Rapid onset of control with budesonide Turbuhaler in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma

Pharmacological treatments in asthma-affected horses: A pair-wise and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Equine asthma is a disease characterised by reversible airflow obstruction, bronchial hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation following exposure of susceptible horses to specific airborne agents. Although clinical remission can be achieved in a low-airborne dust environment, repeated exacerbations may lead to irreversible airway remodelling. The available data on the pharmacotherapy of equine asthma result from several small studies, and no head-to-head clinical trials have been conducted among the available medications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the pharmacological interventions in equine asthma and compare the effect of different classes of drugs on lung function.

STUDY DESIGN

Pair-wise and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature searches for clinical trials on the pharmacotherapy of equine asthma were performed. The risk of publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test. Changes in maximum transpulmonary or pleural pressure, pulmonary resistance and dynamic lung compliance vs. control were analysed via random-effects models and Bayesian networks.

RESULTS

The results obtained from 319 equine asthma-affected horses were extracted from 32 studies. Bronchodilators, corticosteroids and chromones improved maximum transpulmonary or pleural pressure (range: -8.0 to -21.4 cmH₂ O; P<0.001). Bronchodilators, corticosteroids and furosemide reduced pulmonary resistance (range: -1.2 to -1.9 cmH₂ O/L/s; P<0.001), and weakly increased dynamic lung compliance. Inhaled β₂ -adrenoreceptor (β₂ -AR) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids had the highest probability of being the best therapies. Long-term treatments were more effective than short-term treatments.

MAIN LIMITATIONS

Weak publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that long-term treatments with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂ -AR agonists may represent the first choice for treating equine asthma. Further high quality clinical trials are needed to clarify whether inhaled bronchodilators should be preferred to inhaled corticosteroids or vice versa, and to investigate the potential superiority of combination therapy in equine asthma.

Relative systemic availability of budesonide in patients with asthma after inhalation from two dry powder inhalers

BACKGROUND

To improve dosing consistency and product features, budesonide inhalation powder delivered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) (DPI-A 200 microg) was redesigned to include lactose, a newly shaped mouthpiece, and a new dose indicator (DPI-B). Budesonide DPI-B is available in two strengths (90 microg, 180 microg).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative rate and extent of the systemic availability of budesonide inhaled via DPI-A and DPI-B and test for systemic absorption bioequivalence.

METHODS

Adults (n = 37) with asthma as defined by the American Thoracic Society were randomized in an open-label, crossover, single-center, single-dose study to budesonide DPI-A 200 microg x 4 inhalations, budesonide DPI-B 180 microg x 4 inhalations, or budesonide DPI-B 90 microg x 8 inhalations, on 3 days, each separated by a washout period of >or= 5 days. Plasma samples were collected immediately before and up to 12 h after dosing. Primary pharmacokinetic variables were area under the drug plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)); plasma concentration at 12 h (C(12h)) and time to maximum plasma concentration (T(max)) were secondary variables. Treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for their AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) ratios fell between 80 and 125%. Adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

The 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) for budesonide DPI-A 200 microg and DPI-B 180 microg and for both budesonide DPI-B strengths fell between 80% and 125% (AUC(0-infinity): budesonide DPI-B 180 microg x 4/DPI-A 200 microg x 4: 96.3% [90% CI: 90.9, 102.1]; budesonide DPI-B 180 microg x 4/DPI-B 90 microg x 8: 92.2% [90% CI: 87.0, 97.7]; C(max): (budesonide DPI-B 180 microg x 4/DPI-A 200 microg x 4: 100.4% [95% CI: 92.1, 109.4]; budesonide DPI-B 180 microg x 4/DPI-B 90 microg x 8: 94.4% [90% CI: 86.6, 102.9]). No differences in C(12h) and T(max) were found between treatments. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide DPI-A 200 mug and DPI-B 180 mug have systemic absorption bioequivalence, and DPI-B 90 microg and 180 microg are dose-strength equivalent when administered at the same dose. These results may not be generalized to all patients with asthma, as this analysis included only patients with mild-to-moderate asthma aged >or= 19 years.

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered via two dry powder inhalers

BACKGROUND

The dry powder inhaler (DPI) device for budesonide inhalation powder 200 microg (DPI-A) was redesigned to improve dosing consistency and provide new features (budesonide inhalation powder 90 microg and 180 microg; DPI-B).

OBJECTIVE

Two multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, 12-week studies compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered via each DPI versus placebo, and the systemic exposure of budesonide from each device.

METHODS

Asthmatic adults with mild-to-moderate asthma (N = 621) and patients 6-17 years with mild asthma (N = 516) received budesonide DPI-B 360 microg or DPI-A 400 microg twice-daily (total daily dose 720 microg or 800 microg), budesonide DPI-B 180 microg or DPI-A 200 microg once daily (total daily dose 180 microg or 200 microg), or matching placebo. Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and secondary variables (asthma symptoms, beta(2)-adrenergic agonist use, peak expiratory flow [PEF], and withdrawals due to worsening asthma) versus placebo were measured.

