A randomized, double-blind comparison of beclomethasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol and fluticasone propionate

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.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998–2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25–75%)_, and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available.

Results

Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV₁ (L) (−0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: −3.874, 95% CI: −10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: −1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF_{25–75% predicted} (−2.418, 95% CI: −6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]).

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma.

Trial registration

GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012.

Effectiveness of initiating extrafine-particle versus fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids as asthma therapy in the Netherlands

Background

Most randomised clinical trials typically exclude a significant proportion of asthma patients, including those at higher risk of adverse events, with comorbidities, obesity, poor inhaler technique and adherence, or smokers. However, these patients might differentially benefit from extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This matched cohort, database study, compared the effectiveness of extrafine-particle with fine-particle ICS in a real-life population initiating ICS therapy in the Netherlands.

Methods

Data were from the Pharmo Database Network, comprising pharmacy and hospital discharge records, representative of 20 % of the Dutch population. The study population included patients aged 12 − 60, with a General Practice-recorded diagnosis for asthma (International Classification of Primary Care code R96), when available, ≥2 prescriptions for asthma therapy at any time in their recorded history, and receiving first prescription of ICS therapy as either extrafine-particle (ciclesonide or hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]) or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine-particle-BDP). Patients were matched (1:1) on relevant demographic and clinical characteristics over 1-year baseline. Primary outcomes were severe exacerbation rates, risk domain asthma control and overall asthma control during the year following first ICS prescription. Secondary outcomes, treatment stability and being prescribed higher versus lower category of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) dose, were compared over a 1-year outcome period using conditional logistic regression models.

Results

Following matching, 1399 patients were selected in each treatment cohort (median age: 43 years; males: 34 %). Median (interquartile range) initial ICS doses (fluticasone-equivalents in μg) were 160 (160 − 320) for extrafine-particle versus 500 (250 − 500) for fine-particle ICS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for residual confounders, matched patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had significantly lower rates of exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [95 % CI], 0.59 [0.47–0.73]), and significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control and treatment stability in the year following initiation than those prescribed fine-particle ICS, and this occurred at lower prescribed doses. Patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had lower odds of being prescribed higher doses of SABA (0.50 [0.44–0.57]).

Conclusion

In this historical, matched study, extrafine-particle ICS was associated with better odds of asthma control than fine-particle ICS in patients prescribed their first ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Of importance, this was reached at significantly lower prescribed dose.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0234-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Performance of Turbuhaler((R)) in Patients with Acute Airway Obstruction and COPD, and in Children with Asthma : Understanding the Clinical Importance of Adequate Peak Inspiratory Flow, High Lung Deposition, and Low In Vivo Dose Variability

The dry-powder inhaler (DPI) Turbuhaler((R)) has been on the market for nearly two decades. Products containing terbutaline, formoterol, budesonide, and the combination budesonide/formoterol are widely used by patients with asthma and COPD. Most patients and physicians find Turbuhaler((R)) easy to use, and local side effects are rare. This is thought to arise from the lack of additives or only small amounts in the formulation, in addition to minimal deposition of the drug in the oropharynx and on the vocal cords during inspiration.The function of Turbuhaler((R)) has frequently been questioned. This article aims to review and clarify some key issues that have been challenged in the literature (e.g. the effectiveness of Turbuhaler((R)) in patients with more restricting conditions), to discuss the importance of lung deposition, and to explain the low in vivo variability associated with Turbuhaler((R)) and the lack of correlation with the higher in vitro variability.Turbuhaler((R)), like other DPIs, is flow dependent to some degree. However, a peak inspiratory flow (PIF) through Turbuhaler((R)) of 30 L/min gives a good clinical effect. These PIF values can be obtained by patients with conditions thought to be difficult to manage with inhalational agents, such as asthmatic children and adult patients with acute severe airway obstruction and COPD. Excellent clinical results with Turbuhaler((R)) in large controlled studies in patients with COPD and acute severe airway obstruction provide indirect evidence that medication delivered via Turbuhaler((R)) reaches the target organ.Due to the large amount of small particles and the moderate inbuilt resistance in Turbuhaler((R)), which opens up the vocal cords during inhalation, Turbuhaler((R)) is associated with a high lung deposition (25-40% of the delivered dose) compared with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and other DPIs. A good correlation has been found between lung deposition and clinical efficacy. A high lung deposition always results in the best ratio between clinical efficacy and risk of unwanted systemic activity. Studies with Turbuhaler((R)) also show that the in vivo variation in lung deposition is significantly lower compared with a pMDI or, for example, the Diskus((R)) inhaler, and much lower than the in vitro dose variability seen in laboratory tests. Turbuhaler((R)) appears to be a reliable DPI which can be used with confidence by patients with airway diseases, including those with clinical conditions believed to be difficult to manage with inhalational therapy.

