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

In vitro Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic study of the effect of glycerol on the uptake of beclomethasone dipropionate in living respiratory cells

The quantification of drug in living cells is of increasing interest in pharmaceutical research because of its importance in understanding drug efficacy and toxicity. Label-free in situ measurement methods are advantageous for their ability to obtain chemical and time profiles without the need of labelling or extraction steps. We have previously shown that Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy has the potential to quantify drug in situ within living cells at micromolar level when a simple solution of drug was added to the medium. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that the approach can evaluate more complex systems such as the effect of membrane modification by a formulation on drug uptakes. The inhaled corticosteroid, beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), in Calu-3 respiratory epithelial cells in the absence and presence of glycerol, an excipient in some inhaled medicines was used as the model system. The FTIR method was first validated for limit of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) according to published guidelines and the LOQ was found to be ∼ 20 μM, good enough to quantify BDP in the living cell. The uptake of BDP by living Calu-3 cells was found to be reduced in the presence of glycerol as expected due to the stiffening of the cell membrane by the presence of glycerol in the formulation. This study demonstrates the valuable analytical capability of live-cell FTIR to study the effect of formulation on drug transport in lungs and to evaluate drug availability to intracellular targets. We conclude that FTIR has potential to contribute widely at the frontier of live-cell studies.

A Current Perspective of Allergic Asthma: From Mechanisms to Management

Asthma is a result of heterogenous, complex gene-environment interactions with variable clinical phenotypes, inflammation, and remodeling. It affects more than 330 million of people worldwide throughout their educational and working lives, while exacerbations put a heavy cost/burden on productivity. Childhood asthma is characterized by a predominance of allergic sensitization and multimorbidity, while in adults polysensitization has been positively associated with asthma occurrence. Despite significant improvements in recent decades, asthma management remains challenging. Recently, a group of specialists suggested that the term "asthma" should be preferably used as a descriptive term for symptoms. Moreover, type 2 inflammation has emerged as a pivotal disease mechanism including overlapping endotypes of specific IgE production, while type 2-low asthma includes several disease endotypes. Optimal asthma control requires both appropriate pharmacological interventions, tailored to each patient, as well as trigger avoidance measures. Regular monitoring for maintenance of symptom control, preservation of lung function, and detection of treatment-related adverse effects are warranted. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and the advent of new targeted therapies for patients with difficult to control asthma offer diverse treatment options. The current review summarizes up-to-date knowledge on epidemiology, definitions, diagnosis, and current therapeutic strategies.

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Objectives. The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. Methods. The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. Results. A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, "patient suitability" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. Conclusions. Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.

Many continuous variables should be analyzed using the relative scale: a case study of β2-agonists for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND

The relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β₂-agonists on exercise-induced decline in forced-expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV₁).

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV₁ decline after exercise was modeled as a mean uniform percentage point (pp) change (absolute effect) or average percent change (relative effect) using either intercept-only or slope-only, respectively, linear mixed-effect models. We also calculated the pooled relative effect estimates using standard random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis using study-level mean effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β₂-agonists decreased the exercise-induced FEV₁ decline by 28 pp., and on the relative scale, they decreased the FEV₁ decline by 90%. The fit of the statistical model was significantly better with the relative 90% estimate compared with the absolute 28 pp. estimate. Furthermore, the median residuals (5.8 vs. 10.8 pp) were substantially smaller in the relative effect model than in the absolute effect model. Using standard study-level meta-analysis of the same 14 studies, β₂-agonists reduced exercise-induced FEV₁ decline on the relative scale by a similar amount: 83% or 90%, depending on the method of calculating the relative effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β₂-agonists on exercise-induced FEV₁-declines. The absolute scale has been used in the analysis of FEV₁ changes and may have led to sub-optimal statistical analysis in some cases. The choice between the absolute and relative scale should be determined based on biological reasoning and empirical testing to identify the scale that leads to lower heterogeneity.

Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews.

METHODS

For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P < 0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search).

RESULTS

Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P < 0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources.

CONCLUSION

Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.

