Fluticasone given once versus twice a day: meta-analysis

Pharmacology Versus Convenience: A Benefit/Risk Analysis of Regular Maintenance Versus Infrequent or As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Mild Asthma

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the bronchoprotective and benefit/risk profiles of various inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosing regimens in mild asthma.

METHODS

A pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model was developed and validated describing the relationship between ICS dose and time-course for airway bronchoprotection, [provocative concentration of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) causing ≥ 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (AMP PC20)], for fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD). For regular ICS maintenance therapy (100% and 50% adherence) and infrequent or as-needed use (dosing 3-4 times per week), treatment effectiveness was expressed as percent time during 28 days when bronchoprotection exceeded either the threshold for a treatment-related bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 0.25 doubling dose) or the threshold for a clinically significant bronchoprotective effect (AMP PC20 ≥ 1.0 doubling dose). This value was divided by the total ICS dose administered expressed in prednisolone equivalents to give a therapeutic index (TI).

RESULTS

The model-predicted time course of ICS-induced bronchoprotection with regular daily maintenance dosing and 100% adherence showed that all ICS at the highest recommended doses for mild asthma exceeded the threshold for clinically significant bronchoprotective effect for all or most of the 28-day dosing period, mean (90% CI); 100% (96.1-100), 99.9% (8.0-100) and 100% (58.2-100) with TI values of 16.9, 6.6 and 5.4 for FF 100 µg OD, FP 200 µg BID and BUD 200 µg BID, respectively. For simulated poor adherence (50%) to regular daily maintenance therapy, corresponding mean (90% CI) values were; 75.7% (39.4-89.1), 52.3% (0.7-69.2) and 51.3% (28.6-58.3) with TI values of 25.7, 6.9 and 5.6. For simulated infrequent/as needed use the corresponding values were; 77.0% (37.6-87.0), 25.5% (0.0-38.0) and 26.2% (14.3-31.5) with TI values of 26.1, 6.7 and 5.7. For all regimen/scenarios, FF had the most sustained efficacy and favourable TI followed by FP and BUD.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses recommended for mild asthma, all ICS regimens provide sustained bronchoprotective efficacy when dosed regularly with high adherence. With poor adherence or use 3-4 times per week (infrequent/as needed), longer-acting ICS molecules will more likely provide sustained protection and a better TI versus shorter duration of action molecules (FF > FP ≥ BUD). These data highlight the benefits of using ICS as regular daily maintenance dosing in mild asthma and the potential risks of under-treatment with ICS (which may occur with ICS/formoterol as-needed approach in mild persistent asthma) associated with reduced levels of bronchoprotection.

Cost-utility analysis of once-daily versus twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

Suboptimal adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICs) is an important cause of poor asthma control in pediatric patients. Among the factors that can be most easily changed for enhancing adherence to ICs is a reduction in the dosing frequency, from twice-daily dosing to once-daily dosing. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for pediatric asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily dosing strategy involved lower costs (US$1529.3 versus $1709.1 average cost per patient over 12 months) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.8284 versus 0.8084 QALYs on average per patient over 12 months), resulting in once-daily dosing strategy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily IC dosing for treating pediatric patients with persistent asthma is the dominant strategy because it involves a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment cost.

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.

Efficacy and safety of high-dose ciclesonide for the treatment of severe asthma

Asthma severity is classified according to the level of treatment required to control symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line therapy for the treatment of persistent asthma, and when asthma remains uncontrolled, one option is to increase the inhaled corticosteroids dose. However, there is a concomitant risk of increasing local and systemic adverse events, which may impact patient adherence and physician prescribing practices. Ciclesonide is delivered as a prodrug, has high peripheral lung deposition and high protein-binding capabilities, and is rapidly eliminated from the systemic circulation. This article reviews the use of high-dose ciclesonide in patients with severe asthma and considers whether the pharmacology of ciclesonide translates into it being an efficacious and well-tolerated option for patients requiring a step-up in their asthma treatment.

Fluticasone furoate: once-daily evening treatment versus twice-daily treatment in moderate asthma

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line treatment for asthma but adherence to therapy is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) evening and twice-daily (BD) regimens of the novel inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) in asthma patients.

