Budesonide delivered by Turbuhaler is effective in a dose-dependent fashion when used in the treatment of adult patients with chronic asthma

Budesonide Attains Its Wide Clinical Profile by Alternative Kinetics

The introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) changed over a few decades the treatment focus of mild-to-moderate asthma from bronchodilation to reduction in inflammation. This was achieved by inhaling a suitable corticosteroid (CS), giving a high, protracted airway concentration at a low total dose, thereby better combining efficacy and tolerance than oral therapy. Successful trials with the potent, lipophilic "skin" CS beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) paved the way, suggesting that ICSs require a very low water solubility, prolonging their intraluminal dissolution within airways. The subsequent ICS development, with resulting clinical landmarks, is exemplified here with budesonide (BUD), showing that a similar efficacy/safety relationship is achievable by partly alternative mechanisms. BUD is much less lipophilic, giving it a 100-fold higher water solubility than BDP and later developed ICSs, leading to its more rapid intraluminal dissolution and faster airway and systemic uptake rates. In airway tissue, a BUD fraction is reversibly esterified to intracellular fatty acids, a lipophilic conjugate, which prolongs airway efficacy. Another mechanism is that the rapidly absorbed bulk fraction, via short plasma peaks, adds anti-inflammatory activity at the blood and bone marrow levels. Importantly, these plasma peaks are too short to provoke systemic adverse actions. Controlled clinical trials with BUD changed the use of ICS from a last resort to first-line treatment. Starting ICS treatment immediately after diagnosis ("early intervention") became a landmark for BUD. An established dose response made BUD suitable for the treatment of patients with all degrees of asthma severity. With the development of the budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler (BUD/FORM), BUD contributed to the widely used BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Recent studies demonstrated the value of BUD/FORM as a generally recommended as-needed therapy for asthma ("anti-inflammatory reliever", AIR). These abovementioned qualities have all influenced international asthma management and treatment guidelines.

Expert panel consensus recommendations on the utilization of nebulized budesonide for managing asthma and COPD in both stable and exacerbation stages in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the utilization of nebulized budesonide for acute asthma and COPD exacerbations as well as for maintenance therapy in adults.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a search on PubMed for nebulized budesonide treatment.

SELECTED STUDIES

Selecting all English-language papers that utilize Mesh phrases "asthma," "COPD," "budesonide," "nebulized," "adult," "exacerbation," and "maintenance" without temporal restrictions, and narrowing down to clinical research such as RCTs, observational studies, and real-world studies.

RESULTS

Analysis of 25 studies was conducted to assess the effectiveness of nebulized budesonide in asthma (n = 10) and COPD (n = 15). The panel in Thailand recommended incorporating nebulized budesonide as an additional or alternative treatment option to the standard of care and systemic corticosteroids (SCS) based on the findings.

CONCLUSION

Nebulized budesonide is effective and well-tolerated in treating asthma and COPD, with less systemic adverse effects compared to systemic corticosteroids. High-dose nebulized budesonide can enhance clinical outcomes for severe and mild exacerbations with slow systemic corticosteroid response. Nebulized budesonide can substitute systemic corticosteroids in some situations.

Missing data: A statistical framework for practice

Missing data are ubiquitous in medical research, yet there is still uncertainty over when restricting to the complete records is likely to be acceptable, when more complex methods (e.g. maximum likelihood, multiple imputation and Bayesian methods) should be used, how they relate to each other and the role of sensitivity analysis. This article seeks to address both applied practitioners and researchers interested in a more formal explanation of some of the results. For practitioners, the framework, illustrative examples and code should equip them with a practical approach to address the issues raised by missing data (particularly using multiple imputation), alongside an overview of how the various approaches in the literature relate. In particular, we describe how multiple imputation can be readily used for sensitivity analyses, which are still infrequently performed. For those interested in more formal derivations, we give outline arguments for key results, use simple examples to show how methods relate, and references for full details. The ideas are illustrated with a cohort study, a multi-centre case control study and a randomised clinical trial.

As-needed ICS-LABA in Mild Asthma: What Does the Evidence Say?

For the last three decades, the guidelines for asthma management have supported a stepwise therapeutic approach, based on the administration of controller medications (especially inhaled corticosteroids) complemented by on-demand use of rescue medication. Classically, the rescue medication recommended comprised short-acting β agonists (SABA). Some years ago, the use of Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) demonstrated the benefits of a combination of budesonide-formoterol, an inhaled corticosteroid, and a long-acting β agonist (ICS-LABA) as rescue medication in moderate and severe asthma. The results were enthusiastically received, and this therapeutic option was adopted in the guidelines for moderate to severe asthma patients. Recently, four trials (two randomised placebo control trials under the auspices of the SYGMA project and two real-life studies, Novel START, and the PRACTICAL trial) have explored the potential benefits of substituting SABA with budesonide-formoterol as rescue medication in mild asthma patients. The SYGMA 1 and 2 studies showed that the combination with formoterol-budesonide as rescue medication provides better asthma control than short-acting β-agonists alone in GINA step 2 patients, although the superiority was slight. Compared to budesonide maintenance therapy, the fixed combination of ICS-LABA on demand provides poorer asthma control. Regarding exacerbations, the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination on demand showed the same benefits for the prevention of exacerbations as chronic ICS treatment in mild asthma patients. The Novel START study, which assessed a population with milder symptoms, concluded that the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination used as needed was superior to SABA (albuterol) as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. These results in fact show that, in undertreated GINA step 2 with only SABA as needed, ICS-LABA is more effective than SABA. The authors of PRACTICAL concluded that the study provided modest evidence that the ICS-LABA combination used as-needed for symptom relief reduces the rate of severe exacerbations compared with maintenance low-dose budesonide plus terbutaline as needed, although the study was not limited to mild asthma since according to the treatment consumed, it was evident that they had recruited some moderate asthma patients. Despite this poor evidence, and ignoring the clinical histological benefits of chronic inhaled corticosteroids (especially when administered promptly), GINA 2019 recently recommended daily low dose ICS or ICS-LABA as needed as a first option for step 2 patients. For step 1, symptom-driven or as-needed treatment with ICS-LABA is recommended rather than SABA alone (the preferred option until the last GINA update). Finally, the SIENA study showed that 73% of patients with mild asthma do not have an eosinophilic phenotype and that these patients have a similar clinical response to ICS (mometasone) and antimuscarinic drugs (tiotropium), results that challenge the indication of a drug combination that incorporates ICS as a first option. Overall, we believe there is insufficient evidence for the systematic recommendation of as-needed ICS-LABA instead of SABA on request for GINA step 1 or as a replacement for chronic ICS in GINA step 2.

