A comparative study of inhaled ciclesonide 160 microg/day and fluticasone propionate 176 microg/day in children with asthma

Review of efficacy of ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma in children

Background: Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in patients ages ≥ 12 years. The prodrug aspect of CIC is associated with a safety profile that may make it ideal for children. Objective: The objective was to summarize efficacy results from the eight phase III, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials in children with asthma conducted during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four trials compared CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo. Two trials compared CIC 160 µg/day with fluticasone propionate 200 µg/day, one trial compared CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with fluticasone 200 µg/day, and one trial compared CIC 160 µg/day with budesonide 400 µg/day. Results: The primary end point was met by at least two CIC doses versus placebo in the trials in which the primary end point was the change from baseline in lung function outcome (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] % predicted or morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). A trial that compared CIC with placebo did not meet the primary end point of superiority in time-to-first severe wheeze exacerbation or lack of improvement. The primary end point of noninferiority to the active control (fluticasone or budesonide) in the change from baseline in a lung function outcome (FEV₁, morning PEF, evening PEF) was met with the CIC 160-µg dose in all active control trials. CIC generally demonstrated statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and asthma control when compared with placebo and noninferiority for these outcomes compared with fluticasone or budesonide. Conclusion: In children with asthma, once-daily CIC significantly improved large and small airway function, asthma symptoms, and asthma control, and reduced rescue medication use compared with placebo. CIC was comparable with other ICS used to treat asthma in children, which demonstrated its worth for the pediatric population.

Safety of ciclesonide in children with asthma: A review of randomized controlled trials

Background: Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective: To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results: In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion: Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.

Ciclesonide activates glucocorticoid signaling in neonatal rat lung but does not trigger adverse effects in the cortex and cerebellum

Synthetic glucocorticoids (sGCs) such as dexamethasone (DEX), while used to mitigate inflammation and disease progression in premature infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), are also associated with significant adverse neurologic effects such as reductions in myelination and abnormalities in neuroanatomical development. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a sGC prodrug approved for asthma treatment that exhibits limited systemic side effects. Carboxylesterases enriched in the lower airways convert CIC to the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonist des-CIC. We therefore examined whether CIC would likewise activate GR in neonatal lung but have limited adverse extra-pulmonary effects, particularly in the developing brain. Neonatal rats were administered subcutaneous injections of CIC, DEX or vehicle from postnatal days 1-5 (PND1-PND5). Systemic effects linked to DEX exposure, including reduced body and brain weight, were not observed in CIC treated neonates. Furthermore, CIC did not trigger the long-lasting reduction in myelin basic protein expression in the cerebral cortex nor cerebellar size caused by neonatal DEX exposure. Conversely, DEX and CIC were both effective at inducing the expression of select GR target genes in neonatal lung, including those implicated in lung-protective and anti-inflammatory effects. Thus, CIC is a promising, novel candidate drug to treat or prevent BPD in neonates given its activation of GR in neonatal lung and limited adverse neurodevelopmental effects. Furthermore, since sGCs such as DEX administered to pregnant women in pre-term labor can adversely affect fetal brain development, the neurological-sparing properties of CIC, make it an attractive alternative for DEX to treat pregnant women severely ill with respiratory illness, such as with asthma exacerbations or COVID-19 infections.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids relative to fluticasone propionate: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in asthma

INTRODUCTION

Many trials have been published comparing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatments in asthma. However, mixed results necessitate the summarization of available evidence to aid in decision-making. Areas covered: This systematic review evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) with other ICS including beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), budesonide (BUD) and ciclesonide (CIC). PubMed was searched and 54 RCTs that fit pre-determined criteria were included. Endpoints evaluated included lung function, asthma symptom control, exacerbation frequency, reliever use, quality of life and steroid-related side effects. Expert commentary: Across all studies, FP was associated with either more favorable or at least similar efficacy and safety, in comparison with BDP or BUD. This observation may be related to FP's higher relative potency and almost negligible oral bioavailability. FP was comparable to CIC for efficacy. However, CIC appeared to have a smaller impact on cortisol levels than FP, which is likely due to CIC's incomplete conversion to active metabolite (des-CIC) and the lower potency of des-CIC compared with FP. Although there were no significant differences in evaluated outcomes after treatment with different ICS in the majority of studies, some observed differences could be explained by their respective pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties.

Inhaled corticosteroids: Ocular safety and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) effectively deliver corticosteroids to target sites in the lungs and reduce systemic effects compared with oral corticosteroids, but long-term systemic exposure from inhaled corticosteroids remains a concern.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss ICS systemic effects on the eye and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

METHODS

Relevant publications were used to augment discussion.

RESULTS

The most common adverse effects of exogenous corticosteroids on the eye are secondary open-angle glaucoma and posterior subcapsular cataracts. Study findings conflict about whether ICS use is associated with increased risk of glaucoma or elevated intraocular pressure, but studies might not have addressed the question in the right population. Increased risk of glaucoma may be limited to a few susceptible individuals, such as individuals with a family history of glaucoma. Large population-based studies reveal that high daily doses or high lifetime exposure of ICSs is associated with a higher risk of posterior subcapsular cataracts. More research is needed to determine the risk from low to moderate doses during long periods. For the HPA axis, there are several measures for detecting systemic effects. Short-term measures are more sensitive for detecting the systemic effects of ICSs but have less predictive value in identifying clinically important adverse effects. Several studies have found that ICSs have a dose-dependent effects on cortisol suppression that can be used to estimate equivalent dosages among ICSs.

