A benefit-risk assessment of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists in the management of obstructive pulmonary disease.

The two inhaled long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, have been studied extensively since their introduction in the early 1990s. In this review we consider the evidence for their efficacy and safety in adults with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), by reviewing long-term prospective studies in which these drugs have been compared with placebo or an alternative bronchodilator. We have also assessed safety, including data from postmarketing surveillance studies and case-control studies using large databases. In patients with asthma, salmeterol and formoterol increase lung function, reduce asthmatic symptoms and improve quality of life when compared with placebo. Both drugs protect against exercise-induced asthma, although some tolerance develops with regular use. Tolerance to the bronchodilator effects of formoterol has also been seen, although this is small and most of the beneficial effects are maintained long-term. Both drugs have been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations but only in studies in which most patients were taking an inhaled corticosteroid. Adding a long-acting beta2-agonist provided better control than increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid in several studies. Long-acting beta2-agonists also provide better asthma control than use of regular short-acting beta2-agonists and theophylline. Their relative efficacy compared with leukotriene antagonists is uncertain as yet. Formoterol appears to be at least as safe and effective as a short-acting beta2-agonist when used on an 'as required' basis. In patients with COPD, both salmeterol and formoterol offer improved lung function and reduced COPD symptoms compared with placebo, and quality of life has been improved in some studies. Some tolerance to the bronchodilating effect of salmeterol was seen in one study. Most studies have not found a significant reduction in exacerbations in COPD. Both drugs have provided greater benefit than ipratropium bromide or theophylline; there are limited data on tiotropium bromide. The long-acting beta2-agonists cause predictable adverse effects including headache, tremor, palpitations, muscle cramps and a fall in serum potassium concentration. Salmeterol can also cause paradoxical bronchospasm. There is some evidence that serious adverse events including dysrhythmias and life-threatening asthma episodes can occur; however, the incidence of such events is very low but may be increased in patients not taking an inhaled corticosteroid. Salmeterol 50 microg twice daily and formoterol 12 microg twice daily are effective and safe in treating patients with asthma and COPD. Higher doses cause more adverse effects, although serious adverse events are rare.     

An update on the safety of long-acting β-agonists in asthma patients using inhaled corticosteroids

Importance of the field: Pooled trial data have shown that long-acting β-agonists increase the risk for asthma hospitalizations and deaths by two to fourfold compared with placebo. Until recently, it was unclear whether concomitant inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) could eliminate this risk.

Areas covered in this review: This review summarizes the available data on the safety of long-acting β-agonist use in asthma, with and without concomitant ICSs. The results from an updated meta-analysis are presented, with data through December 2008.

What the reader will gain: In pooled trial data, catastrophic asthma events (defined as asthma-related intubation or death) were increased fourfold for concomitant treatment with long-acting β-agonists and ICSs compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 3.7; 95% CI 1.4 – 9.6). It is estimated that the addition of long-acting β-agonists to ICS therapy is associated with an absolute increase of one catastrophic event per 1500 patient-years.

Take home message: When the available trial data are pooled together, it is clear that long-acting β-agonists significantly increase the risk for asthma-related intubations and deaths, even when used in a controlled fashion with concomitant ICSs. Clinical guidelines should readdress the role long-acting β-agonists have in the management of asthma.     

Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease, the two main components of which are inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol, a strategy that treats both main components of asthma, has been recently compared with FP plus montelukast in a randomised clinical trial. The present study reports economic evaluation of these two strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost effectiveness when persistent asthma is treated with FP/salmeterol 100/50 microg twice daily administered via a single Diskus inhaler device versus treatment with FP 100 microg twice daily via a Diskus inhaler plus oral montelukast 10mg once daily. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by applying cost unit data to resource utilisation data collected prospectively during a US randomised, double-blind, 12-week trial of FP/salmeterol (n = 222) versus FP + montelukast (n = 225). Patients were > or =15 years of age and were symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Efficacy measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days. Direct costs included those related to study drugs, emergency room department visits, unscheduled physician visits, treatment of drug-related adverse events (oral candidiasis), and rescue medication (salbutamol [albuterol]). The study assumed a US third-party payer's perspective with costs in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Treatment with FP/salmeterol resulted in a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.001) of patients who achieved a > or =12% increase in FEV(1) than treatment with FP + montelukast (54% [95% CI 47%, 61%] vs 32% [95% CI 26%, 38%]). Lower daily costs and greater efficacy of FP/salmeterol resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of US6.77 dollars (95% CI US5.99 dollars, US7.66 dollars) per successfully treated patient in the FP/salmeterol group compared with US14.59 dollars (95% CI US12.12 dollars, US17.77 dollars) for FP + montelukast. In addition, FP/salmeterol achieved similar efficacy in terms of symptom-free days compared with FP + montelukast (31% [95% CI 26%, 35%] vs 27% [95% CI 23%, 32%]), but at a significantly lower daily per-patient cost (US3.64 dollars [95% CI US3.60, US3.68 dollars] vs US4.64 dollars [95% CI US4.56 dollars, US4.73 dollars]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: From a US third-party payer's perspective, these findings suggest that treating the two main components of asthma (inflammation and bronchoconstriction) with FP/salmeterol may not only be a more cost-effective strategy but may actually lead to cost savings compared with the addition of montelukast to low-dose FP in patients with persistent asthma. The results were found to be robust over a range of assumptions.     