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

Pharmacodynamic monitoring using biomarkers to individualize pharmacotherapy

Drug doses are often titrated upon their clinical effects (e.g., blood pressure). Unfortunately, for many drugs there is no direct, clinical read-out to estimate dose adequateness. Alternatively, drug dosing is based on the maximum tolerated dose approach or therapeutic drug monitoring. However, the concentration-response curves may be flattened or bell-shaped as suggested for some ‘biologicals’. Together, these aspects raise the question why drug dosing is not individualized by pharmacodynamic monitoring. Evaluating the effects of drugs at their pharmacological target or meaningful biomarkers might indicate nonresponders, objectively quantify the maximum molecular effect and thus restrict overdose and underdosing. This review outlines the theory and biological or technical prerequisites for biomarker-based pharmacodynamic monitoring, and highlights selected examples from different fields of clinical medicine.

Tiotropium add-on to inhaled corticosteroids versus addition of long-acting β2-agonists for adults with asthma

Additional management options, and better use of current options, are needed to help support a large proportion of patients with asthma whose symptoms remain uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Here, we aim to review the safety and efficacy of adding tiotropium to ICS compared with adding a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone. Adding tiotropium to a background of ICS provides beneficial effects that are comparable with addition of a LABA in terms of lung function measures, exacerbations, asthma control and other endpoints. In addition, tiotropium and LABAs are both well tolerated. Some patients respond to either tiotropium or LABA treatment, but not both, suggesting that there are groups of patients that may respond better to one of these drugs. Currently, tiotropium is recommended as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 4 and 5) whose asthma is uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS/LABA. Tiotropium is also effective in patients with less severe disease and may benefit patients who experience adverse events from LABA treatment or where LABAs are ineffective. Tiotropium is therefore an important therapeutic option in asthma, not only as recommended as an add-on treatment with ICS/LABA, but also as an alternative to the addition of LABA to maintenance therapy with an ICS.

Asthma Exacerbations: Pathogenesis, Prevention, and Treatment

Guideline-based management of asthma focuses on disease severity and choosing the appropriate medical therapy to control symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations. However, irrespective of asthma severity and often despite optimal medical therapy, patients may experience acute exacerbations of symptoms and a loss of disease control. Asthma exacerbations are most commonly triggered by viral respiratory infections, particularly with human rhinovirus. Given the importance of these events to asthma morbidity and health care costs, we will review common inciting factors for asthma exacerbations and approaches to prevent and treat these events.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of traditional Chinese medicine as an add-on therapy to oral montelukast in the treatment of mild persistent asthma in children

OBJECTIVES

Traditional Chinese medicine are commonly used for treatment of asthma. However, there are only very limited data about its efficacy in children. Therefore, we aimed to determine the efficacy of augmented Yu Ping Feng San (aYPFS) as an add-on to oral montelukast compared with montelukast alone for treatment of mild persistent asthma in children.

DESIGN

A single centre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized control trial was carried out. Participants with age 6-18 years who had mild persistent asthma were randomized according to random number list to receive either aYPFS plus montelukast for 24 weeks or placebo plus montelukast for 24 weeks. Primary outcome measure was lung function parameters. Secondary outcome measures were Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and Paediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ) scores, symptom-free days, short-acting β2-agonist use, use of rescue oral corticosteroids, days of hospitalization for asthma and number of emergency consultation with GPs or AED department.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants were randomized to aYPFS group and twenty-nine to placebo group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. There was significant improvement in ACT™ score in aYPFS group (up to 6.9% change from baseline) (p=0.016) but not in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in other primary and secondary outcome parameters. Dropout because of adverse effects is comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Traditional Chinese medicine aYPFS as an add-on to montelukast improved symptoms of asthma control. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in childhood asthma.

What is asthma-COPD overlap syndrome? Towards a consensus definition from a round table discussion

Patients with asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS) have been largely excluded from pivotal therapeutic trials and, as a result, its treatment remains poorly defined and lacking firm evidence. To date, there is no universally accepted definition of ACOS, which has made it difficult to understand its epidemiology or pathophysiology. Despite many uncertainties, there is emerging agreement that some of the key features of ACOS include persistent airflow limitation in symptomatic individuals 40 years of age and older, a well-documented history of asthma in childhood or early adulthood and a significant exposure history to cigarette or biomass smoke. In this perspective, we propose a case definition of ACOS that incorporates these key features in a parsimonious algorithm that may enable clinicians to better diagnose patients with ACOS and most importantly enable researchers to design therapeutic and clinical studies to elucidate its epidemiology and pathophysiology and to ascertain its optimal management strategies.

Inhaled Glucocorticosteroid and Long-Acting beta(2)-Adrenoceptor Agonist Single-Inhaler Combination for Both Maintenance and Rescue Therapy : A Paradigm Shift in Asthma Management

Despite aggressive fixed-dose (FD) combination therapy with inhaled glucocorticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA), many patients with asthma remain suboptimally controlled, based on the need for rescue therapy and rates of severe exacerbations. The strategy of adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD) involves adjustment of the maintenance dose, (using a single combination [budesonide/formoterol] inhaler, Symbicort((R))) in response to variability of asthma control over time. The AMD strategy, like the FD approach, involves the use of a short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (SABA) for rapid relief of bronchospasm. The dose-response characteristics of budesonide/formoterol make the AMD strategy a feasible option that cannot be exploited with the combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Advair((R))). Several studies suggest that the AMD strategy is superior to a FD approach in terms of overall asthma control.Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is as effective as albuterol (salbutamol) for relief of acute asthma episodes, a feature that makes it possible to use this combination for both maintenance and reliever therapy without the need for the use of a SABA. The single-inhaler strategy has been shown to be safe and more efficacious than FD therapy. In particular, the COSMOS study has demonstrated that exacerbation burden is reduced more effectively when the combination (budesonide/formoterol) single inhaler is used for both maintenance and relief compared with FD therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone and albuterol for rescue in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. These findings suggest that we will have to reconsider our definition of reliever therapy for patients that require long-term therapy with combination ICS and LABA.The concept of single-inhaler therapy represents a paradigm shift in asthma management that has been validated in several large studies involving thousands of patients. The single-inhaler strategy represents one of the most significant advances in asthma management in many years, and one that appears ideal for adoption in primary care.