Comparison of fluticasone propionate with budesonide administered via nebulizer: a randomized controlled trial in patients with severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

This study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) inhalation n solution with budesonide (BUD) suspension for inhalation administered via nebulizer, in Chinese adult patients with severe, persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel-group study, conducted at 26 clinical sites in China. Participants were randomized 1:1 to FP nebules 1 mg twice daily or BUD 2 mg twice daily via nebulizer for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 317 adult patients were randomized. The primary endpoint was mean change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over weeks 1-12 from baseline, and analyzed in the ITT (n=315) and PP populations (n=283). Week 12 PEF increase from baseline was 26.7 L/min (14.1%) and 28.0 L/min (15.3%) in the ITT population, and 29.1 L/min (15.7%) and 30.1 L/min (16.2%) in the PP population, in the FP and BUD groups, respectively; all improvements were of clinical significance. Lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs for the least squares (LS) mean treatment difference (FP minus BUD) were -12.19 L/min (ITT) and -12.95 L/min (PP), both above the pre-specified non-inferiority criteria -12.00 L/min and not clinically meaningful. There was no significant difference in the week 12 mean FEV₁ increase between the FP and BUD groups (0.237 L/16.79% vs. 0.236 L/17.73%). Lower limits of the 95% CIs for LS mean treatment difference in morning PEF change from baseline over weeks 1-4 in a post hoc analysis were -10.41 and -11.96 L/min in the ITT and PP populations respectively; both above -12.00 L/min. A review of safety data indicated that rates of AEs, SAEs, and drug-related AEs were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12-week treatment of FP inhalation solution administered via nebulizer is safe and effectively for treating severe, persistent asthma in Chinese patients over 12 week.

Inhaled corticosteroids and HPA axis suppression: how important is it and how should it be managed?

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are established as a cornerstone of management for patients with bronchoconstrictive lung disease. However, systemic absorption may lead to suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in a significant minority of patients. This is more likely in 'higher risk' patients exposed to high cumulative ICS doses, and in those treated with frequent oral corticosteroids or drugs which inhibit cytochrome p450 3A4. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression is frequently unrecognized, such that some patients, notably children, only come to light when an adrenal crisis is precipitated by physical stress. To minimize this risk, 'higher risk' patients and those with previously identified suppressed cortisol responses to Synacthen testing should undergo an education programme to inform them about sick day rules. A review of ICS therapy should also be undertaken to ensure that the dose administered is the minimum required to control symptoms.

Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

A primary goal of asthma management is the reduction of exacerbation risk. We assessed the occurrence of oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbations (OCS exacerbations) with long-term fluticasone/formoterol therapy, and compared it with the occurrence of similar events reported with other inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations.

METHODS

The occurrence of OCS exacerbations was assessed in two open-label trials of fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol administered for between 26 to 60 weeks in adults and adolescents with asthma. The incidence of OCS exacerbations with fluticasone/formoterol was compared with those reported in three recent Cochrane meta-analyses of other ICS/LABAs.

RESULTS

The pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations with long-term fluticasone/formoterol was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1, 3.2%, n/N = 16/752). In only two of the nineteen treatment arms summarized by Cochrane did OCS exacerbation incidence approximate that seen in the two fluticasone/formoterol trials (single-inhaler fluticasone/salmeterol [2.9%]; separate inhaler budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus formoterol [3.4%]). In Lasserson's review the pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations for single-inhaler combinations was 9.5% (95% CI: 8.4, 10.6%; n/N = 239/2516) for fluticasone/salmeterol, and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.3, 11.8%; n/N = 257/2433) for budesonide/formoterol. In Ducharme's and Chauhan's meta-analyses (primarily incorporating separate inhaler combinations [fluticasone, budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus salmeterol or formoterol]), the pooled incidences of OCS exacerbations were 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 17.8%, n/N = 258/1615) and 16.7% (95% CI: 14.9, 18.5, n/N = 275/1643), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of exacerbations in two fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol studies was low and less than in the majority of comparable published studies involving other ICS/LABA combinations. This difference could not be readily explained by differences in features of the respective studies and may be related to the favorable pharmacological/mechanistic characteristics of the constituent components fluticasone and formoterol compared to other drugs in their respective classes.

