Inhaled mometasone furoate reduces oral prednisone usage and improves lung function in severe persistent asthma

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations, or 'attacks', during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans sometimes advocate a short-term increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at the first sign of an exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of ICS as part of a patient-initiated action plan for the home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and handsearched abstracts to 20 December 2021. We also searched major trial registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated people with persistent asthma to take a blinded inhaler in the event of an exacerbation which either increased their daily dose of ICS or kept it stable (placebo).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We reassessed risk of bias for all studies at the result level using the revised risk of bias tool for RCTs (Risk of Bias 2), and employed the GRADE approach to assess our confidence in the synthesised effect estimates. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue oral steroids in the randomised population. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure in the subset who initiated the study inhaler (treated population), unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, serious and non-serious adverse events, and duration of exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added a new study that increased the number of people in the primary analysis from 1520 to 1774, and incorporates the most up-to-date methods to assess the likely impact of bias within the meta-analyses. The updated review now includes nine RCTs (1923 participants; seven parallel and two cross-over) conducted in Europe, North America, and Australasia and published between 1998 and 2018. Five studies evaluated adult populations (n = 1247; ≥ 15 years), and four studies evaluated child or adolescent populations (n = 676; < 15 years). All study participants had mild to moderate asthma. Studies varied in the dose of maintenance ICS, age, fold increase of ICS in the event of an exacerbation, criteria for initiating the study inhaler, and allowed medications. Approximately 50% of randomised participants initiated the study inhaler (range 23% to 100%), and the included studies reported treatment failure in a variety of ways, meaning assumptions were required to permit the combining of data. Participants randomised to increase their ICS dose at the first signs of an exacerbation had similar odds of needing rescue oral corticosteroids to those randomised to a placebo inhaler (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25; 8 studies; 1774 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We could draw no firm conclusions from subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, baseline dose, smoking history, and fold increase of ICS on the primary outcome. Results for the same outcome in the subset of participants who initiated the study inhaler were unchanged from the previous version, which provides a different point estimate with very low confidence due to heterogeneity, imprecision, and risk of bias (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; 7 studies; 766 participants; I2 = 42%; random-effects model). Confidence was reduced due to risk of bias and assumptions that had to be made to include study data in the intention-to-treat and treated-population analyses. Sensitivity analyses that tested the impact of assumptions made for synthesis and to exclude cross-over studies, studies at overall high risk of bias, and those with commercial funding did not change our conclusions. Pooled effects for unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, and duration of exacerbation made it very difficult to determine where the true effect may lie, and confidence was reduced by risk of bias. Point estimates for both serious and non-serious adverse events favoured keeping ICS stable, but imprecision and risk of bias due to missing data and outcome measurement and reporting reduced our confidence in the effects (serious adverse events: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; 2 studies; 394 participants; I² = 0%; non-serious adverse events: OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; 2 studies; 142 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from double-blind trials of adults and children with mild to moderate asthma suggests there is unlikely to be an important reduction in the need for oral steroids from increasing a patient's ICS dose at the first sign of an exacerbation. Other clinically important benefits and potential harms of increased doses of ICS compared with keeping the dose stable cannot be ruled out due to wide confidence intervals, risk of bias in the trials, and assumptions that had to be made for synthesis. Included studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 reflect evolving clinical practice and study methods, and the data do not support thorough investigation of effect modifiers such as baseline dose, fold increase, asthma severity and timing. The review does not include recent evidence from pragmatic, unblinded studies showing benefits of larger dose increases in those with poorly controlled asthma. A systematic review is warranted to examine the differences between the blinded and unblinded trials using robust methods for assessing risk of bias to present the most complete view of the evidence for decision makers.

The safety of long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the safety of long-term use of ICS in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of asthma with ICS, compared with non-ICS treatment (placebo or other active drugs), were reviewed.

RESULTS

Eighty-six RCTs (enrolling 51,538 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Oral or oropharyngeal candidiasis (RR 2.58, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.33), and dysphonia/hoarseness (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.85) were less frequent in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, influenza, decline in bone mineral density, and fractures between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the mild local adverse events, the long-term use of ICS was safe in patients with asthma.

Improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids through delivery and dose: current progress and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are known to increase the risk of systemic and local adverse effects, especially with high doses and long-term use. Hence, considerable resources are invested to improve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties of ICS, effective delivery systems and novel combination therapies to enhance the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS.