CONCLUSION

Because of systemic effects on the HPA axis, high doses of ICS should be avoided where possible. Adult patients undergoing high-dose or long-term ICS therapy should be monitored for cataracts.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998–2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25–75%)_, and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available.

Results

Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV₁ (L) (−0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: −3.874, 95% CI: −10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: −1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF_{25–75% predicted} (−2.418, 95% CI: −6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]).

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma.

Trial registration

GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012.

Knemometry is more sensitive to systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma than 24-hour urine cortisol excretion

BACKGROUND

Pharmacodynamic assessment of the systemic effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is often done by measuring 24-hour urine free cortisol (UFC) excretion. Knemometry assessing short-term lower-leg growth rate (LLGR) is a more rarely used alternative.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of LLGR and 24-hour UFC excretion for evaluating systemic exposure to ICSs in prepubertal children with asthma. The secondary aim was to evaluate factors influencing the precision of LLGR calculated by the traditional 1 leg nonparametric method versus a new 2 leg parametric method.

METHODS

The study evaluated 60 children with mild asthma aged 5 to 12 years participating in a randomized controlled trial of ICSs with longitudinal concomitant assessments of LLGR and 24-hour UFC excretion. The sensitivity of the safety assessments was analyzed by comparing LLGR and 24-hour UFC in the placebo run-in period with values in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests. Factors with a potential influence on LLGR were analyzed by means of ANOVA and the Levene test of homogeneity.

RESULTS

The mean LLGR was significantly reduced during the ICS versus placebo run-in periods: 0.18 mm/wk (SD, 0.55 mm/wk) versus 0.45 mm/wk (SD, 0.39 mm/wk), with a mean difference of 0.27 mm/wk (95% CI, 0.05-0.48 mm/wk; P = .02). In contrast, there was no difference in 24-hour UFC excretion: 6.91 nmol/mmol (SD, 4.67 nmol/mmol) versus 7.58 nmol/mmol (SD, 6.17 nmol/mmol), with a mean difference of 0.67 nmol/mmol (95% CI, -1.13 to 2.48 nmol/mmol; P = .46). We observed no significant difference in parametric determined LLGR caused by the child's age or sex, investigator, or season of measurement, whereas some differences were observed for the nonparametric LLGR.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that knemometry is a more sensitive pharmacodynamic measure of systemic effects of ICSs than 24-hour UFC excretion and that a parametric determination of LLGR increases the sensitivity of the method. These findings should be considered by legislative authorities in the future.

Extra-fine particle inhaled corticosteroids, pharma-cokinetics and systemic activity in children with asthma

During recent years, extra-fine particle inhaled corticosteroids with a median aerodynamic diameter ≤2 μm have been introduced in the treatment of asthma. The aim of this paper was to review pharmacokinetics and systemic activity of extra-fine particle hydroalkane pressurized metered dose inhaled (pMDI) ciclesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in children. A literature review was performed. Systemic bioavailability of oral and pulmonary deposition of extra-fine ciclesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate was 52% and 82%, the half-life in serum 3.2 and 1.5 h and first-pass hepatic metabolism >99% and 60%, respectively. Secondary analyses of urine cortisol/creatinine excretion found no effects of ciclesonide pMDI between 40 and 320 μg/day or of beclomethasone dipropionate pMDI between 80 and 400 μg/day. Ciclesonide pMDI 40, 80 and 160 μg/day caused no effects on short-term lower leg growth rate as assessed by knemometry. Ciclesonide 320 μg/day was associated with a numerically short-term growth suppression equivalent to 30% which was similar to 25% and 36% suppression caused by beclomethasone dipropionate HFA and CFC 200 μg/day, respectively. Consistent with the differences in key pharmacokinetic features, beclomethasone dipropionate is associated with a systemic activity detected by knemometry at a lower dose than ciclesonide. Whether that correlates with a clinically important difference remains to be explored. Assessments of systemic activity of beclomethasone dipropionate <200 μg/day and of ciclesonide >180 μg/day as well as head-to-head comparisons are warranted. Preferably, such studies should apply the sensitive method of knemometry.

Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents

Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics.

Small airways dysfunction in asthma: evaluation and management to improve asthma control

The small airways have been neglected for many years, but interest in the topic has been rekindled with recent advances in measurement techniques to assess this region and also the ability to deliver therapeutics to the distal airways. Current levels of disease control in asthmatic patients remain poor and there are several contributory factors including; poor treatment compliance, heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes and associated comorbidities. However, the proposition that we may not be targeting all the inflammation that is present throughout the whole respiratory tree may also be an important factor. Indeed decades ago, pathologists and physiologists clearly identified the importance of small airways dysfunction in asthmatic patients. With improved inhaler technology to deliver drug to target the whole respiratory tree and more sensitive measures to assess the distal airways, we should certainly give greater consideration to treating the small airway region when seeing our asthmatic patients in clinic. The aim of this review is to address the relevance of small airways dysfunction in the daily clinical management of patients with asthma. In particular the role of small particle aerosols in the management of patients with asthma will be explored.

