A double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-response study with budesonide Turbuhaler in Japanese asthma patients. Japanese Pulmicort Turbuhaler study group

Relative efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended as first-line controller medications for persistent asthma. However, guidelines on the initial ICS doses, step-up and step-down algorithms, and when to switch to combination therapy vary.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the ideal starting doses of ICS therapy based on current evidence and to systematically compare low, moderate, and high starting doses of ICSs as monotherapy and in combination with long-acting β-agonists with respect to efficacy and safety.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant English-language articles published from 1980 to November 17, 2018. Randomized controlled trials with adult, steroid-naive, ICS-free (for ≥4 weeks) patients with asthma and a duration of 4 weeks or longer with an ICS treatment arm (monotherapy or combination therapy) were included. Separate fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted on the extracted data for peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event.

RESULTS

A total of 31 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. All starting doses of ICSs were comparable with respect to nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. Significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed with high-dose ICSs and with low- and moderate-dose ICSs and long-acting β-agonists than with low-dose ICSs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a high starting dose of ICSs had no additional clinical benefit in 3 of the 4 efficacy parameters compared with low or moderate ICS doses for controlling moderate to severe asthma but might have potential safety concerns.

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.

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.

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.

Initial corticosteroid therapy for asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the commencement of maintenance pharmacotherapy for asthma: inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting beta2 agonists.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials has examined the starting dose of inhaled corticosteroids (high, moderate, low) and the dose regimen (step down versus constant) in asthma. There was no significant difference in key asthma outcomes for step down compared with a constant inhaled corticosteroid dose. There was no significant difference between high or moderate dose inhaled corticosteroid groups (n=11) for morning peak expiratory flow, symptoms and rescue medication use. There may be a benefit from high-dose inhaled corticosteroids for airway hyperresponsiveness. There was a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow and nocturnal symptoms in favour of a moderate inhaled corticosteroid dose compared with low-dose treatment. Long-acting beta2 agonists combined with inhaled corticosteroids as initial asthma therapy has been examined in a systematic review of nine randomized controlled trials. Inhaled corticosteroids combined with long-acting beta2 agonists led to significant improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, morning peak expiratory flow, symptom score and symptom-free days but no difference in exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. A randomized controlled trial of patients with uncontrolled asthma found a benefit of escalating doses of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with fluticasone on asthma control.

SUMMARY

Initial inhaled corticosteroid therapy should begin with a constant, moderate dose. Initial therapy with long-acting beta2 agonist and inhaled corticosteroids achieves superior improvement in symptoms and lung function, and at a quicker rate than inhaled corticosteroids alone. There is no benefit in terms of reduced exacerbations unless an escalating inhaled corticosteroid dose strategy is used.

Initial starting dose of inhaled corticosteroids in adults with asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines vary in their recommendations for the initial dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in asthma. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to establish the optimal starting dose of ICS for asthma in adults.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing two doses of the same ICS in adults with asthma and no concomitant inhaled or oral corticosteroid were assessed. Included trials were analysed according to the following ICS dose comparisons: high (> or =800 microg/day beclomethasone (BDP)) versus moderate (400<800 microg/day BDP) (n = 7); moderate versus low (<400 microg/day BDP) (n = 6); step down versus constant dose (n = 4).

RESULTS

Fourteen publications describing 13 trials were included in the review. Studies (n = 4) that compared a step down approach with a constant moderate/low dose of ICS found no difference in lung function, symptoms, or rescue medications between the two treatment approaches (p>0.05). There was no difference in the change in morning peak flow after treatment with high compared with moderate dose ICS. When compared with low dose ICS, moderate dose ICS significantly improved morning peak flow (change from baseline WMD 11.14 l/min, 95% CI 1.34 to 20.93) and nocturnal symptoms (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with asthma who require ICS, starting with a moderate dose is equivalent to starting with a high dose and stepping down. The small non-significant benefits of starting with a high ICS dose are not of sufficient clinical benefit to warrant its use. Initial moderate ICS doses appear to be more effective than an initial low ICS dose.