AREAS COVERED

There is an unmet need for new solutions to achieve optimal clinical outcomes with minimal dose of ICS. This paper gives an overview of novel treatment strategies regarding the safety of ICS therapy on the basis of the three most recent molecules introduced to our everyday clinical practice - ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone furoate. Advances in aerosol devices and new areas of inhalation therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Current progress in improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS through dose and delivery probably established pathways for further developments. This applies both to the improvement of the PK/PD properties of ICS molecules but also includes technical aspects that lead to simplified applicability of the device with simultaneous optimal drug deposition in the lungs. Indubitably, the future of medicine lies not only in the development of new molecules but also in technology and digital revolution.

Oral steroid-sparing effect of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

BACKGROUND

The proportion of the efficacy of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma that is due to systemic effects is uncertain. This study aimed to estimate the ICS dose-response relationship for oral corticosteroid-sparing effects in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma, and to determine the proportion of oral corticosteroid-sparing effects due to their systemic effects, based on the comparative dose-response relationship of ICS versus oral corticosteroids on adrenal suppression.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials reporting oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of high-dose ICS in oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. In addition, reports of oral corticosteroid to ICS dose-equivalence in terms of adrenal suppression were retrieved. The primary outcome was the proportion of the oral corticosteroid-sparing effect of ICS that could be attributed to systemic absorption, per 1000 µg increase of ICS, expressed as a ratio. This ratio estimates the oral corticosteroid sparing effect of ICS due to systemic effects.

RESULTS

11 studies including 1283 participants reporting oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of ICS were identified. The prednisone dose decrease per 1000 µg increase in ICS varied from 2.1 mg to 4.9 mg, depending on the type of ICS. The ratio of the prednisone-sparing effect due to the systemic effects per 1000 µg of fluticasone propionate was 1.02 (95% CI 0.68-2.08) and for budesonide was 0.93 (95% CI 0.63-1.89).

CONCLUSION

In patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma, the limited available evidence suggests that the majority of the oral corticosteroid-sparing effect of high-dose ICS is likely to be due to systemic effects.

Systematic literature review of the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden associated with asthma uncontrolled by GINA Steps 4 or 5 treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to characterize the epidemiologic, clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of patients with asthma uncontrolled by GINA Steps 4 or 5 treatment (severe, uncontrolled asthma [SUA]).

METHODS

A systematic literature review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Relevant publications were searched for in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2004 to September 2016 and in a conference proceedings database from January 2012 to October 2016. Studies were screened using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design, and Time (PICOS-T) framework. Studies of SUA with observational (prospective and retrospective), randomized, or nonrandomized study designs; adult patient populations; sample sizes ≥20 patients; epidemiologic or clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), or economic outcomes were included. For our analysis, SUA was defined as inadequate control of asthma, despite the use of medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and at least one additional treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 195 articles reporting unique study populations were included. Prevalence of SUA was as great as 87.4% for patients with severe asthma, although values varied depending on the criteria used to define asthma control. Compared with patients with severe asthma who were controlled, patients with SUA experienced more symptoms, night-time awakenings, rescue medication use, and worse PROs. SUA-associated costs were 3-times greater than costs for patients with severe, controlled disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of approved asthma treatments, this literature analysis confirms that SUA poses a substantial epidemiologic, clinical, humanistic, and economic burden. Published data are limited for certain aspects of SUA, highlighting a need for further research.

Inhaled corticosteroids and risk of upper respiratory tract infection in patients with asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested a possible association between respiratory infection and the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We aimed to ascertain the risk of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) with long-term inhaled corticosteroid use among patients with asthma.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from inception to May 2018, we included randomized controlled trials of any ICS vs. a control treatment for asthma, with reporting of URTI as an adverse event. We conducted meta-analyses by the Peto approaches to generate summary estimates comparing ICS with non-ICS treatment on the risk of URTI.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (15,336 subjects) were included. Compared with non-ICS treatment, ICSs were associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (Peto OR, 1.24; 95% CI 1.08-1.42; I² = 5%, p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed for different dose, both high- and low-dose ICSs were associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (high dose: Peto OR, 1.46; 95% CI 1.05-2.03; I² = 0%; p = 0.03) (low dose: Peto OR, 1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.39; I² = 25%; p = 0.01). Moreover, fluticasone was observed with an increased risk of URTI (Peto OR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38; p = 0.03; heterogeneity: I² = 21%) but not budesonide, low-dose fluticasone treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of URTI but not high dose.

