BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported reduced acute exacerbation rates and improved symptom control in asthma patients treated using inhaled corticosteroids plus formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VIL) also provide rapid bronchodilation and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, however no studies have investigated FF/VIL as MART for asthma control.
METHODS: From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2023, this retrospective study included asthma patients classified as step 3 or 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, who were then divided into two groups. One group received BUD/FOR as MART, while the other received FF/VIL as MART. Pulmonary function tests, exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, and blood eosinophil counts were measured before and after 12 months of treatment.
RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included, of whom 36 received BUD/FOR twice daily as MART, and 125 received FF/VIL once daily as MART. After 12 months of treatment, the FF/VIL group showed a significant increase in ACT scores by 1.57 (p < 0.001), while the BUD/FOR group had an increase of 0.88 (p = 0.11). In terms of FeNO levels, the BUD/FOR group experienced a decline of -0.2 ppb (p = 0.98), whereas the FF/VIL group had a mild increase of + 0.8 ppb (p = 0.7). Notably, there was a significant difference in the change of FeNO between the two groups (∆ FeNO: -0.2 ppb in BUD/FOR; + 0.8 ppb in FF/VIL, p < 0.001). There were no significant alterations observed in FEV1, blood eosinophil count, or acute exacerbation decline in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, patients treated with FF/VIL as MART showed improvements in ACT scores, while those treated with BUD/FOR as MART exhibited a reduction in FeNO levels. However, the difference between the two treatment groups did not reach clinical significance. Thus, FF/VIL as MART showed similar effectiveness to BUD/FOR as MART.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between immediate symptom control, reliever medication use and exacerbation risk on treatment response and factors that modify it have not been assessed in an integrated manner. Here we apply simulation scenarios to evaluate the effect of individual baseline characteristics on treatment response in patients with moderate-severe asthma on regular maintenance dosing monotherapy with fluticasone propionate (FP) or combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
METHODS: Reduction in reliever medication use (puffs/24 h), change in symptom control scores (ACQ-5), and annualised exacerbation rate over 12 months were simulated in a cohort of patients with different baseline characteristics (e.g. time since diagnosis, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) symptom score, smoking status, body mass index (BMI) and sex) using drug-disease models derived from large phase III/IV clinical studies.
RESULTS: Simulation scenarios show that being a smoker, having higher baseline ACQ-5 and BMI, and long asthma history is associated with increased reliever medication use (p < 0.01). This increase correlates with a higher exacerbation risk and higher ACQ-5 scores over the course of treatment, irrespective of the underlying maintenance therapy. Switching non-responders to ICS monotherapy to combination therapy after 3 months resulted in immediate reduction in reliever medication use (i.e. 1.3 vs. 1.0 puffs/24 h for FP/SAL and BUD/FOR, respectively). In addition, switching patients with ACQ-5 > 1.5 at baseline to FP/SAL resulted in 34% less exacerbations than those receiving regular dosing BUD/FOR (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified baseline characteristics of patients with moderate to severe asthma that are associated with greater reliever medication use, poor symptom control and higher exacerbation risk. Moreover, the effects of different inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combinations vary significantly when considering long-term treatment performance. These factors should be considered in clinical practice as a basis for personalised management of patients with moderate-severe asthma symptoms.
In this study we looked at how different factors affect the response to asthma treatment in people with moderate to severe asthma who are taking regular medication. Specifically, we wanted to quantify how much asthma duration, differences in the degree of symptom control and lung function, as well as smoking habit, body weight, and sex influence how well someone responds to regular maintenance therapy. Using computer simulations based on models obtained from data in a large patient population with moderate–severe asthma, we explored scenarios that reflect real-life management of patients undergoing treatment with inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting beta agonists over a 12-month period. We looked at how much reliever inhaler they use, how well they rate their asthma control, and how often they have asthma attacks. By considering these results together, we evaluated how well the treatments work on ongoing symptoms and/or reduce the risk of future asthma attacks. Our simulations showed that smokers, people with higher asthma symptom scores, who are obese, and have a longer history of asthma tend to use their reliever inhalers more often. This was linked to a higher risk of having asthma attacks and worse symptom control. Switching those patients who do not respond well to their initial treatment with corticosteroid to combination therapy reduced how much reliever inhaler they need. Also, the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination therapy were greater than budesonide/formoterol. In conclusion, our study found that certain patient characteristics can predict how well someone responds to asthma treatment.

