Budesonide once versus twice-daily administration: meta-analysis

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Contemporaneous International Asthma Guidelines Present Differing Recommendations: An Analysis

Background. Several international groups develop asthma guidelines. Conflicting recommendations across guidelines have been described in several disease areas and may contribute to practice variability. Accordingly, we compared the latest Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) asthma guideline with contemporaneous international asthma guidelines to evaluate conflicting recommendations and their causes. Methods. We identified the latest CTS asthma guideline update (2012) and the following societies which also updated their guidelines in 2012: the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Global Initiative for Asthma. We compared these three guidelines on (1) key methodological factors and (2) adult pharmacotherapy recommendations. Results. Methods used and documentation provided for literature search strategy and dates, evidence synthesis, outcomes considered, evidence appraisal, and recommendation formulation varied between guidelines. Criteria used to define suboptimal asthma control varied widely between guidelines. Inhaled corticosteroid dosing recommendations diverged, as did recommendations surrounding use of budesonide/formoterol as a reliever and controller and recommendations in the subsequent step. Conclusions. There are important differences between recommendations provided in contemporaneous asthma guidelines. Causes include differences in methods used for interpreting evidence and formulating recommendations. Adopting a common set of valid and explicit methods across international societies could harmonize recommendations and facilitate guideline implementation.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Evaluation of switching low-dose inhaled corticosteroid to pranlukast for step-down therapy in well-controlled patients with mild persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend step-down therapy for well-controlled asthma patients. However, the precise strategy for step-down therapy has not been well defined. We investigated whether well-controlled patients with mild persistent asthma can tolerate a step-down therapy of either a reduced dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or a switch to a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), pranlukast hydrate.

METHODS

We recruited 40 adult patients with mild persistent asthma who were well-controlled for at least 3 months with a low-dose ICS therapy. The patients were randomly assigned to either an ICS dose reduction or a switch to pranlukast for 6 months.

RESULTS

FeNO levels in the pranlukast group were significantly increased over that in the ICS group. There were no significant differences between the two groups for lung function, FOT, at the endpoint. The percentage of patients with controlled asthma was 72.2% in the pranlukast group and 90% in the ICS group. No statistically significant difference between the two groups in the percentages of patients with treatment failure was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mild persistent asthma that is well-controlled by a low dose of ICS can be switched to pranlukast safely for at least 6 months. However, 27.8% of the pranlukast group failed to maintain well-control, and FeNO levels increased with the switch to pranlukast at 6 months. This study was been limited by the small sample size and should therefore be considered preliminary. Further studies are needed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of LTRA monotherapy as a step-down therapy.

Principal findings of systematic reviews for chronic treatment in childhood asthma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the principal findings pertaining to most effective long-term pharmacologic treatment of childhood asthma.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (SRCTs) on pharmacologic chronic treatment in children (1-18 years) with persistent asthma were retrieved through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and CDSR (up to January2014).

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three SRCTs were searched from databases. Among those, 39 SRCTs were included: two were related to step 1, 24 to step 2, nine to steps 3 and 4, and four to step 5 (according with NAEPP and GINA guidelines). The methodological quality of these SRCTs was determined by using the AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

For step 1: addition of ipatropium bromide to short-acting beta2-agonists does not show any benefit. For step 2: in preschoolers, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) reduce severe exacerbations and improve other clinical and lung function parameters. In children, ICSs are superior to leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), cromones, or xantines in reducing severe exacerbations, improving lung function and other clinical outcomes. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is better than beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) or budesonide only for lung function; but similar to hydrofluoroalkane-BDP or to ciclosenide. Compared to low ICSs doses, moderate doses result in only better lung function, but this is not true for FP. For steps 3 and 4: adding LTRA to ICS confers a small benefit; adding LABA improves lung function but does not reduce exacerbations more than double or higher ICS doses. For step 5: adding omalizumab decreases exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

SRCTs are useful for guiding decisions in chronic childhood asthma treatment.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2012 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This an updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have updated guidelines, which are simple to understand and easy to use by non-asthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. This new version includes updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of Asthma Control Test in the management of asthma, and a new section on "difficult-to-treat asthma." Further, the section on asthma in children was re-written to cover different aspects in this age group. The SINA panel is a group of Saudi experts with well-respected academic backgrounds and experience in the field of asthma. The guidelines are formatted based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There was an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan. The approach adopted by the SINA group is mainly based on disease control as it is the ultimate goal of treatment.