Newer treatments in the management of pediatric asthma

Asthma control remains a significant challenge in the pediatric age range in which ongoing loss of lung function in children with persistent asthma has been reported, despite the use of regular preventer therapy. This has important implications for observed mortality and morbidity during adulthood. Over the past decade, there has been an emergence of other treatment adjuncts, such as anti-Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-directed therapy, low dose theophylline, and the use of macrolide antibiotics, yet their exact role in asthma management remains unclear, despite omalizumab now being incorporated into several international asthma guidelines. As with many aspects of pediatric care, this is driven by a lack of appropriately designed pediatric trials. Extrapolation of data reported in adult studies may be appropriate for adolescent asthma, but is not for younger age groups, in which important pathophysiological differences exist. Novel drugs under development offer potential for benefit in the future, but to date existing data are in most cases limited to adults. Pediatric asthma also offers unique potential to prevent or modify the underlying pathophysiology. Although attempts to do so have been unsuccessful to date, advances may yet come from this approach, as our understanding about the interaction between genetics, environmental factors, and viral illness improve. This review provides an overview of the newer treatment options available for management of pediatric asthma and discusses the merits of other novel therapies in development, as we search to optimize management and improve future outcomes.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Clinical study results.org were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.

Assessment of controversial pediatric asthma management options using GRADE

OBJECTIVES

To develop explicit and transparent recommendations on controversial asthma management issues in children and to illustrate the usefulness of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

METHODS

Health care questions were formulated for 3 controversies in clinical practice: what is the most effective treatment in asthma not under control with standard-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; step 3), the use of leukotriene receptor antagonist for viral wheeze, and the role of extra fine particle aerosols. GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations after performing systematic literature searches. We provide evidence profiles and considerations about benefit and harm, preferences and values, and resource use, all of which played a role in formulating final recommendations.

RESULTS

By applying GRADE and focusing on outcomes that are important to patients and explicit other considerations, our recommendations differ from those in other international guidelines. We prefer to double the dose of ICS instead of adding a long-acting β-agonist in step 3; ICS instead of leukotriene receptor antagonist are the first choice in preschool wheeze, and extra fine particle ICS formulations are not first-line treatment in children with asthma. Recommendations are weak and based on low-quality evidence for critical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide systematically and transparently developed recommendations about controversial asthma management options. Using GRADE for guideline development may change recommendations, enhance guideline implementation, and define remaining research gaps.

Ciclesonide in wheezy preschool children with a positive asthma predictive index or atopy

BACKGROUND

Few large-scale studies have examined inhaled corticosteroid treatment in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. We assessed the effects of ciclesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheeze.

METHODS

We included children 2-6 yrs with recurrent wheeze and a positive asthma predictive index or aeroallergen sensitization to, excluding patients with episodic viral wheezing. After a 2-4-week baseline period, patients with ongoing symptoms or rescue medication use were randomised to once-daily ciclesonide 40, 80, 160 μg or placebo for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The number of wheeze exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was unexpectedly low in all groups: 25 (10.2%) in placebo group, as compared to 11 (4.4%), 18 (7.3%), and 17 (6.7%) in ciclesonide 40, 80, and 160 μg, respectively. The difference in time to first exacerbation was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.786), but the difference in exacerbation rates between placebo and the pooled ciclesonide groups was (p = 0.03). Large and significant (p < 0.0001) improvements in symptom scores and rescue medication use occurred in all groups, including placebo. Improvements in FEV(1) and FEF(25-75) (measured in 284 4-6 yr olds) were larger in the ciclesonide than in the placebo group. No differences in safety parameters (adverse events, height growth, serum and urinary cortisol levels) between ciclesonide and placebo were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In preschool children with recurrent wheeze and a positive asthma predictive index, ciclesonide modestly reduces wheeze exacerbation rates and improves lung function. A large placebo response and unexpected selection of patients with mild disease may have affected outcomes, highlighting the heterogeneity of preschool wheezing disorders.

Comparison of Inhaled Corticosteroids: What You Need to Know in Choosing a Product

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended by The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Expert Panel Report 3 for all levels of persistent asthma in the pediatric population. The recommended ICS doses are based on assessment of severity and control of asthma. The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the current ICSs are reviewed. While comparable efficacy can be achieved with equipotent dosing, some of the newer ICSs, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and ciclesonide, have pharmacokinetic profiles that produce less risk of systemic effects. However, at high doses systemic activity increases with all ICSs. The clinicians need to weigh the benefits and risks of these different products and dosing schemes in their patients for optimal use.

Pediatric asthma controller therapy

The treatment of children with asthma has historically relied upon expert opinion using data extrapolated from adult studies. Over the past few years, landmark studies have been completed providing healthcare professionals with evidence on which a reasonable approach can be made for children suffering from this common and serious disease. Asthmatic phenotype in children, unlike adults, tends to differ according to age, which must be taken into account as well as triggers, severity, and level of control. The care of the child with asthma is complex, but accumulating data have demonstrated that we are on the right path for optimizing control while reducing the burden of side effects. The newest Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, as well as recent updates from the landmark CAMP (Childhood Asthma Management Program) study and information from the PACT (Pediatric Asthma Control Trial) and budesonide/formoterol controller and reliever studies, along with recent comparisons of higher dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and ICS/long-acting β(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) combination and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) therapies in children have clarified a few of the big questions in pediatric asthma. For children with asthma aged 5 years and older, the CAMP trial demonstrated that regular use of ICS reduces the frequency of symptoms; however, height was adversely affected and there is no evidence for altering the natural history of asthma. In patients aged 6 years and over whose asthma is uncontrolled on ICS alone, combination therapy with ICS and a LABA has been recently compared with the use of higher dose ICS and the addition of an LTRA in pediatric patients. The addition of a LABA statistically will be of most benefit; however, some children will have optimal control with doubling the baseline dose of ICS or addition of an LTRA. Use of budesonide/formoterol as a controller and reliever therapy extends the time to first exacerbation versus contemporary use of this medication in patients aged 4 years and older. Ciclesonide, a newer ICS, has demonstrated acceptable efficacy but has the added benefit of not affecting growth. Certainly, with mounting evidence, the care-map in pediatric asthma control is becoming clearer.

