Extrafine HFA-beclomethasone-formoterol vs. nonextrafine combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting β2-agonist in patients with persistent asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective Airway inflammation in asthma involves not only the central airways but extends to peripheral airways. Lung deposition may be key for an appropriate treatment of asthma. We compared the clinical effects of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP-F) versus equipotent doses of nonextrafine combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting β2-agonist (ICS-LABA) in asthma. Methods We identified eligible studies by a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Data analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3.5 software (Cochrane IMS, 2014). Results A total of 2326 patients with asthma from ten published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled for analysis. Change from baseline in morning pre-dose peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening pre-dose PEF and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were detected no significant differences between extrafine HFA-BDP-F and nonextrafine ICS-LABAs (p = 0.23, p = 0.99 and p = 0.23, respectively). Extrafine HFA-BDP-F did not show any greater benefit in forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF25-75%), the parameter concerning peripheral airways (MD 0.03L/s, p = 0.65; n = 877). There were no substantial differences between interventions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels or in its alveolar fraction. The overall analysis showed no significant benefit of extrafine HFA-BDP-F over nonextrafine ICS-LABA in improving Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (p = 0.30) or decreasing the number of puffs of rescue medication use (p = 0.16). Extrafine HFA-BDP-F did not lead to less exacerbations than nonextrafine ICS-LABA (RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.20; I2 = 0; p = 0.15). Conclusion Enrolled RCTs of extrafine HFA-BDP-F have demonstrated no significant advantages over the equivalent combination of nonextrafine ICS-LABA in improving pulmonary function concerning central airways or peripheral airways, improving asthma symptom control or reducing exacerbation rate.

Download Full-text

Dual bronchodilator versus inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

International Immunopharmacology ◽

10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107447 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 93 ◽

pp. 107447

Author(s):

Hong Chen ◽

Ke Wang ◽

Tao Yuan ◽

Xiaoming Wang ◽

Lan Huanng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Inhaled Corticosteroid ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Long Acting ◽

Β2 Agonist

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium monotherapy or a fixed-dose combination of long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid for COPD in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands: a model-based study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049675 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (8) ◽

pp. e049675

Author(s):

Martine Hoogendoorn ◽

Isaac Corro Ramos ◽

Stéphane Soulard ◽

Jennifer Cook ◽

Erkki Soini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

The Netherlands ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Fixed Dose Combination ◽

Fixed Dose ◽

Inhaled Corticosteroid ◽

Dose Combination ◽

Long Acting ◽

Β2 Agonist ◽

Country Specific

ObjectivesChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines advocate treatment with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators for patients with COPD who have persistent symptoms or continue to have exacerbations while using a single bronchodilator. This study assessed the cost-utility of the fixed dose combination of the bronchodilators tiotropium and olodaterol versus two comparators, tiotropium monotherapy and long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations, in three European countries: Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.MethodsA previously published COPD patient-level discrete event simulation model was updated with most recent evidence to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for COPD patients receiving either tiotropium/olodaterol, tiotropium monotherapy or LABA/ICS. Treatment efficacy covered impact on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), total and severe exacerbations and pneumonias. The unit costs of medication, maintenance treatment, exacerbations and pneumonias were obtained for each country. The country-specific analyses adhered to the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines, respectively.ResultsTreatment with tiotropium/olodaterol gained QALYs ranging from 0.09 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.11 (the Netherlands) versus tiotropium and 0.23 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.28 (the Netherlands) versus LABA/ICS. The Finnish payer’s incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tiotropium/olodaterol was €11 000/QALY versus tiotropium and dominant versus LABA/ICS. The Swedish ICERs were €6200/QALY and dominant, respectively (societal perspective). The Dutch ICERs were €14 400 and €9200, respectively (societal perspective). The probability that tiotropium/olodaterol was cost-effective compared with tiotropium at the country-specific (unofficial) threshold values for the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY was 84% for Finland, 98% for Sweden and 99% for the Netherlands. Compared with LABA/ICS, this probability was 100% for all three countries.ConclusionsBased on the simulations, tiotropium/olodaterol is a cost-effective treatment option versus tiotropium or LABA/ICS in all three countries. In both Finland and Sweden, tiotropium/olodaterol is more effective and cost saving (ie, dominant) in comparison with LABA/ICS.

Download Full-text