RESULTS

In both studies, FEV(1) significantly (p < 0.05) improved for all active treatments versus placebo except once-daily budesonide DPI-B 180 mug in adults. In the adult study, significantly (p < 0.05) greater improvements in all secondary variables occurred with all active treatments versus placebo. In the pediatric/adolescent study, improvements in AM/PM PEF were significantly (p <or= 0.011) greater with twice-daily budesonide DPI-B 360 microg versus placebo. Numerically fewer patients in all active-treatment groups withdrew due to worsening asthma versus placebo. Adverse event profiles were similar among groups. In the pediatric/adolescent study, no significant differences in mean 24-h urine cortisol or cortisol: creatinine ratio assessments were observed between the active treatment groups and the placebo group. Although pharmacokinetic variables were generally similar across subgroups in the adult (n = 77) and pediatric/adolescent (n = 32) studies, pairwise treatment comparisons of twice-daily budesonide DPI-B 360 microg versus DPI-A 400 microg and once-daily budesonide DPI-B 180 microg versus DPI-A 200 microg showed large variability for the area under the drug plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval and the maximum detected drug plasma concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of budesonide DPI-A and DPI-B versus placebo were demonstrated across the low to medium inhaled corticosteroid dose range in children >or= 6 years with very mild asthma and adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. The study is limited by the evaluation of only two doses for each product in both studies. Additionally, the studies were not designed to test equivalence or noninferiority between the active products. Pharmacokinetic characterization was limited because of the small sample sizes.

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

The addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo.

METHODS

This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.

Impact of inhaled corticosteroid-induced oropharyngeal adverse events: results from a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oropharyngeal adverse events associated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use can affect adherence; however, these effects have been studied less extensively than those that occur systemically.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the risk of ICS-induced oral candidiasis, dysphonia, and pharyngitis among currently available therapies and to determine related effects of dose and device.

METHODS

A computerized search in MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2004) and EMBASE (January 1974 to June 2004) was conducted using indexed MedDRA terms for oropharyngeal adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to determine the rate of ICS-induced adverse events based on dose and device.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies (59 drug arms) were evaluated. Incidence of oral candidiasis (P < or = .001), dysphonia (P < or = .001), and pharyngitis (P < or = .023) increased significantly with dose vs placebo at all dose levels and combined, regardless of device. Overall, the ICS metered-dose inhaler (MDI) device (hydrofluoroalkane formulation, 4 arms; chlorofluorocarbon formulation, 26 arms) was associated with a 5-fold greater risk of oral candidiasis vs MDI placebo (OR, 5.40). In contrast, the ICS dry-powder inhaler (DPI) device had a 3-fold greater risk for oral candidiasis vs DPI placebo (OR, 3.24). A similar trend was observed with regard to dysphonia (ICS MDI: OR, 5.68; ICS DPI: OR, 3.74; both vs. placebo). Both ICS MDI and DPI were associated with an approximately 2-fold greater risk of pharyngitis compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available inhaled corticosteroids canbe associated with oropharyngeal adverse events. Such events may be reduced by postdose mouth rinsing or use of a spacer.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurised metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are the preferred maintenance therapy for adults and children with mild, moderate and severe persistent asthma, with the addition of a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist to ICS therapy recommended for patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma. The efficacy and safety of the combination of budesonide and formoterol delivered via dry powder inhaler (DPI) is well documented.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler (budesonide/formoterol pMDI; Symbicort pMDI, AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE, USA) with budesonide pMDI (Pulmicort pMDI, Astra [corrected] Zeneca, Lund, Sweden), formoterol DPI (Oxis Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden), budesonide plus formoterol in separate inhalers (budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI) and placebo.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a 12-week randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

This multicentre study was conducted in the respiratory specialty clinical practice setting.

PATIENTS

The study included 596 patients > or =12 years of age with moderate to severe persistent asthma previously receiving ICSs.

INTERVENTIONS

After 2 weeks on budesonide pMDI 80 microg x two inhalations (160 microg) twice daily, patients received budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160 microg/4.5 microg x two inhalations (320 microg/9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg) + formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x two inhalations (320 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); or placebo twice daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

There were two prespecified primary efficacy variables: mean change from baseline in morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), obtained approximately 12 hours after the most recent administration of study medication at home and immediately before the next administration of study medication at the clinic; and mean change from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1), assessed as the average change in FEV(1) from serial spirometry over the 12-hour period after administration of the morning dose of study medication at the clinic.