Asthma outcomes and costs of therapy with extrafine beclomethasone and fluticasone

BACKGROUND

Characteristics of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) differ, but data comparing the real-life effectiveness of various ICSs for asthma are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare real-life asthma outcomes and costs of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone and fluticasone administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler.

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study examined database markers of asthma control from a large US longitudinal health care claims database over 1 baseline and 1 outcome year for 10,312 patients with asthma aged 12 to 80 years receiving their first ICS as HFA-beclomethasone or fluticasone and matched on baseline demographic characteristics and asthma severity.

RESULTS

Patients started on HFA-beclomethasone had significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI; 1.08-1.31) of achieving overall control (risk and impairment), which was defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection and less than 2 puffs per day of short-acting β-agonist; they also experienced a lower rate of respiratory-related hospitalizations or referrals (adjusted rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) than patients started on fluticasone. Other database outcome measures were similar in the 2 cohorts. Prescribed HFA-beclomethasone doses were lower (P < .001) than fluticasone doses (median, 320 μg/d [interquartile range, 160-320 μg/d] vs 440 μg/d [interquartile range, 176-440 μg/d]). Adjusted respiratory-related health care costs were significantly lower for HFA-beclomethasone than fluticasone (mean, $1869 [95% CI, $1727-$2032] vs $2259 [95% CI, $2111-$2404]), representing a mean annual savings of $390 (95% CI, $165-$620) per patient prescribed HFA-beclomethasone rather than fluticasone.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma treatment outcomes were similar or better with HFA-beclomethasone prescribed at significantly lower doses and with lower costs than fluticasone.

Prescribing practices and asthma control with hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone and fluticasone: a real-world observational study

BACKGROUND

Long-term randomized trials comparing asthma outcomes between inhaled corticosteroids in real-world populations are lacking. As such, rigorously conducted observational studies to complement the findings of randomized trials are needed.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes over 1 year as recorded in a large primary care database for patients aged 5 to 60 years receiving a first prescription (initiation population) or dose increase (step-up population) of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone or fluticasone.

METHODS

We used a retrospective matched cohort study in which patients were matched on baseline demographic and disease severity measures. Coprimary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no unplanned visit or hospitalization for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and exacerbation rate.

RESULTS

More than 80% of patients in each population achieved asthma control; 10% and 16% of patients in the initiation and step-up populations, respectively, received add-on or combination therapy during the year. Fluticasone was prescribed at significantly higher doses than HFA-beclomethasone for both populations (P <or= .001). In the initiation population (n = 1319 in each cohort) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.02-1.65) relative to fluticasone. In the step-up population (cohorts: n = 250) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.66-2.26). Exacerbation rates were similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting patients receiving HFA-beclomethasone had a similar or better chance of achieving asthma control at lower prescribed doses than with fluticasone.