Add-on therapy options in asthma not adequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids: a comprehensive review

Many patients with persistent asthma can be controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). However, a considerable proportion of patients remain symptomatic, despite the use of ICS. We present systematically evidence that supports the different treatment options. A literature search was made of Medline/PubMed to identify randomised and blinded trials. To demonstrate the benefit that can be obtained by increasing the dose of ICS, dose-response studies with at least three different ICS doses were identified. To demonstrate whether more benefit can be obtained by adding long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), leukotriene antagonist (LTRA) or theophylline than by increasing the dose of ICS, studies comparing these options were identified. Thirdly, studies comparing the different "add-on" options were identified. The addition of a LABA is more effective than increasing the dose of ICS in improving asthma control. By increasing the dose of ICS, clinical improvement is likely to be of small magnitude. Addition of a LTRA or theophylline to the treatment regimen appears to be equivalent to doubling the dose of ICS. Addition of a LABA seems to be superior to an LTRA in improving lung function. However, addition of LABA and LTRA may be equal with respect to asthma exacerbations. However, more and longer studies are needed to better clarify the role of LTRAs and theophylline as add-on therapies.

Therapeutic margin of budesonide in patients with mild to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic margin of a drug is the difference between the optimal effective dose and the dose at which unacceptable adverse effects occur. This margin is particularly important in the case of therapies that are used long term for the control of chronic illnesses, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the treatment of asthma. Because data from controlled clinical studies indicate that the available ICSs have similar clinical efficacy, the safety profile is central to differentiating between them on the basis of their therapeutic margins. The main safety concern with long-term use and high doses of ICSs is systemic exposure that could result in such unwanted effects as cortisol suppression, a reduction in the final adult height of pediatric patients, and decreased bone mineral density.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews data from clinical trials, including long-term prospective studies, to compare the therapeutic margin of budesonide with those of other second-generation ICSs and to determine whether there are variations in the therapeutic margin with different delivery devices, severities of disease, or patient age.

RESULTS

Based on the tolerability data for budesonide from short-term (6-12 wk) and long-term (1-9 y) studies in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma, the dose-response and dose-tolerability curves for budesonide delivered by dry-powder inhaler can be plotted in parallel. The margin between these curves-the therapeutic margin-is favorable and consistent in pediatric and adult patients and at all degrees of asthma severity. Fewer tolerability data are available for other ICSS.

CONCLUSION

Whereas budesonide has clinical efficacy similar to that of other currently available ICSs, it has a good safety profile-and hence a favorable therapeutic margin-that is supported by long-term clinical data. Budesonides favorable therapeutic margin is probably a result of its pharmacokinetic and physical properties.

Review of the unique properties of budesonide

BACKGROUND

The aim of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy for asthma is to attain high therapeutic activity in the airways while keeping the risk of systemic adverse effects relatively low. However, the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of various ICSs affect this ratio, thereby influencing their ability to fulfill the requirements of an ideal agent.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the physical and pharmacokinetic properties of budesonide, outlining how they, safety data, and use of different inhalation devices enable budesonide to meet many of the clinical requirements of an ideal ICS for the treatment of asthma.

RESULTS

ICS efficacy is influenced by lipophilicity, lung deposition, and retention in airway tissue, whereas the rate of elimination determines systemic activity. Budesonide is retained in the airways to a greater extent than other ICSs because of an esterification process that increases its lipophilicity. The prolonged retention of budesonide in the airways may contribute to its efficacy when administered QD. In addition to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler, budesonide is available as a dry-powder inhaler and in nebulized form, which can be used by asthma patients aged > or =6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with delivery devices suitable for a spectrum of patient groups, the physical and pharmacokinetic properties of budesonide lend it many of the characteristics of an ideal ICS, including favorable efficacy and tolerability profiles.