Reference-based sensitivity analysis via multiple imputation for longitudinal trials with protocol deviation

Randomized controlled trials provide essential evidence for the evaluation of new and existing medical treatments. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis is often complicated by the occurrence of protocol deviations, which mean we cannot always measure the intended outcomes for individuals who deviate, resulting in a missing-data problem. In such settings, however one approaches the analysis, an untestable assumption about the distribution of the unobserved data must be made. To understand how far the results depend on these assumptions, the primary analysis should be supplemented by a range of sensitivity analyses, which explore how the conclusions vary over a range of different credible assumptions for the missing data. In this article, we describe a new command, mimix, that can be used to perform reference-based sensitivity analyses for randomized controlled trials with longitudinal quantitative outcome data, using the approach proposed by Carpenter, Roger, and Kenward (2013, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 23: 1352-1371). Under this approach, we make qualitative assumptions about how individuals' missing outcomes relate to those observed in relevant groups in the trial, based on plausible clinical scenarios. Statistical analysis then proceeds using the method of multiple imputation.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 μg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 μg (80 μg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations.

RESULTS

Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide at 160 μg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

Analysis of longitudinal trials with protocol deviation: a framework for relevant, accessible assumptions, and inference via multiple imputation

Protocol deviations, for example, due to early withdrawal and noncompliance, are unavoidable in clinical trials. Such deviations often result in missing data. Additional assumptions are then needed for the analysis, and these cannot be definitively verified from the data at hand. Thus, as recognized by recent regulatory guidelines and reports, clarity about these assumptions and their implications is vital for both the primary analysis and framing relevant sensitivity analysis. This article focuses on clinical trials with longitudinal quantitative outcome data. For the target population, we define two estimands, the de jure estimand, "does the treatment work under the best case scenario," and the de facto estimand, "what would be the effect seen in practice." We then carefully define the concept of a deviation from the protocol relevant to the estimand, or for short a deviation. Each patient's postrandomization data can then be divided into predeviation data and postdeviation data. We set out an accessible framework for contextually appropriate assumptions relevant to de facto and de jure estimands, that is, assumptions about the joint distribution of pre- and postdeviation data relevant to the clinical question at hand. We then show how, under these assumptions, multiple imputation provides a practical approach to estimation and inference. We illustrate with data from a longitudinal clinical trial in patients with chronic asthma.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate, and the long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonist, formoterol fumarate, are both highly effective treatments for bronchial asthma. This study (NCT00393952/EudraCT number: 2006-005989-39) compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy (flutiform(®); 250/10 μg) administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, with the individual components (fluticasone 250 μg b.i.d.; formoterol 10 μg b.i.d.), in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre, placebocontrolled phase 3 study. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were: i) the mean change in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. formoterol), ii) the mean change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 h post-dose at week 12 (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. fluticasone), and iii) the number of patients who discontinued prematurely due to lack of treatment efficacy (fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg vs. placebo). The secondary endpoints included measures of lung function, disease control, and asthma symptoms. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Overall, 395 (70.9%) patients completed the study. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg b.i.d. was superior to the individual components and placebo for all three co-primary endpoints and demonstrated numerically greater improvements for multiple secondary efficacy analyses. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety profile over the 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy will provide clinicians with an efficacious alternative treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Treating according to asthma control: does it work in real life?

Control-based asthma management has been incorporated in asthma guidelines for many years. This article reviews the evidence for its utility in adults, describes its strengths and limitations in real life, and proposes areas for further research, particularly about incorporation of future risk and identification of patients for whom phenotype-guided treatment would be effective and efficient. The strengths of control-based management include its simplicity and feasibility for primary care, and its limitations include the nonspecific nature of asthma symptoms, the complex role of β(2)-agonist use, barriers to stepping down treatment, and the underlying assumptions about asthma pathophysiology and treatment responses.

Dose effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate in persistent asthma: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of inhaled once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF) administered in the evening in patients with persistent asthma not controlled by short-acting beta(2) agonists, and to determine the dose(s) suitable for further development.

METHODS

Of 1459 patients screened, 598 received one of six treatments: placebo, FF (25 μg, 50 μg, 100 μg or 200 μg) once daily each evening, or fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 μg twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose evening forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)).

RESULTS

A dose-response effect was observed for once-daily FF 25-200 μg including (p < 0.001) and excluding placebo (p = 0.03). FF 50-200 μg once daily significantly increased FEV(1) from baseline (p < 0.05 vs placebo), by >200 mL for FF 100 μg and 200 μg. Significant improvements were also achieved for peak expiratory flow, and percentage symptom-free and rescue-free 24 h periods. The magnitude of effect was at least as good as twice-daily FP. Overall, once-daily FF was well tolerated with no systemic corticosteroid effects.

CONCLUSION

FF 50-200 μg/day once daily in the evening demonstrated dose-related efficacy in asthma with 100-200 μg appearing to be the optimal doses for further evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00603382.

Is low dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy as effective for inflammation and remodeling in asthma? A randomized, parallel group study

Background

While most of the clinical benefits of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy may occur at low doses, results of dose-ranging studies are inconsistent. Although symptom/lung function response to low and high dose ICS medication is comparable, it is uncertain whether low dose ICSs are as effective as high dose in the treatment of inflammation and remodeling.

Methods

22 mild or moderate asthmatic adult subjects (corticosteroid free for > 2 months) participated in a randomized, parallel group study to compare effects of fluticasone propionate (FP) 200 mcg/day and 1000 mcg/day. Alveolar macrophage (AM)-derived cytokines and basement membrane thickness (BMT) were measured at baseline and after 7 weeks treatment while symptoms, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to mannitol at baseline and 6 weeks.

Results

FP improved spirometry, eNO, symptoms and AHR with no difference between low and high dose FP. Both high and low dose FP reduced GM-CSF, TNF-alpha and IL-1ra, with no change in BMT and with no differences between low and high dose FP.

Conclusions

200 μg/day of FP was as effective as 1000 μg/day in improving asthma control, airway inflammation, lung function and AHR in adults in the short term. Future studies should examine potential differential effects between low and high dose combination therapy (ICS/long acting beta agonist) on inflammation and airway remodeling over longer treatment periods.

