Similar efficacy of ciclesonide once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in patients with persistent asthma

Local and systemic adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids - Does ciclesonide differ from other inhaled corticosteroids?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The pharmacological profile of ciclesonide suggests that it may be associated with fewer local and systemic adverse effects compared to other inhaled corticosteroids. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an update on the current evidence of the local and systemic adverse effects of ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma compared to other inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

Systematic review performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-guidelines. The search was last updated in September 2024. The search algorithm consisted of the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: (ciclesonide) AND (asthma).

RESULTS

Of the 296 hits, 28 studies fulfilled the predefined criteria and were included in the present review. A total of 15 out of 25 studies addressing local adverse effects showed insignificant differences between ciclesonide and the comparative inhaled corticosteroid. Of these 15 studies, 13 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Seven RCTs reported a reduced risk of local adverse effects associated with ciclesonide-treatment. One observational study found ciclesonide treated patients more likely to have been treated for oropharyngeal candidiasis compared to patients treated with another inhaled corticosteroid. Twelve studies investigated systemic adverse effects of CIC vs. other inhaled corticosteroid. Of the nine trials measuring urine cortisol suppression compared to baseline, seven found no suppression in the ciclesonide treated groups in contrast to a significant suppression in the comparative inhaled corticosteroid treated groups. On the contrary, two trials found no suppression in either treatment group. Two of three studies assessing HPA-axis function by plasma cortisol response to corticotropin-releasing factor reported no difference between ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate, whereas one found significantly reduced response with fluticasone treatment, but not with ciclesonide. One study assessed the risk of developing signs of cataract and found no significant difference between ciclesonide and other inhaled corticosteroids, and another investigated patient reported adverse effects and found superiority in CIC to FP in terms of reducing "vision deterioration".

CONCLUSION

The current evidence of possible differences in adverse effects between ciclesonide and other inhaled corticosteroids are conflicting. However, there is some evidence in favor of fewer local adverse effects in ciclesonide treated patients and, additionally, ciclesonide treatment is either more favorable or similar to other inhaled corticosteroids with regard to systemic adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids relative to fluticasone propionate: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in asthma

INTRODUCTION

Many trials have been published comparing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatments in asthma. However, mixed results necessitate the summarization of available evidence to aid in decision-making. Areas covered: This systematic review evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) with other ICS including beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), budesonide (BUD) and ciclesonide (CIC). PubMed was searched and 54 RCTs that fit pre-determined criteria were included. Endpoints evaluated included lung function, asthma symptom control, exacerbation frequency, reliever use, quality of life and steroid-related side effects. Expert commentary: Across all studies, FP was associated with either more favorable or at least similar efficacy and safety, in comparison with BDP or BUD. This observation may be related to FP's higher relative potency and almost negligible oral bioavailability. FP was comparable to CIC for efficacy. However, CIC appeared to have a smaller impact on cortisol levels than FP, which is likely due to CIC's incomplete conversion to active metabolite (des-CIC) and the lower potency of des-CIC compared with FP. Although there were no significant differences in evaluated outcomes after treatment with different ICS in the majority of studies, some observed differences could be explained by their respective pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998–2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25–75%)_, and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available.

Results

Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV₁ (L) (−0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: −3.874, 95% CI: −10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: −1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF_{25–75% predicted} (−2.418, 95% CI: −6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]).

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma.

Trial registration

GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012.

Small-airway disease in asthma: pharmacological considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pharmacological considerations and rationale for treating small-airway disease in asthma via the inhaled and systemic route, and to also directly address the comparison between small vs. large aerosol particles in the management of asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Airway inflammation in patients with asthma is predominantly present within the small airways and this region is the main contributor to airflow limitation. Assessing small-airway dysfunction has advanced in the last decade, allowing us to compare this region in disease to health and also in response to treatment. Recent pharmaceutical developments have led to inhaler devices with smaller aerosols and systemic biologic treatments, enabling therapeutic drug delivery to the distal lung regions. The question therefore is does targeting the small airways directly translate into health benefits for asthmatic patients with respect to an improvement in their disease control and quality of life?

SUMMARY

Studies now show that treating the peripheral airways with smaller drug particle aerosols certainly achieve comparable efficacy (and some studies show superiority) compared with large particles, a reduction in the daily inhaled corticosteroid dose, and greater asthma control and quality of life in real-life studies. Hence, the small airways should not be neglected when choosing the optimal asthma therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of patients with persistent allergic or non-allergic asthma in medical practice (Data from a non-interventional study conducted in Austria)

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness and safety profile of ciclesonide in the treatment of persistent allergic or non-allergic asthma was evaluated in real-life setting in Austria.

METHODS

Prospective, single-arm, 3-month observational, non-interventional, open-label cohort study in patients with persistent asthma (with or without allergic component) of any severity grade was conducted. Patients were either treatment naïve or switched to treatment with ciclesonide and had an indication for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

RESULTS

In all, 307 patients (50.8% female; mean age, 45.7 years) were prescribed ciclesonide. After 3 months of observation, the percentage of patients with daily symptoms had declined from 33.2 to 3.9%, night-time symptoms from 21.8 to 5.2%, physical activity limitations from 73.9 to 24.4%, and rescue medication usage from 70.0 to 45.9%. The mean total Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score was 2.32 ± 1.14 at the first and 1.08 ± 0.88 at the final visit. The number of patients with well-controlled asthma (ACQ score < 1) increased considerably from 11.0% at baseline to 52.2% at study end. Clinically important mean improvements were observed in the total self-assessed Asthma Quality of Life score and all four domain scores. The mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) increased by 0.3 L from 2.60 ± 0.87 L to 2.89 ± 0.86 L, and the mean FEV1% predicted increased from 75.1 ± 15.4% to 83.7 ± 14.9%. Incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was low (4 ADRs in 3 of 307 patients, or 1.0%).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide under routine conditions in Austria. Improvements in symptom control, lung function, and quality of life were observed. Ciclesonide was well tolerated.