Roflumilast for asthma: Efficacy findings in placebo-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

The role of roflumilast as a potential asthma treatment is not yet fully understood. A series of placebo-controlled trials were undertaken in order to investigate the safety and efficacy of roflumilast in asthma.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of roflumilast in nine randomized proof-of-concept, placebo-controlled monotherapy and combination therapy phase II and III clinical studies performed between 1997 and 2005.

METHODS

The studies were conducted at sites in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australasia and Asia and study length varied from 4 to 24 weeks. Data were analyzed from 4873 patients, 12-70 years of age, of whom 2668 received roflumilast. At randomization patients had a forced expiratory flow (FEV1) of 45-90%. Roflumilast was investigated at doses of 125, 250 and 500 μg versus placebo. In two studies, 500 μg roflumilast was added on top of standard therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), 250 μg fluticasone propionate, or 400 μg beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP). Improvement in FEV1 from baseline was the primary endpoint in seven studies. Key secondary endpoints included asthma symptom scores and time to first severe exacerbation.

RESULTS

Roflumilast consistently improved FEV1 across the nine studies compared with placebo, reaching statistical significance in three studies. When given in addition to ICS, roflumilast provided additional improvements in FEV1 which was statistically significant for 500 μg roflumilast/400 μg BDP versus placebo/400 μg BDP.

CONCLUSION

Together these studies show that roflumilast has potential as an effective anti-inflammatory therapy for the treatment of asthma. Additional beneficial effects are observed when given in combination with ICS, which warrant further investigation. All studies were funded by Takeda. Trial registration numbers available on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00073177, NCT00076076, NCT00163527.

Cost-utility analysis of daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroids in mild-persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Despite the many benefits that have been demonstrated by the continuous administration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in persistent asthma, a new strategy for mild-asthma is emerging, consisting of using intermittent or as-needed ICS treatment in conjunction with short-acting beta2 agonists in response to symptoms. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing these two therapeutic strategies.

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 to intermittent ICS, daily therapy with ICS had lower costs (US$437.02 vs. 585.03 and US$704.62 vs. 749.81 average cost per patient over 12 months for school children and preschoolers, respectively), and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9629 vs. 0.9392 QALYs and 0.9238 vs. 0.9130 QALYS for school children and preschoolers, respectively), resulting in daily therapy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis shows that compared to intermittent therapy, daily therapy with ICS for treating pediatric patients with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma is a dominant strategy (more cost effective), because it showed a greater gain in QALYs with lower total treatment costs.

Efficacy and safety of the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol in patients with persistent asthma: a non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE:

Fluticasone and formoterol are effective in the treatment of asthma. When a corticosteroid alone fails to control asthma, combination therapy is the treatment of choice. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of formulations containing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR), fluticasone alone (FLU), and the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol (FLU/FOR) on lung function in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS:

This was a randomized, multicenter, open phase III trial conducted in Brazil. The primary efficacy analysis was the assessment of non-inferiority between FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR combinations regarding FEV₁ (in L) at the final visit. The secondary analyses were PEF, level of asthma control, serum cortisol levels, frequency of adverse events, adherence to treatment, and appropriate inhaler use.

RESULTS:

We randomized 243 patients to three groups: FLU/FOR (n = 79), BUD/FOR (n = 83), and FLU (n = 81). In terms of the mean FEV₁ after 12 weeks of treatment, the difference between the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups was 0.22 L (95% CI: −0.06 to 0.49), whereas the difference between the FLU/FOR and FLU groups was 0.26 L (95% CI: −0.002 to 0.52). Non-inferiority was demonstrated by the difference between the lower limits of the two 95% CIs (−0.06 vs. −0.002). The level of asthma control and PEF were significantly greater in the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups than in the FLU group. There were no significant differences among the groups regarding patient adherence, patient inhaler use, or safety profile of the formulations.

CONCLUSIONS:

The single-capsule combination of FLU/FOR showed non-inferiority to the BUD/FOR and FLU formulations regarding efficacy and safety, making it a new treatment option for persistent asthma.