A smarter way to manage asthma with a combination of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid

Symbicort SMART® (Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) represents a new and unique way of treating patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, ie, those patients who require combination treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist. Symbicort SMART enables patients to use only one inhaler, the budesonide-formoterol combination inhaler, for both maintenance and reliever therapy. The maintenance dose is adjustable, but should be a minimum of two doses per day which can be administered as two doses once daily or as one dose twice daily. It is important that the temporary reliever medication includes not only a bronchodilator but also an antiinflammatory drug because worsening of asthma includes not only more airway narrowing, but also an increase in airway inflammation. The Symbicort SMART concept therefore ensures that the patient gets an antiinflammatory drug at the time of the first signs of asthma worsening. Clinical results show that Symbicort SMART prolongs the time to the first severe asthma exacerbation, reduces the rate of exacerbations, and maintains day-to-day asthma control at a reduced load of corticosteroids (inhaled plus systemic) when compared with higher fixed maintenance doses of combination inhalers. Symbicort SMART consequently offers a more effective and simple approach to asthma management for physicians and patients. Symbicort SMART is also easier for the patient as only one inhaler is required. The positive results with Symbicort SMART can be explained by the early as-needed use on the inhaled corticosteroid component, which puts out the early flames of inflammation, together with the interaction between the β₂-agonist, formoterol, and the inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide.

Is the patient's baseline inhaled steroid dose a factor for choosing the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy regimen?

OBJECTIVE

Baseline inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose may be a factor for prescribers to consider when they select a budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy regimen for symptomatic asthmatics.

METHODS

A 6-month randomized study compared two maintenance doses of budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, 1 × 2 and 2 × 2, plus as needed, in 8424 asthma patients with symptoms when treated with ICS ± an inhaled long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA). In the total study population, 1339 (17%) were high-dose ICS (HD) users (≥ 1600 µg/day budesonide). This HD stratum was compared with the rest of the study population, divided into low-dose (LD; 400 µg/day) and medium-dose strata (MD; 401-1599 µg/day) with regard to severe asthma exacerbations and mean changes in five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ(5)) scores from baseline.

RESULTS

In all three strata there were fewer exacerbations in the 2 × 2 treatment groups (yearly rates 0.268, 0.172 and 0.094) than in the 1 × 2 treatment groups (yearly rates 0.232, 0.138 and 0.764). In no stratum was the difference between the treatment groups statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in time to the first severe exacerbation between the treatments 2 × 2 and 1 × 2 in the HD group (hazard ratio 0.944, p = 0.75). The adjusted mean changes in ACQ(5) scores in the HD, MD and LD strata were -0.89, -0.61 and -0.65, respectively, with 1 × 2 treatment and -0.90, -0.74 and -0.76, respectively, with 2 × 2 treatment. In the MD and LD strata, the difference between doses was significant in favour of 2 × 2 (MD p < 0.0001; LD p = 0.004), but not in the HD stratum (p = 0.870). No difference in serious adverse events was seen.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LD and MD strata, the HD stratum patients had more exacerbations and a shorter time to first exacerbation. However, there were no differences in response between the 1 × 2 and 2 × 2 groups in any of the strata. This indicates that patients using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, irrespective of baseline ICS dose, can be switched to 1 × 2 with its lower steroid load. ACQ(5) scores improved more in the HD stratum than in the MD and LD strata indicating, among other things, that HD patients were not overtreated at baseline.

Risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking inhaled corticosteroids

RATIONALE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma treatment. Studies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported increased rates of pneumonia with ICS. Concerns exist about an increased pneumonia risk in patients with asthma taking ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking ICS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis evaluated studies of the ICS budesonide in asthma. The primary data set were all double-blind, placebo-controlled trials lasting at least 3 months, involving budesonide (26 trials, n = 9,067 for budesonide; n = 5,926 for the comparator) sponsored by AstraZeneca. A secondary data set evaluated all double-blind trials lasting at least 3 months but without placebo control (60 trials, n = 33,496 for budesonide, n = 2,773 for fluticasone propionate). Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to estimate the relative effect of ICS on pneumonia adverse events (AEs) or serious adverse events (SAEs).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the primary data set, the occurrence of pneumonia AEs was 0.5% (rate 10.0 events/1,000 patient-years [TPY]) for budesonide and 1.2% (19.3 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.76; P < 0.001); the occurrence of pneumonia SAEs was 0.15% (2.9 per TPY) for budesonide and 0.13% (2.1 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.12; P = 0.58). In the secondary data set, the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia AEs was 0.70% (12.7 per TPY), whereas the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia SAEs was 0.17% (3.1 per TPY). There was no increased risk with higher budesonide doses or any difference between budesonide and fluticasone.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no increased risk of pneumonia in patients with asthma, identified as an AE or SAE, in clinical trials using budesonide.

Budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of asthma

Budesonide/formoterol is a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist available as a dry-powder inhaler for the indication of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in various countries outside of the USA and as a pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the USA for the indication of asthma. Clinical studies have shown that budesonide/formoterol is significantly more effective than an equivalent or higher dose of budesonide or fluticasone propionate alone in patients with moderate-to-severe disease, and at least as effective as its two components administered via separate inhalers in asthmatics with predominantly moderate to severe persistent disease. Budesonide/formoterol is effective when administered both once or twice daily. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol has been shown to provide equivalent or better asthma control with a significantly lower amount of study drug use compared with fixed dosing. The rapid onset of action of budesonide/formoterol, predominantly due to formoterol, as well as its favorable dose-response, has prompted budesonide/formoterol to be used as both a maintenance and reliever medication, referred to as the Symbicort maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) dosing regimen in several countries. Use of this approach has resulted in studies evaluating SMART, demonstrating significantly lower rates of exacerbations and reliever medication use compared with fixed-dosing regimens in asthma.

Inhaled Corticosteroids

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective controllers of asthma. They suppress inflammation mainly by switching off multiple activated inflammatory genes through reversing histone acetylation via the recruitment of histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2). Through suppression of airway inflammation ICS reduce airway hyperresponsiveness and control asthma symptoms. ICS are now first-line therapy for all patients with persistent asthma, controlling asthma symptoms and preventing exacerbations. Inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists added to ICS further improve asthma control and are commonly given as combination inhalers, which improve compliance and control asthma at lower doses of corticosteroids. By contrast, ICS provide much less clinical benefit in COPD and the inflammation is resistant to the action of corticosteroids. This appears to be due to a reduction in HDAC2 activity and expression as a result of oxidative stress. ICS are added to bronchodilators in patients with severe COPD to reduce exacerbations. ICS, which are absorbed from the lungs into the systemic circulation, have negligible systemic side effects at the doses most patients require, although the high doses used in COPD has some systemic side effects and increases the risk of developing pneumonia.