Markers for step-down of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for all stages of persistent asthma. However, it is unknown whether ICS dose reduction in adult asthmatics is compatible with maintaining asthma control. Moreover, there are no predictors of efficacy in maintaining asthma control upon ICS reduction.

METHODS

We recruited 90 adult patients with moderate or severe asthma but no clinical symptoms of asthma for at least 6 months. All patients reduced their ICS doses by half but continued taking other asthma-related medications. As a primary outcome, we measured asthma exacerbations during the 12 months following ICS reduction. We also further monitored patients from the above study who had maintained total asthma control for 12 months after ICS reduction and who had continued on their reduced doses of ICS or had further reduced, or stopped, their ICS.

RESULTS

Forty of ninety patients (44.4%) experienced exacerbations after ICS reduction (time to first exacerbation: 6.4 ± 3.6 months). Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed a rank order of predictors of success in ICS reduction while retaining asthma control: acetylcholine (ACh) PC(20) (p < 0.01); length of time with no clinical symptoms before ICS reduction (p < 0.01); FeNO (p = 0.028); and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1); % predicted) (p = 0.03). Finally thirty-nine of 50 patients maintained total asthma control for at least 2 years after the initial ICS reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma patients with normalized AChPC(20) of 20mg/mL or 10mg/mL and no clinical symptoms for at least 12 or 24 months it may be possible to successfully reduce ICS without increasing exacerbations for long time.

Updates on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the newer inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) ciclesonide with older ICSs in terms of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and how these affect comparative efficacy. In addition, clinical dosing strategies for ICSs including as-needed use will be explored.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ciclesonide has demonstrated similar efficacy to that of fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate in equipotent doses with a potentially improved therapeutic index. Once-daily administration of ICSs is generally not as effective as twice-daily. Continuous administration of ICSs does not change the natural history of asthma in either children or adults. Long-term administration of medium dose ICSs does not increase the risk of cataracts or osteopenia in children and young adults. Studies of as-needed ICSs in mild persistent asthma in adults and children have demonstrated mixed results, with some showing equal efficacy to continuous therapy and others showing superiority of continuous therapy.

SUMMARY

Ciclesonide provides a newer ICS with favorable pharmacokinetics that may improve the therapeutic index, but assessment of its systemic effects such as growth await further studies. Continuous administration of ICSs in low to medium dose over many years is well tolerated. The use of as-needed ICSs in patients with mild persistent asthma is promising as a potential step-down therapy but awaits further studies.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) provides up-to-date guidelines for healthcare workers managing patients with asthma. SINA was developed by a panel of Saudi experts with respectable academic backgrounds and long-standing experience in the field. SINA is founded on the latest available evidence, local literature, and knowledge of the current setting in Saudi Arabia. Emphasis is placed on understanding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, medications, and clinical presentation. SINA elaborates on the development of patient-doctor partnership, self-management, and control of precipitating factors. Approaches to asthma treatment in SINA are based on disease control by the utilization of Asthma Control Test for the initiation and adjustment of asthma treatment. This guideline is established for the treatment of asthma in both children and adults, with special attention to children 5 years and younger. It is expected that the implementation of these guidelines for treating asthma will lead to better asthma control and decrease patient utilization of the health care system.

Comparison of inhaled corticosteroids: an update

OBJECTIVE

To review the basis for the estimated comparative daily dosages of inhaled corticosteroids for children and adults that are presented in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Expert Panel Report 3; in addition, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic basis for potential clinical differences among inhaled corticosteroids is discussed.

DATA SOURCES

A complete MEDLINE search was conducted of human studies of asthma pharmacotherapy published between January 1, 2001, and March 15, 2006, followed by a PubMed search up until August 2008, using ciclesonide, inhaled corticosteroids, and pharmacokinetics as key words. Product information on each inhaled corticosteroid was also included.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Comparative clinical trials of inhaled corticosteroids and systematic reviews for efficacy comparisons were evaluated. Extensive literature reviews, meta-analyses, and selected clinical studies that illustrate or represent specific points of view were selected. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data extracted from previously published reviews and specific studies were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Pharmacodynamic characteristics (glucocorticoid receptor binding) and lung delivery determine the relative clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetic properties (oral bioavailability, lung retention, systemic clearance) and determine comparative therapeutic index of the inhaled corticosteroids. Secondary pharmacokinetic differences (intracellular fatty acid esterification, high serum protein binding) that have been posited to improve duration of action and/or therapeutic index are unproven, and current comparative clinical trials do not support the hypotheses that they provide an advantage. Ultrafine particle meter-dose inhalers (MDIs) have not demonstrated superior asthma control or improved safety over older MDIs. All of the inhaled corticosteroids demonstrate efficacy with once-daily dosing, and all are more effective when dosed twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that all of the inhaled corticosteroids have sufficient therapeutic indexes to provide similar efficacy and safety in low to medium doses. Whether or not some of the newer inhaled corticosteroids offer any advantages at higher doses has yet to be determined.