BACKGROUND: Salbutamol is a cornerstone for relieving acute asthma symptoms, typically administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) offer an alternative, but concerns exist whether DPIs provide an effective relief during an obstructive event.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to show non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler DPI compared to pMDI with spacer in treating methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. Applicability of Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler DPI as a reliever was also assessed.
METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel-group trial in subjects sent to methacholine challenge (MC) test for asthma diagnostics. Participants with at least 20 % decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were randomized to receive Salbutamol Easyhaler (2 × 200 μg), Ventoline Evohaler with spacer (4 × 100 μg) or Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler (2 × 160/4.5 μg) as a reliever. The treatment was repeated if FEV1 did not recover to at least -10 % of baseline.
RESULTS: 180 participants (69 % females, mean age 46 yrs [range 18-80], FEV1%pred 89.5 [62-142] %) completed the trial. Salbutamol Easyhaler was non-inferior to pMDI with spacer in acute relief of bronchoconstriction showing a -0.083 (95 % LCL -0.146) L FEV1 difference after the first dose and -0.032 (-0.071) L after the last dose. The differences in FEV1 between Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler and Salbutamol pMDI with spacer were -0.163 (-0.225) L after the first and -0.092 (-0.131) L after the last dose.
CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer in relieving acute bronchoconstriction, making Easyhaler a sustainable and safe reliever for MC test and supports its use during asthma attacks.

UNASSIGNED: Real-life research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BGF) in routine COPD primary care management. We assessed the frequency of medication success among patients with COPD who initiated BGF using real-world data.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with a recorded diagnostic COPD code who started BGF with ≥2 prescriptions within 90-days were identified in the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database and followed from first prescription until censoring at the end of follow-up (180-days), death, leaving database or end of data at 24/10/2022. The primary outcome was medication success at 90-days post-BGF initiation, defined as no major cardiac or respiratory event (ie no complicated COPD exacerbation, hospitalization for any respiratory event, myocardial infarction, new/hospitalized heart failure, and death) and no incidence of pneumonia. Medication success was also assessed at 180-days post-BGF initiation. Overall real-life medication success was claimed if the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of patients meeting the primary outcome was ≥70% (defined a priori).
UNASSIGNED: Two hundred eighty-five patients were included. Prior to BGF initiation, these patients often had severe airflow obstruction (mean ppFEV1: 54.5%), were highly symptomatic (mMRC ≥2: 77.9% (n = 205/263); mean CAT score: 21.7 (SD 7.8)), with evidence of short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) over-use (≥3 inhalers/year: 62.1%, n=179/285), repeat OCS prescriptions (≥2 courses/year: 33.0%, n = 95/285) and multiple primary care consultations (≥2 visits/year: 61.1%, n = 174/285). Overall, 39.6% of patients (n = 113/285) switched from previous triple therapies. Real-life medication success was achieved by 96.5% of patients (n = 275/285 [95% CI: 93.6, 98.3]) during 90-days treatment with BGF and by 91.8% (n = 169/184 [95% CI: 86.9, 95.4]) of patients at 180-days. The prescribed daily dose of SABA remained stable over the study period.
UNASSIGNED: The majority of patients initiating BGF experienced real-life medication success reflecting the absence of severe cardiopulmonary events. These benefits were apparent after 90-days of treatment and sustained over 180-days.