Development of budesonide microparticles using spray-drying technology for pulmonary administration: design, characterization, in vitro evaluation, and in vivo efficacy study

The purpose of this research was to generate, characterize, and investigate the in vivo efficacy of budesonide (BUD) microparticles prepared by spray-drying technology with a potential application as carriers for pulmonary administration with sustained-release profile and improved respirable fraction. Microspheres and porous particles of chitosan (drug/chitosan, 1:2) were prepared by spray drying using optimized process parameters and were characterized for different physicochemical parameters. Mass median aerodynamic diameter and geometric standard deviation for conventional, microspheres, and porous particles formulations were 2.75, 4.60, and 4.30 microm and 2.56, 1.75, and 2.54, respectively. Pharmacokinetic study was performed in rats by intratracheal administration of either placebo or developed dry powder inhalation (DPI) formulation. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated (Ka, Ke, T(max), C(max), AUC, and Vd) and these results indicated that developed formulations extended half life compared to conventional formulation with onefold to fourfold improved local and systemic bioavailability. Estimates of relative bioavailability suggested that developed formulations have excellent lung deposition characteristics with extended T(1/2) from 9.4 to 14 h compared to conventional formulation. Anti-inflammatory activity of BUD and developed formulations was compared and found to be similar. Cytotoxicity was determined in A549 alveolar epithelial cell line and found to be not toxic. In vivo pulmonary deposition of developed conventional formulation was studied using gamma scintigraphy and results indicated potential in vitro-in vivo correlation in performance of conventional BUD DPI formulation. From the DPI formulation prepared with porous particles, the concentration of BUD increased fourfold in the lungs, indicating pulmonary targeting potential of developed formulations.

Differences in the pharmacodynamics of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone reflect differences in their therapeutic usefulness in asthma

Although the available inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta( 2)-agonist (LABA) combinations principally work in a similar fashion, they differ in several important ways, leading to different efficacy. The ICS/LABA combination product budesonide/formoterol can be used as both maintenance and reliever therapy, providing a fixed maintenance dose, which does not change, and replacing short-acting beta(2)-agonists as relievers thereby allowing intervention to address the underlying inflammation at the earliest sign of symptomatic worsening. This approach is not suitable for other combination products such as salmeterol/fluticasone. Here we review the pharmacological differences of budesonide/ formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone that permit the use of budesonide/formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy.

Inflammatory and functional effects of increasing asthma treatment with formoterol or double dose budesonide

Adding a long-acting beta(2)-agonist to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for asthma treatment is better than increasing ICS dose in improving clinical status, although there is no consensus about the impact of this regimen on inflammation. In this double-blind, randomized, parallel group study, asthmatics with moderate to severe disease used budesonide (400 mcg/day) for 5 weeks (run-in period); then they were randomized to use budesonide (800 mcg/day--BUD group) or budesonide plus formoterol (400 mcg and 24 mcg/day, respectively--FORMO group) for 9 weeks (treatment period). Home PEF measurements, symptom daily reporting, spirometry, sputum induction (for differential cell counts and sputum cell cultures), and hypertonic saline bronchial challenge test were performed before and after treatments. TNF-alpha, IL-4 and eotaxin-2 levels in the sputum and cell culture supernatants were determined. Morning and night PEF values increased in the FORMO group during the treatment period (p<0.01), from 435+/-162 to 489+/-169 and 428+/-160 to 496+/-173 L/min, respectively. The rate of exacerbations in the FORMO group was lower than in the BUD group (p<0.05). Neutrophil counts in sputum increased in both groups (p<0.05) and leukocyte viability after 48 h-culture increased in the FORMO group (p<0.05). No other parameter changed significantly in either group. This study showed that adding formoterol to budesonide improved home PEF and provided protection from exacerbations, although increase of leukocyte viability in cell culture may be a matter of concern and needs further investigation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of disease duration on dose-response of inhaled budesonide in asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent first-line treatment in persistent asthma with clinical studies showing benefits of initiating therapy early. Whether treatment should be started with a high or low dose remains controversial. We investigated the importance of disease duration on the response to the starting dose of the ICS, budesonide, in asthma patients not previously treated with ICS.

METHODS

Forty patients with newly detected asthma (symptoms for <12 months) and 41 patients with established asthma (mean duration 5.2 years, range 2-11) were randomized (double-blind, parallel-group) to treatment with budesonide Turbuhaler 100 or 400microg twice daily or placebo for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

For morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF), all four budesonide treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements from baseline and, after 12 weeks, the changes in all four groups were statistically significantly greater than placebo. In patients receiving early treatment, no significant differences were seen between budesonide doses. In patients with established symptoms, 800 mg/day [corrected] improved mPEF significantly more than 200 mg/day [corrected] The 200 mg/day [corrected] dose in the early treatment group improved mPEF significantly more than in the delayed treatment group. Changes in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)), the concentration of inhaled histamine causing a 20% drop in FEV(1), and use of as-needed medication behaved in very similar ways to mPEF. Asthma symptoms were reduced in all budesonide groups without a difference between doses.

CONCLUSION

In patients with newly detected asthma treated early the initial ICS dose is not important. In contrast, in patients with symptoms for a longer duration a high starting dose improves airway function and hyperresponsiveness significantly better than a low dose.

Therapeutic comparison of a new budesonide/formoterol pMDI with budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol DPI in asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide/formoterol is an effective treatment for both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a novel hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide/formoterol with that of budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol dry-powder inhaler (DPI; Turbuhaler).

METHODS

This was a 12-week, multinational, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study involving patients aged > or = 12 years with asthma. All patients had a forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 50-90% predicted normal and were inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (500-1600 microg/day) alone. Following a 2-week run-in, during which they received their usual medication, patients were randomised (two inhalations twice daily) to budesonide pMDI 200 microg, budesonide/formoterol DPI 160/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg. The primary efficacy end-point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF).

RESULTS

In total, 680 patients were randomised, of whom 668 were included in the primary analysis. Therapeutically equivalent increases in morning PEF were observed with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (29.3 l/min) and budesonide/formoterol DPI (32.0 l/min) (95% confidence interval: -10.4 to 4.9; p = 0.48). The increase in morning PEF with budesonide/formoterol pMDI was significantly higher than with budesonide pMDI (+28.7 l/min; p < 0.001). Similar improvements with budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs. budesonide pMDI were seen for all secondary efficacy end-points. Both combination treatments were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol, administered via the HFA pMDI or DPI, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for adult and adolescent patients with asthma, with both devices being therapeutically equivalent.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply?

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of clinical phenotypes, not all of which may be encompassed in the subjects included in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This makes it difficult for clinicians to know to what extent the evidence derived from RCTs applies to a given patient.