Once-daily inhaled glucocorticosteroid administration in controlled asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Inhaled glucocorticosteroids are usually administered in two equal daily doses. To simplify the method of treatment, once-daily administration has been used. However, little information regarding whether once-daily treatment can sufficiently control airway inflammation is available. We aimed to investigate whether once-daily administration of inhaled glucocorticosteroids can control airway inflammation.

METHODS

Twenty-four well-controlled asthma patients were enrolled in a randomized crossover trial to compare the efficacies of once-daily and twice-daily administration of inhaled glucocorticosteroids. Initially, the patients were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily or twice-daily administration for 16 weeks. After an 8-week washout period, patients who originally received twice-daily administration were assigned to once-daily administration for 16 weeks and vice versa. We assessed the changes in the forced expiratory volume in 1s, morning and evening peak expiratory flows, asthma symptoms, health-related quality of life and fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels.

RESULTS

Patients with once-daily administration showed the same level of clinical control and lung functions as patients receiving twice-daily administration. There was no difference in the fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels between the beginning and end of the twice-daily treatment (35.69 and 33.23ppb, respectively). In contrast, the fractional exhaled nitric oxide level was significantly higher at the end of the once-daily treatment (33.87 and 39.38ppb, respectively, p< 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although once-daily administration is sufficient for clinical control of asthma, it might not control airway inflammation sufficiently.

Indacaterol provides sustained 24 h bronchodilation on once-daily dosing in asthma: a 7-day dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is a novel, once-daily beta(2)-agonist in development for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to determine optimal dose(s) for continuing investigation.

OBJECTIVE

A dose-ranging study was undertaken to evaluate efficacy and safety of indacaterol.

METHODS

A total of 436 patients with persistent asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids were randomized to 7 days treatment with once-daily indacaterol 50, 100, 200, or 400 microg via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (MDDPI; Certihaler), indacaterol 400 microg via single-dose dry-powder inhaler (SDDPI), or placebo. Serial 24-h spirometry was performed on days 1 and 7. Vital signs, laboratory evaluations, and adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

All doses of indacaterol increased the mean time-standardized area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) from 22 to 24 h postdose (P <or= 0.001 vs placebo) on days 1 and 7, with clinically relevant treatment-placebo differences of 240, 260, 350, 300, and 380 ml on day 1 and 230, 220, 320, 250, and 270 ml on day 7 for indacaterol 50, 100, 200, and 400 microg via MDDPI and 400 microg via SDDPI, respectively. All doses increased mean FEV(1) (P < 0.05 vs placebo) from 5 min to 24 h postdose on days 1 and 7. All doses were well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity: most frequently reported were respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily dosing with indacaterol provided sustained 24-h bronchodilation in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, with a satisfactory overall safety profile. Indacaterol 200 microg appears the optimum dose, offering the best efficacy/safety balance.

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.

Once versus twice daily budesonide metered-dose inhaler in children with mild to moderate asthma: effect on symptoms and bronchial responsiveness

BACKGROUND

Simplifying dosing regimens could improve both adherence and asthma-related morbidity. However, there is little information on the effectiveness of once-daily budesonide, administered through a metered dose inhaler (MDI) plus spacer, on asthma symptoms and pulmonary function in asthmatic children.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of once-daily versus twice-daily doses of inhaled budesonide on symptoms, lung function and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) in asthmatic children. This study was a randomized, single-blind, parallel clinical trial. Patients received budesonide from an MDI either 800 microg as a daily dose or fractionated in 400 microg twice a day for 12 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using tests for independent and paired samples.

RESULTS

In both groups, asthma symptoms significantly decreased. However, the improvement in asthma symptoms, decrease in BHR and treatment adherence were significantly greater in the once-daily group than in the twice-daily group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in spirometric parameters, morning peak expiratory flow or plasma cortisol values.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily administration of 800 microg of inhaled budesonide administered by MDI plus spacer was more effective in controlling symptoms and improving BHR than fractionating the dose to 400 microg twice daily. The differences observed in this study could have been due to the greater adherence to treatment in patients in the once-daily group.