[Treatments targeting distal airways in asthma: update on clinical studies]

Two strategies are possible for targeting distal airways in asthma. The first one is systemic, with the delivery of medications either orally or intravenously. Montelukast is the only oral drug that has demonstrated its efficacy on distal airways by reducing lung hyperinflation. The second possible strategy is to deliver inhaled medications using ultrafine particles. Studies performed with formoterol-HFA solution (Formoair Modulite), the only available long-acting beta2 agonist with ultrafine particles have shown a non-inferior bronchodilator effect and a good tolerance as compared to inhaled long acting beta2 agonists with non-ultrafine particles. Studies performed with BDP-HFA alone (QVAR) or combined BDP-HFA/formoterol (Fostair) with ultrafine particles have mostly demonstrated their clinical non- inferiority on bronchodilation, quality of life, and symptoms in asthmatic subjects as compared to non-ultrafine inhaled medications. With the exception of a few studies, most publications have been performed in a limited number of patients and for only short durations. The available studies have not yet demonstrated a long-term benefit in terms of additional clinical efficacy of these ultrafine inhaled medications on symptoms, control and exacerbations of asthma.

Hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate effectively improves airway eosinophilic inflammation including the distal airways of patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma as compared with fluticasone propionate in a randomized open double-cross study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) controls eosinophilic inflammation, including that in the distal airways, more effectively than fluticasone propionate (FP) Diskus.

METHODS

Fifty patients with well-controlled mild to moderate persistent asthma using FP for more than 6 months were randomly assigned to FP and HFA-BDP groups, and the treatment regimens of the two groups were switched twice between FP and HFA-BDP in a double cross-over manner at 3-month intervals after 2-week washout periods. Evidence of eosinophilic inflammation in blood and induced sputum samples was assessed, together with pulmonary function testing and an Asthma-related Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) survey after each treatment period.

RESULTS

The peripheral blood differential eosinophil count and sputum levels of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) showed reciprocal changes during the study periods in both groups. The blood differential eosinophil count was significantly lower during the HFA-BDP than during the FP treatment period in both the FP (p = 0.004) and the HFA-BDP (p = 0.020) group. The late-phase induced sputum ECP level was significantly decreased during the HFA-BDP treatment period in both the FP (p = 0.016) and the HFA-BDP group (p = 0.023). The significant elevation of surfactant protein D values in the late-phase sputum observed in both groups indicated that late-phase sputum was obtained mainly from proximal peripheral airways. Both symptom and activity limitation domains of the AQLQ in the HFA-BDP group significantly increased after switching from FP to HFA-BDP. There were no significant changes in pulmonary function indices in either group at any time during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

HFA-BDP improved residual eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatic airways, including distal airways, more effectively than FP.

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.

Beclometasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol versus fluticasone propionate in children with asthma

Beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) extrafine is a hydrofluoroalkane-based, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free inhalation aerosol. This study was conducted to determine whether BDP extrafine and CFC-fluticasone proprionate (FP) aerosols were equivalent in terms of efficacy and tolerability in children with symptomatic mild-to-moderate asthma. Male and female patients (aged 5-12 yr) with an asthma diagnosis for > or =3 months, peak expiratory flow (PEF) > or =60% of predicted normal and suboptimal asthma control were randomised to double-blind treatment with BDP extrafine 200 microg day(-1) (n=139) or CFC-FP 200 microg day(-1) (n=141) for up to 18 weeks. After 6 and 12 weeks, study medication was 'stepped down' to 100 and 50 microg day(-1), respectively, if patients had achieved good asthma control. Patients with poor asthma control discontinued from the study and those with intermediate control continued in the study but did not undergo a dose reduction. The estimated treatment difference in morning PEF% predicted at 6 weeks was -1.9% (90% CI -4.9, 1.0). There was a trend towards a greater increase in forced vital capacity (% predicted) in the BDP extrafine group (5.3 versus 0.4%; p=0.084). A 'step-down' in therapy to 100 microg day(-1) was possible in 36% and 42% of patients in the BDP extrafine and CFC-FP groups, respectively, at 6 weeks. Both drugs were well tolerated. BDP extrafine and CFC-FP aerosols were equally effective at improving asthma control in children with mild-to-moderate asthma at the same daily dose.