Systematic prediction of drug combinations based on clinical side-effects

Drug co-prescription (or drug combination) is a therapeutic strategy widely used as it may improve efficacy and reduce side-effect (SE). Since it is impractical to screen all possible drug combinations for every indication, computational methods have been developed to predict new combinations. In this study, we describe a novel approach that utilizes clinical SEs from post-marketing surveillance and the drug label to predict 1,508 novel drug-drug combinations. It outperforms other prediction methods, achieving an AUC of 0.92 compared to an AUC of 0.69 in a previous method, on a much larger drug combination set (245 drug combinations in our dataset compared to 75 in previous work.). We further found from the feature selection that three FDA black-box warned serious SEs, namely pneumonia, haemorrhage rectum, and retinal bleeding, contributed mostly to the predictions and a model only using these three SEs can achieve an average area under curve (AUC) at 0.80 and accuracy at 0.91, potentially with its simplicity being recognized as a practical rule-of-three in drug co-prescription or making fixed-dose drug combination. We also demonstrate this performance is less likely to be influenced by confounding factors such as biased disease indications or chemical structures.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.

Beclometasone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic obstructive lung condition, diagnosed in patients with dyspnoea, chronic cough or sputum production and/or a history of risk factor exposure, if their postbronchodilator forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital lung capacity (FVC) ratio is less than 0.70, according to the international GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria.Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) medications are now recommended for COPD only in combination treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), and only for patients of GOLD stage 3 and stage 4 severity, for both GOLD groups C and D.ICS are expensive and how effective they are is a topic of controversy, particularly in relation to their adverse effects (pneumonia), which may be linked to more potent ICS. It is unclear whether beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), an unlicensed but widely used inhaled steroid, is a safe and effective alternative to other ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety in COPD of inhaled beclometasone alone compared with placebo, and of inhaled beclometasone in combination with LABAs compared with LABAs alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) (includes Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts) (February 2013), conference abstracts, ongoing studies and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and drug marketing authorisation bodies/ethics committees in 49 countries and obtained licensing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of BDP compared with placebo, or BDP/LABA compared with LABA, in stable COPD. Minimum trial duration is 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion, bias assessment and data extraction were conducted by two review authors independently. The analysis was performed by one review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

For BDP versus placebo, two studies were included, of which one trial (participants n = 194) was included in the quantitative analysis. This study was a very high-dose trial with stable stage 2 and 3 COPD participants. No statistically significant results in change in lung function, mortality, exacerbations, dyspnoea scores or withdrawal were obtained. The quality of the evidence of all these outcomes was graded low to very low. Data on risk of pneumonia were lacking.The main focus of the review was the more clinically relevant BDP/LABA versus LABA arm. Therefore the findings are reported more fully.For BDP/LABA versus LABA, one study (n = 474) was included, with a further ongoing study identified for future inclusion. The included trial was a high-dose study of stable stage 3 COPD participants. Compared with LABA, people receiving BDP/LABA showed a statistically significant improvement in FEV1 lung function measurements of 0.051 L (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.102, P = 0.046) (high quality of evidence) and in (self-reported) days without rescue bronchodilators (mean difference 7.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 13.26, P = 0.03) (low quality), both of which are unlikely to be clinically significant. Participants receiving BDP/LABA also had a statistically significant increased rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.90, P = 0.008) (moderate quality), although this finding is debatable as this study's post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant difference when accounting for country-specific differences in hospitalisation policies. We did not find statistically significant differences for mortality (very low quality), pneumonia (low quality), exacerbations, exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnoea scores, adverse events and withdrawal (all moderate quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to suggest that beclometasone is a safer or more effective treatment option for people with COPD when compared with placebo or when used in combination with LABA; when statistically significant differences were found, they mostly were not clinically meaningful or were based on data from only one study. The review was limited by an inability to obtain data from one study and likely publication bias for BDP versus placebo, and by the inclusion of one study only for BDP/LABA versus LABA. An ongoing study of BDP/LABA versus LABA may have a further impact on these conclusions.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Clinical study results.org were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.