High dose versus low dose inhaled corticosteroid as initial starting dose for asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) form the basis of maintenance therapy in asthma and their efficacy is well established. However, the optimal starting dose of ICS is not clearly established. Recent reviews demonstrate a relatively flat efficacy curve for ICS and increasing side effects with increasing ICS doses. High doses are frequently prescribed and there are now reports of significant side effects occurring with high dose ICS use. These issues demonstrate the need to establish the optimal starting dose of ICS in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the optimal starting dose of ICS by evaluating the efficacy of initial high dose ICS with low dose ICS in subjects with asthma, not currently on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: January 2003

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of two different doses of the same ICS in adults and children with asthma with no concomitant ICS or OCS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. Trials were analysed according to the following ICS dose comparisons: step down vs constant dose ICS (n=7); high vs moderate (n=11); high vs low (n=9); moderate vs low (n=11); fold change in dose (all studies).

MAIN RESULTS

31 papers reporting the results of 26 trials were included in the review. For studies that compared a step down approach to a constant moderate/low ICS dose, there were no significant differences in lung function, symptoms, rescue medications or asthma control between the two treatment approaches. Significant but clinically small improvements in percent predicted FEV(1) ( WMD 5.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.99) and non significant improvements in the change in morning PEF were found for high dose ICS compared to moderate dose ICS. There were no significant differences in efficacy between high and low dose ICS. For moderate dose ICS, compared to low dose ICS, there were significant improvements in the change in morning PEF l/min from baseline (WMD 11.14, 95% CI 1.34 to 20.93) and nocturnal symptoms (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.06 ). Commencing ICS at double or quadruple a base moderate or low dose had no greater effect than commencing with the base dose. Several studies reported greater improvement in airway hyperresponsiveness for high dose ICS.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with asthma who require ICS, commencing with a moderate dose ICS is equivalent to commencing with a high dose ICS and down-titrating. The small significant benefits of commencing with a high ICS dose are not of sufficient clinical benefit to warrant its use when compared to moderate or low dose ICS. Initial moderate ICS dose appears to be more effective than initial low ICS dose. High dose ICS may be more effective than moderate or low dose ICS for airway hyperresponsiveness. There is no benefit in doubling or quadrupling ICS in subjects with stable asthma.

A meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Although inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly used in the treatment of persistent asthma, the relationship between dose and clinical response remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether ICS exhibit a dose-response relationship in the treatment of mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials concerning the relationship between ICS dose and response in asthma. Relevant studies were identified through a search of PubMed and MEDLINE for articles on asthma and ICS published between January 1996 and January 2001. The search was limited to publications classified as clinical trials that included the text words asthma and corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone, flunisolide, mometasone, or triamcinolone acetonide. Five clinical measures were considered: morning peak expiratory flow rate (AM PEFR), evening PEFR (PM PEFR), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), beta-agonist use, and asthma symptom score (severity of symptoms on a given day, as evaluated by patients).

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were identified, of which 16 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. These studies involved 4 agents: fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, budesonide, and mometasone furoate. A statistically significant dose response in AM PEFR was observed with fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and budesonide (respective 95% CIs, 4.9 to 11.5, 4.7 to 18.0, and 5.8 to 24.9). A statistically significant dose response to fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide was also observed in PM PEFR (95% CIs, 2.0 to 8.7 and 2.4 to 13.7) and asthma symptom score (95% CI, -0.069 to -0.002 and -0.60 to -0.10). In terms of FEV(1), the dose response was statistically significant only with budesonide (95% CI, 0.025 to 0.17). Dose-response relationships were not disproportionately driven by the highest doses, and the greatest effects on response were seen at doses below or at the low end of the recommended range, suggesting that use of high doses of ICS may contribute only marginally to efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-response relationships were not uniformly observed with all drugs or for all measures of response. Use of higher doses of ICS in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma does not appear to increase the efficacy of these drugs.

Efficacy of budesonide Turbuhaler compared with that of beclomethasone dipropionate pMDI in Japanese patients with moderately persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide Turbuhaler with that of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) pMDI.

METHODOLOGY

Three hundred and fifty adult asthma patients (mean age 52.7 years, mean baseline morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) 294 L/min (< 80% predicted normal)), taking BDP via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), 400 microg daily for at least 2 months, were randomized in an open 6 week study to receive daily doses of either budesonide 100 microg or 400 microg twice daily via Turbuhaler or continued treatment with BDP, 100 microg four times daily. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change in morning PEF from baseline to the end of treatment. Outcome was also assessed using symptom scores and investigators' assessments employed in Japanese clinical trials.

