Comparison of twice-daily inhaled ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma

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.

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.

Assessment of biological, psychological and adherence factors in the prediction of step-down treatment for patients with well-controlled asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) are standard treatments for asthma. However, factors that might help reduce medication in well-controlled asthma are unknown. We classified problems of asthma patients into biological, psychological and adherence factors, and investigated factors associated with the indication and failure of a medication step-down treatment.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty two well-controlled asthma patients receiving ICS or ICS/LABA were assessed for physical and psychiatric problems and followed up for one year from adjustment of their treatment step. Factor B was defined as a presence of chronic upper airway complications. Factor P was defined as presence of psychiatric complications such as sleep disorder, depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders. Factor A was defined as poor adherence to ICS or ICS/LABA inhaler of 75% or less. Success in step-down treatment was defined as maintenance of well-controlled status for over one year after step-down.

RESULTS

Factor B was the most important single negative predictive factor for indication for step-down treatment (Odds ratio; 0.19). Factor A increased the risk of failure to maintain step-down treatment most significantly by 23-fold, and factor B increased it by 11-fold. The combination of factors B and A increased failure by 24-fold, factors P and A by 21-fold, all three factors by 36-fold. Factor P only interacted with the other factors to reduce chances of stepping down, but did not constitute a problem factor when present alone.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The evaluation of biological, psychological and adherence problems may lead to a more proactive and targeted approach to step-down treatment for patients with well-controlled asthma.

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.

Dilemmas, Confusion, and Misconceptions Related to Small Airways Directed Therapy

During the past decade, there has been increasing evidence that the small airways (ie, airways < 2 mm in internal diameter) contribute substantially to the pathophysiologic and clinical expression of asthma and COPD. The increased interest in small airways is, at least in part, a result of innovation in small-particle aerosol formulations that better target the distal lung and also advanced physiologic methods of assessing small airway responses. Increasing the precision of drug deposition may improve targeting of specific diseases or receptor locations, decrease airway drug exposure and adverse effects, and thereby increase the efficiency and effectiveness of inhaled drug delivery. The availability of small-particle aerosols of corticosteroids, bronchodilators, or their combination enables a higher total lung deposition and better peripheral lung penetration and provides added clinical benefit, compared with large-particle aerosol treatment. However, a number of questions remain unanswered about the pragmatic approach relevant for clinicians to consider the role of small airways directed therapy in the day-to-day management of asthma and COPD. We thus have tried to clarify the dilemmas, confusion, and misconceptions related to small airways directed therapy. To this end, we have reviewed all studies on small-particle aerosol therapy systematically to address the dilemmas, confusion, and misconceptions related to small airways directed therapy.

Small-airway disease in asthma: pharmacological considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pharmacological considerations and rationale for treating small-airway disease in asthma via the inhaled and systemic route, and to also directly address the comparison between small vs. large aerosol particles in the management of asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Airway inflammation in patients with asthma is predominantly present within the small airways and this region is the main contributor to airflow limitation. Assessing small-airway dysfunction has advanced in the last decade, allowing us to compare this region in disease to health and also in response to treatment. Recent pharmaceutical developments have led to inhaler devices with smaller aerosols and systemic biologic treatments, enabling therapeutic drug delivery to the distal lung regions. The question therefore is does targeting the small airways directly translate into health benefits for asthmatic patients with respect to an improvement in their disease control and quality of life?

SUMMARY

Studies now show that treating the peripheral airways with smaller drug particle aerosols certainly achieve comparable efficacy (and some studies show superiority) compared with large particles, a reduction in the daily inhaled corticosteroid dose, and greater asthma control and quality of life in real-life studies. Hence, the small airways should not be neglected when choosing the optimal asthma therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of patients with persistent allergic or non-allergic asthma in medical practice (Data from a non-interventional study conducted in Austria)

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness and safety profile of ciclesonide in the treatment of persistent allergic or non-allergic asthma was evaluated in real-life setting in Austria.