CONCLUSIONS

This study raises safety concerns about the risk of URTI associated with ICS use in patients with asthma, but it should be further investigated.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

People with asthma may experience exacerbations or "attacks" during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans may advocate doubling the dose of inhaled steroids in the early stages of an asthma exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of a patient-initiated action plan for home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to March 2016. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared increased versus stable doses of ICS for home management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies of children or adults with persistent asthma who were receiving daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update added three new studies including 419 participants to the review. In total, we identified eight RCTs, most of which were at low risk of bias, involving 1669 participants with mild to moderate asthma. We included three paediatric (n = 422) and five adult (n = 1247) studies; six were parallel-group trials and two had a cross-over design. All but one study followed participants for six months to one year. Allowed maintenance doses of ICS varied in adult and paediatric studies, as did use of concomitant medications and doses of ICS initiated during exacerbations. Investigators gave participants a study inhaler containing additional ICS or placebo to be started as part of an action plan for treatment of exacerbations.The odds of treatment failure, defined as the need for oral corticosteroids, were not significantly reduced among those randomised to increased ICS compared with those taking their usual stable maintenance dose (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.18; participants = 1520; studies = 7). When we analysed only people who actually took their study inhaler for an exacerbation, we found much variation between study results but the evidence did not show a significant benefit of increasing ICS dose (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; participants = 766; studies = 7). The odds of having an unscheduled physician visit (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.41; participants = 931; studies = 3) or acute visit (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.98; participants = 450; studies = 3) were not significantly reduced by an increased versus stable dose of ICS, and evidence was insufficient to permit assessment of impact on the duration of exacerbation; our ability to draw conclusions from these outcomes was limited by the number of studies reporting these events and by the number of events included in the analyses. The odds of serious events (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; participants = 394; studies = 2) and non-serious events, such as oral irritation, headaches and changes in appetite (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; participants = 142; studies = 2), were neither increased nor decreased significantly by increased versus stable doses of ICS during an exacerbation. Too few studies are available to allow firm conclusions on the basis of subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, doses used, smoking history and the fold increase of ICS on the magnitude of effect; yet, effect size appears similar in children and adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support increasing the dose of ICS as part of a self initiated action plan to treat exacerbations in adults and children with mild to moderate asthma. Increased ICS dose is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids for the exacerbation, or of having adverse events, compared with a stable ICS dose. Wide confidence intervals for several outcomes mean we cannot rule out possible benefits of this approach.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2 -agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in growth among children with asthma?

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the first choice of treatment for children with persistent asthma that is not well controlled when only a reliever inhaler is used to treat symptoms. Steroids work by reducing inflammation in the lungs and are known to control underlying symptoms of asthma. However, parents and physicians remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth.

REVIEW QUESTION

Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in the growth of children with asthma? WHAT EVIDENCE DID WE FIND?: We studied whether a difference could be seen in the growth of children with persistent asthma who were using different doses of the same ICS molecule and the same delivery device. We found 22 eligible trials, but only 10 of them measured growth or other measures of interest. Overall, 3394 children included in the review combined 17 group comparisons (i.e. 17 groups of children with mild to moderate asthma using a particular dose and type of steroid in 10 trials). Trials used different ICS molecules (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) either on their own or in combination with a long-acting beta2 -agonist (a drug used to open up the airways) and generally compared low doses of corticosteroids (50 to 100 μg) with low to medium (200 μg) doses of corticosteroids (converted in μg HFA-beclomethasone equivalent) over 12 to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

