Clinical efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 1 mg twice daily administered via a HFA 134a pressurized metered dose inhaler to patients with severe asthma

Systemic exposure and urinary cortisol effects of fluticasone propionate formulated with hydrofluoroalkane in 4- to 11-year-olds with asthma

The systemic exposure of fluticasone propionate with hydrofluoroalkane propellant compared with chlorofluoro-carbon propellant and the effect of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane on 24-hour urinary cortisol in children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma were evaluated. Study 1 was an open-label, 2-way crossover study in which 16 subjects were randomized to 7.5 days each of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane 88 mug twice a day or fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon 88 mug twice a day. In study 2, 63 subjects received 13.5 days of placebo followed by 27.5 days of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane 88 mug twice a day. The main outcome measure for study 1 was the difference between fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane and fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon in fluticasone propionate AUC(last) (area under the plasma fluticasone propionate concentration-time curve from zero up to the last quantifiable plasma concentration), and for study 2, 24-hour overnight urinary cortisol excretion. In study 1, fluticasone propionate systemic exposure was significantly lower (55%) with hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler compared with chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhaler. Study 2 showed no statistically significant changes in 24-hour overnight urinary cortisol excretion and no relationship to fluticasone propionate systemic exposure at this dose. The results of these 2 studies showed that in children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma, fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane has lower systemic exposure compared with chlorofluorocarbon and no hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis effects as measured by 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion.

A modified prescription-event monitoring study to assess the introduction of Flixotide Evohaler into general practice in England: an example of pharmacovigilance planning and risk monitoring

INTRODUCTION

A modified prescription-event monitoring (PEM) study was conducted to examine the safety of the introduction of the metered dose inhaler (MDI) Flixotide Evohaler (fluticasone with the propellant HFA 134a).

METHODS

Patients were identified from the first NHS prescriptions dispensed in England for Flixotide Evohaler. Postal questionnaires were sent to the prescribing doctor, requesting information including: demographic characteristics, severity of indication, concomitant medication, event data 3 months prior to and 3 months after the first prescription, and any reasons for stopping Flixotide. Pregnancies, deaths and selected events were followed up. Incidence density ratios (IDRs) were calculated to compare event rates 3 months before and 3 months after the introduction of Flixotide Evohaler.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 13 413 patients that were prescribed Flixotide Evohaler. The response rate was 64.0%. When the pre- and post-exposure periods were compared fewer patients had events in the post-exposure period, and there was no significant difference in the length of courses of oral steroid use. Eighteen patients experienced an event within 1 hour of using Flixotide Evohaler; these were minor with the exception of one case of angioneurotic facial oedema. Six of these events were assessed as possibly related to Flixotide Evohaler. During the study period there were an additional 13 patients with events assessed as possibly related to Flixotide Evohaler, including two reports of allergic reactions.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest that the transition to Flixotide Evohaler was generally well tolerated. The modified methodology has contributed to the risk management of the introduction of this product.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane inhalation aerosol in pre-school-age children with asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate (FP) hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) in children age 1 to < 4 years with asthma.

STUDY DESIGN

Children were assigned (2:1) to receive FP HFA 88 mug (n = 239) or placebo HFA (n = 120) twice daily through a metered-dose inhaler with a valved holding chamber and attached facemask for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was mean percent change from baseline to endpoint in 24-hour daily (composite of daytime and nighttime) asthma symptom scores.

RESULTS

The FP-treated children had significantly greater (P < or = .05) reductions in 24-hour daily asthma symptom scores (-53.9% vs -44.1%) and nighttime symptom scores over the entire treatment period compared with the placebo group. Daytime asthma symptom scores and albuterol use were slightly more decreased with FP than with placebo; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Increases in the percentage of symptom-free days were comparable. The percentage of patients who experienced at least 1 adverse event was similar in the 2 groups. Baseline median urinary cortisol excretion values were comparable between the groups, and there was little change from baseline at endpoint. FP plasma concentrations demonstrated that systemic exposure was low.

CONCLUSIONS

FP HFA 88 mug twice daily was effective and well tolerated in pre-school-age children with asthma.

Fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane inhalation aerosol in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) delivered by metered-dose inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbon propellants are being discontinued because of the harmful effects of chlorofluorocarbon on the ozone layer. Therefore, some metered-dose inhaler products are being reformulated with "ozone-friendly" hydrofluoroalkane propellants.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment with fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane inhalation aerosol, 88, 220, and 440 microg twice daily, vs placebo in patients with asthma receiving an ICS.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week study.