RESULTS

Mean changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) at end of treatment were greater (p < or = 0.049) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.19L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.10L), formoterol DPI (-0.12L) and placebo (-0.17L). Mean changes from baseline in 12-hour FEV(1) were greater (p < or = 0.001) with budesonide/formoterol pMDI after 1 day (0.37L), 2 weeks (0.34L) and at end of treatment (0.37L) versus budesonide pMDI (0.11, 0.15 and 0.15L) and placebo (0.09, -0.03 and -0.03L), and after 2 weeks and at end of treatment versus formoterol DPI (0.19 and 0.17L). Fewer (p < or = 0.025) patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus monoproducts or placebo met worsening asthma criteria. Results were similar in the budesonide/formoterol pMDI group and the budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI group on all measures. All treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI provides asthma control significantly greater than the monocomponents or placebo and comparable with budesonide pMDI + formoterol DPI. Safety profiles were similar for all treatments.

Potency ratio fluticasone propionate (Flixotide Diskus)/budesonide (Pulmicort Turbuhaler)

In the choice of, or switch between, various inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) it is important to know equipotent doses for clinical treatment effects of the alternatives. Various ICS do have different inherent potency. Further, the ICS are delivered from inhalers that may differ markedly in output characteristics and drug delivery to intrapulmonary airways. Therefore, clinical efficacy comparisons must include drug-inhaler comparisons. We estimated the therapeutic potency ratio of the Flixotide Diskus (fluticasone propionate, FP) and the Pulmicort Turbuhaler (budesonide, BUD) in steroid-naive asthma patients, using a dose-reduction technique (FP 500-0 mcg/day, BUD 800-0 mcg/day). The dose defining end point was loss of asthma control in this paper denoted as exacerbation. In total, 282 patients with proven asthma were enrolled in the study, and 103 in the FP group and 98 in the BUD group completed the study per protocol. In total, 80 patients in the FP-group and 79 in the BUD-group experienced a dose defining exacerbation. The exacerbation frequency increased in a dose-dependent way as the dose was titrated down. From these data the potency difference between the present drug inhaler combinations, Flixotide Diskus and Pulmicort Turbuhaler, was calculated to be between 1.50:1 (95% CI 1.10:1-2.05:1) and 1.75:1 (CI 1.26:1-2.43:1) depending on if patients with insufficient steroid-response were excluded from the calculations or not. In these steroid-naïve patients, the potency difference was evident only at low daily doses, below 200 mcg.

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

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide, a new-generation, on-site-activated, inhaled corticosteroid, with once-daily budesonide in persistent asthma.

METHODS

Eligible patients requiring budesonide or equivalent 320-640 microg (ex-mouthpiece, equivalent to 400-800 microg; Turbohalertrade mark) daily entered a 2-week baseline, and then a 2- to 4-week pretreatment period (budesonide 1280 microg/day; ex-mouthpiece, equivalent to 1600 microg/day). Patients with an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) of 7% or 0.15 L were randomised to ciclesonide 320 microg (ex-actuator, equivalent to 400 microg ex-valve) via a hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) without a spacer or budesonide 320 microg once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. Change in FEV1 was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

In all, 359 patients were randomised. The FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) decreased by 0.18 and 0.12L, respectively, in the ciclesonide group, and by 0.23 and 0.21L in the budesonide group. For FEV1, ciclesonide was noninferior and numerically superior to budesonide. For FVC, ciclesonide was statistically superior to budesonide (P=0.010). Asthma symptom scores were comparable; the median percentage of symptom-free days was significantly higher for ciclesonide (43.6%) versus budesonide (25.8%) (P=0.017). Rescue medication use decreased significantly only for ciclesonide patients (P=0.009). Frequency of adverse events was low in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Ciclesonide 320 microg once daily by HFA-MDI without a spacer was at least as effective as budesonide 320 microg once daily in persistent asthma.

Budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler controls asthma in adolescents

Despite the availability of effective treatments and national guidelines, morbidity from asthma remains high among adolescents. Adolescents need to be considered as a distinct group of individuals with different requirements to those of children and adults. In particular, their non-adherence to prescribed treatment regimens is of concern and is a significant factor contributing to the high rate of morbidity in adolescents. Studies in children aged 4 to 17 years suggest that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta2-agonist effectively controls asthma symptoms in patients who remain symptomatic on ICS alone. In order to improve adherence to therapy, the use of combined therapy with an ICS and a long-acting beta2-agonist in a single inhaler should be considered and the dosing frequency should be adjusted according to the severity of asthma symptoms. This should empower patients with a greater degree of self-management and may be important in helping adolescents feel responsible for the management of their asthma. Results from a recent subanalysis demonstrate that the combination of budesonide and formoterol administered twice daily via a single inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler) rapidly gains and maintains control of asthma in adolescents whose asthma is not controlled on ICS alone. It is anticipated that this will lead to improved adherence to therapy in this difficult-to-treat population.