We found a small but statistically significant group difference in growth over 12 months between these different doses clearly favouring the lower dose of ICS. The type of corticosteroid among newer molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) did not seem to influence the impact on growth over one year. Differences in corticosteroid doses did not seem to affect the change in height, the gain in weight, the gain in bone mass index and the maturation of bones. QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE: This review is based on a small number of trials that reported data and were conducted on children with mild to moderate asthma. Only 10 of 22 studies measured the few outcomes of interest for this review, and only four comparisons reported growth over 12 months. Our confidence in the quality of evidence is high for this outcome, however it is low to moderate for several other outcomes, depending on the number of trials reporting these outcomes. Moreover, a few outcomes were reported only by a single trial; as these findings have not been confirmed by other trials, we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes to low quality. An insufficient number of trials have compared the effect of a larger difference in dose, for example, between a high dose and a low dose of ICS and of other popular molecules such as budesonide and beclomethasone over a year or longer of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We report an evidence-based ICS dose-dependent reduction in growth velocity in prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The choice of ICS molecule (mometasone, ciclesonide or fluticasone) was not found to affect the level of growth velocity response over a year. The effect of corticosteroids on growth was not consistently reported: among 22 eligible trials, only four comparisons reported the effects of corticosteroids on growth over one year. In view of parents' and clinicians' concerns, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth is a matter of concern given the importance of the topic. We recommend that growth be systematically reported in all trials involving children taking ICS for three months or longer. Until further data comparing low versus high ICS dose and trials of longer duration are available, we recommend that the minimal effective ICS dose be used in all children with asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: dose-response effects on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.

MAIN RESULTS

Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.

Evaluation of potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate after oral inhalation from a fixed-dose combination metered-dose inhaler device

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) in a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) is approved for asthma and is being developed for COPD. This randomized, open-label, 4-period crossover study compared single-dose pharmacokinetics of MF 800 µg; F 20 µg; MF 800 µg + F 20 µg coadministered (MF + F); and MF 800 µg/F 20 µg (MF/F) FDC in healthy subjects. MF, F, and MF + F were administered from single-ingredient MDI devices. MF and formoterol plasma samples were obtained predose and up to 48 hours post dose for estimation of AUC0-tf (primary endpoint) and Cmax . Treatments were deemed comparable if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) fell within 70-143%. MF AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus MF (GMR 98%; 90% CI 85-113%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 95%; 90% CI 82-109%). Similarly, formoterol AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus F (GMR 98%; 90% CI 77-124%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 108%; 90% CI 85-136%). The 90% CIs for MF and formoterol Cmax fell within the prespecified comparability bounds for all comparisons. Systemic exposures to MF and formoterol were similar following treatment with the FDC MDI device versus individual or concomitant use of single-ingredient MDI devices.

Comparison of the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate after oral inhalation from a mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler versus a mometasone furoate dry-powder inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Coadministration of mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) produces additive effects for improving symptoms and lung function and reduces exacerbations in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study assessed the relative systemic exposure to MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics of MF and formoterol in patients with COPD.

Methods

This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-period, three-treatment crossover study. The following three treatments were self-administered by patients (n = 14) with moderate-to-severe COPD: MF 400 μg/F 10 μg via a metered-dose inhaler (MF/F MDI; DULERA^®/ZENHALE^®) without a spacer device, MF/F MDI with a spacer, or MF 400 μg via a dry-powder inhaler (DPI; ASMANEX^® TWISTHALER^®) twice daily for 5 days. Plasma samples for MF and formoterol assay were obtained predose and at prespecified time points after the last (morning) dose on day 5 of each period of the crossover. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percent and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for treatment comparisons.

Results

Systemic MF exposure was lower (GMR 77%; 90% CI 58, 102) following administration by MF/F MDI compared to MF DPI. Additionally, least squares geometric mean systemic exposures of MF and formoterol were lower (GMR 72%; 90% CI 61, 84) and (GMR 62%; 90% CI 52, 74), respectively, following administration by MF/F MDI in conjunction with a spacer compared to MF/F MDI without a spacer. MF/F MDI had a similar adverse experience profile as that seen with MF DPI. All adverse experiences were either mild or moderate in severity; no serious adverse experience was reported.

Conclusion

Systemic MF exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI compared with MF DPI. Additionally, systemic MF and formoterol exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI with a spacer versus without a spacer. The magnitude of these differences with respect to systemic exposure was not clinically relevant.