Long-term comparison of 3 controller regimens for mild-moderate persistent childhood asthma: the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial

BACKGROUND

More evidence is needed on which to base recommendations for treatment of mild-moderate persistent asthma in school-aged children.

OBJECTIVE

The Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial (PACT) compared the effectiveness of 3 regimens in achieving asthma control.

METHODS

A total of 285 children (ages 6-14 years) with mild-moderate persistent asthma on the basis of symptoms, and with FEV(1) >or= 80% predicted and methacholine FEV(1) PC(20) <or= 12.5 mg/mL, were randomized to 1 of 3 double-blind 48-week treatments: fluticasone 100 microg twice daily (fluticasone monotherapy), fluticasone 100 microg/salmeterol 50 microg in the morning and salmeterol 50 mug in the evening (PACT combination), and montelukast 5 mg in the evening. Outcomes included asthma control days (primary outcome), exacerbations, humanistic measurements, and pulmonary function measurements.

RESULTS

Fluticasone monotherapy and PACT combination were comparable in many patient-measured outcomes, including percent of asthma control days, but fluticasone monotherapy was superior for clinic-measured FEV(1)/forced vital capacity (P = .015), maximum bronchodilator response (P = .009), exhaled nitric oxide (P < .001), and PC(20) (P < .001). Fluticasone monotherapy was superior to montelukast for asthma control days (64.2% vs 52.5%; P = .004) and for all other control outcomes. Growth over 48 weeks was not statistically different (fluticasone, 5.3 cm; PACT combination, 5.3 cm; montelukast, 5.7 cm).

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone monotherapy and PACT combination achieved greater improvements in asthma control days than montelukast. However, fluticasone monotherapy was superior to PACT combination in achieving other dimensions of asthma control. Growth was similar in all groups.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Therefore, of the regimens tested, the PACT study findings favor fluticasone monotherapy in treating children with mild-moderate persistent asthma with FEV(1) >or= 80% predicted, confirming current guideline recommendations.

A multinational, 12-week, randomized study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide and budesonide in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a new lung-activated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has shown efficacy in previous placebo-controlled and comparative studies in patients with persistent asthma. It is important to compare new treatments with existing ICSs to obtain relative data concerning their efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide QD with budesonide BID in patients with asthma.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized study was conducted at 62 study sites across Europe. Male and female patients aged 12 to 75 years with primarily mild to moderate asthma were enrolled. This study was double blind with respect to the ciclesonide dose and open label for budesonide, as placebofor budesonide was not available. Patients were randomly assigned to receive inhaled ciclesonide 80 or 320 microg QD (morning) or budesonide 200 microg BID for 12 weeks. Efficacy and tolerability assessments were performed at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 12. The primary end point was the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points were changes from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom scores, and rescue medication use. Tolerability was assessed throughout the study by monitoring of standard laboratory variables (hematology and biochemistry); physical examination, including vital signs; reporting of adverse events (AEs); and 24-hour urinary cortisol as a measure of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-four patients were randomized (301 men, 253 women; mean age, 41.3 years; ciclesonide 80 microg QD, 182 patients; ciclesonide 320 microg QD, 195; budesonide 200 microg BID, 177). Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, including age, sex, weight, and (FEV1) were similar between the 3 groups. Compared with baseline values, week-12 FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] [SEM] A, +0.267 [0.035], +0.256 [0.033], and +0.355 [0.034] L, respectively; all, P<0.001) and morning PEF (LSM [SEM] Delta, +12 [5], +17 [4], and +21 [4] L/min, respectively; all, P<or=0.008) were significantly improved with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD and budesonide 200 microg BID. At 12 weeks, ciclesonide was found to be noninferior to budesonide with regard to mean changes from baseline in (FEV1) (intent to treat [ITT]: 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.192 to 0.015; 97.5 CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.200 to 0.001) and morning PEF (ITT. 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -22 to 5; 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -17 to 10). Similar findings were seen in the per-protocol population. Week-12 daily, daytime, and nighttime asthma symptom scores and rescue medication use were significantly decreased from baseline in all 3 treatment groups (all, P<0.001). The prevalences of AEs were similar across all 3 treatment groups. Week-12 mean urinary cortisol excretion was statistically similar to baseline with both ciclesonide doses (Delta, -0.54 and +0.16 nmol/mmol creatinine with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD, respectively) but was significantly reduced from baseline with budesonide (Delta, -1.42 nmol/mmol creatinine; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in patients with primarily mild to moderate asthma suggest that ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD were similar to budesonide 200 microg BID in improving pulmonary function, controlling asthma symptoms, and reducing the need for rescue medication use. Unlike budesonide, ciclesonide was not associated with significant urinary cortisol suppression in these patients.