Comparison of the effect of low-dose ciclesonide and fixed-dose fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination on long-term asthma control

BACKGROUND

Patients with mild persistent asthma constitute about 70% of the asthma population; thus, it is important to know which first-line treatment is best for the management of mild asthma. We compared benefits of first-line treatment with ciclesonide and a combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in patients with mild asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 to 75 years with mild persistent asthma were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After run-in, patients were randomized to ciclesonide 160 μg once daily (CIC160), fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 100/50 μg bid (FP200/S100), or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary variable was time to first severe asthma exacerbation; the coprimary variable was the percentage of poorly controlled asthma days. Patients recorded asthma symptoms and salbutamol use in electronic diaries and completed a standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the time to first severe asthma exacerbation was prolonged, and lung function was improved with FP200/S100 treatment (P = .0002) but not with CIC160. Both CIC160 and FP200/S100 provided significantly fewer poorly controlled asthma days than placebo (P ≤ .0016 for both active treatments). Moreover, both active treatments provided significantly more asthma symptom-free days (P ≤ .0001), rescue medication-free days (P = .0005, one-sided), and days with asthma control (P ≤ .0033). Overall Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were significantly higher in both active treatment groups than placebo (P ≤ .0017).

CONCLUSIONS

In mild asthma, FP200/S100 prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, and CIC160 and FP200/S100 were clinically equieffective for most measures of asthma control.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00163358; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of three ciclesonide doses vs placebo in children with asthma: the RAINBOW study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three doses of ciclesonide (with or without spacer) in children with persistent asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week study of ciclesonide 40, 80 or 160 μg (once daily pm). Children (6-11 years) were randomised 1:1 to treatment via a metered dose inhaler (MDI) or MDI plus spacer. The primary variable was change from baseline in mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary variables included: time to first lack of efficacy (LOE), asthma control, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), asthma symptom score and quality of life (QoL). Safety assessments included: adverse events (AEs), urinary cortisol excretion and body height.

RESULTS

In total, 1073 children received treatment. At endpoint, mean morning PEF significantly improved with all doses of ciclesonide vs. placebo. There was no difference over placebo in time to first LOE, but ciclesonide was superior to placebo on asthma control, symptom score, FEV(1) and QoL. There were no differences between the spacer or non-spacer subgroups. The incidences of AEs were comparable between treatment groups (approximately 35%) and there were no between-group differences in body height or urinary cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide 40-160 μg once daily is effective and well tolerated in children with persistent asthma; its efficacy and safety are unaffected by the use of a spacer. clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT00384189.

Similar Results in Children with Asthma for Steady State Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Ciclesonide Inhaled with or without Spacer

Background:

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid administered by a metered dose inhaler (MDI) to treat bronchial asthma. After inhalation, the inactive ciclesonide is converted by esterases in the airways to active metabolite desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC).

Aim:

To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of des-CIC in children after administration of therapeutic dose of ciclesonide with and without spacer (AeroChamber Plus^™).

Methods:

Open-label, 3 period, cross over, repeated dose, PK study in 37 children with mild to moderate stable asthma (age: 6–11 y; body weight: 20–53 kg). During each 7-day treatment period, ciclesonide was inhaled once in the morning: A) 160 μg MDI with spacer, B) 80 μg MDI with spacer, and C) 160 μg MDI without spacer. Serum PK parameters of ciclesonide and des-CIC were determined on Day 7 of each period. The primary PK parameters were the AUC_τ and C_max for des-CIC.

Results:

Inhaling ciclesonide with spacer led to a dose proportional systemic exposure (AUC_τ) of des-CIC (0.316 μg*h/L for 80 μg and 0.663 μg*h/L for 160 μg). The dose-normalized systemic exposure for des-CIC (based on AUC_τ) was 27% higher after inhalation of ciclesonide 80 μg or 160 μg with spacer than without spacer; the corresponding C_max values for des-CIC were, respectively, 63% and 55% higher with spacer. No clinically relevant abnormalities or adverse drug reactions were observed.

Conclusions:

Inhalation of therapeutic ciclesonide dose with spacer led to a slight increase in the systemic exposure of des-CIC, which does not warrant dose adjustment.

Ciclesonide and the treatment of asthma

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) constitute the guideline-recommended first-line therapy for persistent asthma. However, concerns regarding ICS-related adverse events may contribute to their underutilization by physicians and patients.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The currently available published data on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, safety and efficacy of the ICS, ciclesonide, is described. Peer-reviewed publications (1996 - 2009) on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile, safety and efficacy of ciclesonide were reviewed.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Ciclesonide is delivered as an inactive prodrug, which is cleaved to the active molecule by intracellular esterases located in the lungs. This and other pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties may limit the amount of active molecule outside the lung and may reduce the incidence of side effects. Randomized placebo-controlled studies found that ciclesonide can initiate and maintain disease control in subjects with persistent asthma of all disease severities. Moreover, studies have found that ciclesonide is as effective as other ICSs in establishing and controlling disease symptoms. Controlled clinical trials also showed that ciclesonide is associated with minimal systemic and local treatment-related adverse events.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Published findings indicate that ciclesonide is effective at initiating and maintaining asthma control and is well tolerated, with a positive safety profile.