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV(1) (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 

Mometasone furoate in the management of asthma: a review

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have proven to be the most effective and essential therapy for the treatment of bronchial asthma. The 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines recommend ICS as preferred therapy for patients with mild to severe persistent asthma. Mometasone furoate (MF) is a relatively new ICS agent with high affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor. It is approved in the US for maintenance treatment of asthma for patients 4 years of age and older. It has been shown to be well tolerated with no significant adverse side effects observed in clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance. The efficacy of mometasone furoate has been established in large, well-designed studies. In patients with persistent asthma previously treated either with short-acting beta-agonists alone or twice-daily maintenance therapy with ICS, once-daily MF has been shown to be superior to placebo in improving lung function, symptom control, and quality of life; and has shown comparable efficacy compared with budesonide, beclomethasone, and fluticasone. Twice-daily dosing with MF has been demonstrated to successfully allow for reduction or elimination of oral corticosteroids in severe asthmatics.

Mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes significant morbidity and mortality. Inhaled corticosteroids are the preferred initial treatment for this disorder. Mometasone furoate dry powder is an inhaled corticosteroid that is approved for once-daily treatment of asthma in both adults and children as young as 4 years.

AREAS COVERED

The goal of this paper is to review the clinical efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler for the treatment of asthma. A literature search using PubMed was done using the terms 'mometasone furoate', 'inhaled corticosteroid' and 'asthma', focusing on articles that highlighted clinical trials and addressed efficacy of the medication.

EXPERT OPINION

Mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler has an excellent safety and efficacy profile. For patients with persistent asthma who require treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid, mometasone furoate is an excellent therapeutic choice.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mcg (range 200 mcg to 795 mcg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mcg (range 1000 mcg to 2075 mcg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mcg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mcg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol combination for treatment of patients with persistent asthma

Objective: The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonist is recommended for treatment of patients with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on ICS monotherapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) administered through metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with persistent asthma previously on medium- to high-dose ICS. Methods: This was a 52-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, evaluator-blinded study. At baseline, 404 patients (aged >12 years) were stratified according to their previous ICS dose (medium or high), then randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily treatment of MF/F (200/10 or 400/10 μg) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S; 250/50 or 500/50 μg). The primary endpoint was the number and percentage of patients reporting any adverse event (AE). Additional safety evaluations included plasma cortisol 24-hour area under the curve (AUC_0–24h) and ocular changes. Pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and use of rescue medication were monitored. Results: The incidence of >1 treatment-emergent AE was similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 77.3% [n = 109]; FP/S 250/50 μg, 82.4% [n = 56]; MF/F 400/10 μg, 79.2% [n = 103]; FP/S 500/50 μg, 76.9% [n = 50]). Rates of treatment-related AEs were also similar across treatment groups (MF/F 200/10 μg, 28.4%; FP/S 250/50 μg, 23.5%; MF/F 400/10 μg, 23.1%; FP/S 500/50 μg, 20.0%). Headache (3.7%) and dysphonia (2.7%) were the most common treatment-related AEs overall. The nature and frequency of AEs and the decreases in plasma cortisol AUC_{0–24 h} observed with MF/F treatment were similar to those observed with FP/S treatment. Ocular events were rare (2–6% overall incidence among treatment groups); in particular, no posterior subcapsular cataracts were reported. Only three patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related ocular AEs (two for lens disorders in the MF/F 400/10 μg group; one for reduced visual acuity in the FP/S 250/50 μg group) and no asthma-related deaths occurred. Furthermore, MF/F showed numerical improvement in lung function and clinical benefits by reducing asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Conclusions: One-year treatment with the new combination therapies -twice-daily MF/F-MDI 200/10 and 400/10 μg — is safe and well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Written action plans providing guidance in the early treatment of asthma exacerbations have traditionally advocated doubling of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as one of the first steps in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of increasing the dose of ICS versus keeping the usual maintenance dose as part of a patient-initiated action plan at the onset of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (last search October 2009) which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the strategy of increasing the daily dose of ICS to continuing the same ICS dose in the home management of asthma exacerbations in children or adults with persistent asthma on daily maintenance ICS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (four parallel-group and one cross-over) involving a total of 1250 patients (28 children and 1222 adults) with mild to moderate asthma were included. The mean daily baseline ICS dose was 555 mg (range 200 mg to 795 mg) and the mean daily ICS dose achieved following increase was 1520 mg (range 1000 mg to 2075 mg), in CFC beclomethasone dipropionate equivalents. Three parallel-group studies in adults (two doubling and one quadrupling; mean achieved daily dose of 1695 mg with a range of 1420 to 2075 mg), involving 1080 patients contributed data to the primary outcome. There was no significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids when patients were randomised to the increased ICS compared to stable maintenance dose groups (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). There was no significant difference in the overall risk of non-serious adverse events associated with the increased ICS dose strategy, but the wide confidence interval prevents a firm conclusion. No serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence from trials in children. In adults with asthma on daily maintenance ICS, a self-initiated ICS increase to 1000 to 2000 mcg/day at the onset of an exacerbation is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of increased ICS doses at the onset of asthma exacerbations (particularly in children).

