• Michael E Wechsler, Barbara P Yawn, Anne L Fuhlbrigge, Wilson D Pace, Michael J Pencina, Gheorghe Doros, Shamsah Kazani, Benjamin A Raby, Jane Lanzillotti, Suzanne Madison, Elliot Israel, and BELT Investigators.
• Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts2now with National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado.
• JAMA. 2015 Oct 27; 314 (16): 172017301720-30.

ImportanceThe efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsA multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States.InterventionsPatients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires.Main Outcomes And MeasuresThe primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events.ResultsThere was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97).Conclusions/RelevanceAmong black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

51 keywords...

hide…