AIM

To calculate the proportion of individuals with asthma who would have been eligible for the major asthma RCTs from the data of a random community survey of respiratory health.

METHODS

A postal survey was sent to 3500 randomly selected individuals aged 25-75 years. Respondents were invited to complete a detailed respiratory questionnaire and pulmonary function testing. Participants with current asthma were assessed against the eligibility criteria of the 17 major asthma RCTs cited in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines.

FINDINGS

A total of 749 participants completed the full survey, of whom 179 had current asthma. A median 4% of participants with current asthma (range 0-36%) met the eligibility criteria for the included RCTs. A median 6% (range 0-43%) of participants with current asthma on treatment met the eligibility criteria.

INTERPRETATION

This study shows that the major asthma RCTs on which the GINA guidelines are based may have limited external validity as they have been performed on highly selected patient populations. Most of the participants with current asthma on treatment in the community would not have been eligible for these RCTs.

The dose-response characteristics of inhaled corticosteroids when used to treat asthma: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

Inhaled corticosteroids form the cornerstone of treatment for most patients with asthma. A range of compounds are available with a wide range of prescribable doses. In this overview, we summarize the findings from a number of Cochrane systematic reviews that have examined the relative benefits of different doses of beclometasone dipropionate, budesonide and fluticasone propionate when used to treat children and adults. The key findings are that all inhaled corticosteroids demonstrate a dose-response relationship for efficacy measures, but most of the benefit in mild-to-moderate severity disease is gained in the low-to-moderate dose range of each drug. In this group, high doses of fluticasone lead to small improvements in measures of control at the expense of a steep increase in the incidence of oral side-effects. In patients with severe disease who are dependent on oral steroids, there may be appreciable benefit in reducing oral steroids from very high compared with high doses of fluticasone.

Effect of ciclesonide dose and duration of therapy on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroid therapy improves exercise symptoms in asthmatic subjects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a method of determining the dose and time responses of inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, cross-over study with 2 parallel arms, 4 doses of inhaled ciclesonide (40 microg and 160 microg or 80 microg and 320 microg) were compared over 3 weeks of treatment. Twenty-six asthmatic subjects (age range, 14-27 years) with baseline FEV1 values of greater than 70% of predicted value were enrolled. The primary outcome was the maximum percentage decrease in FEV1 after standardized exercise challenge.

RESULTS

After 1 week of therapy, the mean +/- SEM reduction in maximum decrease in FEV1 in the ciclesonide 40-microg/80-microg dose group was 9% +/- 2.6% (95% CI, 3.9% to 14%), with no additional reduction thereafter. In the ciclesonide 160-microg/320-microg dose group, there was an 8.7% +/- 2.5% (95% CI, 3.7% to 13.7%) reduction in maximum decrease in FEV1 after week 1, which continued in a linear fashion during subsequent weeks of treatment. No difference was found between the 2 treatment arms in the temporal response of EIB to ciclesonide treatment. The maximum percentage attenuation in EIB achieved was 51.1% +/- 7.9%, which was achieved by using the 320-microg dose after 3 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant improvement in EIB was demonstrated for all doses of ciclesonide. Use of 160 microg/320 microg of ciclesonide resulted in a continuing improvement in FEV1 with time, and no plateau was seen in protective effect during 3 weeks of treatment.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Attenuation in exercise-induced decrease can be seen as early as after 1 week of therapy with inhaled ciclesonide at doses greater than 40 microg. However, maximal attenuation in exercise response continues to increase at doses greater than or equal to 200 microg, even after 3 weeks of therapy.

A comparison of 2 extrafine hydrofluoroalkane-134a-beclomethasone formulations on methacholine hyperresponsiveness

BACKGROUND

Small airways inflammation is a recognized pathologic component of asthma, and it is postulated that the observed airway-wall remodeling in small airways could be due to uncontrolled inflammation in airways that are not penetrated by conventional inhaled corticosteroids. Thus, extrafine particle formulations of inhaled corticosteroids are of clinical interest.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2 extrafine solution hydrofluoroalkane-134a formulations of beclomethasone dipropionate (Beclate and Qvar).

METHODS

Fifteen asthmatic patients (mean +/- SEM forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], 2.62 +/- 0.21 L; provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% decrease in FEV1 [PC20], 1.06 +/- 0.58) were randomized to completion in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover manner to receive Beclate or Qvar at doses of 100 or 400 microg/d for 2 weeks, with a 1-week washout period before each randomized treatment. Methacholine hyperresponsiveness was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

The 2 formulations were equivalent in terms of predefined equivalence limits of +/- 1 doubling dilution for PC20 at both doses: -0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.77 to 0.27) doubling dilution difference between the 100-microg doses and a 0.26 (95% CI, -0.29 to 0.82) doubling dilution difference between the 400-microg doses for the difference between Beclate and Qvar, respectively. Both formulations, at either dose, produced a statistically significant (P < .05) reduction in mean exhaled nitric oxide levels: 400 microg/d of Beclate, 14.1 ppb (95% CI, 5.6 to 22.6 ppb); and 400 microg/d of Qvar, 14.2 ppb (95% CI, 6.0 to 22.4 ppb). The higher doses produced a statistically significant (P < .05) reduction in early morning urinary cortisol-creatinine ratio (geometric mean fold suppression: Beclate, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.89]; and Qvar, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.79]). Both formulations significantly improved peak expiratory flow, FEV1, and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity at the higher doses (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Beclate and Qvar were equivalent for all primary and secondary outcome measures.

Eosinophilic bronchitis in asthma: a model for establishing dose-response and relative potency of inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Newer generations and formulations of inhaled corticosteroids have necessitated the development of a clinically relevant model to compare their clinical potency.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether sputum eosinophil counts could demonstrate a dose-response to inhaled corticosteroids, and compared the response with other inflammatory markers.

METHODS

Fourteen steroid-naive patients with asthma with an initial sputum eosinophilia of > or = 2.5% entered a 6-week sequential, placebo-controlled, patient-blinded, cumulative dose-response study. After 7 days of placebo, they received incremental doses of fluticasone propionate (FP), 50, 100, 200, and 400 microg/d, each for 7 days. Measurements were made of sputum and blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, airway responsiveness to methacholine (methacholine PC20), and symptom scores before and after each dose.