RESULTS

Mean morning predose percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased by 2.2%, 3.2%, and 4.6% in the fluticasone propionate, 88-, 220-, and 440-microg twice-daily, groups, respectively, compared with an 8.3% decrease for placebo (P < .001 vs placebo for all groups). Secondary pulmonary function end points and asthma symptoms showed similar improvements compared with placebo. Discontinuation from the study due to lack of efficacy was 50% in the placebo group and 11%, 10%, and 6% in the fluticasone propionate, 88-, 220-, and 440-microg twice-daily, groups, respectively. At week 12, the probability of remaining in the study was 0.89, 0.90, and 0.94 for the fluticasone propionate, 88-, 220-, and 440-microg twice-daily, groups, respectively, vs 0.45 for the placebo group (P < .001 for all). Changes in 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion rates were similar among treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane, previously shown to be a clinically suitable alternative to fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon, was effective and well tolerated. The ability to switch from fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon and other chlorofluorocarbon-containing ICSs to fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane without sacrificing asthma control or tolerability will facilitate a smooth transition to this nonchlorofluorocarbon-containing medicinal.

Effects of inhaled ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate on cortisol secretion and airway responsiveness to adenosine 5'monophosphate in asthmatic patients

The efficacy and systemic effects of ciclesonide, a novel glucocorticosteroid, inhaled via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) were compared with fluticasone propionate pMDI in 26 patients with asthma, using a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, double dummy, 6-period crossover study design. Treatments were placebo, ciclesonide 320 microg (ex-actuator dose) once daily (o.d.), ciclesonide 640 microg o.d., ciclesonide 640 microg twice daily (b.i.d.), fluticasone propionate 440 microg (ex-actuator dose) b.i.d., and fluticasone propionate 880 microg b.i.d. The primary variable was area under the plasma cortisol concentration-time curve over 24 h (plasma cortisol AUC(0-24), relative to placebo) derived from samples taken every 2 h, on the 9th day of treatment. Secondary variables were 24-h urinary cortisol excretion and PC20 for adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) (relative to placebo and expressed in doubling concentrations). Ciclesonide did not affect 24-h cortisol secretion. Fluticasone propionate suppressed cortisol secretion as demonstrated by a decrease in plasma cortisol AUC(0-24), relative to placebo, by 29% (95% CI 15-41) and 59% (95% CI 51-66) with 440 and 880 microg b.i.d., respectively. PC20 more than doubled with each active treatment, but no statistically significant dose-response effect could be established. It was concluded that moderate to high doses of fluticasone propionate suppressed cortisol secretion, that ciclesonide did not suppress cortisol secretion, and that all active treatments decreased hyperresponsiveness to AMP.

Airway and systemic effects of hydrofluoroalkane formulations of high-dose ciclesonide and fluticasone in moderate persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

There are no data comparing the relative effects of high-dose ciclesonide (CIC) and fluticasone propionate (FP) on airway and systemic outcomes in patients with moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

We elected to evaluate the relative effects of CIC and FP on the plasma cortisol response to stimulation with human corticotropin-releasing factor (hCRF) and bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine as the primary outcome variables, in addition to secondary outcomes of overnight 10-h urinary cortisol (OUC) levels, exhaled nitric oxide levels, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with moderate persistent asthma (mean FEV(1), 67% predicted [prior to each randomized treatment]) completed the study, which had a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design, per protocol. Patients stopped receiving their usual inhaled corticosteroids for the duration of the study and instead began receiving salmeterol, 50 mug twice daily, and montelukast, 10 mg once daily, for the 2-week washout periods prior to each randomized treatment, in order to prevent dropouts after withdrawal from inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients received 4 weeks of either CIC, 200 microg ex-valve (160 microg ex-actuator) four puffs twice daily, plus FP-placebo, four puffs twice daily, or FP, 250 microg ex-valve (220 microg ex-actuator) four puffs twice daily, plus CIC-placebo, four puffs twice daily. Salmeterol and montelukast were withheld for 72 h prior to each postwashout baseline visit, and CIC or FP was withheld for 12 h prior to each posttreatment visit.

RESULTS

FP, but not CIC, when compared to respective baseline values, significantly suppressed (p < 0.05) plasma cortisol levels as follows: FP prior to receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1 to 1.3; CIC prior to receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.0; FP 30 min after receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; CIC 30 min after receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.2; OUC after FP administration: geometric mean fold difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.6; OUC after CIC administration: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.5. There was also a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean value for OUC levels after FP administration than after CIC administration (geometric mean fold difference, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0). Therapy with CIC and FP, compared to respective baselines, significantly increased (p < 0.05) the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV(1), as follows: CIC: doubling dilution difference, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.6; FP: doubling dilution difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1 to 2.0. It also significantly reduced (p < 0.05) exhaled nitric oxide levels, as follows: CIC: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; FP: geometric mean fold difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8. There was no effect on other secondary efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

FP, 2,000 microg daily, but not CIC, 1,600 microg daily, significantly suppressed hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis outcomes, with OUC levels being lower after FP administration than after CIC administration. Both drugs significantly improved airway outcomes in terms of methacholine bronchial hyperresponsiveness and exhaled nitric oxide levels. The present results would therefore suggest that CIC might confer a better therapeutic ratio than FP when used at higher doses.