Paediatric pulmonary drug delivery: considerations in asthma treatment

Aerosol therapy, the preferred route of administration for glucocorticosteroids and short-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonists in the treatment of paediatric asthma, may be given via nebulisers, metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers. For glucocorticosteroids, therapy with aerosolised medication results in higher concentrations of drug at the target organ with minimal systemic side effects compared with oral treatments. The dose of drug that reaches the airways in children with asthma is dependent on both the delivery device and patient-related factors. Factors that affect aerosol drug delivery are reviewed briefly. Advantages and disadvantages of each device and device-specific factors that influence patient preferences are examined. Although age-based device recommendations have been made, the optimal choice for drug delivery is the one that the patient or caregiver prefers to use, can use correctly and is most likely to use consistently.

One-year evaluation of the preventative effect of hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate on eosinophilic inflammation of asthmatic peripheral airways

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients with eosinophilic inflammation of the peripheral airways, appropriate drug delivery to the affected area is required.

OBJECTIVE

It was the aim of this study to assess persistent eosinophilic inflammation of the peripheral airways in asthmatic patients, stabilized by the long-term use of dry powder type inhaled steroids, and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) over 1 year.

METHODS

Seventy-four outpatients with moderate stable asthma were studied for at least 6 months, 37 treated with fluticasone propionate Diskus (FP-DK) and 37 with budesonide Turbuhaler (BUD-TH). The eosinophil count, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), eotaxin and RANTES levels in 10% hypertonic saline-induced sputum were examined before treatment, as well as 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months and 1 year after switching patients to HFA-BDP.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (40.5%) in the FP-DK group and 12 (32.4%) in the BUD-TH group had eosinophils in induced sputum. The sputum ECP in the eosinophil-positive and the eosinophil-negative groups was 1,510.1 +/- 2,009.3 versus 426.6 +/- 464.1 microg/l (p = 0.037) in the FP-DK group, and 3,850.0 +/- 5,486.2 versus 492.0 +/- 1,150.7 microg/l (p = 0.011) in the BUD-TH group, respectively. Four weeks after the switch to HFA-BDP, the number of eosinophil-positive patients decreased in both groups. Significant reductions in sputum ECP and eotaxin were observed at 8 weeks, and their concentrations continued decreasing for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

There is a certain proportion of asthmatic patients for whom long-term treatment with dry powder type steroids may not be suitable; however, their peripheral airway inflammation improved after switching them to HFA-BDP, suggesting its excellent delivery.

Fluticasone versus HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of fluticasone (FP) and beclomethasone (BDP) propelled with CFCs has been well established. The potency of HFA-BDP is thought to have been improved with new propellant and some studies suggest that it may equipotent at half the dose of CFC propelled-BDP. There is a need to revisit this question in the light of a potentially more potent new non-CFC propellant.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative efficacy of FP and HFA-propelled BDP in chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was searched using pre-specified terms. Searches were current as of January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. We compared either CFC or HFA-propelled FP with HFA-propelled BDP. We made a distinction between HFA-BDP and HFA-BDP extra fine, which dispenses smaller particles of drug, leading to different, usually more peripheral distribution in the airways. Any inhaler device was considered, and there was no restriction on studies with or without spacers. We included studies which assessed HFA-BDP given via either pMDI, breath-actuated MDI, or DPI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Data were extracted and entered in to RevMan 4.2 using standard meta-analytical techniques with predefined criteria for exploring statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (1260 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. One study was conducted in children. Study reporting quality was fair, but all studies were of short duration (three to twelve weeks). Only studies assessing HFA-BDP extra fine in comparison with FP were identified. Lung function was not significantly different between extra fine BDP and FP when compared at the same dose in parallel studies, change in FEV1: 0.04 litres (95% CI -0.03 to 0.11 litres; three studies, 659 adults); change in am PEF: -0.69 litres (95% CI -11.21 to 9.83 litres; two studies, 364 adults). Individual studies reported non-significant findings in symptom scores and quality of life questionnaires. There was no significant difference between FP and HFA-BDP in the risk of study withdrawal, dysphonia or when data were reported as any adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between FP and extra fine HFA-BDP on FEV(1) or peak flow at a dose ratio of 1:1. However, the number of studies and width of the confidence intervals in the analyses do not exclude a clinically meaningful difference between these two drugs. Difficulty in the successful manipulation of the devices studied may be a barrier to the widespread use of MDIs. One paediatric study was included in the review, so extrapolation of the findings of this review to children is limited. Further longer term studies in adults and children with moderate and severe asthma are required.

