4.5microg or salmeterol/fluticasone 50microg/100microg, 50microg/250microg or 50microg/500microg plus salbutamol) and nonmedication-related resource use, including days in hospital, emergency room visits, specialist or primary care physician visits and other healthcare provider contacts. Indirect costs, including the number of days when the patient or their carer was unable to attend to their normal daily activities, were also assessed. The study assumed a European societal perspective (i.e. including direct and indirect costs). RESULTS: Treatment with SMART resulted in significantly fewer severe exacerbations per patient per year compared with SFC (0.24 vs 0.31 events per patient per year; p = 0.0025). Resource use was low in both groups. Medication costs accounted for the majority of the total costs. The increased effectiveness of SMART was achieved at a reduced or similar cost compared with SFC. SMART dominated when German unit costs were applied (i.e. there was a statistically significant reduction in both costs and number of exacerbations). In all other countries, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that there was a reduction in mean total cost per exacerbation avoided; however, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with SFC, SMART may be cost effective from a societal perspective for the treatment of patients with asthma in Italy, Germany, France and the UK. SMART provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, at no statistically significant increase in cost - or even at a lower cost - compared with SFC plus as-needed reliever salbutamol.     

An economic evaluation of adjustable and fixed dosing with budesonide/formoterol via a single inhaler in asthma patients: the ASSURE study

BACKGROUND: The severity of asthma varies between individuals and over time. As a result individuals may have marked variation in their need for asthma treatment. Adjustable dosing enables patients to assume greater involvement in managing their own condition. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effectiveness of fixed dosing of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbohaler) with adjustable maintenance dosing. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK NHS. Adults with established asthma currently maintained on > or =400 microg per day inhaled corticosteroid were enrolled in 365 primary care centres in the UK. Patients were run-in on 2 inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg (depending on steroid requirement) for 4 weeks and were then randomised to the Symbicort adjustable maintenance dosing plan (SAMD) (n = 782; budesonide/formoterol 1-4 inhalations twice daily depending on symptoms) or Symbicort fixed dosing (n = 771; 2 inhalations twice daily) for a further 12 weeks. The primary effectiveness variable was clinically meaningful change in quality of life (QoL) assessed by the miniasthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary effectiveness measures included symptom-free days with no short-acting beta-agonist use. We assessed the costs of study medication, asthma-related concomitant medication, primary care and hospital contacts. Confidence intervals were generated by nonparametric boot-strapping. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful improvement in QoL during the first 4 weeks was reported by 40.8% of enrolled patients. During the following 12 weeks, a net 1% (95% CI: -4%, 6%) of SAMD patients and 6% (95% CI: 1%, 10%) of fixed dosing patients reported further improvement. Effectiveness parameters did not differ significantly between groups during the study period. Mean daily cost per patient was pound sterling 1.13 (95% CI: pound sterling 1.08, pound sterling 1.18) in the SAMD group and pound sterling 1.31 (95% CI: pound sterling 1.27, pound sterling 1.34) in the fixed dosing. The difference in mean daily cost resulted in an annual per patient cost difference of pound sterling 65.70. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provided equivalent QoL to fixed dosing at significantly lower cost.     

Efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurised metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are the preferred maintenance therapy for adults and children with mild, moderate and severe persistent asthma, with the addition of a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist to ICS therapy recommended for patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma. The efficacy and safety of the combination of budesonide and formoterol delivered via dry powder inhaler (DPI) is well documented. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler (budesonide/formoterol pMDI; Symbicort pMDI, AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE, USA) with budesonide pMDI (Pulmicort pMDI, Astra [corrected] Zeneca, Lund, Sweden), formoterol DPI (Oxis Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden), budesonide plus formoterol in separate inhalers (budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI) and placebo. STUDY DESIGN: This was a 12-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: This multicentre study was conducted in the respiratory specialty clinical practice setting. PATIENTS: The study included 596 patients > or =12 years of age with moderate to severe persistent asthma previously receiving ICSs. INTERVENTIONS: After 2 weeks on budesonide pMDI 80 microg x two inhalations (160 microg) twice daily, patients received budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160 microg/4.5 microg x two inhalations (320 microg/9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg) + formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); or placebo twice daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There were two prespecified primary efficacy variables: mean change from baseline in morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), obtained approximately 12 hours after the most recent administration of study medication at home and immediately before the next administration of study medication at the clinic; and mean change from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1), assessed as the average change in FEV(1) from serial spirometry over the 12-hour period after administration of the morning dose of study medication at the clinic. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) at end of treatment were greater (p < or = 0.049) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.19L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.10L), formoterol DPI (-0.12L) and placebo (-0.17L). Mean changes from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1) were greater (p < or = 0.001) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI after 1 day (0.37L), 2 weeks (0.34L) and at end of treatment (0.37L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.11, 0.15 and 0.15L) and placebo (0.09, -0.03 and -0.03L), and after 2 weeks and at end of treatment versus formoterol DPI (0.19 and 0.17L). Fewer (p < or = 0.025) patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus monoproducts or placebo met worsening asthma criteria. Results were similar in the budesonide/formoterol pMDI group and the budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI group on all measures. All treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI provides asthma control significantly greater than the monocomponents or placebo and comparable with budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI. Safety profiles were similar for all treatments.     

