The effect of high-dose fluticasone propionate and budesonide on lung function and asthma exacerbations in patients with severe asthma

Development and validation of a claims-based algorithm to identify moderate exacerbations in patients with asthma treated in the US

INTRODUCTION

Definitions of moderate asthma exacerbation have been inconsistent, making their economic burden difficult to assess. An algorithm to accurately identify moderate exacerbations from claims data is needed.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of Reliant Medical Group patients aged ≥18 years, with ≥1 prescription claim for inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist, and ≥1 medical claim with a diagnosis code for asthma was conducted. The objective was to refine current algorithms to identify moderate exacerbations in claims data and assess the refined algorithm's performance. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were assessed via chart review of 150 moderate exacerbations events and 50 patients without exacerbations. Sensitivity analyses assessed alternative algorithms and compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) between algorithm-identified patients (claims group) and those confirmed by chart review (confirmed group) to have experienced a moderate exacerbation.

RESULTS

Algorithm-identified moderate exacerbations were: visit of ≤1 day with an asthma exacerbation diagnosis OR visit of ≤1 day with selected asthma diagnoses AND ≥1 respiratory pharmacy claim, excluding systemic corticosteroids, within 14 days after the first claim. The algorithm's PPV was 42%; the NPV was 78%. HRU was similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

This algorithm identified potential moderate exacerbations from claims data; however, the modest PPV underscores its limitations in identifying moderate exacerbations, although performance was partially due to identification of previously unidentified severe exacerbations. Application of this algorithm in future claims-based studies may help quantify the economic burden of moderate and severe exacerbations in asthma when an algorithm identifying severe exacerbations is applied first.

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.

Increased versus stable dose of inhaled corticosteroids for asthma exacerbations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is commonly used at early signs of loss of asthma control. However, the potential benefits and harms of this strategy remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare increased dose with stable dose of ICS among adults and children with asthma.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 02, 2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing increased doses vs stable doses of ICS for home management of asthma exacerbations in adults or children were included.

RESULTS

The analyses included 8 trials totalling 3866 patients. Four trials were judged as low risk of bias, three were unclear risk, and one was ranked as high risk. Increased dose of ICS was associated with a significantly reduced risk of treatment failure compared with stable dose (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.97, I²  = 6%; 314 (281 to 351) vs 358 events per 1000 patients; moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in unscheduled physician visits or hospital admission between increased or stable dose of ICS. However, increased dose of ICS increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.93-6.35, I²  = 0%) but not serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence of moderate quality supports increasing the dose of ICS as part of a self-initiated action plan to reduce risk of requiring a course of systemic corticosteroids in people with an asthma exacerbation. However, we did not find evidence for an impact on hospital admissions or unscheduled physician visits, and increased ICS dose increased risk of non-serious adverse events.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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.

A phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study of an anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody in healthy subjects and mild asthmatics

AIMS

IL-13 is implicated as an important mediator of the pathology of asthma. This first clinical study with GSK679586, a novel humanized anti-IL-13 IgG1 monoclonal antibody, evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of escalating single and repeat doses of GSK679586.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind study, healthy subjects received single intravenous infusions of GSK679586 (0.005, 0.05, 0.5, 2.5, 10 mg kg(-1)) or placebo and mild intermittent asthmatics received two once monthly intravenous infusions of GSK679586 (2.5, 10, 20 mg kg(-1)) or placebo.

RESULTS

GSK679586 displayed approximately linear pharmacokinetics (based on AUC and C(max)) with limited accumulation upon repeat administration. In mild intermittent asthmatics, treatment with GSK679586 produced an increase in serum total IL-13 concentrations, indicative of GSK679586-IL-13 complex formation. Additionally, mean levels of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), a marker of pulmonary inflammation, were reduced relative to baseline at 2.5, 10 and 20 mg kg(-1) doses of GSK679586 at both 2 weeks (19%, 44% and 52% decreases) and 8 weeks (29%, 55% and 42% decreases) after the second infusion. GSK679586 was well tolerated; the incidence of AEs was comparable across all presumed biologically active doses and there were no treatment-related SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

GSK679586 demonstrated dose-dependent pharmacological activity in the lungs of mild intermittent asthmatics. These findings, together with the favourable safety profile and advantageous PK characteristics of a monoclonal antibody (e.g. a long half-life supporting less frequent dosing), warrant further investigation of GSK679586 in a broader asthma patient population.