Fluticasone versus HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of fluticasone (FP) and beclomethasone (BDP) propelled with CFCs has been well established. The potency of HFA-BDP is thought to have been improved with new propellant and some studies suggest that it may equipotent at half the dose of CFC propelled-BDP. There is a need to revisit this question in the light of a potentially more potent new non-CFC propellant.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative efficacy of FP and HFA-propelled BDP in chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register was searched using pre-specified terms. Searches were current as of March 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. We compared either CFC or HFA-propelled FP with HFA-propelled BDP. We made a distinction between HFA-BDP and HFA-BDP extra fine, which dispenses smaller particles of drug, leading to different, usually more peripheral distribution in the airways. Any inhaler device was considered, and there was no restriction on studies with or without spacers. We included studies which assessed HFA-BDP given via either pMDI, breath-actuated MDI, or DPI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Data were extracted and entered in to RevMan 4.2 using standard meta-analytical techniques with predefined criteria for exploring statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies (1230 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. One study was conducted in children. Study reporting quality was fair, but all studies were of short duration (three to twelve weeks). Only studies assessing HFA-BDP extra fine in comparison with FP were identified. Lung function was not significantly different between extra fine BDP and FP when compared at the same dose in parallel studies, change in FEV1: 0.04 litres (95% CI -0.03 to 0.11 litres; three studies, 659 adults); change in am PEF: -0.69 litres (95% CI -11.21 to 9.83 litres; two studies, 364 adults). Individual studies reported non-significant findings in symptom scores and quality of life questionnaires. There was no significant difference between FP and HFA-BDP in the risk of study withdrawal, dysphonia or when data were reported as any adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between FP and extra fine HFA-BDP on FEV(1) or peak flow at a dose ratio of 1:1. However, the number of studies and width of the confidence intervals in the analyses do not exclude a clinically meaningful difference between these two drugs. Difficulty in the successful manipulation of the devices studied may be a barrier to the widespread use of MDIs. One paediatric study was included in the review, so extrapolation of the findings of this review to children is limited. Further longer term studies in adults and children with moderate and severe asthma are required.

Hydrofluoroalkane-134A beclomethasone or chlorofluorocarbon fluticasone: effect on small airways in poorly controlled asthma

Inflammation in asthma extends into the small airways (< 2 mm diameter). Most inhaled corticosteroids are suspensions with a particle size > 2 mm. Therefore, inflammation in the small airways of patients with asthma may not be adequately treated with these preparations. Some inhaled corticosteroids, on the other hand, are compounded with alcohol, resulting in a solution producing an aerosol that has a mean particle diameter of < 2 mm. This study was designed to compare the addition of equivalent amounts of two inhaled corticosteroids (one a suspension and one a solution) to the treatment of patients with asthma, which was uncontrolled despite treatment with moderate to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids and usually additional controller medications. The study was performed with 30 patients, > or = 18 years of age. Subjects were randomized in a single-blind fashion to receive, in addition to their current asthma therapy, either CFC-FP 220 microg each morning and 110 microg each evening (n = 10) or HFA-BDP 160 mcg twice daily (n = 20). Pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry, single breath nitrogen washout for closing volume and residual volume by plethysmography were assessed before and after 3 months of therapy. In the subjects who received HFA-BDP, the ratio of closing volume (CV) to vital capacity (VC) and residual volume (RV) decreased significantly (p = 0.0214 and 0.0433, respectively), whereas forced expiratory flow over 25-75% of the vital capacity (FEF25-75%), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and morning peak flow improved significantly (p = 0.0014, 0.0184, and 0.0321). Improvements from baseline of CV, CV/VC, and postbronchodilator FEF25-75%, were statistically significant in the HFA-BDP group compared with the CFC-FP group (p = 0.0049, 0.0194, and 0.0355, respectively). These preliminary findings suggest that the addition of HFA-BDP, compared with CFC-FP in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite receiving moderate to high doses of inhaled steroids, has a greater effect on parameters reflecting small airway patency presumably secondary to reduction in inflammation.