Frequency of dosing and comparative doses of mometasone furoate: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of once daily dosing of mometasone furoate (MF) and to establish the dose-response relationship for MF in asthma.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials, identified through a Medline and EMBASE search, comparing once versus twice daily dosing with the same dose and/or comparing two different doses that presented data on measurements of clinical efficacy. Main outcome measures were FEV(1) change from baseline, PEF, withdrawals for any reason and treatment failure as defined by the authors.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 2533 subjects were identified, although not all had usable data for the different doses/schedules. There was no evidence of superiority of twice versus once daily dosing of MF with a pooled difference of 0.02 L (95% CI: -0.06-0.10) for FEV(1) change from baseline. 400 microg was superior to 200 microg with a pooled difference of 0.09 L (95% CI: 0.04-0.13) for FEV(1). Data on doses >400 microg/day were limited but did not support that 800 microg was superior to 400 microg.

CONCLUSIONS

For the outcome variables considered, once daily dosing of MF is as effective as twice daily dosing, which may be useful in improving compliance in the treatment of asthma. There was insufficient data to compute a dose-response curve for MF.

Mometasone furoate: an effective anti-inflammatory with a well-defined safety and tolerability profile in the treatment of asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as a controller medication in the most recent Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute guidelines. Mometasone furoate (MF) is an effective, well-tolerated inhaled steroid and is indicated for the maintenance treatment of adult and adolescent patients (> or = 12 years) with persistent asthma. MF is approved for once or bid maintenance treatment of asthma (in patients previously receiving ICS or bronchodilators). Low systemic bioavailability and high relative binding affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor are properties of MF that allow for a favourable efficacy and tolerability profile. Inhaled MF has been shown to be an effective and well-tolerated controller medication for those patients with mild, moderate or severe persistent asthma. MF has recently been approved by the US regulatory authorities for use in children (4-11 years). Future developments include the combination of MF with the long-acting bronchodilators, formoterol and indacaterol, to provide additional options in the treatment of asthma.

Inhaled mometasone furoate improves health-related quality of life in patients with persistent asthma

Results from two clinical trials of mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) were reviewed to evaluate the consistency of effects of MF-DPI administered once-daily in the evening (QD PM) or twice-daily (BID) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adults with persistent asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids. HRQOL data were collected from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials: in study 1 (n = 268), patients received MF-DPI 400 microg QD PM (1 inhalation), MF-DPI 200 microg BID, or placebo; in study 2 (n = 400), patients received MF-DPI 200 microg QD PM, MF-DPI 400 microg QD PM (1 inhalation), MF-DPI 200 microg BID, MF-DPI 400 microg QD PM (2 inhalations of 200 microg), or placebo. In both studies, HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-item Short Form (SF-36) and an asthma-specific module. MF-DPI was associated with consistent, statistically significant improvements in asthma-specific total scores, breathlessness, asthma concerns, and physical symptoms compared with placebo in both trials (p < 0.05 vs. placebo). MF-DPI improved SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores at all doses except 200 microg QD PM. In conclusion, the results from two placebo-controlled trials suggest that MF-DPI 400 microg/d, administered once or twice-daily, produces consistent, statistically, and clinically significant improvement in HRQOL measures in patients with persistent asthma.

Relative oral corticosteroid-sparing effect of 7 inhaled corticosteroids in chronic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of various inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for oral corticosteroid (OCS)-sparing effect in asthma is not known. To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial directly comparing 2 ICSs has been reported, but several randomized controlled trials have reported comparison of various ICSs with placebo.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an adjusted indirect comparison of 7 ICSs for their OCS-sparing effect.