BACKGROUND: The use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and asthma exacerbations necessitating healthcare reviews contribute substantially to the global carbon footprint of healthcare. It is possible that a reduction in carbon footprint could be achieved by switching patients with mild asthma from salbutamol pMDI reliever-based therapy to inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) reliever therapy, as recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma.
METHODS: This post hoc analysis included all 668 adult participants in the Novel START trial, who were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with as-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI, as-needed salbutamol pMDI or maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI. The primary outcome was carbon footprint of asthma management, expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per person-year. Secondary outcomes explored the effect of baseline symptom control and adherence (maintenance budesonide DPI arm only) on carbon footprint.
RESULTS: As-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI was associated with 95.8% and 93.6% lower carbon footprint compared with as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least-squares mean 1.1 versus 26.2 kgCO2e; difference -25.0, 95% CI -29.7 to -20.4; p<0.001) and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI (least-squares mean 1.1 versus 17.3 kgCO2e; difference -16.2, 95% CI -20.9 to -11.6; p<0.001), respectively. There was no statistically significant evidence that treatment differences in carbon footprint depended on baseline symptom control or adherence in the maintenance budesonide DPI arm.
CONCLUSIONS: The as-needed budesonide/formoterol DPI treatment option was associated with a markedly lower carbon footprint than as-needed salbutamol pMDI and maintenance budesonide DPI plus as-needed salbutamol pMDI.

To compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol (BF) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FS) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
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.
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).
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.

Overuse of reliever as short-acting beta-agonist and associated underuse of controller as inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) administered via separate inhalers results in worse asthma outcomes. Such discordance can be obviated by combining both controller and reliever in the same inhaler. So-called anti-inflammatory reliever (AIR) therapy comprises the use of a single inhaler containing an ICS such as budesonide (BUD) in conjunction with a reliever as either albuterol (ALB) or formoterol (FORM), to be used on demand, with variable dosing driven by asthma symptoms in a flexible patient-centered regimen. Global guidelines now support the use of BUD-ALB as AIR therapy to reduce exacerbations, either on its own in mild asthma or in conjunction with fixed-dose maintenance ICS-long-acting beta-agonist in moderate to severe asthma. Using BUD-FORM on its own allows patients to seamlessly move in an intuitive flexible fashion between AIR and maintenance and reliever therapy, by stepping up and down the dosing escalator across a spectrum of asthma severities. Head-to-head clinical studies are indicated to compare BUD-FORM versus BUD-ALB as AIR in mild asthma, and also BUD-FORM as maintenance and reliever therapy versus BUD-ALB as AIR plus maintenance ICS-long-acting beta-agonist in moderate to severe asthma. Patients should be encouraged to make an informed decision in conjunction with their health care professional regarding the best therapeutic option tailored to their individual needs, which in turn is likely to result in long-term compliance and associated optimal asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Even though increased use of reliever medication, including short-acting beta agonists (SABA), provides an indirect measure of symptom worsening, there have been limited efforts to assess how different patterns of reliever use correlate with symptom control and future risk of exacerbations. Here, we evaluate the effect of individual baseline characteristics on reliever use in patients with moderate-severe asthma on regular maintenance therapy with fluticasone propionate (FP) or combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
METHODS: A drug-disease model describing the number of 24-h puffs and overnight occasions was developed with data from five clinical studies (N = 6212). The model was implemented using a nonlinear mixed effects approach and a Poisson function, considering clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Goodness of fit and model predictive performance were assessed. Heatmaps were created to summarise the effect of concurrent baseline factors on reliever utilisation.
RESULTS: The final model accurately described individual patterns of reliever use, which is significantly increased with time since diagnosis, smoking, higher Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score and higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline. Whilst the number of puffs decreases slowly after an initial drop relative to the start of treatment, exacerbating patients utilise significantly more reliever than those who do not exacerbate. The mean effect of FP/SAL (median dose: 250/50 μg BID) on reliever use was slightly higher than that of BUD/FOR (median dose: 160/4.5 μg BID), i.e. a 75.3% vs 69.3% reduction in reliever use, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The availability of individual-level patient data in conjunction with a parametric approach enabled the characterisation of interindividual differences in the patterns of reliever use in patients with moderate-severe asthma. Taken together, individual demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as exacerbation history, can be considered an indicator of the degree of asthma control. High SABA reliever use suggests suboptimal clinical management of patients on maintenance therapy.
In this study, we tried to understand how patients with moderate to severe asthma use their quick-relief inhalers (like albuterol), how it relates to their symptoms and the risk of having asthma attacks. To evaluate whether differences in reliever inhaler use between patients are associated with factors like smoking or their asthma symptoms at the beginning of treatment, we gathered data from five clinical studies (n = 6212 patients). These data allowed us to create a model that predicts how often patients use their reliever inhalers (expressed as number of puffs in 24 h) during maintenance therapy with inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting beta agonists. The final model showed that reliever inhaler use is higher in patients who have been diagnosed with asthma for > 10 years, are smokers, have higher asthma symptom scores, and are obese or extremely obese. Patients who had asthma attacks also used their reliever inhalers more often. In addition, to understand how relief inhalers are used in real-life situations, we also created heatmaps that include a wide range of patient characteristics. By using individual patient data together with this model, we have learned that smoking, asthma control, BMI, long history of asthma and previous asthma attacks significantly influence reliever use. This information can help physicians and healthcare professionals understand know how well someone’s asthma is managed. A patient who uses their reliever inhaler often is likely not to have their asthma well controlled by their regular medications.