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.

The efficacy and safety of QVAR (hydrofluoroalkane-beclometasone diproprionate extrafine aerosol) in asthma (part 1): an update of clinical experience in adults

In 1999, a robust dose-finding study showed that the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) -free formulation of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), QVAR (hydrofluoroalkane-134a BDP), produced equivalent asthma control to CFC-BDP at approximately half the daily dose in adults. Since then, a wealth of clinical and pharmaco-vigilance studies have been undertaken to confirm these results and establish dose-potency ratios with other inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This review summarises the results of studies performed by the manufacturer that have been published since the last comprehensive review of the efficacy and safety of QVAR in 2000. Long-term comparisons with CFC-BDP have confirmed the durability of the 2:1 daily dosing ratio of CFC-BDP:QVAR in adults. Clinical comparisons with other ICS in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients have established dose-potency ratios of 2: 1 for budesonide:QVAR and 1:1 for fluticasone:QVAR. Furthermore, QVAR has been associated with benefits on asthma symptomatology and quality of life, compared with other ICS that probably arises from its peripheral deposition in the lung.

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone as a dominant economic asthma therapy

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma treatment have become mainstay of therapy for patients with persistent asthma. Numerous inhaled corticosteroids are available but to date no prospective cost-effectiveness studies have been reported using exclusively US patients and costs. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of HFA-bectomethasone (QVAR) compared to CFC-beclomethasone (Vanceril) using data from a year-long prospective randomized, open label, parallel multicenter trial. Eligibility criteria required patients to have been on a stable dose of CFC-BDP prior to enrollment. Patients were randomized to either HFA-BDP at approximately half their previous daily dose of CFC-BDP or to continue CFC-BDP Effectiveness data, in terms of symptom-free days (SFDs), were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the viewpoint of managed care. Patients receiving HFA-BDP reported a greater increase (median = 22.1) in the number of SFDs than those receiving CFC-BDP (median = 14.3) (P = 0.03). Total costs of care were less for patients taking HFA-BDP (median = dollars 668) compared to CFC-BDP (median = dollars 977). The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollars -5.77 (95% CI: dollars -68.08 to dollars -4.08). The results of this analysis indicate that HFA-BDP was a dominant therapy (more effective, less costly) compared to CFC-BDP.

Dose response and therapeutic index of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

Inhaled glucocorticoids play an indispensable role in the therapy of asthma. Development of new compounds was initially directed to increase the potency of the individual corticosteroid; thereafter, pharmacokinetic characteristics were modified to reduce unwanted systemic effects. Target of the present development is to attain compounds with the most favorable risk-to-benefit ratios. Since then, there has been substantial discussion about how to rank and weigh the different glucocorticoids. This article provides an evaluation of the relevant clinical studies published between May 2001 and June 2002, identifying the main determinants of the therapeutic value of inhaled glucocorticoids.

Inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta2-agonists as a combined therapy in asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma treatment. Since 1994, when the first trial showed an equivalent effect of doubling the ICS dose or adding salmeterol, it has repeatedly been shown that the combinations of beclomethasone dipropionate and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol, or fluticasone propionate and salmeterol have at least the same efficacy as doubling the dose of the ICS in adults, though a conclusive trial in asthmatic children is still lacking. The addition of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) to ICS appears more efficacious than adding a short-acting beta(2)-agonist or an antileukotriene, even though available data are sparse. Concurrent (two inhalers) and combination (same inhaler) modes of administration are equivalent from the clinical point of view, as is also true regarding administration via metered dose inhaler or dry powder inhaler. Using a single inhaler might eventually have a positive effect on treatment compliance, but there are no confirmatory data yet. Despite some clues regarding a presumed agonist effect of ICS and LABAs, there are still more doubts than certainties. Even though there are still unanswered questions, the data available strongly suggest that the fixed combination of ICS and LABAs using the same inhaler is an efficacious, safe and practical approach for those asthmatic patients who are not well controlled with low doses of ICS alone.