Patient-reported outcomes in a trial of exenatide and insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Background

Patient-reported measures can be used to examine whether drug differences other than clinical efficacy have an impact on outcomes that may be important to patients. Although exenatide and insulin glargine appear to have similar efficacy for treatment of type 2 diabetes, there are several differences between the two treatments that could influence outcomes from the patient's perspective. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether the two drugs were comparable as assessed by patient-reported outcomes using data from a clinical trial in which these injectable medications were added to pre-existing oral treatment regimens.

Methods

Patients were randomized to either twice daily exenatide or once daily insulin glargine during a 26-week international trial. At baseline and endpoint, five patient-reported outcome measures were administered: the Vitality Scale of the SF-36, The Diabetes Symptom Checklist – Revised (DSC-R), the EuroQol EQ-5D, the Treatment Flexibility Scale (TFS), and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Change from baseline to endpoint was analyzed within each treatment group. Group differences were examined with General linear models (GLMs), controlling for country and baseline scores.

Results

A total of 549 patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled in the trial, and current analyses were conducted with data from the 455 per protocol patients (228 exenatide and 227 insulin glargine). The sample was primarily Caucasian (79.6%), with slightly more men (55.2%) than women, and with a mean age of 58.5 years. Paired t-tests found that both treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant baseline to endpoint change on several of the health outcomes instruments including the DSC-R, DTSQ, and the SF-36 Vitality subscale. GLMs found no statistically significant differences between groups in change on the health outcomes instruments.

Conclusion

This analysis found that both exenatide and insulin glargine were associated with significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes when added to oral medications among patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite an additional daily injection and a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, treatment satisfaction in the exenatide group was comparable to that of the glargine group, possibly because of weight reduction observed in patients treated with exenatide.

Topical retapamulin ointment (1%, wt/wt) twice daily for 5 days versus oral cephalexin twice daily for 10 days in the treatment of secondarily infected dermatitis: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

New antibacterial agents with activity against pathogenic strains resistant to established antibiotics are needed to treat patients with secondarily infected dermatitis (SID).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the clinical safety and efficacy of topical retapamulin ointment 1% versus oral cephalexin for the treatment of SID.

METHODS

Patients with SID were randomly assigned to retapamulin ointment 1% (twice daily [bid]) for 5 days, or oral cephalexin (500 mg bid) for 10 days. The primary efficacy end point was clinical response at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included microbiologic response at follow-up, safety, and compliance.

RESULTS

Retapamulin was as effective as cephalexin (clinical success rates at follow-up: 85.9% and 89.7%, respectively). Microbiologic success rates at follow-up were 87.2% for retapamulin and 91.8% for cephalexin. Retapamulin was well tolerated and the topical formulation was preferred over the oral drug.

LIMITATIONS

An imbalance existed in the number of patients with the clinical outcome "unable to determine" (15 retapamulin, 2 cephalexin), mainly because of their failure to attend the study visit. If those who failed to attend visits (who did not withdraw as a result of drug-related events) are removed from the analysis, the clinical success rates are 89.9% for retapamulin and 89.7% for cephalexin.

CONCLUSIONS

Retapamulin ointment 1% (bid) for 5 days was as effective as oral cephalexin (bid) for 10 days in treatment of patients with SID, and was well tolerated.

Clinical comparability between the CFC and HFA budesonide pressurised metered-dose inhalers in paediatric patients with asthma: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a novel hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide (Pulmicort) versus the conventional chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pMDI formulation in paediatric patients with asthma.