The effect of adjustable dosing with budesonide/formoterol on health-related quality of life and asthma control compared with fixed dosing

BACKGROUND

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is an effective therapy for asthma. We investigated whether adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol could maintain health-related quality of life (HRQL) and asthma control.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Asthma patients (n = 4025) received budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort 160/4.5 microg) 2 inhalations twice daily (b.i.d.) for 4 weeks during run-in of this open, multicentre study. Patients were randomised to adjustable dosing (budesonide/formoterol 1 inhalation b.i.d.; stepping up to 2 or 4 inhalations bid for 1 week if asthma worsened) or fixed dosing (budesonide/formoterol 2 inhalations b.i.d.), for 12 weeks. Change in HRQL (standardised Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, AQLQ[S], score) during randomised treatment was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary variables included asthma control (peak expiratory flow [PEF], symptom-severity score, nocturnal awakenings, reliever-medication use) and study-medication intake.

RESULTS

Clinically significant (> or = 0.5) improvements in AQLQ(S) score (mean 0.73), morning and evening PEF (mean 42.5 and 24.8 L/min, respectively), and symptom-severity score (mean 0.36) were achieved during run-in. The improvements were maintained in both groups although, overall, adjustable-dosing patients took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than fixed-dosing patients (mean 2.63 versus 3.82, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol maintains HRQL and asthma control as effectively as fixed dosing and is associated with a reduced drug load overall.

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler rapidly relieves methacholine-induced moderate-to-severe bronchoconstriction

Inhalers containing corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists are becoming increasingly important in asthma management. A rapid effect is important to patients, particularly during exacerbations. We compared the onset of bronchodilation and patient-perceived relief from dyspnoea following single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a model of acute bronchoconstriction. A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, single-dose, crossover study included 27 outpatients with asthma (mean age 35 years; mean FEV1 90% predicted normal). Immediately following methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction (fall in FEV1 > or = 30%), patients inhaled budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, 1 or 2 inhalations; Symbicort Turbuhaler), salmeterol/fluticasone (50/250 microg; Seretide Diskus) or placebo on 4 study days. Lung function and Borg score were assessed for 30 min. During methacholine-induced provocation (final mean FEV1 62.5% of baseline), mean Borg score increased 10-fold (from 0.3 to 3.0 units). Hereafter, mean FEV1 at 3 min improved significantly more after budesonide/formoterol 1 and 2 inhalations (37 and 38%, respectively) than after salmeterol/fluticasone (23%; P < 0.001) or placebo (10%; P < 0.001). Median recovery times to 85% of baseline FEV1 were shorter for budesonide/formoterol (1 or 2 inhalations: 3.3 and 2.8 min, respectively) than salmeterol/fluticasone (8.9 min; P < 0.001) and placebo (> 30 min). One min after budesonide/formoterol, dyspnoea was significantly reduced (Borg score -0.86 units, both doses) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-0.55 units; P < 0.05) and placebo (-0.23 units; P < 0.001). Budesonide/formoterol provides immediate bronchodilation, faster than salmeterol/fluticasone, which patients can feel during acute methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction.

Effectiveness of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler for adults with persistent asthma in managed care settings

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and relative safety of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma. However, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness comparisons of available inhaled corticosteroids in real-life clinical settings are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus that of triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adult patients with persistent asthma treated in a managed care setting.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-labe, 52-week study of adult patients (aged >or= 18 years) with persistent asthma enrolled in 25 US health plans. The primary study outcome was mean change from baseline to the end of treatment in symptom-free days. Secondary variables were changes from baseline in number of episode-free days, episode-free days at 52 weeks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity, asthma symptom scores, breakthrough bronchdilator use, patient discontinuations, and health-related quality of life. Patients were issued diaries in which to record use of study medication and concomitant asthma medication use, as well as daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity. Patients were assessed at weeks 4, 13, 26, 39, and 52. Safety was assessed based on adverse events and changes in laboratory tests, vital signs, and physical examinations.

RESULTS

A total of 945 patients (344 men, 601 women; mean [SD] age, 46.8 [14] years) were enrolled; 631 received budesonide and 314 received triacinolane acetonide. Improvements in all effectiveness variables were observed with both treatments. The mean increase from baseline in the number of symptom-free days per month assessed at month 12 was 7.74 (95% CI, 6.81-8.66) for patients receiving budesonide and 3.78 (95% CI, 2.47-5.09) for patients receiving triamcinoline acetonide ( P<0.001). The estimated annual mean (SD) number symptom-free days for patients receiving budesonide was 141.1 (125.0) over the treatment phase, compared with 99.3 (112.1) for those receiving triamcinolone acetonide (P<0.001). Patients receiving budesonide demonstrated significant improvements (compared with those receiving triamcinolone acetonide) in overall quality of life, daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity, breakthrough bronchodilator use, and FEV(1) (all P<0.001). Safety measures were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In these managed care settings, budesonide inhalation powder administered via dry-powder inhaler was significantly more effective than triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma.