The effect of inhaled corticosteroids on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to compare systemic effects of high-dose fluticasone propionate (FP) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) via pressurized metered dose inhaler on adrenal and pulmonary function tests.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 66 patients with newly diagnosed moderate persistent asthma without previous use of asthma medications participated in this single blind, randomized, parallel design study. FP or BDP increased to 1 500 μg/d in 62 patients who had not received oral or IV corticosteroids in the previous six months. Possible effects of BDP and FP on adrenal function were evaluated by free cortisol level at baseline and after Synacthen test (250 μg). Fasting plasma glucose and pulmonary function tests were also assessed. Similar tests were repeated 3 weeks after increasing dose of inhaled corticosteroids to 1 500 μg/d.

Results:

No statistically significant suppression was found in geometric means of cortisol level post treatment in both groups. After treatment in FP group, mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and mean forced vital capacity (FVC) values improved by 0.17 l (5.66% ± 13.91, P=0.031) and 0.18 l (5.09% ± 10.29, P=0.010), respectively. Although FEV1 and FVC improved in BDP group but was not statistically significant. Oral candidiasis and hoarseness were observed in 6.5% patients receiving BDP, but hoarseness was found in 3.2% patients in FP group (P=0.288).

Conclusions:

The results indicate that safety profiles of high doses of BDP and FP with respect to adrenal function are similar, but FP is more efficacious than that of BDP in improving pulmonary function test.

Differential effects of cholesterol and budesonide on biophysical properties of clinical surfactant

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids have been widely used in clinical medicine as a first-line therapy to modify the inflammatory response in many pulmonary and systemic diseases. Inhaled and intratracheally administered corticosteroids have a particular interest in that their use allows the clinician to circumvent systemic steroid side effects. However, it is vital that corticosteroids delivered via the lungs not interfere with surface activity of the pulmonary surfactant lining layer.

RESULTS

We found differential effects of cholesterol and budesonide on the biophysical properties of a cholesterol-free clinical surfactant preparation, Curosurf. At a low concentration up to 1%, both steroids play a similar role of fluidizing the surfactant film. However, when steroid concentration is increased to 10%, cholesterol induces a unique phase transition that abolishes the surface activity of the Curosurf film. By contrast, 10% budesonide simply fluidizes the film, thus having only limited effects on surface activity.

DISCUSSION

Together with those of a previous study using a cholesterol-containing surfactant, our findings suggest that cholesterol-free surfactant preparations may be more advantageous than cholesterol-containing preparations as a carrier of budesonide because a larger amount of the drug may be delivered to the lungs without significantly compromising the surface activity of pulmonary surfactant.

METHODS

Langmuir balance was used to study the effect of cholesterol and budesonide added at different concentrations on surface activity of Curosurf. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to reveal their effects on the interfacial molecular organization and lateral structure of Curosurf films.

Physicians' attitudes towards combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists: an observational study in UK specialist care

PURPOSE

Recent real-world studies have demonstrated that asthma control remains suboptimal in many patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate physicians' perceptions of the effectiveness of combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In November 2009, UK respiratory specialists were invited by medeConnect Healthcare Insight to complete a survey on the effectiveness of different single- or dual-inhaler combinations of an ICS and a LABA in the context of asthma management. Respondents were permitted to specify combinations of available ICSs and LABAs, based on their knowledge and experience of the individual components. Questions elicited both unprompted free-text responses and prompted responses selected from a list of options.

RESULTS

A total of 98 physicians completed the survey, of whom 82 (84%) gave permission to publish their data. The majority of respondents (63%) were consultants and 57% reported a caseload of more than 40 patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease per month. Fluticasone and formoterol were considered to be the most effective combination for the treatment of asthma (37% unprompted, 41% prompted), followed by budesonide and formoterol (22% unprompted, 24% prompted). The most common reasons for choosing specific combinations were: rapid onset of action (60%), high potency of the ICS (39%), efficacy (15%), experience of prescribing (13%), clinical evidence (12%), and long-lasting effect (10%). Key properties of the preferred fluticasone and formoterol combination were rapid onset of action and high potency of the ICS (79% for both).