Lower-leg growth rates in children with asthma during treatment with ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate

Measurement of short-term lower-leg growth rate in children by knemometry has become established as an integral part of the available measures of systemic activity of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the novel ICS ciclesonide (CIC) and the ICS fluticasone propionate (FP) on lower-leg growth rate and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function in children with mild asthma. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study, 28 children, aged 6-12 yr, sequentially received daily doses of CIC 320 μg, FP 375 μg (330 μg ex-actuator) and placebo via a spacer in a randomized order. Each 2-wk treatment period was followed by a 2-wk washout period. Knemometry was performed at the beginning and end of each treatment period. Cortisol levels in 12-h overnight urine were measured at the end of each treatment period. No statistically significant differences were seen in lower-leg growth rates between CIC (0.30 mm/wk) and placebo (0.43 mm/wk) treatments. Lower-leg growth rate during FP treatment (0.08 mm/wk) was significantly reduced compared with both placebo [least squares (LS) mean: -0.35 (95% CI: -0.53, -0.18; p = 0.0002)] and CIC [LS mean: -0.23 (95% CI: -0.05, -0.40; p = 0.0137)]. Cortisol levels in 12-h overnight urine were significantly lower in the FP group when compared with CIC (p < 0.05); however, there were no statistically significant differences between each of the active treatments and placebo. CIC had no significant effect on lower-leg growth rate in children aged 6-12 yr with mild asthma. In contrast, a similar dose of FP significantly reduced lower-leg growth rate compared with placebo and CIC.

Once-daily ciclesonide via metered-dose inhaler: Similar efficacy and safety with or without a spacer

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as first-line treatment for adults and children with persistent asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that patients taking medium- or high-dose ICS delivered by metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) should use a spacer device.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 12-week, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide 160microg once daily delivered via hydrofluoroalkane-MDI alone (CIC160) or with a spacer (either an AeroChamber Plus [CIC160P] or an AeroChamber MAX [CIC160M]) in patients with persistent asthma. The primary efficacy variable was change in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) from baseline to study end.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in FEV(1) were observed from baseline to study end in each treatment group; least squares mean change from baseline ranged between 0.32 and 0.34L in the per-protocol (PP) analysis and similar results were observed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (p<0.0001 for all). Non-inferiority of CIC160P and CIC160M to CIC160 was observed for both PP and ITT populations (p<0.0001 [one-sided]). In all groups, daily asthma symptom scores were reduced to 0 and significant reductions were observed in rescue medication use at study end (p<0.0001 versus baseline for all). Ciclesonide was well tolerated in all groups and no cases of oral candidiasis were reported. Morning serum cortisol levels significantly increased in all groups from baseline to study end (p< or =0.0389), with no significant between-treatment differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with persistent asthma, ciclesonide was shown to have similar efficacy and tolerability when administered via MDI alone or with a spacer.

Comparison of inhaled corticosteroids: an update

OBJECTIVE

To review the basis for the estimated comparative daily dosages of inhaled corticosteroids for children and adults that are presented in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Expert Panel Report 3; in addition, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic basis for potential clinical differences among inhaled corticosteroids is discussed.

DATA SOURCES

A complete MEDLINE search was conducted of human studies of asthma pharmacotherapy published between January 1, 2001, and March 15, 2006, followed by a PubMed search up until August 2008, using ciclesonide, inhaled corticosteroids, and pharmacokinetics as key words. Product information on each inhaled corticosteroid was also included.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Comparative clinical trials of inhaled corticosteroids and systematic reviews for efficacy comparisons were evaluated. Extensive literature reviews, meta-analyses, and selected clinical studies that illustrate or represent specific points of view were selected. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data extracted from previously published reviews and specific studies were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Pharmacodynamic characteristics (glucocorticoid receptor binding) and lung delivery determine the relative clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetic properties (oral bioavailability, lung retention, systemic clearance) and determine comparative therapeutic index of the inhaled corticosteroids. Secondary pharmacokinetic differences (intracellular fatty acid esterification, high serum protein binding) that have been posited to improve duration of action and/or therapeutic index are unproven, and current comparative clinical trials do not support the hypotheses that they provide an advantage. Ultrafine particle meter-dose inhalers (MDIs) have not demonstrated superior asthma control or improved safety over older MDIs. All of the inhaled corticosteroids demonstrate efficacy with once-daily dosing, and all are more effective when dosed twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that all of the inhaled corticosteroids have sufficient therapeutic indexes to provide similar efficacy and safety in low to medium doses. Whether or not some of the newer inhaled corticosteroids offer any advantages at higher doses has yet to be determined.

Ciclesonide: a safe and effective inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma

Ciclesonide is a novel inhaled corticosteroid used in the continuous treatment of mild-to-severe asthma. Its formulation and mechanism of action yield a low oral and systemic bioavailability, and high pulmonary deposition. In multiple clinical trials, ciclesonide is at least as effective as either fluticasone propionate or budesonide at symptom control, while in many cases having improved safety outcomes and tolerability. The improved safety and comparable efficacy profiles of ciclesonide demonstrated in current studies could potentially yield a treatment option that may lead to improved adherence and outcome.