Moderate symptom-based exacerbations as predictors of severe claims-based exacerbations in asthma

OBJECTIVES

Asthma exacerbations have well-established clinical and economic impact, yet lack consensus on characterization of an episode's severity. Asthma treatment guidelines outline the concept of a moderate asthma exacerbation; however, a clear definition that can be operationalized has not been proposed,

METHODS

Adult asthma (ICD-9: 493.XX) patients, with at least 9 months of continuous enrolment in the Fallon Community Health Plan were included in the retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) or other lower respiratory tract conditions were excluded. The first reported asthma-related event following a 2-week symptom-free period was designated as the index event. Asthma-related events were categorized as (1) moderate exacerbations (symptom-based) or (2) severe exacerbations (claims-based). Timing between and temporal sequence of asthma-related events along with average costs were calculated,

RESULTS

Of 3126 eligible patients, 55% reported an asthma-related event followed by a recurrent event(s). Moderate exacerbations followed by recurrent moderate exacerbations were most frequent (20%) with the shortest interval between exacerbations (mean: 83 days [SD 87]). Moderate exacerbations followed by severe exacerbations occurred in 16% of patients with an average of 176.74 (SD 176.94) days between events,

CONCLUSIONS

Patient report of asthma bothersome enough to initiate contact with a clinician, but not requiring oral corticosteroid (OCS), is a definition for a moderate exacerbation that can be operationalized for research purposes. Further work is needed to demonstrate whether identification of moderate exacerbations will allow interventions that impact the frequency and timing of future exacerbations.

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).

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

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).

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Fluticasone versus beclomethasone or budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2007) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-one studies (14,602 participants) representing 74 randomised comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was fair. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater end of treatment FEV1 (0.04 litres (95% CI 0 to 0.07 litres), end of treatment and change in morning PEF, but not change in FEV1 or evening PEF. This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. FP led to fewer symptoms and less rescue medication use. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in morning PEF, evening PEF, and FEV1 over BDP or BUD. The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There were no significant differences incidence of hoarseness, pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing sore throat and when given at the same daily dose leads to increased hoarseness. There are concerns about adrenal suppression with Fluticasone given to children at doses greater than 400 mcg/day, but the randomised trials included in this review did not provide sufficient data to address this issue.

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.

Inhaled fluticasone versus inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2004) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty six studies (12, 119 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater FEV1 (0.14 litres, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.22), morning PEF (11.10 L/min, 95%CI 3.12 to 19.09 L/min) and evening PEF (9.31 L/min, 95%CI 5.12 to 13.5 L/min). This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. Symptoms and rescue medication use were widely reported but few trials provided sufficient data for analysis. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in am PEF (9.58 L/min (95% CI 5.20 to 13.97)), pm PEF (7.41 L/min (95% CI 2.61 to 12.22)), and FEV1 (0.09 L (0.02 to 0.17)). The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There was an increase in the incidence of hoarseness, but no significant difference in pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing hoarseness when given at the same daily dose. Future studies should attempt to establish the relative efficacy of inhaled steroids delivered with CFC-free propellants.

Improvement in health-related quality of life with fluticasone propionate compared with budesonide or beclomethasone dipropionate in adults with severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated in adults with severe asthma following inhaled corticosteroid treatment with high-dose beclomethasone dipropionate or budesonide (BDP/BUD) and compared with fluticasone propionate taken at approximately half the dose of BDP/BUD.