RESULTS

Sputum eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide were extremely sensitive to the effects of FP, and exhibited significant dose-dependent reductions of 99.4% and 99.8 parts per billion, respectively, where each variable was expressed per 100 microg/d FP. This compared with a 0.5 doubling dose increase of airway responsiveness to methacholine and a 0.3 decrease in symptom scores. Airway responsiveness to methacholine was the only variable that increased throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the model of eosinophilic bronchitis could be used to compare the effect of cumulative doses of an inhaled corticosteroid delivered by different types of delivery systems or preparations using a relatively small number of patients.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future clinical studies based on this model will allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the relative potencies of different inhaled corticosteroids.

Combination inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists: improved clinical efficacy and dosing options in patients with asthma

Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) is a recognized treatment for adults with moderate to severe asthma. The introduction of inhalers containing both an ICS and a LABA simplifies treatment and improves asthma control. This review discusses clinical evidence that budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone are effective and well tolerated in asthma treatment. Moreover, the rapid onset of effect and long duration of action of budesonide and formoterol make once-daily dosing, adjustable maintenance dosing, and the novel treatment strategy of using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, valuable treatment options for patients with asthma.

Initiation, dose reduction, and duration of inhaled corticosteroid therapy

Asthma is characterized by persistent airway inflammation, which is associated with airway hyperresponsiveness and variable airflow obstruction, which accounts for the majority of symptoms experienced by asthmatic patients. Allergen sensitization and inhalation causes airway inflammation, and is likely important in the initiation and persistence of asthma in more than 50% of patients, and while allergen avoidance (or avoidance of other initiating factors, such as occupational sensitizers) can help some patients, it is often difficult to achieve. For this reason, pharmacologic treatment to reduce airway inflammation is currently the cornerstone of therapy for most individuals who have asthma.

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.

Effects of low doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate on inflammation and remodelling in persistent-mild asthma

In asthma a dysregulation of eosinophil apoptosis and an imbalance of metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and tissue inhibitor metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) play an important role in airway inflammation and remodelling. We evaluated the effects of a low dose of inhaled fluticasone proprionate (FP) (100 microg bid by Diskus) for 4 weeks in 24 steroid naive patients with mild persistent asthma, symptomatic and with a sputum eosinophilia >or=3% on clinical outcomes and inflammatory markers such as the induced sputum eosinophils, the induced sputum apoptotic eosinophils, the levels of MMP-9 and TIMP-1 and their molar ratio in the induced sputum supernatants. After FP treatment forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity values, PEF (L/min), sputum apoptotic eosinophils, and MMP-9/TIMP-1 molar ratio in sputum supernatants of asthmatic subjects were significantly increased in comparison with baseline, while sputum eosinophils significantly decreased. Change (Delta) in FEV1 after treatment with FP negatively correlated with the Delta in sputum eosinophils, while the Delta in MMP-9 values positively correlated with Delta in TIMP-1 values. This study shows that the clinical improvement achieved by the use of low doses of FP in asthmatics is related, at least in part, to the resolution of eosinophilic inflammation and the downregulation of remodelling markers.

Dose-response comparison of budesonide dry powder inhalers using adenosine monophosphate bronchial challenge

BACKGROUND

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness to adenosine monophosphate, an indirect measure of airway inflammation, is a sensitive marker of inhaled corticosteroid efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative therapeutic efficacy of budesonide delivered via Clickhaler and Turbuhaler dry powder inhalers in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

In a double-masked, dose-response crossover study, 27 patients received inhaled budesonide in cumulative sequential doubling dose increments, 2 weeks per dose, of 200, 400, and 800 microg/d. Each treatment block was preceded by 1- to 3-week placebo run-in and washout periods. End points were measured after each placebo (ie, baseline) and treatment period. Adenosine monophosphate bronchial challenge was the primary outcome, and exhaled nitric oxide, serum eosinophilic cationic protein, spirometry, domiciliary peak expiratory flow, symptoms, and rescue medication use were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

For the adenosine monophosphate provocation concentration that caused a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 20% (PC20), a significant overall dose-response effect (P = .006) was found, and there was no significant difference between the devices (P = .8). The relative microgram dose potency ratio between Clickhaler and Turbuhaler was 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-2.46). After administration of the highest dose of budesonide, the mean doubling dilution shift in adenosine monophosphate PC20 from placebo baseline was 3.46 (95% CI, 2.66-4.27) with the Clickhaler vs 3.41 (95% CI, 2.47-4.35) with the Turbuhaler. A significant overall dose-response effect was demonstrated for exhaled nitric oxide (P = .03) but not for any of the other secondary outcome measures. There were no significant differences between the devices for any of the outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled budesonide exhibited overall dose-response effects on adenosine monophosphate PC20 delivered via Turbuhaler and Clickhaler, with no significant difference between the devices.

Increase in airway neutrophils after oral but not inhaled corticosteroid therapy in mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Neutrophils, in addition to eosinophils, are prominent in the airways of patients with severe asthma who are usually on long-term oral and inhaled corticosteroid treatment. We determined whether inhaled or oral corticosteroid therapy can induce airway neutrophilia.

METHODS

We performed two separate placebo-controlled studies in which patients with mild asthma were treated with either prednisolone (30mg per day for 7 days; n = 9) or placebo tablets (n = 8), or with either inhaled budesonide (800 microg twice daily for 4 weeks; n = 6) or inhaled placebo (n = 6). Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was performed before treatment and at day 7 of oral treatment, and at day 28 of inhaled therapy. Bronchial sections were immunostained with an antibody to major basic protein for eosinophils, and with an antibody to neutrophil elastase for neutrophils. Induced sputum was obtained in the prednisolone study.

RESULTS

Neutrophils in airway submucosa increased after prednisolone from median 76 to 140/mm2 (P = 0.05); this change was higher than that after placebo (P = 0.04). Eosinophils decreased from 24 to 9/mm2 (P = 0.03), but this was not significantly different from placebo. Eosinophils and neutrophils, and levels of IL-8 and myeloperoxidase in induced sputum did not change after prednisolone. There was no change in neutrophil counts after budesonide, but the reduction in eosinophils was greater than placebo (P = 0.05). Budesonide improved bronchial responsiveness, but prednisolone did not.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroid therapy by the oral but not inhaled route can induce neutrophil recruitment into the airways of patients with mild asthma. This could explain the increase in airway neutrophils observed in severe asthmatics treated with oral corticosteroids.