RESULTS

At the end of the 6 week treatment period, mean morning PEF improved significantly from baseline in both budesonide groups, 16 L/min and 33 L/min in the 200 microg and 800 microg groups, respectively, but not in the BDP group, 5 L/min. There was no significant difference between 200 microg budesonide and 400 microg BDP treatment in the effect on PEF (P = 0.29), but 800 microg budesonide was significantly superior to BDP (P < 0.001). Final assessment of improvement and usefulness ratings showed that both budesonide treatments were significantly superior to BDP (P < 0.001). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide Turbuhaler (200 microg) was as effective as 400 microg BDP pMDI. The efficacy of budesonide was improved significantly by increasing the dosage to 800 microg daily. The study design shows the importance of including a higher dose treatment group when comparing two formulations of inhaled corticosteroids in order to determine whether the treatments to be compared are on the steep part of the dose-response curve. Without that information, comparative studies are usually inconclusive.

Budesonide at different doses for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled budesonide (BUD) is available in a range of doses for treating chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To quantitatively assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide at different doses in order to establish whether a clinically significant dose response profile exists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was carried out for Controlled and Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, correspondence with trial authors and the manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing one dose of budesonide to a second dose in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data; authors were contacted to clarify missing information. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

24 studies were selected for inclusion in the review (3907 subjects). In non-oral steroid treated, mild to moderately severe asthma no clinically worthwhile differences in FEV1, morning PEFR, symptom scores or rescue beta2 agonist use were apparent across a dose range of 200-1600 mcg/d. However, in moderate to severe asthma there was a significant reduction in the likelihood of trial withdrawal due to asthma exacerbation with BUD 800 mcg/d compared to 200 mcg/d: RR 3.93 (95% CI, 1.4 to 10.9). This result was largely weighted by a single large high quality RCT. In a single study in patients receiving oral corticosteroids, clinically significant improvements favouring high dose BUD (1600 mcg/d) over low dose (200 mcg/d) were apparent for FEV1 and morning PEFR. In two studies there was no dose dependent oral steroid sparing effect for BUD 1600 mcg/d v 800 or 400 mcg/d. Statistically significant, dose dependent suppression of 24 hour urinary free cortisol excretion and serum cortisol post synthetic ACTH infusion over the dose range 800-3200 mcg/d were apparent but the clinical significance of these findings is unclear.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide exhibits a clinically significant dose response effect for improvement in FEV1 in severe asthma and reduction of exacerbations in moderate to severe asthma. No significant dose dependent improvements in FEV1, PEFR or symptoms are evident in non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild to moderate disease. Dose dependent alterations in sensitive measures of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function were evident but the clinical significance of these changes is unclear.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled steroid-sparing study with budesonide Turbuhaler in Japanese oral steroid-dependent asthma patients. Japanese Pulmicort Turbuhaler study group

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the oral steroid-sparing capacity of budesonide Turbuhaler.

METHODOLOGY

One hundred and thirteen oral steroid-dependent patients were treated for 6 months with placebo or budesonide 800 microg or 1600 microg daily. Every second week the oral steroid dose was reduced if asthma control permitted.

RESULTS

The reductions in oral steroid doses were 9, 35 and 60% in the placebo and budesonide 800 microg and 1600 microg groups, respectively. Oral steroid treatment could be discontinued in 4% (placebo), 15% (800 microg) and 23% (1600 microg). Mean peak expiratory flow values increased by 21 and 24 L/min in the budesonide groups but decreased by 6 L/min in the placebo group. Asthma attack, activity and sleep scores remained unchanged showing maintained efficacy. Plasma cortisol levels increased and an adrenocorticotropic hormone test showed improved adrenocortical response in both budesonide groups, indicating improved safety. Adverse drug reactions were infrequent and mild in all study groups.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide Turbuhaler, 800 microg and 1600 microg daily, resulted in a significant reduction in oral steroid usage in steroid-dependent patients. The effect was achieved with maintained asthma control together with improvements in lung and adrenal functions.