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey suggest that the ICS and LABA combination considered most effective by UK physicians in the management of asthma is fluticasone and formoterol, which is not currently available as a single-inhaler combination. The development of new single-inhaler combinations of ICSs and LABAs may improve real-world asthma management.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease with great morbidity and significant societal and economic burden. Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe disease, especially when nasal congestion is a major component of symptoms. To compare the efficacy and safety profile of different available intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of AR, it is important to understand their different structures and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Knowledge of these drugs has increased tremendously over the last decade. Studies have elucidated mechanisms of action, pharmacologic properties, and the clinical impact of these drugs in allergic respiratory diseases. Although the existing intranasal corticosteroids are already highly efficient, the introduction of further improved formulations with a better efficacy/safety profile is always desired. Fluticasone furoate nasal spray is a new topical corticosteroid, with enhanced-affinity and a unique side-actuated delivery device. As it has high topical potency and low potential for systemic effects, it is a good candidate for rhinitis treatment.

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol in the treatment of asthma, but has a more rapid onset of action: an open-label, randomized study

Background

The inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (formoterol) are being made available as a combination product (fluticasone/formoterol, flutiform^®) in a single aerosol inhaler. This 12-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the commercially available combination product fluticasone/salmeterol.

Methods

Patients aged ≥ 18 years (N = 202) with mild-to-moderate–severe, persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in the study. After a screening phase (4–10 days), eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive fluticasone/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol during the 12-week treatment period. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol, measured by pre-dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁), at week 12.

Results

Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary efficacy endpoint, mean pre-dose FEV₁ at week 12. The new combination was also comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for change from baseline to week 12 in pre-dose FEV₁, change from pre-dose FEV₁ at baseline to 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ at week 12 and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Importantly, fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone/salmeterol in time to onset of action throughout the duration of the study. The two treatments demonstrated similar results for various other secondary efficacy parameters, including other lung function tests, patient-reported outcomes, rescue medication use, asthma exacerbations and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Fluticasone/formoterol was well tolerated and had a good safety profile that was similar to fluticasone/salmeterol.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that fluticasone/formoterol is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol, and has a more rapid onset of action, reflecting the faster bronchodilatory effects of formoterol compared with those of salmeterol. If patients perceive the benefits of therapy with fluticasone/formoterol more rapidly than with fluticasone/salmeterol, this could have a positive impact on preference and adherence.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00476073

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta(2)-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.

Identification of small interfering RNA targeting Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 6: Characterisation and selection of candidates for pre-clinical development

The interleukin (IL)-13 pathway and its associated transcription factor, signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6), have been clearly implicated in the pathogenesis of bronchial asthma. We have developed a system to effectively screen the STAT6 gene for targeting with small interfering (si) RNA molecules. By incorporating an in silico and in vitro screening system we were able to identify fourteen siRNA molecules suitable for pre-clinical drug development. Furthermore, we were able to demonstrate that modification of certain siRNAs, designed to improve in vivo longevity, was possible without significant loss of target knockdown efficacy and that the siRNA produced by our selection process did not induce demonstrable interferon responses. These data suggest that several STAT6-targeting siRNA suitable for pre-clinical development are available for potential use in the treatment of asthma.

Acute adrenal crisis in an asthmatic child treated with inhaled fluticasone proprionate

Adrenal suppression secondary to prolonged inhaled corticosteroid use is usually limited to biochemical abnormalities, with no obvious clinical effects. Acute adrenal crisis is much rarer event but has been reported with increasing frequency. We report a case of a 7-year-old asthmatic child who presented with an acute history of lethargy after a respiratory infection. He was maintained on 220 mug/day of fluticasone propionate for several years. Initial evaluation revealed severe adrenal suppression, with undetectable cortisol levels and minimal response after stimulation with ACTH. After fluticasone was discontinued, a gradual recovery of the adrenal axis was seen. This case shows that acute adrenal crisis may be a consequence even at the usual prescribed doses, stressing the importance of using the lowest dose of inhaled steroids needed to control symptoms and having an increased awareness of this complication.