Glucocorticoid receptor nuclear translocation in airway cells after inhaled combination therapy

Clinical evidence is accumulating for the efficacy of adding inhaled long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) to corticosteroids in asthma. Corticosteroids bind to cytoplasmic glucocorticoid receptors (GRs), which then translocate to the nucleus where they regulate gene expression. This article reports the first evidence in vivo of an interaction between inhaled LABA and corticosteroid on GR nuclear translocation in human airway cells using immunocytochemistry. We initially demonstrated significant GR activation 60 minutes after inhalation of 800 microg beclomethasone dipropionate in six healthy subjects. Subsequently, we determined the effects of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate (FP) in seven steroid-naive patients with asthma. We observed dose-dependent GR activation with 100- and 500-microg doses of FP, and to a lesser extent with 50 microg salmeterol alone. However, combination therapy with 100 microg FP and salmeterol augmented the action of FP on GR nuclear localization. In vitro, salmeterol enhanced FP effects on GR nuclear translocation in epithelial and macrophage-like airway cell lines. In addition, salmeterol in combination with FP enhanced glucocorticoid response element (GRE)-luciferase reporter gene activity and mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 1 (MKP-1) and secretory leuko-proteinase inhibitor (SLPI) gene induction. Together, our data confirm that GR nuclear translocation may underlie the complementary interactions between LABAs and corticosteroids, although the precise signal transduction mechanisms remain to be determined.

Asthma and COPD: differences and similarities. With special reference to the usefulness of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (Symbicort) in both diseases

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both have a high prevalence worldwide and yet each condition remains underdiagnosed. Despite a number of common features, these inflammatory respiratory syndromes have distinct clinical outcomes. COPD represents a greater economic burden than asthma because it has a less favourable prognosis and is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between these two diseases at an early stage, so that appropriate therapy can be prescribed to prevent deterioration. However, effective treatments that may be used in both conditions can minimise the effects of misdiagnosis and maximise the impact of treatment without the associated complexity when both conditions occur together. The current review summarises the differences and similarities of asthma and COPD, in terms of risk factors, pathophysiology, symptoms and diagnosis, to provide greater understanding of the role of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler in both diseases.

Steroid naive eosinophilic asthma: anti-inflammatory effects of fluticasone and montelukast

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene receptor antagonists reduce airway eosinophilia and have been used as first line anti-inflammatory therapy for mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

A multicentre, randomised, placebo controlled, parallel group study was performed to compare the anti-inflammatory effects of fluticasone propionate and montelukast as measured by sputum eosinophils in 50 adults with symptomatic steroid naive asthma and sputum eosinophilia of > or =3.5%.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients received low dose fluticasone (250 mug/day), 19 received montelukast (10 mg/day), and 13 were given placebo for 8 weeks. Fluticasone treatment resulted in a greater reduction in sputum eosinophils (geometric mean (SD) 11.9 (2.3)% to 1.7 (5.1)%) than montelukast (10.7 (2.3)% to 6.9 (3.8)%; p = 0.04) or placebo (15.4 (2.4)% to 7.8 (4.2)%; p = 0.002), and improvement in FEV(1) (mean (SD) 2.6 (0.9) l to 3.0 (0.9) l) than montelukast (2.8 (0.7) l to 2.8 (0.9) l; p = 0.02) or placebo (2.4 (0.8) l to 2.4 (0.9) l; p = 0.01). Treatment with fluticasone suppressed sputum eosinophilia within a week while montelukast only attenuated it. The effect of montelukast was maximal at 1 week and was maintained over 4 weeks. The effect of fluticasone was maintained over 8 weeks while that of montelukast was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Montelukast is not as effective as low dose fluticasone in reducing or maintaining an anti-inflammatory effect in steroid naive eosinophilic asthma.

Step-down compared to fixed-dose treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate in asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are an effective treatment of asthma even when administered at a low dose. Once asthma is controlled, current guidelines recommend that the dose of ICS be reduced to the lowest possible and effective dose. Although the most appropriate strategy for the stepping down has not yet been defined, quantification of sputum eosinophils and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) are indeed measures of asthma control.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of step-down and fixed-dose strategies in the control of BHR to methacholine and eosinophilic inflammation patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, randomized study to compare inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP), 1,000 microg/d, then reduced to 200 microg/d (group 1; n = 18) to a fixed dose of FP, 200 microg/d (group 2; n = 17) administered for 6 weeks and then 8 weeks in reducing the provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20) and sputum eosinophils in 35 patients. The duration of the efficacy was also followed subsequently after 8 weeks of placebo treatment.

RESULTS

PD20 remarkably increased with both treatment strategies, but differences between groups were not significant. Sputum eosinophils (median values, percentage) at baseline and after each treatment period were not different (group 1, 16.4 to 1.0 to 2.7%; group 2, 16.7 to 2.8 to 2.8%, respectively). The percentages of patients in whom sputum eosinophilia was normalized (< or = 3%) were as follows: group 1, 69% and 60%; group 2, 50% and 57%. After placebo treatment, sputum eosinophils were still "normalized" in approximately one third of patients.

CONCLUSION

Step-down and fixed-dose strategies with FP improved PD20 and sputum eosinophilia to a similar degree. The effect on sputum eosinophils persisted longer than that on methacholine.

Combination therapy of long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists and corticosteroids for asthma

Twice-daily combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) is now established as a most effective treatment for moderate to severe asthma and is available in a combined single inhaler. The benefits of combination therapy include better day-to-day control and a reduction in exacerbations compared with monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids at a lower dose. Total control of asthma, defined as no daytime or night-time symptoms, no use of rescue beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (beta2-agonists), no exacerbations and a peak flow rate of >80% predicted, may be achieved with the use of combined salmeterol/fluticasone in up to 41% of patients with moderate to severe asthma, compared with only 28% of patients treated with fluticasone alone. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol may provide better control when compared with fixed-dosing combination regimens. Other therapies combining effectively with inhaled corticosteroids include slow-release theophylline and leukotriene inhibitors, montelukast and zafirlukast, but LABA are the most efficacious. Molecular interactions between corticosteroids and beta2-adrenoceptors may underlie the clinical added benefits of combination therapy. Corticosteroids may increase the number of beta2-adrenoceptors and their coupling with Gs proteins, while beta2-agonists may induce glucocorticoid receptor nuclear translocation, activate transcription factor/enhancer binding protein C/EBPalpha together with corticosteroids, or phosphorylate corticosteroid receptors. The combination of corticosteroids and LABA potentiates inhibition of interleukin-8 and eotaxin release from human airway smooth muscle cells and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor release from epithelial cells, and also the inhibition of airway smooth muscle cell proliferation. It is important to determine whether there is a potentiating effect of combination therapy compared with corticosteroid treatment alone on airway inflammation and airway wall remodelling. Improvements in combination therapy include a once-daily preparation and possible combination of inhaled corticosteroids with newer drugs such as phosphodiesterase IV inhibitors.