METHODOLOGY

HRQoL was assessed as part of an open, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study in Australia evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching to fluticasone propionate (FP) 1000-2000 micro g/day (n = 67) compared with remaining on BDP/BUD >/=1750 micro g/day (n = 66) for 6 months. Patients completed two HRQoL questionnaires, the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), at baseline and at weeks 12 and 24. A change in AQLQ score of >/=0.5 was considered to be clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in HRQoL with FP on four of the eight dimensions on the SF-36 (i.e. physical functioning, general health, role-emotional, and mental health), while there were no significant improvements in HRQoL in the BDP/BUD group. Overall, patients in the FP group experienced significantly greater improvement (P < 0.001) in AQLQ scores at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the BDP/BUD group. On the individual domains of the AQLQ, there were significant treatment differences (P < 0.01) in favour of FP in three of the four domains (activity limitations [0.92], symptoms [0.73], and emotional function [1.02]). Mean differences between groups for overall score and these three domains were also clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe asthma who received FP (at approximately half the dose of BDP/BUD) experienced statistically significant, as well as clinically meaningful, improvements in their HRQoL.

Efficacy of budesonide in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The worldwide prevalence of asthma is increasing by approximately 50% per decade. Budesonide is one of several inhaled corticosteroids available for the treatment of asthma and has been extensively evaluated in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the published literature on the efficacy of budesonide in the management of adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe asthma and compares budesonide with other inhaled corticosteroids and nonsteroidal treatment options.

METHODS

All controlled, randomized studies in patients with moderate or severe asthma were considered for inclusion. Relevant studies were identified through a MEDLINE search of the period from 1980 to 2000 using the terms budesonide plus efficacy, with or without the termsfluticasone, mometasone, and beclomethasone. The manufacturer's reference database was used to identify additional publications.

RESULTS

Budesonide is associated with a dose-response effect in adults and children with moderate to severe asthma. The data on budesonide are in line with the current recommendation for a high starting dose of inhaled corticosteroid (800 microg/d), followed by downward titration to the minimal effective dose. Budesonide administered by Turbuhaler (AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, Del) dry-powder inhaler (DPI) was effective at a significantly lower dose than beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (P = 0.009), whereas its efficacy was similar to that of BDP delivered by hydrofluoroalkane pMDI and that of fluticasone propionate administered by DPI. Inhaled budesonide therapy was shown to be oral corticosteroid sparing in patients with severe asthma, thus reducing the total corticosteroid dose and the risk of systemic side effects. Pulmicort Respules (AstraZeneca), a nebulized formulation, was effective in the treatment of moderate to severe asthma in patients aged > or =12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Once- or twice-daily administration of budesonide delivered via the Turbuhaler and Pulmicort Respules systems has been shown to be well tolerated and efficacious in populations with moderate to severe asthma.

Fluticasone propionate: a potent inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma

Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a potent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the treatment of asthma. It is currently marketed in both the United States (as Flovent) and Europe (as Flixotide). Fluticasone is available in both aerosolised metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder devices, with dosages ranging from 44-500 micrograms/puff. FP has been extensively studied in both children and adults; efficacy has been documented across the entire spectrum of asthma severity, including corticosteroid-dependent disease. Clinical data with FP strongly corroborates the in vitro pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies that FP is at least twice as potent as beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), budesonide (BUD) or triamcinolone acetonide (TAA). Both objective (lung function) and subjective (symptoms, beta-agonist use and quality of life) outcomes are improved with FP treatment. Extensive post-marketing surveillance with FP suggests that it is more cost-effective than BUD and flunisolide (FLU) when analysed by an overall healthcare cost perspective. Most of the benefits arise from decreased hospitalizations, emergency room visits and physician-office visits. Extensive safety data with FP documents no clinically meaningful effects on bone mass, nor impairment of growth velocity in children. Considering the efficacy and safety data along with the ability to optimise patient's asthma therapy using the delivery devices and strengths available, FP has become a leader in the ICS marketplace to date.