Methods

Patients with moderate asthma (age ≥ 12 years; pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) 40-85% predicted; FEV₁ reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml) were randomized to FF or fluticasone propionate (FP) regimens in a double-blind, crossover study. Patients were not permitted to have used any ICS for ≥ 8 weeks prior to enrolment and subsequently received doses of FF or FP 200 μg OD, FF or FP 100 μg BD and matching placebo by inhalation for 28 days each. Primary endpoint was Day 28 evening pre-dose (trough) FEV₁; non-inferiority of FF 200 μg OD and FF 100 μg BD was assessed, as was superiority of all active treatment relative to placebo. Adverse events (AEs) and 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion were assessed.

Results

The intent-to-treat population comprised 147 (FF) and 43 (FP) patients. On Day 28, pre-dose FEV₁ showed FF 200 μg OD to be non-inferior (pre-defined limit -110 ml) to FF 100 μg BD (mean treatment difference 11 ml; 95% CI: -35 to +56 ml); all FF and FP regimens were significantly superior to placebo (p ≤ 0.02). AEs were similar to placebo; no serious AEs were reported. Urinary cortisol excretion at Day 28 for FF was lower than placebo (ratios: 200 μg OD, 0.75; 100 μg BD, 0.84; p ≤ 0.02).

Conclusions

FF 200 μg OD in the evening is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for asthma patients and is not inferior to the same total BD dose.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00766090.

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.

Effects of fluticasone propionate dosage in an experimental model of feline asthma

Cats with inflammatory bronchial disease are usually treated with glucocorticoid (GC) drugs to reduce airway inflammation. Inhalant GC delivery can preserve airway effects while systemic effects are minimized. An appropriate dosage regimen for inhaled GC in cats has not been investigated. A blinded, randomized, cross-over study design was used to investigate the ability of three different dosages of the inhalant GC fluticasone propionate delivered by metered dose inhaler to ameliorate eosinophilic airway inflammation in cats with experimentally induced allergic airway inflammation. Further, suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPAA) at each dose was assessed. Fluticasone administered at dosages of 44, 110, or 220 microg q 12h reduced airway eosinophilia by 74%, 82%, or 81%, respectively (no difference). None of the dose regimens tested caused HPAA suppression. We conclude that a twice daily dosage of 44 microg fluticasone should be evaluated for the management of cats with naturally occurring inflammatory bronchial disease.

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.

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.

Fluticasone versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a relatively new inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared FP to placebo for treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (January 2008), reference lists of articles, contacted trialists and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing FP to placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and risk of bias.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, recruiting 16,160 participants. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild and moderate disease FP resulted in improvements from baseline compared with placebo across all dose ranges (100 to 1000 mcg/d) in FEV1 (between 0.1 to 0.43 litres); morning PEF (between 23 and 46 L/min); symptom scores (based on a standardised scale, between 0.44 and 0.7); reduction in rescue beta-2 agonist use (between 1 and 1.4 puffs/day). High dose FP increased the number of patients who could withdraw from prednisolone: FP 1000-1500 mcg/day Peto Odds Ratio 14.07 (95% CI 7.17 to 27.57). FP at all doses led to a greater likelihood of sore throat, hoarseness and oral Candidiasis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Doses of FP in the range 100-1000 mcg/day are effective. In most patients with mild-moderate asthma improvements with low dose FP are only a little less than those associated with high doses when compared with placebo. High dose FP appears to have worthwhile oral-corticosteroid reducing properties. FP use is accompanied by an increased likelihood of oropharyngeal side effects.

Combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone in mild asthma : a placebo-controlled comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Combined therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) is the recommended approach for the treatment of patients with asthma that is uncontrolled on ICSs alone. Additional studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with ICSs and LABAs in patients with mild asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) with once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) over a 12-week treatment period in patients with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study carried out in primary care or at a hospital outpatient department and included patients 12-79 years of age with mild persistent asthma (n = 458). After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized to receive SFC 50 microg/100 microg (n = 149), FP 100 microg (n = 154) or placebo (n = 155) once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was patient-recorded pre-dose mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Other assessments included asthma symptom scores, use of rescue medication and investigator-recorded exacerbations. Lung function was measured and assessed during clinic visits.