The role of budesonide in adults and children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Asthma, a chronic and potentially life-threatening disease of the airways, affects patients of all ages. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended first-line therapy for patients with persistent asthma. To review the clinical efficacy and tolerability data available on budesonide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, a MEDLINE database search was performed for 1996-2003 using the following key words: budesonide, inhaled corticosteroid, efficacy, safety, systemic. When administered once or twice daily, budesonide effectively controls asthma in children, adolescents, and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. Budesonide can be delivered effectively via a dry powder inhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) in patients aged > or = 6 years or as an inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules) in children as young as 12 months. With over 20 years' clinical exposure, budesonide has been demonstrated to be well tolerated in the treatment of chronic asthma in patients as young as 12 months. Specifically, at doses required to treat mild or moderate persistent asthma, budesonide does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, bone mineral density, cataract formation, or final adult height. As Pulmicort Turbuhaler, budesonide is the only ICS to achieve a Food and Drug Administration pregnancy category B rating. Early intervention with budesonide is recommended in asthma management: maximum benefit from therapy is reported in patients treated within 2 years of disease recognition. Budesonide is effective and well tolerated in the control of mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in patients aged 12 months and older. There is no evidence for variation in efficacy in population subgroups.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide inhalation powder (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) during 52 weeks of treatment in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are the agents of choice for treating persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of budesonide inhalation powder (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) in patients with mild to severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients (n=1133) received open-label budesonide (dose range, 100-800 microg b.i.d.) for 52 weeks following 2 weeks to 5 months of treatment in one of four double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients, identified before the double-blind studies, included adults (n=249) not receiving corticosteroids, adults (n=384) and children (n=356) previously maintained on inhaled corticosteroids, and adults (n=144) previously maintained on oral corticosteroids.

RESULTS

Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 sec was 68.2% of predicted normal (n=1133) at baseline (mean from two visits before randomization), 74.4% (n=1132) at the end of double-blind treatment, 81.3% (n=971) at week 52, and 80.1% (n=1125) at last observation (including patients who discontinued early). Sixty-four patients maintained on oral corticosteroids before double-blind treatment entered the open-label study off oral corticosteroids, 58 of whom (91%) remained oral corticosteroid-free throughout the study. There was no evidence of basal or cosyntropin-stimulated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function suppression, and the most commonly occurring adverse events were respiratory infection, sinusitis, and pharyngitis.

CONCLUSIONS

During this 52-week, open-label study, budesonide maintained the improved pulmonary function and decreased oral corticosteroid use observed during previous double-blind treatment and was well tolerated, supporting its long-term use in adults and children with mild to severe persistent asthma.

Budesonide Turbuhaler delivered once daily improves health-related quality of life and maintains improvements with a stepped-down dose in adults with mild to moderate asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide inhalation powder administered via Turbuhaler (budesonide Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE) is proven efficacious and safe in the treatment of mild to severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in adults with mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group study, 309 asthmatic patients between 18 and 70 years of age were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with budesonide 200 or 400 microg or placebo for 6 weeks. Patients initially receiving 400 microg budesonide had their dose reduced to 200 microg (400/200-microg group), and patients receiving 200 microg (200/200-microg group) or placebo continued to receive their assigned doses for a 12-week maintenance phase. HRQL was evaluated using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire at randomization, week 6, and week 18.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, patients initially receiving 400 and 200 microg budesonide Turbuhaler demonstrated significantly greater HRQL scores at week 6 (P < or = 0.001 and P < or = 0.010, respectively) that were maintained at week 18 (P < or = 0.001). Clinically important (> or = 0.5 unit) improvement in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire overall at week 18 was demonstrated by 55% and 43% of patients in the 400/200-microg and 200/200-microg budesonide Turbuhaler groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild to moderate asthma, once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler 200 and 400 microg demonstrates statistically significant and clinically important improvements in HRQL that can be maintained with a low dose of 200 microg.

Comparison of two budesonide powder inhalers, Easyhaler and Turbuhaler, in steroid-naïve asthmatic patients

The objective of this multicenter study was to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Easyhaler and Turbuhaler for the delivery of budesonide 200 micrograms/dose twice daily in steroid-naïve asthmatic patients. Three hundred and twenty-six newly diagnosed, steroid-naïve adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, comprising a 2-week run-in period and 8 weeks of treatment. Patients received budesonide inhalation powder 400 micrograms/day either via Easyhaler (n = 159) or via Turbuhaler (n = 167), plus salbutamol inhalation powder (100 micrograms/dose) via Easyhaler as rescue therapy. The study was completed by 292 patients: 143 in the Easyhaler group and 149 in the Turbuhaler group. The primary outcome variable, mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), improved significantly and almost similarly by 36.3 and 30.6 l/min, respectively, from run-in to weeks 7-8. At weeks 7-8, the mean (SE) difference in morning PEF between the two treatments was 7.1 (9.4) l/min (90% CI from -8.4 to 22.6) on per protocol analysis, which was within the defined limits for therapeutic equivalence. There were no significant differences between treatments in terms of secondary efficacy variables or adverse events. However, patients found Easyhaler more acceptable than Turbuhaler. The results show that budesonide via Easyhaler is clinically as effective as Pulmicort Turbuhaler when equal daily doses of budesonide are delivered to steroid-naïve asthmatic patients. Moreover, patients found Easyhaler more acceptable than Turbuhaler, and a majority would prefer Easyhaler if given a choice.