UNASSIGNED: There is currently limited evidence for the optimal timing of triple therapy initiation in Japan, which is crucial for optimizing strategies for the effective treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study assessed the impact of prompt vs delayed initiation of triple therapy following a COPD exacerbation on clinical and economic outcomes in patients in Japan.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective cohort study of patients in the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database initiating triple therapy as single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol or budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy within 180 days of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation (index). For the main analysis, patients were categorized as prompt or delayed initiators, initiating triple therapy within 0-30 days or 31-180 days of index, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to adjust for measured confounders between prompt and delayed cohorts.
UNASSIGNED: For the main analysis, 610 (60.3%) and 402 (39.7%) patients were prompt and delayed initiators, respectively. The rate of subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbations following index exacerbation was numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted rate ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.21; P = 0.6603). Time-to-first subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbation increased significantly in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; P = 0.0053). In patients indexed on a severe exacerbation, delayed initiation resulted in significantly higher 90-day all-cause readmissions vs prompt initiation (42.1% vs 30.6%; P = 0.0329 [weighted estimates]). Weighted healthcare resource utilization rates were numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators, and weighted direct costs (all cause and COPD-related) were significantly lower in prompt initiators.
UNASSIGNED: This real-world study demonstrated that earlier initiation of triple therapy resulted in several benefits in clinical outcomes for COPD and may also reduce the economic burden of COPD management in Japan.

BACKGROUND: A heavy financial burden is imposed on patients suffering from chronic diseases due to medicine out-of-pocket payments.
OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on assessing the affordability of medications used for chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cystic fibrosis (CF) in Iran, specifically on the category R medicines listed in the 2017 Iran drug list (IDL) that are used for the treatment of these diseases, based on the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) drug code.
METHODS: The affordability of medicines in mono and combination therapy approaches was assessed in CRDs using the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. Accordingly, if out-of-pocket payment for 30-days of pharmacotherapy exceeds one day for the lowest-paid unskilled government worker (LPGW), it\'s considered non-affordable.
RESULTS: Based on the monotherapy approach, our finding demonstrates that all generic medicines of category R were affordable. However, branded drugs such as Symbicort®, Pulmicort Respules®, Flusalmex®, Seretide®, Fluticort Plus®, Seroflo®, and Salmeflo® cost between 1.2 and 2.5 days\' wage of LPGW and considered unaffordable despite 70% insurance coverage. Moreover, based on the affordability ratio in the combination therapy approach, all medicines used in asthma, COPD, and CF patients with mild respiratory problems are affordable except omalizumab (inj), which is non-affordable due to its high price and no insurance coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that the existing insurance coverage does not protect households from hardship, so more considerations are needed such as different insurance schedules and patient support programs.