FPIN's Clinical Inquiries
From the Family Practice Inquiries Network

Effectiveness of ICS/LABA Compared With SABA as Relief Medications for Asthma

Amber Karamanis, MD,
Heather Bleacher, MD, MPH,
University of Colorado Family Medicine Residency, Denver, Colorado
Kristen DeSanto, MSLS, MS, RD,
University of Colorado Health Sciences Library, Denver, Colorado

American Family Physician. 2023;108(5):515-516.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial relationships.

Clinical Question

Is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) combination effective as a relief medication in patients with mild to severe asthma when compared with a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA)?

Evidence-Based Answer

In mild asthma, as-needed ICS/LABA combinations should be used instead of as-needed SABAs without a maintenance inhaler because ICS/LABAs decrease the risk of severe exacerbations, increase the likelihood of having well-controlled asthma, and prolong the time to a first severe exacerbation. (Strength of Recommendation [SOR]: A, consistent, good-quality randomized controlled trials [RCTs].) In moderate to severe asthma, ICS/LABA single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) can decrease the risk of severe asthma exacerbations. (SOR: A, systematic review and meta-analysis of homogenous RCTs.) SMART had similar outcomes to other treatment regimens (ICS/LABA plus SABA) for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), symptom control, and safety.

Evidence Summary

A 2019 RCT lasting 52 weeks involved 668 patients 18 to 75 years of age with mild asthma who were from New Zealand and Europe. The trial compared the annualized rate of asthma exacerbations per patient in three treatment groups: ICS/LABA (budesonide/formoterol [Symbicort], one inhalation as needed); albuterol alone (100-mcg dose, two inhalations as needed from a pressurized metered dose inhaler); and budesonide (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily) plus as-needed albuterol.1 Two of the three arms focused on the reliever medication (n = 443). An exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma that resulted in one or more of the following: an urgent medical care consultation, prescription of systemic glucocorticoids for any duration, or an episode of high beta2 agonist use (i.e., more than 16 actuations of albuterol or more than eight actuations of budesonide/formoterol over 24 hours). At 52 weeks, the annualized exacerbation rate in the budesonide/formoterol group was lower than in the as-needed albuterol group (absolute risk difference = 0.205; relative rate = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.72; number needed to treat = 5). The budesonide/formoterol group also had fewer severe exacerbations than the as-needed albuterol group (9 vs. 23; relative rate = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.86) and longer time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.73). Symptom control scores measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (range = 0 to 6, with 6 indicating maximum impairment) were lower in the budesonide/formoterol group compared with the as-needed albuterol group (mean difference = −0.15; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.06). The FEV1 did not differ significantly between groups.

A 2018 RCT investigated the effectiveness and safety of ICS/LABAs as a reliever medication in 2,554 people 12 years and older with mild asthma.2 Two of the three arms directly compared the effects of budesonide/formoterol (one inhalation as needed) plus twice-daily placebo (n = 1,279) with a terbutaline reliever (0.5 mg as needed from a pressurized metered dose inhaler) plus twice-daily placebo (n = 1,280). The study found that the budesonide/formoterol group had a greater mean percentage of weeks with well-controlled asthma than the terbutaline group (34% vs. 31% weeks; odds ratio = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.3; P = .046). Well-controlled asthma was defined as having a week with no nighttime awakenings due to asthma, with no additional inhaled or systemic corticosteroid use, and in which two or more of the following criteria were met: two or fewer days with a daily asthma score greater than 1; two or fewer days of as-needed medication use; or morning peak expiratory flow rate of 80% or greater of the predicted rate. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 64% lower rate of severe exacerbations (defined as worsening asthma leading to the use of systemic glucocorticoids for three days or greater, inpatient hospitalization, or an emergency department visit leading to the use of systemic glucocorticoids) than those in the terbutaline group (annualized exacerbation rate = 0.07 vs. 0.20; rate ratio = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49) and a prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.58). Adverse events, including upper respiratory tract infections, pharyngitis, and bronchitis, were more frequent in the terbutaline group than in the budesonide/formoterol group (43% vs. 38%; no P value provided), and more adverse events led to discontinuation in the terbutaline group than in the budesonide/formoterol group (2.9% vs. 0.8%).

Address correspondence to Heather Bleacher, MD, MPH, at heather.bleacher@CUanschutz.edu. Reprints are not available from the authors.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial relationships.

  1. 1.Beasley R, Holliday M, Reddel HK, et al.; Novel START Study Team. Controlled trial of budesonide-formoterol as needed for mild asthma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(21):2020-2030.
  2. 2.O'Byrne PM, FitzGerald JM, Bateman ED, et al. Inhaled combined budesonide-formoterol as needed in mild asthma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(20):1865-1876.
  3. 3.Sobieraj DM, Weeda ER, Nguyen E, et al. Association of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists as controller and quick relief therapy with exacerbations and symptom control in persistent asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(14):1485-1496.
  4. 4.Global Initiative for Asthma. 2022 GINA report, global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2022. Accessed September 8, 2023. https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports

Clinical Inquiries provides answers to questions submitted by practicing family physicians to the Family Physicians Inquiries Network (FPIN). Members of the network select questions based on their relevance to family medicine. Answers are drawn from an approved set of evidence-based resources and undergo peer review. The strength of recommendations and the level of evidence for individual studies are rated using criteria developed by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (https://www.cebm.net).

The complete database of evidence-based questions and answers is copyrighted by FPIN. If interested in submitting questions or writing answers for this series, go to https://www.fpin.org or email questions@fpin.org.

Copyright © Family Physicians Inquiries Network. Used with permission.

This series is coordinated by John E. Delzell Jr., MD, MSPH, associate medical editor.

A collection of FPIN’s Clinical Inquiries published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/fpin.

Copyright © 2026 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.