METHODS

PubMed and bibliographies of relevant articles. Eighteen placebo-controlled randomized trials of 7 ICSs were analyzed using a random-effect model. Pooled benefit ratios (BRs) (ICS/placebo) for elimination of OCS and weighted mean differences (ICS - placebo) for OCS dose change by each ICS vs placebo were determined. Pairwise adjusted indirect comparisons of various ICSs were then made.

RESULTS

For OCS elimination, all ICSs were more effective than placebo (BR: mometasone, 17.2; budesonide, 8.2; beclomethasone and fluticasone, 5.4; triamcinolone, 4.6; ciclesonide, 2.8; and flunisolide, 2.2). On pairwise adjusted indirect comparison, the BR of mometasone was significantly higher than that of triamcinolone (P = .02), ciclesonide (P = .01), and flunisolide (P = .01) and that of budesonide was significantly higher than that of ciclesonide (P = .02) and flunisolide (P = .03). For OCS dose change, beclomethasone achieved a significantly lower final mean OCS dose than fluticasone or flunisolide (P < .001). In all other comparisons, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

All ICSs studied were significantly more effective than placebo for OCS sparing, but mometasone seemed to be more effective than others. However, because of very few trials for some ICSs, more placebo-controlled trials for adjusted indirect comparison or randomized trials for direct comparison of these ICSs are needed for definitive conclusions.

The impact of GINA suggested drugs for the treatment of asthma on Health-Related Quality of Life: a GA(2)LEN review

Asthma represents a serious global health problem. People of all ages in countries throughout the world are affected by this chronic airway disorder that, when uncontrolled, can place severe limits on daily life and can even be fatal. Asthma cannot be removed, but asthmatic symptoms can be cured; as for many other chronic diseases, pharmacotherapy is important to reduce the risk of asthma-related mortality, decrease disability and improve symptoms and quality of life. The action of antiasthmatic drugs directly contributes to decrease symptoms severity, improve spirometric results, reduce airway hyperresponsiveness and prevent irreversible airway remodelling. Antiasthmatic therapy is necessary for long-term control of asthma symptoms. Asthma and antiasthmatic drugs can influence patient's quality of life: this is why healthcare systems have recently focused on research studies about Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in asthmatic patients. Numerous validated questionnaires are available and many studies have been performed evaluating HRQL in people affected by asthma, thus testifying a great interest in this topic. The aims of the present review are to examine the scientific literature of the last 4 years (January 2004-December 2007) dealing with the impact of asthma treatments suggested by Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines on patients' quality of life, and to identify the unexplored or not fully investigated areas concerning this issue.

Mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler: a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate (MF), a potent synthetic inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a high affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor, is approved for use in the treatment of asthma.

SCOPE

Publications reviewed in this article were identified via searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using the terms 'mometasone furoate AND pharmacology' and 'mometasone furoate AND asthma AND clinical trial'. Data from abstracts presented at respiratory society meetings, and relevant background information, are also reviewed.

FINDINGS

In clinical studies, MF, administered by dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI), was effective in treating all severities of persistent asthma, improving pulmonary function, reducing asthma symptoms, and reducing or eliminating the need for oral corticosteroids. Once-daily dosing of MF-DPI was effective in patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma previously taking twice-daily regimens of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and in patients taking only inhaled beta2-agonists for symptom relief. Once-daily dosing in the evening with MF-DPI 200 microg conferred a greater benefit than morning dosing with MF-DPI 200 microg. Patients with severe asthma who were dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs) and high doses of ICSs were able to achieve greater asthma control and reduce or even eliminate OCSs when switched to MF-DPI. In trials of up to 1 year in duration, MF-DPI was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events considered mild or moderate in intensity. MF had low systemic bioavailability and no clinically significant hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis suppression at therapeutic doses. The DPI device is a multiple-dose inhaler with a counter containing agglomerates of MF and lactose. Patients of all severities of persistent asthma were able to generate and maintain airflow profiles necessary to provide a uniform and accurate dose.

LIMITATIONS

Only one study evaluated both morning and evening administration of once-daily doses, and one of the comparative clinical trials was an open-label study.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily administration of MF-DPI 200-400 microg in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma effectively improved lung function and asthma control. In patients with severe persistent asthma dependent on oral corticosteroids, treatment with MF-DPI 400 microg BID permitted substantial reduction of oral corticosteroid use. All MF-DPI treatments were well tolerated and had minimal systemic effects.