METHODS

Prospective, single-arm, 3-month observational, non-interventional, open-label cohort study in patients with persistent asthma (with or without allergic component) of any severity grade was conducted. Patients were either treatment naïve or switched to treatment with ciclesonide and had an indication for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

RESULTS

In all, 307 patients (50.8% female; mean age, 45.7 years) were prescribed ciclesonide. After 3 months of observation, the percentage of patients with daily symptoms had declined from 33.2 to 3.9%, night-time symptoms from 21.8 to 5.2%, physical activity limitations from 73.9 to 24.4%, and rescue medication usage from 70.0 to 45.9%. The mean total Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score was 2.32 ± 1.14 at the first and 1.08 ± 0.88 at the final visit. The number of patients with well-controlled asthma (ACQ score < 1) increased considerably from 11.0% at baseline to 52.2% at study end. Clinically important mean improvements were observed in the total self-assessed Asthma Quality of Life score and all four domain scores. The mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) increased by 0.3 L from 2.60 ± 0.87 L to 2.89 ± 0.86 L, and the mean FEV1% predicted increased from 75.1 ± 15.4% to 83.7 ± 14.9%. Incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was low (4 ADRs in 3 of 307 patients, or 1.0%).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide under routine conditions in Austria. Improvements in symptom control, lung function, and quality of life were observed. Ciclesonide was well tolerated.

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.

Efficacy and safety of high-dose ciclesonide for the treatment of severe asthma

Asthma severity is classified according to the level of treatment required to control symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line therapy for the treatment of persistent asthma, and when asthma remains uncontrolled, one option is to increase the inhaled corticosteroids dose. However, there is a concomitant risk of increasing local and systemic adverse events, which may impact patient adherence and physician prescribing practices. Ciclesonide is delivered as a prodrug, has high peripheral lung deposition and high protein-binding capabilities, and is rapidly eliminated from the systemic circulation. This article reviews the use of high-dose ciclesonide in patients with severe asthma and considers whether the pharmacology of ciclesonide translates into it being an efficacious and well-tolerated option for patients requiring a step-up in their asthma treatment.

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.

Comparison of Effectiveness between Beclomethasone Dipropionate and Fluticasone Propionate in Treatment of Children with Moderate Asthma

Asthma is a common chronic disease. Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and Fluticasone propionate (FP) are 2 inhaled corticosteroids that frequently be used in treatment of patients with asthma. In this study, the effectiveness of BDP and FP in management of asthmatic children was investigated. In this trial, 50 children with moderate persistent asthma were randomly selected to receive either BDP 600 μg or FP 500 μg for 3 months. Pulmonary function tests were measured in both groups at the beginning of study and monthly after treatment. Daily and night symptoms and consistency of drugs were also measured. There was significantly better FEV1 in patients receiving FP compared with the BDP group (P < 0.01). There was also statistically significant difference in patients receiving FP compared with BDP group in increment of FVC, FEV1/FVC, FEF25-75 (P < 0.005). Night symptoms were significantly improved in the FP group from the first month (P = 0.001), while improvement of daily symptoms in this group compared with the BDP group was found from the second month (P = 0.001). Although symptoms and pulmonary function tests results were improved in both groups receiving either FP or BDP, this study suggested that FP was more effective than BDP in controlling moderate asthma in children.

Treatment of the bronchial tree from beginning to end: targeting small airway inflammation in asthma

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease, characterized by airway obstruction and inflammation. Increasing evidence shows that the small airways contribute significantly to the clinical expression and severity of asthma. Traditionally, high levels of disease activity are thought to be necessary before symptoms occur in the small airways because of their large reserve capacity. However, this concept is being challenged and increasing evidence shows small airway disease to be associated with symptoms, disease severity, and bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Particle size and distribution are of key importance when developing inhaled treatments for small airway disease. The availability of small-particle aerosols such as HFA-ciclesonide and HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) enables a higher drug deposition into the peripheral lung and potentially provides additional clinical benefits compared with large-particle treatment. However, improved methods are needed to monitor and assess small airway disease and its response to treatment because conventional spirometry mainly reflects large airway function. This remains a challenging area requiring further research. The aim of the current manuscript is to review the clinical relevance of small airway disease and the implications for the treatment of asthma.

Efficacy of a fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol: the EXCITED-study

Recommended treatment for moderate to severe asthma is the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist. The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed fixed combination of ciclesonide and formoterol in comparison to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in patients with moderate asthma. This was a phase II, multi-centre, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study. After a 2-week run-in period, 160 patients with moderate asthma were randomized to a 6-week treatment with ciclesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg bid (CIC/F) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 μg bid (FP/S), both delivered as powder formulations. The primary outcome FEV1 increased during treatment by 0.356 L in the CIC/F group and by 0.288 L in the FP/S group (p < 0.0001). The increases were statistically significant and clinically relevant. The between-treatment analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of CIC/F to FP/S treatment (p < 0.0001). A significant improvement from baseline in lung function, symptom score and rescue medication use was observed in both groups at all time points. No differences were observed between treatments in the frequency of adverse events and overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio. The studied fixed combination of ciclesonide/formoterol is not inferior to the marketed fixed combination of fluticasone/salmeterol in terms of efficacy and tolerability.

Profile of ciclesonide for the maintenance treatment of asthma

Ciclesonide is a nonhalogenated synthetic inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of all severities of persistent asthma. It is available as a hydrofluroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler in two strengths, 80 mcg/activation and 160 mcg/activation, with the recommenced dosage being two inhalations twice-daily. It is a prodrug that is converted in the lung to its active form, which possesses 100-fold greater glucocorticoid-receptor-binding affinity than the parent compound. Its relative receptor affinity is similar to budesonide. In clinical studies, ciclesonide was effective in improving pulmonary function, reducing asthma symptoms, and reducing or eliminating the need for oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Patients with severe asthma dependent on OCSs and high doses of ICSs were able to achieve greater asthma control and reduce or even eliminate the use of OCSs when switched to ciclesonide. In comparison with fluticasone propionate and budesonide, ciclesonide was demonstrated to be at least as effective in maintaining pulmonary function and asthma control. In clinical trials, ciclesonide was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events considered mild or moderate in intensity. It had low systemic bioavailability and no clinically significant hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis suppression at therapeutic doses. Its safety profile establishes ciclesonide as an important addition to the currently available ICSs.

Difference between patient-reported side effects of ciclesonide versus fluticasone propionate

RATIONALE

Patient-reported outcomes provide new insights into the dynamics of asthma management. Further to asthma control and quality of life, self-reported side effects of treatment can be assessed with the validated Inhaled Corticosteroid Questionnaire (ICQ).

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient-reported side effects between the inhaled corticosteroids ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

Patients with moderate or moderate-to-severe asthma, pre-treated with a constant dose and type of medication, were randomized in three separate studies: 1) once daily ciclesonide 320 μg (n = 234) or twice daily fluticasone propionate 200 μg (n = 240); 2) twice daily ciclesonide 320 μg (n = 255) or twice daily fluticasone propionate 375 μg (n = 273); and 3) twice daily ciclesonide 320 μg (n = 259) or twice daily fluticasone propionate 500 μg (n = 244). Patients rated the side effect questions of the 15 domain ICQ on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 6 = a very great deal) during scheduled visits.

RESULTS

The majority of side effect scores remained similar with ciclesonide but worsened statistically significantly with fluticasone propionate from baseline to the end of the study in within-treatment analyses. In between-treatment analyses of studies 1 and 3 ciclesonide significantly improved total side effect scores (p < 0.025) and 14 out of 30 individual local and systemic domain scores (p < 0.025) compared with fluticasone propionate. In Study 2, although ciclesonide improved the majority of scores compared with fluticasone propionate only 'oropharyngeal itching' reached statistical significance (p < 0.025, one-sided).

CONCLUSION

Patient-perceived side effects differ depending on the type of inhaled corticosteroids used. Patients with moderate-to-severe asthma report less intense side effects assessed with ICQ with ciclesonide than with fluticasone propionate.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The reported trials were completed before July 1 2005 and, therefore, are not registered.

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.

A 24-week comparison of low-dose ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in mild to moderate asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ciclesonide (80 microg/day) with fluticasone propionate (200 microg/day) in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged 12-75 years and previously treated with low doses of inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate 250 microg/day or equivalent) entered a 2-4 week run-in period during which only rescue medication was permitted. For inclusion into the double-blind, 24-week treatment period, patients had to show a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) of 61-90% predicted and a decrease in FEV(1) during run-in of >or=10%. Patients (n = 480) were randomized to ciclesonide 80 microg (ex-actuator) once daily in the evening or fluticasone propionate 100 microg (ex-valve) twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in FEV(1). Secondary efficacy variables included asthma control and asthma-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

Both treatments significantly increased FEV(1) and other lung function variables from baseline (p < 0.0001, both groups, all variables). The least squares mean increases in FEV(1) were 0.46L (ciclesonide) and 0.52L (fluticasone propionate); non-inferiority of ciclesonide to fluticasone propionate was demonstrated (p = 0.0002, per-protocol analysis). Five patients in each group experienced asthma exacerbations. Improvements in the percent of days with asthma control (days with no asthma symptoms and no use of rescue medication) and asthma-specific quality of life were comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed similar efficacy of ciclesonide 80 microg once daily and fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The low dose of ciclesonide was efficacious during long-term treatment. EudraCT number: 2004-001072-39.