Effects of budesonide and fluticasone propionate in pediatric asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Cytokines and chemokines play important roles in asthma. However, little information exists on the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on cytokine and chemokine plasma levels in childhood asthma. We compared the pharmaceutical effects of two inhaled corticosteroids used in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, budesonide and fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

Pediatric patients aged 5-18 years old were enrolled in this randomized, open-label, observer-blinded study and received 3 months of treatment with either inhaled budesonide (200 microg/puff) or fluticasone propionate (250 microg/puff), at two puffs per day. Peak expiratory flow (PEF), exhaled nitric oxide, Asthma Control Test (ACT), plasma Levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, and interferon-inducible protein 10 were measured before treatment and monthly for 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

There were six patients in the budesonide group, and eight in the fluticasone group. After 3 months, both groups showed improved PEF. In the first month, PEF improved more in the budesonide group than in the fluticasone group, though the difference was not significant. After treatment, ACT scores in both groups were well controlled, except for one patient in the fluticasone group. The fluticasone group had a more significant reduction in exhaled nitric oxide than the budesonide group in the first month.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in lung function were more rapid in the budesonide group than the fluticasone group. However, patients in the fluticasone group had better anti-inflammatory responses than those in the budesonide group. We conclude that each inhaled corticosteroids have its own clinical and laboratory effects.

[When and how to modify the management of asthma in children over the age of 4]

The treatment of asthma in children should not be fixed but rather must be regularly adapted to keep the condition under control defined according to clinical and functional criteria. In a child whose asthma is controlled, a step down in therapy should be carried out every 3 to 6 months to achieve the minimal effective level of treatment. In a child whose asthma appears not to be controlled, it is necessary initially to evaluate compliance with therapy and to seek aggravating factors which may include allergic rhinitis, multiple sensitisation, tobacco exposure, psychological factors, obesity, gastro- oesophageal reflux and infection. Where control of asthma is poor the main therapeutic strategy rests on an increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid and on the addition of other anti-asthmatic treatments--inhaled long--acting beta 2 agonists and oral leukotriene antagonists.

Inhaled corticosteroid therapy with nebulized beclometasone dipropionate

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory agents for the management of chronic persistent asthma and are therefore recommended as first-line antiasthmatic therapy in children and adults. In various settings, the administration of ICS via nebulizer rather than hand-held inhaler (HHI) may have certain advantages, as many patients with HHI fail to use these devices properly or efficiently. In particular, young children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and those with restricted dexterity may be unable to coordinate inhalation with actuation of the device or to generate sufficient inspiratory flow to operate breath-actuated devices effectively. Compliance with nebulized therapy may also be better than that with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) plus spacer. Systematic reviews conclude that there is no significant difference in clinical effects between nebulizers and HHI. Performance and clinical effect of nebulization are influenced by several technical aspects such as the nebulizer-drug combination, nebulizer type, output and lung deposition. Among the currently available ICS, nebulized beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) has been in clinical use for more than 35 years, and has demonstrated marked clinical efficacy and a favorable tolerability profile in children and adults with chronic persistent asthma. The clinical efficacy of nebulized beclometasone is discussed in the present review using data from 13 published studies, which included a total of 1250 patients. Three multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies showed that nebulized BDP is as effective as BDP via pMDI plus spacer in a 2:1 dose ratio. Controlled trials involving 497 adults and children demonstrated similar clinical efficacy between nebulized BDP and either nebulized fluticasone propionate or nebulized budesonide. In all these trials, treatment-related adverse effects were generally uncommon, most were mild-to-moderate in severity, and most were associated with the respiratory system. Meta-analyses show that BDP, like other inhaled corticosteroids, has no major influence on patient height, urinary cortisol concentration, or bone metabolism, thus suggesting the absence of growth retardation or any marked effect on adrenal function or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis when used in the approved dose range. Overall, nebulized BDP appears to have a particularly important place in asthma therapy: as a general alternative to HHIs (e.g. in patients with poor HHI compliance); when patients such as children or the elderly are unable to operate HHIs because of poor hand-lung coordination, lack of cooperation, or low inspiratory flow rate; and when high dosages of ICS are required, such as in adults with severe, corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

