GSK, Uxbridge, UK.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Adv Ther. 2023 Sep;40(9):4042-4059. doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02585-z. Epub 2023 Jul 12.
Pharmacological asthma management focuses on the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies, which reduce airway inflammation and provide bronchoprotection, improving symptom control and reducing exacerbation risk. ICS underuse due to poor adherence is common, leading to poor clinical outcomes including increased risk of mortality. This article reviews efficacy versus systemic activity profiles for various adherence patterns and dosing regimens of fluticasone furoate (FF)-containing and budesonide (BUD)-containing asthma therapies in clinical trials and real-world studies.
We performed a structured literature review (1 January 2000-3 March 2022) and mathematical modelling analysis of FF-containing and BUD-containing regular daily dosing in patients with mild-to-severe asthma, as-needed BUD/formoterol (FOR) in mild asthma, and BUD/FOR maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) dosing in moderate-to-severe asthma, to assess efficacy (bronchoprotection) and systemic activity (cortisol suppression) profiles of dosing patterns of ICS use in multiple adherence scenarios.
A total of 22 manuscripts were included in full-text review and 18 in the model simulations. Focusing on FF-containing or BUD-containing treatments at comparable adherence rates, regular daily FF or FF/vilanterol (VI) dosing provided more prolonged bronchoprotection and fewer systemic effects than daily BUD, daily BUD/FOR, or BUD/FOR MART dosing, especially in low adherence scenarios. In model simulations and the real-world setting, FF/VI generally provided longer bronchoprotection, lower systemic activity, and greater clinical benefits over BUD/FOR as well as consistently higher adherence.
In this literature review and modelling analysis, FF/VI was found to show clinical advantages on asthma control over BUD/FOR. These findings have implications for helping clinicians select the most suitable inhaled therapy for their patients with asthma.
药物性哮喘管理侧重于使用含有吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)的治疗方法,这些方法可减少气道炎症并提供支气管保护,改善症状控制并降低加重风险。由于依从性差导致 ICS 使用率低很常见,导致临床结局不佳,包括死亡率增加。本文综述了在临床试验和真实世界研究中,各种依从性模式和剂量方案下氟替卡松糠酸酯(FF)和布地奈德(BUD)治疗哮喘的疗效与全身活性谱。
我们对 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 3 日期间的文献进行了结构化综述,并对轻度至重度哮喘患者中 FF 或 BUD 常规每日剂量、轻度哮喘中按需布地奈德/福莫特罗(FOR)、中重度哮喘中 BUD/FOR 维持和缓解治疗(MART)剂量的 FF 和 BUD 进行了数学建模分析,以评估多种依从性情况下 ICS 使用剂量方案的疗效(支气管保护)和全身活性(皮质醇抑制)谱。
共有 22 篇全文文献和 18 篇模型模拟文献被纳入审查。在比较相似依从率的 FF 或 BUD 治疗时,与每日布地奈德、每日布地奈德/FOR 或布地奈德/FOR MART 相比,常规每日 FF 或 FF/维兰特罗(VI)剂量提供了更持久的支气管保护作用,且全身作用更少,尤其是在低依从性情况下。在模型模拟和真实世界环境中,FF/VI 通常比 BUD/FOR 提供更长的支气管保护作用、更低的全身活性和更大的临床获益,且依从性始终更高。
在本文献综述和建模分析中,发现 FF/VI 在哮喘控制方面优于 BUD/FOR,具有临床优势。这些发现对帮助临床医生为其哮喘患者选择最合适的吸入治疗具有重要意义。