Asthma in childhood

Management decisions for pediatric asthma (in patients younger than 12 years of age) based on extrapolation from available evidence in adolescents and adults (age 12 years and older) is common but rarely appropriate. This article addresses the disparity in response between the two age groups, presents the available pediatric evidence, and highlights the important areas in which further research is required. Evidence-based recommendations for acute and interval management of pediatric asthma are provided.

Ciclesonide: a review of its use in the management of asthma

Ciclesonide (Alvesco) is an inhaled corticosteroid used in the preventative treatment of persistent bronchial asthma in adults, adolescents and, in some countries, children. The drug is delivered by a non-chlorofluorocarbon hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI). In the lungs, ciclesonide is converted to an active metabolite, which is responsible for the beneficial effects of the drug in patients with asthma. Ciclesonide and its active metabolite have low systemic bioavailability and therefore have a low potential to produce systemic adverse events. Inhaled ciclesonide delivered by HFA-MDI is effective in the prophylactic treatment of persistent asthma in adults, adolescents and children, and is generally well tolerated. In general, ciclesonide improves lung function and reduces asthma symptoms and rescue medication use in adults and adolescents with asthma of varying severity. The drug is generally no less effective than other inhaled corticosteroids with regard to maintaining or improving lung function and may have a more favourable tolerability profile than some other agents in this class. Ciclesonide has also shown efficacy in paediatric patients with asthma. Data on its long-term effects on other clinical outcomes, such as asthma exacerbations, would be of interest. Further comparative and long-term studies would also be beneficial in order to definitively position ciclesonide with respect to other inhaled corticosteroids. In the meantime, ciclesonide offers an effective and well tolerated first-line preventative treatment option for persistent asthma.

Asthma in infants and children

Asthma is the most common chronic illness in childhood and represents a significant burden to health care and educational systems. Between one quarter and two thirds of childhood asthma cases persist into adulthood. Childhood asthma may be particularly difficult to diagnose because of the high prevalence of episodic wheezing and cough in childhood illnesses such as upper respiratory tract infections. National and worldwide guidelines for the management of asthma in children are continually being updated. These guidelines recommend first establishing a diagnosis and assessing the severity of disease, initiating pharmacologic therapy based on symptoms and lung function, and adjusting doses and agents as required based on the level of asthma control. Inhaled corticosteroids are the cornerstone of long-term asthma management in children of all ages. Recent research efforts have focused on ways to improve inhalant drug delivery to the lungs and minimize oral and systemic bioavailability so as to improve the therapeutic benefit:risk ratio.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide once daily and fluticasone propionate twice daily in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Information about its clinical efficacy and safety in relation to other ICS in children is needed for clinical positioning.

OBJECTIVE

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, three-arm, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide with fluticasone propionate in children with mainly moderate and severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

Seven hundred and forty-four patients (aged 6-11 years) were randomized to ciclesonide (80 or 160 microg once daily) or fluticasone propionate (88 microg twice daily), following a 2-4-week run-in. Efficacy measurements included forced expiratory flow in 1s (FEV(1)), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use and quality of life. Systemic effect was assessed by 24-hour urine free cortisol adjusted for creatinine.

RESULTS

FEV(1) and morning PEF increased from baseline in all groups (p<0.0001). Ciclesonide 160 microg was not inferior to fluticasone propionate 176 microg for FEV(1) (p=0.0030, one-sided). In all groups, asthma symptom score sums and rescue medication use significantly improved (p<0.0001). The percentages of asthma symptom-, rescue medication- and nocturnal awakening-free days were high, with no significant differences between treatments. Quality of life scores improved with all treatments (p<0.0001). A significant dose-response occurred between low and higher doses of ciclesonide for exacerbations and asthma control definitions. The incidences of adverse events were comparable across treatments. Urine free cortisol levels decreased significantly with fluticasone propionate (p=0.0103), but not with ciclesonide.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily ciclesonide has a clinical effect similar to that of fluticasone propionate, but does not suppress cortisol excretion, in children with moderate and severe asthma.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled steroids for chronic asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are an integral part of asthma management, and act as an anti-inflammatory agent in the airways of the lung. These agents confer both significant benefit in terms of symptom management and improvement in lung function, but may also cause harm in terms of local and systemic side-effects. Ciclesonide is a novel steroid that is metabolised to its active component in the lung, making it a potentially useful for reducing local side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide relative to those of other inhaled corticosteroids in the management of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of PubMed and Clinicalstudyresults.org were undertaken. The literature searches for this review are current up to June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel or crossover studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other steroids both at nominally equivalent dose or lower doses of ciclesonide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty one trials involving 7243 participants were included. Equal daily doses of ciclesonide and beclomethasone (BDP) or budesonide (BUD) gave similar results for peak expiratory flow rates (PEF), although forced vital capacity (FVC) was higher with ciclesonide. Data on forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) were inconsistent. Withdrawal data and symptoms were similar between treatments. Compared with the same dose of fluticasone (FP), data on lung function parameters (FEV1, FVC and PEF) did not differ significantly. Paediatric quality of life score favoured ciclesonide. Candidiasis was less frequent with ciclesonide, although other side-effect outcomes did not give significant differences in favour of either treatment. When lower doses of ciclesonide were compared to BDP or BUD, the difference in FEV1 did not reach significance but we cannot exclude a significant effect in favour of BDP/BUD. Other lung function outcomes did not give significant differences between treatments. Paediatric quality of life scores did not differ between treatments. Adverse events occurred with similar frequency between ciclesonide and BDP/BUD. Comparison with FP at half the nominal dose was undertaken in three studies, which indicated that FEV1 was not significantly different, but was not equivalent between the treatments (per protocol: -0.05 L 95% confidence intervals -0.11 to 0.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review give some support to ciclesonide as an equivalent therapy to other ICS at similar nominal doses. The studies assessed low doses of steroids, in patients whose asthma required treatment with low doses of steroids. At half the dose of FP and BDP/BUD, the effects of ciclesonide were more inconsistent The effect on candidiasis may be of importance to people who find this to be problematic. The role of ciclesonide in the management of asthma requires further study, especially in paediatric patients. Further assessment against FP at a dose ratio of 1:2 is a priority.