Discovery of selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators by multiplexed reporter screening

Glucocorticoids are widely used to suppress inflammation and treat various immune-mediated diseases. Some glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-regulated genes mediate the therapeutic response, whereas others cause debilitating side effects. To discover selective modulators of the GR response, we developed a high-throughput, multiplexed system to monitor regulation of 4 promoters simultaneously. An initial screen of 1,040 natural products and Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs identified modulators that caused GR to regulate only a subset of its target promoters. Some compounds selectively inhibited GR-mediated gene activation without altering the repression of cytokine expression by GR. This approach will facilitate identification of genes and small molecules that augment beneficial effects of GR and diminish deleterious ones. Our results have important implications for the development of GR modulators and the identification of cross-talk pathways that control selective GR gene regulation.

Asthma in childhood

Management decisions for pediatric asthma (in patients younger than 12 years of age) based on extrapolation from available evidence in adolescents and adults (age 12 years and older) is common but rarely appropriate. This article addresses the disparity in response between the two age groups, presents the available pediatric evidence, and highlights the important areas in which further research is required. Evidence-based recommendations for acute and interval management of pediatric asthma are provided.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Combination therapies are frequently recommended as maintenance therapy for people with asthma, whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled steroids. Fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SAL) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been assessed against their respective monocomponents, but there is a need to compare these two therapies on a head-to-head basis.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in terms of asthma control, safety and lung function.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Searches are current to May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing fixed dose FP/SAL and BUD/F were eligible, for a minimum of 12 weeks. Crossover studies were excluded. Our primary outcomes were: i) exacerbations requiring oral steroid bursts, ii) hospital admission and iii) serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 participants).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The odds of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, three studies, 4515 participants). The odds of an exacerbation leading hospital admission were also not significantly different (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). The odds of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.75, 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Lung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, exacerbations leading ED visit/hospital admission and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review indicates that differences in the requirement for oral steroids and hospital admission between BUD/F and FP/SAL do not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals do not exclude clinically important differences between treatments in reducing exacerbations or causing adverse events. The width of the confidence intervals for the primary outcomes justify further trials in order to better determine the relative effects of these drug combinations. Although this review sought to assess the effects of these drugs in both adults and children, no trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this area is of a high priority.

Ciclesonide versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are an integral part of asthma management, and act as an anti-inflammatory agent in the airways of the lung. These agents confer significant benefit in terms of symptom management and improvement in lung function, but may also cause harm in terms of local and systemic side-effects. Ciclesonide is a novel steroid that has efficient distribution and release properties that mean it can be taken once daily, making it potentially useful in ongoing asthma management.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of CENTRAL and PubMed were undertaken. The literature searches for this review are current up to June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel or crossover studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with placebo, and we also included studies comparing ciclesonide at different doses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed studies for inclusion in the review, extracted data independently and checked each others' work. We contacted study investigators in order to obtain additional data. Extracted data were entered into RevMan 4.2 and analysed as fixed effect mean differences for continuous data, and fixed effect risk ratios for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials (reporting 20 study comparisons) met the review entry criteria. We report findings from 18 group comparisons where data were available (6343 participants, of whom 1692 were children). Ciclesonide versus placebo: The short duration of the included studies means that there is a lack of data with respect to the impact of ciclesonide on asthma exacerbations. At doses of 100 mcg/d or less up to 400 mcg/d in mild to moderate asthma, ciclesonide improved lung function, asthma symptoms and rescue inhaler use, compared with placebo.Dose response outcomes: Comparisons of 100 versus 200 mcg/d, 100 versus 400 mcg/d and 400 versus 800 mcg/d did not yield significant differences in lung function outcomes. Adverse event data were not available in sufficient detail to permit assessment of the safety profile of this drug.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide was more effective than placebo, in the short term, in improving lung function in patients with mild to moderate asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids. There remain questions as to dose response, and the lack of data on the longer term impact on exacerbations and safety profile should be addressed in future studies.

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.