Cost-effectiveness comparison of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus montelukast in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative cost effectiveness of salmeterol (50 microg)/ fluticasone propionate (100 microg) with that of oral montelukast (10mg) as initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma uncontrolled on short-acting beta2-agonist therapy alone. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource utilisation data that was prospectively collected from a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, 12-week trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (>15 years of age) who had asthma for at least 6 months. Effectiveness measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days (SFDs). Cost of asthma drug treatment as well as costs related to an asthma exacerbation were used in the cost analysis. The study assumed a payer's perspective. All costs are in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Of the 423 patients eligible for the study, 211 were randomised to salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and 212 to montelukast. Treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved a 12% increase in FEV(1) (successful treatment) [salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: 71% vs montelukast: 39%; p < 0.001] and percentage of SFDs (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: 46.8% vs montelukast: 21.5%; p < 0.001) compared with montelukast. The mean daily costs per successfully treated patient were lower in the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (US dollars 5.03, 95% CI US dollars 4.61 to US dollars 5.50) compared with the montelukast group (US dollars 8.25, 95% CI US dollars 6.98 to US dollars 9.93). Furthermore, per patient mean daily cost per SFD was lower with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (US dollars 7.63, 95% CI US dollars 6.90 to US dollars 8.50) compared with montelukast (US dollars 14.89, 95% CI US dollars 12.36 to US dollars 17.98). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that the additional costs to achieve these benefits with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate were minimal. With regards to improvement in lung function, the ICER was US dollars 1.33 (95% CI US dollars 0.80 to US dollars 2.02) and with regards to SFD, the ICER was US dollars 1.69 (95% CI US dollars 1.01 to US dollars 2.48). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: From a third-party payer perspective, this analysis shows that based on increased efficacy and only a slight increase in cost, twice-daily treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is more cost effective than once-daily treatment with montelukast as initial maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This finding complements the results of the clinical analyses indicating that treatment of both inflammation and bronchoconstriction with products such as salmeterol/ fluticasone propionate may be more cost effective as initial maintenance asthma therapy than the use of leukotriene modifiers such as montelukast.     

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist (beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist) as the preferred maintenance therapy for moderate and severe persistent asthma. Advair/Seretide Diskus also registered as Accuhaler is fixed-dose salmeterol (a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist) and fluticasone propionate (a corticosteroid) administered via a single powder inhalation device. The clinical effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with persistent asthma symptoms has been established in comparative clinical trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, based on data from these clinical trials, have been conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in various countries. In patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was associated with more favourable (lower) cost-effectiveness ratios than fluticasone propionate monotherapy, oral montelukast plus inhaled fluticasone propionate, inhaled budesonide, and inhaled formoterol plus budesonide. As the initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was cost effective relative to montelukast monotherapy. Although the total cost of asthma management tended to be slightly higher with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than with fluticasone propionate or montelukast monotherapy, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate consistently had a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of per successfully treated week or symptom-free day and/or was associated with small incremental costs to achieve significant additional clinical benefits. In clinical practice, salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate was associated with lower asthma-related costs than treatment with other maintenance therapies.In patients with asthma symptoms despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores relative to salmeterol or placebo monotherapy, in emotional function domain scores relative to fluticasone propionate or budesonide, and in asthma symptoms domain scores relative to budesonide. In patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall AQLQ scores compared with fluticasone propionate or montelukast. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate administered via a single inhaler represents a cost-effective treatment option (relative to fluticasone propionate at the same nominal dosage, budesonide, formoterol plus budesonide and montelukast plus fluticasone propionate) in patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroid therapy. In patients with asthma not controlled with short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a cost effective treatment relative to monotherapy with montelukast. Importantly, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with improvements in health-related quality of life.