Equivalent asthma control and systemic safety of inhaled budesonide delivered via HFA-134a or CFC propellant in a broad range of doses

The aim of the present study was to demonstrate an equivalent asthma control and safety of inhaled budesonide 200 microg unit-dose via a spacer device (Jet Spacer, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.) given with an HFA-134a or CFC propellant in stable patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids. A total number of 270 patients, 134 in the HFA-134a group and 136 in the CFC group, completed a 2-week run-in period and were then randomised to receive a daily dose of inhaled budesonide (low dose: 400 microg, medium dose: 800 microg, high dose: 1200 or 1600 microg), defined on the basis of the dose of previous inhaled steroids given twice daily for 12 weeks. Morning and evening PEFR, intake of rescue salbutamol, number of day-time and night-time asthma attacks, number of night-time awakenings due to asthma and clinical symptoms were recorded daily by patients on diary cards. Pulmonary function tests (FEV1, FVC, PEFR and MEF50) and vital signs were measured at the clinics at study entry, at the start of treatment and after 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks thereafter. Morning serum cortisol (8.00-10.00 AM) was measured at baseline and in the final visit. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded throughout the total study period. Small increases vs. baseline for lung function (more markedly in the high-dose subsets) and significant decreases of symptoms and use of rescue salbutamol were similarly observed in both groups. Equivalence was demonstrated for the primary endpoint morning PEFR (difference between means = -1.51 l/min; 95% CI: -9.40-6.37 l/min; pre-defined limits: +/- 42.16 l/min, i.e. +/- 10% of the reference LSM) as well as for evening PEFR and FEV1, both in the ITT population or on a per-protocol basis. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed in any of the other efficacy variables. A similar proportion of drug-related adverse events was observed in the two groups, without drug-related serious events in either group. No evidence of adrenal depletion was also noted with both propellants. In conclusion, the budesonide HFA-134a formulation given with a spacer device provided an equivalent asthma control with that of a corresponding CFC product, when administered in stable patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids in a broad range of daily doses. The use of the new propellant did not modify the safety profile of inhaled budesonide.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled budesonide delivered once or twice daily via HFA-134a in mild to moderate persistent asthma in adult patients. Comparison with budesonide CFC

This study was undertaken to investigate whether budesonide 4001 microg twice daily (Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.) given with the HFA-134a propellant is equivalent in efficacy and safety to the same dose regimen delivered with the marketed CFC product in adult asthmatics with mild to moderate persistent asthma; the effects of budesonide HFA 800 microg once daily were also studied. After a 2-week run-in, a total number of 98, 103 and 97 patients were assigned to the 12-week treatment with budesonide given with HFA or CFC twice daily (morning and evening), or HFA once daily (morning), respectively. The main outcome variable morning PEFR, as well as evening PEFR and clinical symptoms (day-time and night-time asthma attacks, number of asthma-induced night-time awakenings and overall symptoms' scores) were measured daily by patients. Other standard pulmonary function testing were measured at clinic visits. A blood sample for morning serum dosing (8.00-10.00 AM) was taken at baseline and at endpoint. Adverse events and vital signs were also recorded. Significant improvements at endpoint in morning and evening PEFR, as well as in clinic PEFR and MEF50, were observed in both the twice daily groups only. An exact proof of equivalence between HFA and CFC given twice daily was demonstrated for the primary parameters, morning PEFR (equivalence pre-defined limits were +/- 40.27 l/min, difference between means = 4.0 l/min and 95% CI -6.9-14.9) and secondary parameters as evening PEFR: (limits +/- 40.19 l/min, difference between means = 2.1 l/min and 95% Confidence interval (CI) -9.4-13.5) and FEV1 (limits +/- 0.27 l, difference between means = 0.0 l and 95% CI -0.11-0.10). Less evident (but within limits) proofs of equivalence were shown in the comparisons with the once daily group. No substantial differences between the three groups were observed for the other efficacy variables, including symptoms and use of rescue salbutamol, which significantly improved over the run-in values in all groups. Minimal and non-significant decreases over pre-treatment values were observed in the three groups for morning serum cortisol levels: the analysis of individual data has shown a better outcome in the HFA twice daily regimen, compared with the other two groups. Again, a similar amount of patients in both the twice daily groups reported drug-related adverse events, which were more frequent in the once daily HFA group. Therefore, the results of this study have shown that inhaled budesonide given with new HFA-134a propellant can replace microgram-equivalent doses of the corresponding marketed CFC product when given twice daily. An overall maintainment and an unchanged risk-benefit ratio has emerged for budesonide HFA given once daily, which was however slightly inferior compared with the standard twice daily regimens.

The influence of inhaler selection on efficacy of asthma therapies

Many different devices are available to aid inhalational drug delivery. Although each device is claimed to have advantages over its rivals, the evidence to support greater efficacy of a particular device is scanty. Most comparative studies are underpowered or flawed in their design. They may use inappropriate end-points, or involve healthy subjects, whose response may be very different from the patient with acute severe asthma. The dosage of drug used in a trial may be at the shallow part of the dose-response curve, masking differences in devices. Only in a few cases have clinical trials detected a significant difference between devices, and trials have rarely taken patient preference into account. The most efficacious device in practice is likely to be the one that the patient will use regularly and in accordance with a health care workers' recommendations.