Significant variability in response to inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

A clinical model is needed to compare inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) with respect to efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the relative beneficial and systemic effects in a dose-response relationship for 2 ICSs.

METHODS

A 24-week, parallel, open-label, multicenter trial examined the benefit-risk ratio of 2 ICSs in persistent asthma. Benefit was assessed by improvements in FEV(1) and PC(20); risk was assessed by overnight plasma cortisol suppression. Thirty subjects were randomized to either beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168, 672, and 1344 microg/day (n = 15) or fluticasone propionate (FP) 88, 352, and 704 microg/day (n = 15), both administered by means of a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with chlorofluorocarbon propellant via a spacer, in 3 consecutive 6-week intervals; this was followed by 3 weeks of FP dry powder inhaler (DPI) 2000 microg/day.

RESULTS

Maximum FEV(1) response occurred with the low dose for FP-MDI and the medium dose for BDP-MDI and was not further increased by treatment with FP-DPI. Near-maximum methacholine PC(20) improvement occurred with the low dose for FP-MDI and the medium dose for BDP-MDI. Both BDP-MDI and FP-MDI caused dose-dependent cortisol suppression. Responsiveness to ICS treatment was found to vary markedly among subjects. Good (>15%) FEV(1) response, in contrast to poor (<5%) response, was found to be associated with high exhaled nitric oxide (median, 17.6 vs 11.1 ppb), high bronchodilator reversibility (25.2% vs 8.8%), and a low FEV(1)/forced vital capacity ratio (0.63 vs 0.73) before treatment. Excellent (>3 doubling dilutions) improvement in PC(20), in contrast to poor (<1 doubling dilution) improvement, was found to be associated with high sputum eosinophil levels (3.4% vs 0.1%) and older age at onset of asthma (age, 20-29 years vs <10 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Near-maximal FEV(1) and PC(20) effects occurred with low-medium dose for both ICSs in the subjects studied. High-dose ICS therapy did not significantly increase the efficacy measures that were evaluated, but it did increase the systemic effect measure, overnight cortisol secretion. Significant intersubject variability in response occurred with both ICSs. It is possible that higher doses of ICSs are necessary to manage more severe patients or to achieve goals of therapy not evaluated in this study, such as prevention of asthma exacerbations.

Once-daily budesonide inhalation powder (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) is effective and safe in adults previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids

This 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of budesonide 400 microg administered once daily via Turbuhaler in adults previously treated with at least twice-daily dosing of inhaled corticosteroids. Pulmonary function (FEV1, PEF, FVC, FEF(25-75%)), asthma symptom scores, quality of life, and breakthrough medication use were significantly (p < 0.05) different in patients receiving once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler compared to placebo, and significantly (p < 0.001) more patients receiving placebo discontinued the study. Adverse events were similar between study groups. Once-daily administration of budesonide Turbuhaler was safe and efficacious in patients previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids.

A meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Although inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly used in the treatment of persistent asthma, the relationship between dose and clinical response remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether ICS exhibit a dose-response relationship in the treatment of mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials concerning the relationship between ICS dose and response in asthma. Relevant studies were identified through a search of PubMed and MEDLINE for articles on asthma and ICS published between January 1996 and January 2001. The search was limited to publications classified as clinical trials that included the text words asthma and corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone, flunisolide, mometasone, or triamcinolone acetonide. Five clinical measures were considered: morning peak expiratory flow rate (AM PEFR), evening PEFR (PM PEFR), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), beta-agonist use, and asthma symptom score (severity of symptoms on a given day, as evaluated by patients).

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were identified, of which 16 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. These studies involved 4 agents: fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, budesonide, and mometasone furoate. A statistically significant dose response in AM PEFR was observed with fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and budesonide (respective 95% CIs, 4.9 to 11.5, 4.7 to 18.0, and 5.8 to 24.9). A statistically significant dose response to fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide was also observed in PM PEFR (95% CIs, 2.0 to 8.7 and 2.4 to 13.7) and asthma symptom score (95% CI, -0.069 to -0.002 and -0.60 to -0.10). In terms of FEV(1), the dose response was statistically significant only with budesonide (95% CI, 0.025 to 0.17). Dose-response relationships were not disproportionately driven by the highest doses, and the greatest effects on response were seen at doses below or at the low end of the recommended range, suggesting that use of high doses of ICS may contribute only marginally to efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-response relationships were not uniformly observed with all drugs or for all measures of response. Use of higher doses of ICS in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma does not appear to increase the efficacy of these drugs.