Assessment of the long-term safety of inhaled ciclesonide on growth in children with asthma

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of the new inhaled corticosteroid ciclesonide on growth in children with asthma.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the effects of inhaled ciclesonide on growth in children with mild, persistent asthma. After a 6-month run-in period, 661 prepubertal children who were aged 5.0 to 8.5 years were randomly assigned to once-daily morning treatment for 1 year with ciclesonide 40 or 160 microg (ex-actuator) or placebo, followed by a 2-month follow-up period. The primary end point was the linear growth velocity (linear regression estimate) over the double-blind treatment period. Growth was recorded as the median of 4 stadiometer measurements. Adverse events and 10-hour overnight and 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels were also assessed.

RESULTS

Mean linear growth velocity during run-in was comparable between groups: 160 microg, 6.20 cm/year; 40 microg, 6.59 cm/year; placebo, 6.49 cm/year. Mean differences from placebo (5.75 cm/year) in growth velocity over the double-blind treatment period were -0.02 cm/year for ciclesonide 40 microg and -0.15 cm/year for ciclesonide 160 microg. Both ciclesonide treatments were noninferior to placebo with respect to growth velocity. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between groups, and no significant changes in 10-hour overnight or 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels were noted between groups during the double-blind treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide demonstrated no detectable effect on childhood growth velocity, even at the highest dosage, which may ease concerns about systemic adverse events.

Comparison of a step-down dose of once-daily ciclesonide with a continued dose of twice-daily fluticasone propionate in maintaining control of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare a step-down approach in well-controlled asthma patients, as recommended by treatment guidelines, from fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily (FP250 BID), or equivalent, to ciclesonide 160 microg once daily (CIC160 OD) with continued FP250 BID treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with well-controlled asthma prior to study entry were included in two identical, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group studies. After a 2-week run-in period with FP250 BID, patients were randomized to CIC160 OD (n = 58) or FP250 BID (n = 53) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage of days with asthma control, asthma symptom-free days, rescue medication-free days and nocturnal awakening-free days. Secondary endpoints included lung function variables, asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use and asthma exacerbations. Safety variables were also recorded.

RESULTS

Patients had >or= 97% of days with asthma control, 98% asthma symptom-free days and 100% of days free from rescue medication use and nocturnal awakenings in both treatment groups (median values). There were no significant between-treatment differences for any of the primary or secondary efficacy variables. Overall, 42 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in the CIC160 OD group and 49 TEAEs were reported in the FP250 BID group. There were no clinically relevant changes from baseline in the safety variables in either treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients well controlled on FP250 BID, or equivalent, who were stepped down to CIC160 OD, maintained similar asthma control compared with patients who received continued treatment standardized to FP250 BID.

Corticosteroids (inhaled and/or intranasal) in the treatment of respiratory allergy in children: safety vs. efficacy

BACKGROUND

Topical administration of Corticosteroids (CS) can reduce the total dose of CS required to treat the patient and minimize side effects. Topical CS is extremely effective and has an excellent safety profile. Nonetheless, care must be taken when multiple sites such as lungs, nose and skin are being treated. CS mechanisms of action on the inflammatory process are complex. The aim of this study is to review such mechanisms and the adverse events secondary to it.

METHODS

Review English database (Embase, PubMed, Scielo) searching words: CS, adverse events, inhaled CS, intranasal CS, and children.

RESULTS

There is a classic mechanism involving a genomic effect of CS and a non-genomic effect, independently of gene transcription process. This mechanism acts by reducing mucosal blood flow in the asthmatic airways. Second-generation topical CS is the treatment of choice in allergic diseases control because of their good anti-inflammatory activity, poor absorption and first-pass hepatic metabolism. When comparing different CS, it is important to compare therapeutically equivalent doses. Although topical CS reduces systemic side effects, local and even systemic side effects can occur. Many factors affect the amount of drug that reaches the lung, including inhaler technique and inhaler type, fine particle dose and particle distribution.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with allergic diseases respond to CS treatment, but there is a small subset of them whose response is unsatisfactory even with high doses of CS. They are classified as corticosteroid-resistant asthmatics. Pro-inflammatory cytokines appear to up regulate the expression of GRb that has been associated with CS resistance.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide 160 microg once daily vs. budesonide 400 microg once daily in children with asthma