Lung deposition of hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone is greater than that of chlorofluorocarbon fluticasone and chlorofluorocarbon beclomethasone : a cross-over study in healthy volunteers

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the lung deposition of radiolabeled hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) with chlorofluorocarbon fluticasone propionate (CFC-FP) and chlorofluorocarbon beclomethasone (CFC-BDP).

DESIGN

Six-day, open-label, nonrandomized, crossover study.

SETTING

Clinical research laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine healthy, nonsmoking, adult volunteers.

INTERVENTIONS

On each study day, participants inhaled one or two puffs of 99mTc-labeled HFA-BDP, CFC-FP, or CFC-BDP. All products delivered 50 micro g per puff ex-valve. Subjects used a respiratory training and monitoring device to meet predefined, standardized inhalation patterns. Immediately after inhalation of radiolabeled study drug, planar gamma camera images were obtained.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Radiolabeled HFA-BDP had a higher deposition in the lungs (53% ex-actuator) compared with CFC-FP (12 to 13%) and CFC-BDP (4%). Conversely, CFC-FP and CFC-BDP had a much higher distribution to the oropharynx (72 to 78%, and 82%, respectively) than HFA-BDP (29%). HFA-BDP was deposited evenly throughout the lungs, while CFC-FP and CFC-BDP deposition was primarily in the large central and intermediate airways. Andersen particle size sampling gave mass median aerodynamic diameters for HFA-BDP, CFC-FP, and CFC-BDP of 0.9 micro m, 2.0 micro m, and 3.5 micro m, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung deposition was greater with HFA-BDP compared with CFC-FP and CFC-BDP. Deposition values appeared to be related to the particle size distribution of each inhaler, with the smaller particles of HFA-BDP providing the greatest lung deposition and least oropharyngeal deposition.

Step-down therapy with low-dose fluticasone-salmeterol combination or medium-dose hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone alone

BACKGROUND

Options for step-down therapy include use of inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate step-down therapy with a fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SM) combination administered through a dry powder inhaler (DPI; Advair Diskus) versus a medium dose of hydrofluoroalkane 143a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) administered through a breath-actuated pressurized metered-dose inhaler (QVAR Autohaler).

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma were treated with 1000 microg of DPI-administered BDP twice daily (DPI-BDP) for 4 weeks and then randomized to 200 microg of HFA-BDP twice daily (n = 20) or 100 microg of FP and 50 microg of SM twice daily (FM-SM; n = 19) for 8 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group design. We measured the provocative dose of methacholine producing a 20% fall in FEV1 (methacholine PD20) as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes being lung function, surrogate inflammatory markers, diary card responses, quality of life, and safety.

RESULTS

There was a 0.9 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-1.2) doubling dose improvement in methacholine PD20 comparing asthma before versus after DPI-BDP. HFA-BDP maintained this improvement, whereas FP-SM produced a further significant improvement, amounting to a 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.1) doubling dose difference at 8 weeks for FP-SM versus HFA-BDP. Effects on FEV1, peak expiratory flow, and quality of life (symptoms and emotions) were similar to those on methacholine PD20, with a significant difference between FP-SM and HFA-BDP. Suppression of plasma and urinary cortisol and serum osteocalcin levels occurred with DPI-BDP, but values returned to baseline levels within 1 month of HFA-BDP or FP-SM administration.

CONCLUSION

After high-dose inhaled corticosteroid, stepping down with the combination inhaler conferred further improvements in bronchoprotection, bronchodilatation, and clinical control, but not inflammatory markers, compared with that seen with a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroid.