Comparative efficacy of once-daily ciclesonide and budesonide in the treatment of persistent asthma

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Inhaled lipid nanocarriers for pulmonary delivery of glucocorticoids: previous strategies, recent advances and key factors description

In view of the strong anti-inflammatory activity of glucocorticoids (GC) they are used in the treatment of almost all inflammatory lung diseases. In particular, inhaled GC (IGC) allow high drug concentrations to be deposited in the lung and may reduce the incidence of adverse effects associated with systemic administration. However, rapid absorption through the highly absorbent surface of the lung epithelium may limit the success of localized therapy. Therefore, inhalation of GC incorporated into nanocarriers is a possible approach to overcome this drawback. In particular, lipid nanocarriers, which showed high pulmonary biocompatibility and are well known in the pharmaceutical industry, have the best prospects for pulmonary delivery of GC by inhalation. This review provides an overview of the pre-clinical applications of inhaled GC-lipid nanocarriers based on several key factors that will determine the efficiency of local pulmonary GC delivery: 1) stability to nebulization, 2) deposition profile in the lungs, 3) mucociliary clearance, 4) selective accumulation in target cells, 5) residence time in the lung and systemic absorption and 6) biocompatibility. Finally, novel preclinical pulmonary models for inflammatory lung diseases are also discussed.

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.

Enhanced alveo pulmonary deposition of nebulized ciclesonide for attenuating airways inflammations: a strategy to overcome metered dose inhaler drawbacks

Ciclesonide (CIC), an inhaled corticosteroid for bronchial asthma is currently available as metered dose inhaler (CIC–MDI) which possesses a major challenge in the management of the elderly, critically ill patients and children. In this work, nebulized CIC nano-structure lipid particles (CIC-NLPs) were prepared and evaluated for their deep pulmonary delivery and cytotoxicity to provide additional clinical benefits to patients in controlled manner and lower dose. The bio-efficacy following nebulization in ovalbumin (OVA) induced asthma Balb/c mice compared to commercial (CIC–MDI) was also assessed. The developed NLPs of 222.6 nm successfully entrapped CIC (entrapment efficiency 93.3%) and exhibited favorable aerosolization efficiency (mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) 2.03 μm and fine particle fraction (FPF) of 84.51%) at lower impactor stages indicating deep lung deposition without imparting any cytotoxic effect up to a concentration of 100 μg/ml. The nebulization of 40 µg dose of the developed CIC-NLPs revealed significant therapeutic impact in the mitigation of the allergic airways inflammations when compared to 80 µg dose of the commercial CIC–MDI inhaler (Alvesco^®). Superior anti-inflammatory and antioxidative stress effects characterized by significant decrease (p< .0001) in inflammatory cytokines IL-4 and 13, serum IgE levels, malondialdehyde (MDA), nitric oxide (NO), TNF-α, and activated nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) activity were obvious with concomitant increase in superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity. Histological examination with inhibition of inflammatory cell infiltration in the respiratory tract was correlated well with observed biochemical improvement.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Contemporaneous International Asthma Guidelines Present Differing Recommendations: An Analysis

Background. Several international groups develop asthma guidelines. Conflicting recommendations across guidelines have been described in several disease areas and may contribute to practice variability. Accordingly, we compared the latest Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) asthma guideline with contemporaneous international asthma guidelines to evaluate conflicting recommendations and their causes. Methods. We identified the latest CTS asthma guideline update (2012) and the following societies which also updated their guidelines in 2012: the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Global Initiative for Asthma. We compared these three guidelines on (1) key methodological factors and (2) adult pharmacotherapy recommendations. Results. Methods used and documentation provided for literature search strategy and dates, evidence synthesis, outcomes considered, evidence appraisal, and recommendation formulation varied between guidelines. Criteria used to define suboptimal asthma control varied widely between guidelines. Inhaled corticosteroid dosing recommendations diverged, as did recommendations surrounding use of budesonide/formoterol as a reliever and controller and recommendations in the subsequent step. Conclusions. There are important differences between recommendations provided in contemporaneous asthma guidelines. Causes include differences in methods used for interpreting evidence and formulating recommendations. Adopting a common set of valid and explicit methods across international societies could harmonize recommendations and facilitate guideline implementation.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

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.

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.

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.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2012 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This an updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have updated guidelines, which are simple to understand and easy to use by non-asthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. This new version includes updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of Asthma Control Test in the management of asthma, and a new section on "difficult-to-treat asthma." Further, the section on asthma in children was re-written to cover different aspects in this age group. The SINA panel is a group of Saudi experts with well-respected academic backgrounds and experience in the field of asthma. The guidelines are formatted based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There was an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan. The approach adopted by the SINA group is mainly based on disease control as it is the ultimate goal of treatment.

Markers for step-down of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for all stages of persistent asthma. However, it is unknown whether ICS dose reduction in adult asthmatics is compatible with maintaining asthma control. Moreover, there are no predictors of efficacy in maintaining asthma control upon ICS reduction.

METHODS

We recruited 90 adult patients with moderate or severe asthma but no clinical symptoms of asthma for at least 6 months. All patients reduced their ICS doses by half but continued taking other asthma-related medications. As a primary outcome, we measured asthma exacerbations during the 12 months following ICS reduction. We also further monitored patients from the above study who had maintained total asthma control for 12 months after ICS reduction and who had continued on their reduced doses of ICS or had further reduced, or stopped, their ICS.

RESULTS

Forty of ninety patients (44.4%) experienced exacerbations after ICS reduction (time to first exacerbation: 6.4 ± 3.6 months). Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed a rank order of predictors of success in ICS reduction while retaining asthma control: acetylcholine (ACh) PC(20) (p < 0.01); length of time with no clinical symptoms before ICS reduction (p < 0.01); FeNO (p = 0.028); and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1); % predicted) (p = 0.03). Finally thirty-nine of 50 patients maintained total asthma control for at least 2 years after the initial ICS reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma patients with normalized AChPC(20) of 20mg/mL or 10mg/mL and no clinical symptoms for at least 12 or 24 months it may be possible to successfully reduce ICS without increasing exacerbations for long time.

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.

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.

Airway and systemic effects of soluble and suspension formulations of nebulized budesonide in asthmatic children

BACKGROUND

Using cyclodextrin with budesonide enables it to be formulated in a solution for nebulization.

OBJECTIVE

To observe the effects of a Captisol-enabled budesonide solution (CBIS), 60 microg twice daily, delivered via a nebulizer (eFlow), compared with a conventional budesonide suspension (Pulmicort Respules), 250 microg twice daily, delivered via another nebulizer (LC Plus), using fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)) and overnight urinary cortisol to creatinine ratio as the primary outcomes for efficacy and systemic bioactivity.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, crossover study was conducted in 12 children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma (aged 5-12 years). Measurements were performed after a 2-week steroid washout at baseline and at the end of each 2-week randomized treatment.

RESULTS

The nebulization time was shorter (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-5.63 minutes; P = .03) with CBIS (mean, 1.77 minutes) than with Pulmicort Respules (mean, 5.01 minutes). The reduction in FE(NO) with CBIS from pooled baseline was 2.45-fold (95% CI, 1.87-3.21; P < .001); and with Pulmicort Respules, 3.18-fold (95% CI, 2.26-4.47; P < .001). No statistically significant changes from pooled baseline in lung function and overnight urinary cortisol to creatinine ratio were observed with either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The nebulization time was shorter with CBIS compared with Pulmicort Respules. Both formulations exhibited similar anti-inflammatory activity in terms of reducing FE(NO), with no detectable difference between them when used in a putative microgram nominal dose ratio of 1:4. Neither formulation produced significant adrenal suppression.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) provides up-to-date guidelines for healthcare workers managing patients with asthma. SINA was developed by a panel of Saudi experts with respectable academic backgrounds and long-standing experience in the field. SINA is founded on the latest available evidence, local literature, and knowledge of the current setting in Saudi Arabia. Emphasis is placed on understanding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, medications, and clinical presentation. SINA elaborates on the development of patient-doctor partnership, self-management, and control of precipitating factors. Approaches to asthma treatment in SINA are based on disease control by the utilization of Asthma Control Test for the initiation and adjustment of asthma treatment. This guideline is established for the treatment of asthma in both children and adults, with special attention to children 5 years and younger. It is expected that the implementation of these guidelines for treating asthma will lead to better asthma control and decrease patient utilization of the health care system.

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.

Randomized, cross-over evaluation of mobile phone vs paper diary in subjects with mild to moderate persistent asthma

Diaries are frequently used to evaluate therapy. Forgetfulness, however, can lead to missed entries. With paper diaries, these missing entries can be backfilled, compromising the reasons for using a diary. Electronic diaries are a potential means of mitigating this limitation. The pilot study was conducted to evaluate use of a mobile phone diary. Twelve subjects with mild persistent asthma were randomly assigned to mobile or paper diary for 2 weeks and then crossed over to use the other diary type for next 2 weeks. Of the 12 subjects, 7 preferred the mobile diary. However, the mean prevalence of missing data was greater when using the mobile (18% ± 9%) compared to paper diary (9% ± 4%; P = 0.05). In conclusion, the mobile diary was preferred by slightly more subjects. The greater prevalence of missing data when using this diary most likely results from the inability to backfill missing entries.

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.

Ciclesonide uptake and metabolism in human alveolar type II epithelial cells (A549)

Background

Ciclesonide is a novel inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of airway inflammation. In this study we investigated uptake and in vitro metabolism of ciclesonide in human alveolar type II epithelial cells (A549). Ciclesonide uptake was compared with fluticasone propionate, an inhaled corticosteroid that is not metabolized in lung tissue. A549 cells were incubated with 2 × 10^-8 M ciclesonide or fluticasone propionate for 3 to 30 min to determine uptake; or with 2 × 10^-8 M ciclesonide for 1 h, followed by incubation with drug-free buffer for 3, 6, and 24 h to analyze in vitro metabolism. High performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure the concentrations of both corticosteroids and metabolites.

Results

At all time points the mean intracellular concentration was higher for ciclesonide when compared with fluticasone propionate. Activation of ciclesonide to desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC) was confirmed and conjugates of des-CIC with fatty acids were detected. The intracellular concentration of ciclesonide decreased over time, whereas the concentration of des-CIC remained relatively stable: 2.27 to 3.19 pmol/dish between 3 and 24 h. The concentration of des-CIC fatty acid conjugates increased over time, with des-CIC-oleate being the main metabolite.

Conclusion

Uptake of ciclesonide into A549 cells was more efficient than that of the less lipophilic fluticasone propionate. Intracellular concentrations of the pharmacologically active metabolite des-CIC were maintained for up to 24 h. The local anti-inflammatory activity of ciclesonide in the lung may be prolonged by the slow release of active drug from the depot of fatty acid esters.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relative efficacy of ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate (FP) administered at comparable microgram doses in maintaining asthma control in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled patients aged 12-75 years with a 6-month history of bronchial asthma. To enter a 2-week run-in period, patients had to have received FP 500-1000 microg/day or equivalent at a stable dose for 4 weeks and have a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV 1) 80% of predicted. To enter the treatment period, patients had to have the following during run-in: FEV 1 80% of predicted; reversibility of Delta FEV 1 12% after 200-400 microg salbutamol; and 1 day without asthma symptoms during the last 7 days. Patients were randomized to twice-daily ciclesonide 320 microg (ex-actuator) or twice-daily FP 330 microg (ex-actuator) for 6 months. Efficacy was assessed by lung function, asthma exacerbations, asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Patients completed the standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]). Adverse events (AEs), including local oropharyngeal AEs, were recorded.

RESULTS

528 patients were randomized (ciclesonide, n=255; FP, n=273). In both groups, FEV 1 was maintained from baseline to study end (mean increase: ciclesonide 11 mL, FP 24 mL; intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis). The least squares mean+/-standard error of the mean for the treatment difference was -13+/-29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -70, 44) in the ITT analysis and -27+/-34 (95% CI: -93, 40) in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, demonstrating non-inferiority of ciclesonide to FP. Morning, evening and site-measured PEF improved significantly with both treatments (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05). Six patients receiving ciclesonide and seven receiving FP (ITT analysis) experienced an asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids. Both treatments significantly decreased asthma symptom score sum (ITT and PP analyses: p0.0001) and rescue medication use (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05), with no significant difference between treatments. Both treatments significantly improved overall AQLQ(S) score (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05). Significantly more patients experienced candidiasis and dysphonia with FP compared with ciclesonide (p=0.0023).

CONCLUSION

Ciclesonide 320 microg and FP 330 microg administered twice daily over 6 months provided similar efficacy in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma previously well-controlled by high doses of ICS at baseline. Ciclesonide was associated with fewer local AEs than FP.

Evidence-based selection of inhaled corticosteroid for treatment of chronic asthma

Published literature relevant to comparison of various inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) was reviewed. Marked heterogeneity was found in the reported results. The efficacy and side effects of ICSs depend on their formulation, dosing and device used, and the subjects' age, severity of asthma, and inhaler technique. All these factors have not been included uniformly in most study designs. Notwithstanding this limitation, it appears that fluticasone is generally very effective and safe in low-to-medium doses and may be used for most patients. Budesonide is the only Pregnancy Category B ICSs, all others being Category C, and it is available as nebulizer suspension suitable for use in children over 6 months of age. Budesonide, also available as dry powder inhaler, and beclomethasone, available as metered-dose inhaler, are equal in efficacy, and side effects and may be chosen according to the patient's ability to handle the device. Flunisolide causes fewer side effects but is also relatively less effective. Triamcinolone is generally less effective and causes more side effects than most of the other ICSs. Mometasone may be preferred if once-daily dosing is desired. Ciclesonide has been found highly effective in once-daily dose and without side effects even in high doses. Further studies comparing it with other ICSs over longer periods of use will determine its place in treatment of chronic asthma.

A multinational, 12-week, randomized study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide and budesonide in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a new lung-activated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has shown efficacy in previous placebo-controlled and comparative studies in patients with persistent asthma. It is important to compare new treatments with existing ICSs to obtain relative data concerning their efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide QD with budesonide BID in patients with asthma.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized study was conducted at 62 study sites across Europe. Male and female patients aged 12 to 75 years with primarily mild to moderate asthma were enrolled. This study was double blind with respect to the ciclesonide dose and open label for budesonide, as placebofor budesonide was not available. Patients were randomly assigned to receive inhaled ciclesonide 80 or 320 microg QD (morning) or budesonide 200 microg BID for 12 weeks. Efficacy and tolerability assessments were performed at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 12. The primary end point was the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points were changes from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom scores, and rescue medication use. Tolerability was assessed throughout the study by monitoring of standard laboratory variables (hematology and biochemistry); physical examination, including vital signs; reporting of adverse events (AEs); and 24-hour urinary cortisol as a measure of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-four patients were randomized (301 men, 253 women; mean age, 41.3 years; ciclesonide 80 microg QD, 182 patients; ciclesonide 320 microg QD, 195; budesonide 200 microg BID, 177). Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, including age, sex, weight, and (FEV1) were similar between the 3 groups. Compared with baseline values, week-12 FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] [SEM] A, +0.267 [0.035], +0.256 [0.033], and +0.355 [0.034] L, respectively; all, P<0.001) and morning PEF (LSM [SEM] Delta, +12 [5], +17 [4], and +21 [4] L/min, respectively; all, P<or=0.008) were significantly improved with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD and budesonide 200 microg BID. At 12 weeks, ciclesonide was found to be noninferior to budesonide with regard to mean changes from baseline in (FEV1) (intent to treat [ITT]: 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.192 to 0.015; 97.5 CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.200 to 0.001) and morning PEF (ITT. 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -22 to 5; 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -17 to 10). Similar findings were seen in the per-protocol population. Week-12 daily, daytime, and nighttime asthma symptom scores and rescue medication use were significantly decreased from baseline in all 3 treatment groups (all, P<0.001). The prevalences of AEs were similar across all 3 treatment groups. Week-12 mean urinary cortisol excretion was statistically similar to baseline with both ciclesonide doses (Delta, -0.54 and +0.16 nmol/mmol creatinine with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD, respectively) but was significantly reduced from baseline with budesonide (Delta, -1.42 nmol/mmol creatinine; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in patients with primarily mild to moderate asthma suggest that ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD were similar to budesonide 200 microg BID in improving pulmonary function, controlling asthma symptoms, and reducing the need for rescue medication use. Unlike budesonide, ciclesonide was not associated with significant urinary cortisol suppression in these patients.

The newly developed inhaled corticosteroid ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma

Ciclesonide is the most recently developed inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma to enter global markets. It has been formulated as an aerosol solution in a metered dose inhaler with hydrofluoralkane. The mass median aerodynamic diameter of aerosolised ciclesonide is 1 - 2 microm, providing excellent lung deposition characteristics. Ciclesonide can undergo reversible esterification in the lungs, possibly allowing once-daily dosing, and is highly protein bound, possibly leading to reduced systemic side effects. Clinical trials suggest that ciclesonide effectively controls asthma and has a favourable safety profile.

Ciclesonide is more effective than budesonide in the treatment of persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a lung-activated inhaled corticosteroid that provides effective control of persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide versus once-daily budesonide in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A total of 399 patients with asthma were randomised to receive once-daily ciclesonide 320 microg ex-actuator (equivalent to 400 microg ex-valve) or once-daily budesonide 400 microg for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)). Additional efficacy variables included forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptoms, use of rescue medication and time to onset of effect. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Both ciclesonide and budesonide significantly increased FEV(1) from baseline (416 and 321 ml, respectively; p<0.0001). The increase in FEV(1) was significantly greater in ciclesonide-treated patients (95% confidence interval: 0.016-0.174; p=0.019 versus budesonide). Similarly, ciclesonide and budesonide significantly improved FVC and PEF from baseline (p<0.0001), and significantly greater increases occurred with ciclesonide (p=0.034 and 0.019 versus budesonide, respectively). Analysis of morning PEF revealed an earlier onset of action for ciclesonide versus budesonide; a significant improvement was seen by day 2 (p=0.039 versus baseline) with ciclesonide compared with day 7 for budesonide (p=0.047 versus baseline). Adverse events occurred with a similar incidence in both treatment groups. Neither treatment caused significant changes in urinary cortisol levels.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily ciclesonide was more effective than once-daily budesonide in improving FEV(1), FVC and PEF. Ciclesonide also had an earlier onset of action than budesonide in patients with persistent asthma. Both ciclesonide and budesonide had good safety and tolerability profiles.