A novel approach to defining the relationship between lung function and symptom status in asthma

We present a novel approach to estimating functional relationships between forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and asthma-related symptoms on a population-wide basis. We used asthma-related clinical trials that reported estimates of mean lung function (measured as FEV(1) percent predicted) and symptoms (symptom score or percentage of symptom days or nighttime awakenings). Using average baseline values from each study in weighted linear regression analyses, we found a negative association between lung function and symptom score (P < 0.001) and the percentage of nighttime awakenings (P = 0.18), but no association between lung function and symptom days. We also found consistent relationships between the mean changes in lung function and symptoms at follow-up within the studies. Functional relationships between FEV(1) percent predicted and asthma-related symptoms can be useful for inferring the effect on the symptoms of a population associated with overall improvements in lung function.

Assessment of the systemic effects of budesonide inhaled from Easyhaler and from Turbuhaler in healthy male volunteers

The main objective of this study was to show dose-dependent equivalence in the systemic activity of budesonide 800 microg day(-1) and 1600 microg day(-1) delivered from either Easyhaler or Turbuhaler in healthy male subjects. This single-centre study was carried out according to a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, five-way crossover design over a 9-week period. All subjects received 1 week of treatment with the following, in randomized order, with a washout week between each treatment: budesonide Easyhaler 800 microg day(-1) plus placebo Turbuhaler; budesonide Easyhaler 1600 microg day(-1) plus placebo Turbuhaler; placebo Easyhaler plus Pulmicort Turbuhaler 800 microg day(-1); placebo Easyhaler plus Pulmicort Turbuhaler 1600 microg day(-1); placebo Easyhaler plus placebo Turbuhaler. The final inhalation of study drug was performed at the study centre, where blood and urine samples were collected. Fifteen subjects were recruited and all completed the study. Mean serum cortisol AUC0-20 values (the primary outcome variable) were comparable for each device at the two dose levels, and met the defined criteria for equivalence (90% CI 0.8-1.25 for between-treatment difference). Budesonide 800 microg day(-1) caused minimal suppression of serum cortisol AUC0-20 values, Budesonide 1600 microg day(-1) statistically significantly suppressed serum cortisol AUC0-20 values compared with placebo. Mean morning serum cortisol values were within the reference range in al treatment groups. At a budesonide dose of 800 microg day(-1) mean urine cortisol/creatinine ratio was statistically significantly higher with Easyhaler than with Turbuhaler, but there was no significant difference between the devices at the 1600 microg day(-1) dose. Serum budesonide concentrations were equivalent for each device at both dose levels. Adverse drug reactions were infrequent and mild in nature and there were no clinically significant changes in laboratory safety variables. In conclusion, in healthy male volunteers, budesonide 800 microg day(-1) and 1600 microg day inhaled from Easyhaler had comparable systemic effects to the same doses inhaled via Turbuhaler.

Inhaled budesonide for adults with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

CONTEXT

Budesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid with high topical potency and low systemic activity recommended in the treatment of chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled budesonide via a breath-activated, multi-dose, dry-powder inhaler.

TYPE OF STUDY

Multicenter randomized parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial.

SETTING

Multicenter study in the university units.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma that was not controlled using bronchodilator therapy alone.

PROCEDURES

Comparison of budesonide 400 microg administered twice daily via a breath-activated, multi-dose, dry-powder inhaler with placebo, in 43 adult patients (aged 15 to 78 years) with mild-to-moderate asthma (FEV1 71% of predicted normal) that was not controlled using bronchodilator therapy alone.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy was assessed by pulmonary function tests and asthma symptom control (as perceived by the patients) and the use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Budesonide 400 microg (bid) was significantly more effective than placebo in improving morning peak expiratory flow (mean difference: 67.9 l/min; P < 0.005) and FEV1 (mean difference: 0.60 l; P < 0.005) over the 8-week treatment period. Onset of action, assessed by morning peak expiratory flow, occurred within the first two weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide via a breath-activated, multi-dose, dry-powder inhaler results in a rapid onset of asthma control, which is maintained over time and is well tolerated in adults with mild-to-moderate asthma.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids and antileukotriene drugs in asthma

Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways that is best treated by minimising exposure to factors that provoke the inflammation (e.g. allergens) and by administering drugs that reduce the inflammatory response. The cornerstone of asthma treatment is inhaled corticosteroids. Their effectiveness is a result of their potent and broad anti-inflammatory properties. Antileukotriene drugs (leukotriene modifiers) provide an alternative and novel approach to the treatment of asthma. The novelty of these new compounds is that their effectiveness is firmly based on the pathophysiology of asthma, specifically the role played by the cysteinyl leukotrienes. At the same time, the availability of the antileukotriene drugs has stirred debate over when they should be used and how they compare to inhaled corticosteroids. Although the answers are not fully known at this time, the currently available published and presented data are adequate for us to draw some conclusions about their relative effectiveness and role in asthma treatment. The antileukotriene drugs are more effective than placebo, but they are not as effective as inhaled corticosteroids in improving lung function [measured as the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) or peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)], reducing beta(2)-agonist use, and decreasing symptom-free days. In contrast, they may have similar beneficial effects on reducing asthma exacerbations and decreasing peripheral blood eosinophil counts. In the absence of knowing a priori the response of an individual patient to treatment with either therapy, the data favour initiating treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid. However, for patients with mild to moderate disease there are a number of circumstances that support using an antileukotriene drug first. A few examples are aspirin intolerance, predominantly exercise-induced symptoms and problems with using an inhaler or the adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids such as dysphonia and thrush. For patients with more severe disease, inhaled corticosteroids remain the treatment of choice. Antileukotriene drugs should be considered as add-on therapy, especially in view of their possible complementary effects on reducing airway inflammation.

Once-daily budesonide via Turbuhaler improves symptoms in adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) for the treatment of mild to severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide Turbuhaler administered once daily each morning with placebo in inhaled corticosteroid-naive adults with persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 177 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) received placebo or once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (400 microg) for 12 weeks. Efficacy variables included mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and AM/PM peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and nighttime/daytime asthma symptom scores, patient discontinuations, use of breakthrough medication (albuterol), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25%-75%), and quality of life assessments. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, and laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between study groups. The mean percentages of predicted FEV1 at baseline were 71.9 +/- 9.8 in patients receiving budesonide Turbuhaler and 70.6 +/- 11.0 in patients receiving placebo. Mean changes from baseline over the 12-week treatment period in FEV1 were significantly (P = 0.007) improved in patients receiving once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler compared with placebo (0.31 L and 0.17 L, respectively). Significant (P < or = 0.037) improvements over placebo also were observed in AM PEFR, nighttime/daytime asthma symptoms, and albuterol use with budesonide Turbuhaler treatment. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity and similar between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide Turbuhaler 400 microg administered once daily in the AM is efficacious and safe for inhaled corticosteroid-naive asthmatic adults.

Challenges in assessing outcomes for pediatric asthma

Although progress has been made in understanding asthma, much remains unknown; as a result, diagnosis and treatment are not optimal. Information is still needed about the natural history of asthma to better understand which patients are at risk of inflammation and at what point during their disease that inflammation occurs. In the case of children, a greater understanding of the disease's natural history is needed to establish criteria for early diagnosis and to evaluate progressive aspects of the disease so that appropriate measures of progression can be defined. The safety of various medications used as long-term controllers must also be evaluated. The growing information about medication effects on asthma provides unique opportunities to design studies that will guide improvement in asthma care. A number of disease outcomes can be used as surrogate markers of clinically significant endpoints, and a number of adverse effects may serve as surrogate markers. The consequences of poor control of pediatric asthma can be observed in a variety of clinical markers, including clinical features of the disease that worsen as it progresses, pulmonary function deterioration, lung hyperexpansion, and inflammation increases. The Childhood Asthma Management Program is an ongoing clinical trial designed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of asthma in children. Its hypothesis is that anti-inflammatory treatment of childhood asthma will not only relieve morbidity but will also improve lung growth.

Budesonide at different doses for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled budesonide (BUD) is available in a range of doses for treating chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To quantitatively assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide at different doses in order to establish whether a clinically significant dose response profile exists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was carried out for Controlled and Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, correspondence with trial authors and the manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing one dose of budesonide to a second dose in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data; authors were contacted to clarify missing information. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

24 studies were selected for inclusion in the review (3907 subjects). In non-oral steroid treated, mild to moderately severe asthma no clinically worthwhile differences in FEV1, morning PEFR, symptom scores or rescue beta2 agonist use were apparent across a dose range of 200-1600 mcg/d. However, in moderate to severe asthma there was a significant reduction in the likelihood of trial withdrawal due to asthma exacerbation with BUD 800 mcg/d compared to 200 mcg/d: RR 3.93 (95% CI, 1.4 to 10.9). This result was largely weighted by a single large high quality RCT. In a single study in patients receiving oral corticosteroids, clinically significant improvements favouring high dose BUD (1600 mcg/d) over low dose (200 mcg/d) were apparent for FEV1 and morning PEFR. In two studies there was no dose dependent oral steroid sparing effect for BUD 1600 mcg/d v 800 or 400 mcg/d. Statistically significant, dose dependent suppression of 24 hour urinary free cortisol excretion and serum cortisol post synthetic ACTH infusion over the dose range 800-3200 mcg/d were apparent but the clinical significance of these findings is unclear.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide exhibits a clinically significant dose response effect for improvement in FEV1 in severe asthma and reduction of exacerbations in moderate to severe asthma. No significant dose dependent improvements in FEV1, PEFR or symptoms are evident in non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild to moderate disease. Dose dependent alterations in sensitive measures of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function were evident but the clinical significance of these changes is unclear.