Ciclesonide is an onsite-activated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the treatment of asthma. This study compared the efficacy, safety and effect on quality of life (QOL) of ciclesonide 160 microg (ex-actuator; nominal dose 200 microg) vs. budesonide 400 microg (nominal dose) in children with asthma. Six hundred and twenty-one children (aged 6-11 yr) with asthma were randomized to receive ciclesonide 160 microg (ex-actuator) once daily (via hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler and AeroChamber Plus spacer) or budesonide 400 microg once daily (via Turbohaler) both given in the evening for 12 wk. The primary efficacy end-point was change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Additional measurements included change in daily peak expiratory flow (PEF), change in asthma symptom score sum, change in use of rescue medication, paediatric and caregiver asthma QOL questionnaire [PAQLQ(S) and PACQLQ, respectively] scores, change in body height assessed by stadiometry, change in 24-h urinary cortisol adjusted for creatinine and adverse events. Both ciclesonide and budesonide increased FEV1, morning PEF and PAQLQ(S) and PACQLQ scores, and improved asthma symptom score sums and the need for rescue medication after 12 wk vs. baseline. The non-inferiority of ciclesonide vs. budesonide was demonstrated for the change in FEV1 (95% confidence interval: -75, 10 ml, p = 0.0009, one-sided non-inferiority, per-protocol). In addition, ciclesonide and budesonide showed similar efficacy in improving asthma symptoms, morning PEF, use of rescue medication and QOL. Ciclesonide was superior to budesonide with regard to increases in body height (p = 0.003, two-sided). The effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was significantly different in favor of ciclesonide treatment (p < 0.001, one-sided). Both ciclesonide and budesonide were well tolerated. Ciclesonide 160 microg once daily and budesonide 400 microg once daily were effective in children with asthma. In addition, in children treated with ciclesonide there was significantly less reduction in body height and suppression of 24-h urinary cortisol excretion compared with children treated with budesonide after 12 wk.

Randomized comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide and budesonide in adolescents with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide compared with budesonide in adolescents with severe asthma.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, patients aged 12-17 years with severe asthma were treated with budesonide 400 microg once daily (QD) in a 2-week run-in period. At randomization, eligible patients were assigned 2:1 to ciclesonide 320 microg QD (ex-actuator) or budesonide 800 microg QD (metered dose), respectively, in the evening. Forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) was the primary variable. Patients recorded asthma symptom score and rescue medication use in diaries. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and 24-h urine cortisol.

RESULTS

Four hundred and three patients were randomized. Ciclesonide 320 microg QD and budesonide 800 microg QD significantly increased FEV(1) (least-squares mean: 505 and 536 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001 versus baseline) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals (ITT: -138 mL; per-protocol: -122 mL) were above the non-inferiority limit (-150 mL). Median percentage of days without asthma symptoms and without rescue medication use was 84% with ciclesonide and 85% with budesonide. AEs were unremarkable, with no cases of confirmed candidiasis. Median creatinine-adjusted urine cortisol significantly decreased with budesonide treatment (15.9-13.7 nmol cortisol/mmol creatinine; p=0.0086 versus baseline), but not with ciclesonide (p=0.1125).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide 320 microg QD showed similar efficacy to budesonide 800 microg QD in adolescents with severe asthma. Ciclesonide was well tolerated and, unlike budesonide, had no effect on urine cortisol levels.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT No.: 2004-001233-41.

Difficult to control asthma in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of children with difficult asthma requires a systematic approach. These children are prescribed high doses of inhaled or oral corticosteroids and a balance must be struck between therapeutic efficacy and side effects. It is important to ensure the diagnosis is correct and that the reasons for poor control in a given child are characterized so that treatment can be targeted for maximal effect.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data have demonstrated the correlation between invasive and noninvasive measurement of airway eosinophils. Noninvasive markers of inflammation can be used to determine phenotype and there is increasing evidence on the utility of repeated measures to monitor control and treatment effects. Side effects of high-dose corticosteroids remain a concern. The emergence of new therapies may be of benefit. These are often expensive, however, and have the potential for major side effects. Adherence remains a significant obstacle to the effective management of difficult asthma.

SUMMARY

Children with difficult asthma are a heterogeneous group. Characterization and monitoring of these children can be enhanced by measurements of noninvasive markers of inflammation. Further evaluation of new and phenotype-specific treatments for children with difficult asthma need to be evaluated in prospective randomized controlled trials.

New perspectives in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are some of the most prevalent chronic diseases in children. Meticulous evaluations of the therapeutic options and interventions are needed to control this burden. The central pathogenic mechanism is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction, followed by interventions in the allergic cascade. Once inflammation is established, potent anti-inflammatory agents or mediator antagonists could help control the phenomenon and reduce the characteristic symptoms related to severity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Monoclonal antibody against IgE has demonstrated its efficacy in reducing the symptoms of asthma and rhinitis. In difficult-to-treat asthma patients it allows a reduction in the dose of inhaled steroids, the number of exacerbations, emergency visits and hospitalizations. Its broad implementation is limited by its high cost because adverse events are not a concern. Specific sublingual immunotherapy gave promising results in clinical trials, while modifying immunoglobulins and cytokine profiles, also inducing T-cell tolerance. Safety issues of subcutaneous immunotherapy have been surpassed by the sublingual route, with equivalent efficacy. The new inhaled steroid ciclesonide is effective in established inflammation, is activated only in the respiratory system, and has negligible systemic effects.

SUMMARY

Robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of several novel therapies in rhinitis and asthma is available.