不同规格布地奈德/福莫特罗吸入剂治疗哮喘的经济学与装置依从性评价

目的：对不同规格布地奈德/福莫特罗吸入剂治疗哮喘患者进行疗效与经济学评价,评估药师在提高吸入装置依从性中的作用。方法：将52例中重度哮喘患者随机分成A、B 2组,分别吸入布地奈德/福莫特罗（160/4.5 μg）每次2吸,bid,及布地奈德/福莫特罗（320/9 μg）每次1吸,bid,治疗时间为12周。分别于第0周、4周和12周,观察哮喘控制测试问卷（asthma control test,ACT）评分和不良反应发生情况,以评价2组的疗效和安全性;统计治疗期间产生的医疗费用做成本分析;对患者吸入装置操作步骤进行干预,并采用问卷形式进行吸入装置依从性评价。结果：治疗前后相比,2组患者ACT评分获得了显著改善;A组和B组的不良反应发生率分别为26.92%和23.08%;而B 组12周人均每日治疗费用更低;经过药师的干预后,2组患者装置依从性显著提高。结论：布地奈德/福莫特罗（320/9 μg）成本-效果比最低,是治疗中重度哮喘的最佳选择。药师在提高哮喘患者吸入装置依从性过程中发挥重要作用。     

Budesonide/formoterol: a review of its use as maintenance and reliever inhalation therapy in asthma

The use of combination budesonide/formoterol dry powder inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler) for both daily maintenance therapy and as-needed relief of breakthrough symptoms using a single inhaler is a new approach to asthma management that is indicated in patients with persistent asthma not adequately controlled by conventional regimens using reliever therapy with a short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist alone. The administration of additional corticosteroid with each reliever inhalation in response to symptoms is expected to provide improved control of airway inflammation.Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduced the risk of severe asthma exacerbations compared with conventional regimens using a short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist alone as reliever therapy in the majority of trials, while providing similar or better daily asthma control than higher fixed maintenance doses of budesonide or inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist combination therapy in patients with generally moderate to severe, uncontrolled, persistent asthma. The strategy offers the convenience of a single inhaler and simplifies treatment by providing immediate additional anti-inflammatory medication in response to asthma symptoms and immediate step-down when symptoms abate. The improved efficacy, with respect to exacerbation prevention, observed with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in all double-blind comparative trials was achieved with a lower mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid or with fewer daily inhalations of reliever medication. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy was well tolerated with an incidence of adverse events similar to that with conventional regimens. Therefore, it offers a new approach to therapy in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma; providing improved efficacy with a lower overall drug load.     

Relative systemic availability of budesonide in patients with asthma after inhalation from two dry powder inhalers

ABSTRACT

Background: To improve dosing consistency and product features, budesonide inhalation powder delivered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) (DPI?A^* 200?μg) was redesigned to include lactose, a newly shaped mouthpiece, and a new dose indicator (DPI?B^*). Budesonide DPI?B is available in two strengths (90?μg, 180?μg).

Objective: To compare the relative rate and extent of the systemic availability of budesonide inhaled via DPI?A and DPI?B and test for systemic absorption bio­equivalence.

Methods: Adults (n?=37) with asthma as defined by the American Thoracic Society were randomized in an open-label, crossover, single-center, single-dose study to budesonide DPI?A 200?μg × 4 inhalations, budesonide DPI?B 180?μg × 4 inhalations, or budesonide DPI?B 90?μg × 8 inhalations, on 3 days, each separated by a washout period of?≥?5 days. Plasma samples were collected immediately before and up to 12?h after dosing. Primary pharmacokinetic variables were area under the drug plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC_0–∞) and maximum plasma concentration (C_max); plasma concentration at 12?h (C_12h) and time to maximum plasma concentration (T_max) were secondary variables. Treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for their AUC_0–∞ and C_max ratios fell between 80 and 125%. Adverse events were collected.

Results: The 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC_0–∞ and C_max for budesonide DPI?A 200?μg and DPI?B 180?μg and for both budesonide DPI?B strengths fell between 80% and 125% (AUC_0–∞: budesonide DPI?B 180?μg × 4/DPI?A 200?μg × 4: 96.3% [90 % CI: 90.9, 102.1]; budesonide DPI?B 180?μg × 4/DPI?B 90?μg × 8: 92.2% [90 % CI: 87.0, 97.7]; C_max: (budesonide DPI?B 180?μg × 4/DPI?A 200?μg × 4: 100.4% [95 % CI: 92.1, 109.4]; budesonide DPI?B 180?μg × 4/DPI?B 90?μg × 8: 94.4% [90 % CI: 86.6, 102.9]). No differences in C_12h and T_max were found between treatments. All treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusions: Budesonide DPI?A 200?μg and DPI?B 180?μg have systemic absorption bioequivalence, and DPI?B 90?μg and 180?μg are dose-strength equivalent when administered at the same dose. These results may not be generalized to all patients with asthma, as this analysis included only patients with mild-to-moderate asthma aged?≥?19 years.     

Inhaled budesonide/formoterol combination

Current evidence suggests that the addition of the long acting inhaled beta2-agonist formoterol to low or moderate doses of the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide is effective in improving lung function and reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations. Concurrent use of budesonide with formoterol does not result in any untoward interaction that affects the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic profiles of the individual drugs, or their adverse effect profiles. The administration of combined budesonide/formoterol is effective in improving morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates in adults with persistent asthma. Control of asthma symptoms is also significantly improved. In children aged 4 to 17 years, combined budesonide/formoterol is effective in increasing both morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates and significantly improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). The most commonly encountered adverse effects in clinical trials with combination budesonide/formoterol therapy have been respiratory infection, pharyngitis and coughing. No adverse effects on pulse rate, blood pressure or serum potassium have been reported with combination therapy.