METHODS

This was a Phase III, multicentre, 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study involving children (6-12 years of age) with mild to moderate asthma. Patients received either budesonide HFA pMDI or budesonide CFC pMDI 200 mug twice daily, with or without a spacer (NebuChamber/Nebunette). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean percentage change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in FEV(1) per cent of predicted normal, forced vital capacity, morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate, asthma symptoms and use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients received treatment (HFA 77, CFC 82). For mean percentage change in FEV(1) from baseline to week 12, the difference between the treatments (CFC pMDI - HFA pMDI) was -3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.0% to 1.8%) for the full analysis set and was not affected by spacer use. The upper CI was < 10% (the predefined non-inferiority margin), so non-inferiority was demonstrated. Improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints with both budesonide formulations were not significantly different. In both groups there were similar numbers of adverse events and no evidence of oral candidiasis at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with budesonide HFA pMDI is effective and well tolerated in children with asthma and is clinically comparable to budesonide CFC pMDI.

Fluticasone given once versus twice a day: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of fluticasone administered once daily compared to twice daily in asthma.

METHODOLOGY

A meta-analysis was performed of randomized double-blind trials of at least 4 weeks duration that compared fluticasone administered once versus twice a day and presented data on at least one clinical outcome measure.

RESULTS

Six studies of 1517 children and adults with asthma met the inclusion criteria. Studies were predominantly in subjects with moderate asthma, treated with doses of fluticasone ranging from 200 to 500 microg per day. Twice-daily dosing was associated with significantly greater efficacy compared with once-daily dosing, for all outcome measures except night wakenings. The mean (95% CI) differences between twice and once-daily administration for FEV(1) and peak expiratory flow were 0.11 L (0.07-0.16) and 12.9 L/min (8.6-17.1), respectively. Twice-daily fluticasone was associated with significantly fewer withdrawals due to asthma than once-daily fluticasone, with an odds ratio of 0.44 (0.30-0.67).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that twice-daily administration of fluticasone will provide greater therapeutic benefit than a once-daily morning regimen.

Benefit versus risk for oral, inhaled, and nasal glucocorticosteroids

Many factors affect the benefit-to-risk analysis of the use of the glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of allergic inflammation. For most patients the benefit-to-risk ratio favors topical over oral administration, but in severe disease oral administration may be required. It is clear from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies that inhaled glucocorticosteroids in particular are absorbed into the systemic circulation and that they can have clinical adverse effects when given in high doses. Therefore, with inhaled and nasal glucocorticosteroids, the dose that will achieve the optimal benefit/risk ratio is the lowest dose that controls symptoms and prevents exacerbations requiring treatment with oral glucocorticosteroids. This optimal dose needs to be determined on an individual basis and is likely to vary as disease severity changes over time.

The treatment of asthma in children: inhaled corticosteroids

The evidence that asthma is characterized by extensive inflammation of the airways has warranted the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in asthma maintenance therapy. Corticosteroid treatment, especially if high or frequent doses are required, is associated with a range of adverse effects including adrenal suppression and impairment in growth and bone metabolism. New corticosteroids are in development, including mometasone furoate, and some of these are predicted to have reduced adverse effects such as the soft steroid ciclesonide. Soft steroids are designed for delivery near to their site of action, to exert their effect and then to undergo controlled and predictable metabolism to inactive metabolites. This review points out the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroid in asthmatic airways and the clinical efficacy and safety of ICS in asthmatic children. The development of a soft steroid should help to achieve the aim of improving the therapeutic profile of ICS in asthma and thus alleviate the ongoing problem of poor patient compliance especially in childhood.

The 24 h duration of bronchodilator action of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler

INTRODUCTION

The duration of bronchodilator action of the long-acting beta-agonist formoterol when administered in the evening has not been investigated. In this study we have investigated whether a single evening dose of formoterol, administered from the combination budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) Turbuhaler significantly attenuates the circadian rhythm in airway tone over 24 h.

METHODS

Twenty subjects with mild to moderate asthma (mean FEV1 84% predicted) participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Subjects inhaled, in random order, placebo or BUD/F (2x100/6 microg) administered in the evening (2000 h) on two separate occasions. Lung function measurements including FEV1, specific airways conductance (sGaw) and maximum expiratory flow at 25-75% of vital capacity (MEF(25-75%)) were assessed at baseline, at 1 h and subsequently every 4 h post-dose for 24 h.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, BUD/F significantly improved the three measures of airways function throughout the 24 h period, with a difference in FEV1 at 24 h of 0.20L (0.04-0.35L). BUD/F attenuated the biphasic pattern of the circadian rhythm in airway tone.

CONCLUSION

The single evening administration of formoterol from the combination BUD/F inhaler resulted in a duration of bronchodilation of at least 24 h.