RESULTS

For the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change in morning PEF, SFC achieved significantly greater increases from baseline than both placebo (difference in adjusted means 23 L/min; 95% CI 15.0, 30.3; p < 0.001) and FP (difference in adjusted means 14 L/min; 95% CI 6.3, 21.7; p < 0.001). Compared with those who received FP, patients in the SFC group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean evening PEF (95% CI 11.7, 28.1; p < 0.001), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (95% CI 0.093, 0.257; p < 0.001), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (95% CI 0.242, 0.617; p < 0.001), the percentage of symptom-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.87; p = 0.011), and the percentage of rescue medication-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.90; p = 0.018). During weeks 5-12, 52% of patients in the SFC group achieved 'well controlled' asthma, compared with 42% and 26% of patients in the FP and placebo groups, respectively. Only one patient (receiving placebo) had a severe asthma exacerbation during the study; the frequency of adverse events was similar across the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg provided significantly greater improvements in lung function and in asthma symptoms than once-daily FP 100 microg alone in patients with mild persistent asthma. However, twice-daily treatment with either SFC or ICSs plus short acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists could be required to achieve guideline-defined asthma control in some patients.

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.

Comparison of twice-daily inhaled ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relative efficacy of ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate (FP) administered at comparable microgram doses in maintaining asthma control in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled patients aged 12-75 years with a 6-month history of bronchial asthma. To enter a 2-week run-in period, patients had to have received FP 500-1000 microg/day or equivalent at a stable dose for 4 weeks and have a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV 1) 80% of predicted. To enter the treatment period, patients had to have the following during run-in: FEV 1 80% of predicted; reversibility of Delta FEV 1 12% after 200-400 microg salbutamol; and 1 day without asthma symptoms during the last 7 days. Patients were randomized to twice-daily ciclesonide 320 microg (ex-actuator) or twice-daily FP 330 microg (ex-actuator) for 6 months. Efficacy was assessed by lung function, asthma exacerbations, asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Patients completed the standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]). Adverse events (AEs), including local oropharyngeal AEs, were recorded.

RESULTS

528 patients were randomized (ciclesonide, n=255; FP, n=273). In both groups, FEV 1 was maintained from baseline to study end (mean increase: ciclesonide 11 mL, FP 24 mL; intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis). The least squares mean+/-standard error of the mean for the treatment difference was -13+/-29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -70, 44) in the ITT analysis and -27+/-34 (95% CI: -93, 40) in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, demonstrating non-inferiority of ciclesonide to FP. Morning, evening and site-measured PEF improved significantly with both treatments (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05). Six patients receiving ciclesonide and seven receiving FP (ITT analysis) experienced an asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids. Both treatments significantly decreased asthma symptom score sum (ITT and PP analyses: p0.0001) and rescue medication use (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05), with no significant difference between treatments. Both treatments significantly improved overall AQLQ(S) score (ITT and PP analyses: p<0.05). Significantly more patients experienced candidiasis and dysphonia with FP compared with ciclesonide (p=0.0023).

CONCLUSION

Ciclesonide 320 microg and FP 330 microg administered twice daily over 6 months provided similar efficacy in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma previously well-controlled by high doses of ICS at baseline. Ciclesonide was associated with fewer local AEs than FP.

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.

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.

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.

Fluticasone versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a relatively new inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared FP to placebo for treatment of chronic asthma.2. To explore the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (January 2005), reference lists of articles, contacted trialists and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing FP to placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan 4.2

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-five studies met the inclusion criteria (14,208 participants). Methodological quality was high. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild and moderate disease FP resulted in improvements from baseline compared with placebo across all dose ranges (100 to 1000 mcg/d) in FEV1 (between 0.13 to 0.45 litres); morning PEF (between 23 and 47 L/min); symptom scores (based on a standardised scale, between 0.5 and 0.85); reduction in rescue beta-2 agonist use (between 1.2 and 2.2 puffs/day). High dose FP increased the number of patients who could withdraw from prednisolone: FP 1000-1500 mcg/day Peto Odds Ratio 14.07 (95% CI 7.17 to 27.57). FP at all doses led to a greater likelihood of sore throat, hoarseness and oral Candidiasis. Twenty-one patients would need to be treated for one extra to develop Candidiasis (FP 500 mcg/day), whilst only three or four patients need to be treated to avoid one extra patient being withdrawn due to lack of efficacy at all doses of FP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Doses of FP in the range 100-1000 mcg/day are effective. In most patients with mild-moderate asthma improvements with low dose FP are only a little less than those associated with high doses when compared with placebo. High dose FP appears to have worthwhile oral-corticosteroid reducing properties. FP use is accompanied by an increased likelihood of oropharyngeal side effects.