Optimizing maintenance therapy in pediatric asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are different phenotypes of asthma, with phenotype-specific differences in medication response observed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Tobacco smoke exposure reduces corticosteroid responsiveness. Treatment for tobacco smoke-triggered asthma must start with treatment of tobacco dependence. Obesity-associated asthma responds to weight loss and treatment of comorbidities. Immunotherapy and omalizumab are specific therapies for atopic asthma, though its use is limited by expense, inconvenience, need for injections, and toxicities. Leukotriene modifier response is more prominent in viral-triggered asthma. Research on intermittent escalation of controller therapy for asthma shows best results when escalation is substantial and early. Inhaled corticosteroid medications in low-to-moderate doses remain the most important maintenance medication for a broad variety of asthma phenotypes, reducing both impairment and risk. When impairment is not fully controlled by an inhaled corticosteroid, combination with a long-acting beta-agonist, leukotriene modifier, or theophylline can be effective. Inhaled corticosteroid use in children does not appear to influence airway caliber or asthma severity after the medication is stopped.

SUMMARY

Optimizing maintenance therapy for asthma is not one size fits all. It is important to assess the asthma phenotype in addition to the symptom pattern, in determining optimal maintenance therapy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Asthma worsenings: approaches to prevention and management from the Asthma Worsenings Working Group

Most asthma patients prescribed maintenance asthma therapies still experience periods of asthma worsenings characterized by daytime or night-time symptoms, or an increased need for rescue medication. In fact, these episodes are highly prevalent even in patients with well-controlled disease. Published literature suggests that asthma worsenings likely represent a window of opportunity during which patients could intervene early to prevent exacerbations or further deterioration of asthma symptoms. However, current evidence suggests that most patients fail to respond or to self-manage appropriately during these periods.To address the issue of asthma worsenings, an interdisciplinary committee of respirologists, allergists, family physicians, pharmacists and certified asthma educators from across Canada developed a practical definition of asthma worsenings and provided approaches to the prevention and management of these episodes based on current literature. To date, combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist therapy, particularly single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy, appears to be an effective strategy for preventing asthma worsenings and exacerbations. Addressing the potential barriers to appropriate patient self-management of asthma worsenings, such as failure to adequately identify and respond to worsenings, low expectations for controlling asthma, low health literacy and poor patient-health care professional communication, are also critical to the successful prevention and management of these episodes. Finally, an interdisciplinary team approach involving patients and their families, certified asthma educators, primary care physicians, pharmacists and specialists is likely to have the greatest impact on the identification, prevention and management of asthma worsenings.

Molecular mechanisms of corticosteroid resistance

Most patients with asthma are successfully treated with conventional therapy. Nevertheless, there is a small proportion of asthmatic patients, including present cigarette smokers and former cigarette smokers, who fail to respond well to therapy with high-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) or with supplementary therapy. In addition, high doses of steroids have a minimal effect on the inexorable decline in lung function in COPD patients and only a small effect on reducing exacerbations. GC insensitivity, therefore, presents a profound management problem in these patients. GCs act by binding to a cytosolic GC receptor (GR), which is subsequently activated and is able to translocate to the nucleus. Once in the nucleus, the GR either binds to DNA and switches on the expression of antiinflammatory genes or acts indirectly to repress the activity of a number of distinct signaling pathways such as nuclear factor (NF)-kappaB and activator protein (AP)-1. This latter step requires the recruitment of corepressor molecules. Importantly, this latter interaction is mutually repressive in that high levels of NF-kappaB and AP-1 attenuate GR function. A failure to respond may therefore result from reduced GC binding to GR, reduced GR expression, enhanced activation of inflammatory pathways, or lack of corepressor activity. These events can be modulated by oxidative stress, T-helper type 2 cytokines, or high levels of inflammatory mediators, all of which may lead to a reduced clinical outcome. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of GR action, and inaction, may lead to the development of new antiinflammatory drugs or may reverse the relative steroid insensitivity that is characteristic of patients with these diseases.

Steroid resistance in asthma: mechanisms and treatment options

Glucocorticoid insensitivity presents a profound management problem in patients with asthma because conventional therapies are not effective. Glucocorticoids, acting through the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), are able to selectively repress inflammatory gene expression by utilizing several distinct mechanisms targeting nuclear factor-varphiB and activator protein-1 activation complexes and by effects on mitogen-activated protein kinases. Different model systems often activate distinct sets of signaling molecules and different glucocorticoid responsiveness may result from differences in concentrations and timing of steroid treatment of cells, GR expression levels, and the precise inflammatory stimulus used. Thus, abnormal activation of many signaling pathways may affect corticosteroid responsiveness in patients with corticosteroid-resistant asthma. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of GR action and inaction may lead to the development of new anti-inflammatory drugs or enable clinicians to reverse the relative steroid-insensitivity that is characteristic of some patients with severe asthma.