Small airways dysfunction in asthma: evaluation and management to improve asthma control

The small airways have been neglected for many years, but interest in the topic has been rekindled with recent advances in measurement techniques to assess this region and also the ability to deliver therapeutics to the distal airways. Current levels of disease control in asthmatic patients remain poor and there are several contributory factors including; poor treatment compliance, heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes and associated comorbidities. However, the proposition that we may not be targeting all the inflammation that is present throughout the whole respiratory tree may also be an important factor. Indeed decades ago, pathologists and physiologists clearly identified the importance of small airways dysfunction in asthmatic patients. With improved inhaler technology to deliver drug to target the whole respiratory tree and more sensitive measures to assess the distal airways, we should certainly give greater consideration to treating the small airway region when seeing our asthmatic patients in clinic. The aim of this review is to address the relevance of small airways dysfunction in the daily clinical management of patients with asthma. In particular the role of small particle aerosols in the management of patients with asthma will be explored.

Profile of ciclesonide for the maintenance treatment of asthma

Ciclesonide is a nonhalogenated synthetic inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of all severities of persistent asthma. It is available as a hydrofluroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler in two strengths, 80 mcg/activation and 160 mcg/activation, with the recommenced dosage being two inhalations twice-daily. It is a prodrug that is converted in the lung to its active form, which possesses 100-fold greater glucocorticoid-receptor-binding affinity than the parent compound. Its relative receptor affinity is similar to budesonide. In clinical studies, ciclesonide was effective in improving pulmonary function, reducing asthma symptoms, and reducing or eliminating the need for oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Patients with severe asthma dependent on OCSs and high doses of ICSs were able to achieve greater asthma control and reduce or even eliminate the use of OCSs when switched to ciclesonide. In comparison with fluticasone propionate and budesonide, ciclesonide was demonstrated to be at least as effective in maintaining pulmonary function and asthma control. In clinical trials, ciclesonide was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events considered mild or moderate in intensity. It had low systemic bioavailability and no clinically significant hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis suppression at therapeutic doses. Its safety profile establishes ciclesonide as an important addition to the currently available ICSs.

Comparison of the effect of low-dose ciclesonide and fixed-dose fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination on long-term asthma control

BACKGROUND

Patients with mild persistent asthma constitute about 70% of the asthma population; thus, it is important to know which first-line treatment is best for the management of mild asthma. We compared benefits of first-line treatment with ciclesonide and a combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in patients with mild asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged 12 to 75 years with mild persistent asthma were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After run-in, patients were randomized to ciclesonide 160 μg once daily (CIC160), fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 100/50 μg bid (FP200/S100), or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary variable was time to first severe asthma exacerbation; the coprimary variable was the percentage of poorly controlled asthma days. Patients recorded asthma symptoms and salbutamol use in electronic diaries and completed a standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the time to first severe asthma exacerbation was prolonged, and lung function was improved with FP200/S100 treatment (P = .0002) but not with CIC160. Both CIC160 and FP200/S100 provided significantly fewer poorly controlled asthma days than placebo (P ≤ .0016 for both active treatments). Moreover, both active treatments provided significantly more asthma symptom-free days (P ≤ .0001), rescue medication-free days (P = .0005, one-sided), and days with asthma control (P ≤ .0033). Overall Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were significantly higher in both active treatment groups than placebo (P ≤ .0017).

CONCLUSIONS

In mild asthma, FP200/S100 prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, and CIC160 and FP200/S100 were clinically equieffective for most measures of asthma control.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00163358; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of 24,037 asthmatic patients in routine medical care

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety profile of ciclesonide (CIC) in the treatment of asthma was evaluated in a large patient population in a real-life setting in Germany.

METHODS

24,037 patients with persistent mild/moderate bronchial asthma were enrolled into three observational studies with identical design. Data were pooled and analyzed. Patients received ciclesonide (160 μg/day) and were observed for 3 months. FEV(1), PEF, NO, asthma episodes, use of rescue medication and adverse drug reactions (ADR) were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean (95% CI) FEV(1) significantly increased from 80.7 [80.5; 80.9]% of predicted at baseline to 90.1 [89.9; 90.2]% after 3 months (n = 20,297), mean PEF significantly increased from 338 [335; 340] l/min to 392 [390; 395] l/min (n = 8100). NO was significantly reduced from 53.6 [51.8; 55.4] ppb to 26.2 [25.2; 27.1] ppb (n = 971). The percentage of patients with daily symptoms declined from 24.3% to 1.9%, night-time symptoms from 13.3% to 1.3%, and β(2)-agonists use from 26.9% to 8.8%. ADRs were reported by 51 patients (0.2%). Most frequent ADRs were: dysphonia (n = 11), cough (n = 10), dyspnoea, throat irritation, and oral candidiasis (n = 5 each). 46 patients terminated the study prematurely, 41 due to ADR and 5 due to unknown/missing reason. One patient died due to cardiac failure (no causal relation).

CONCLUSION

These observational studies under real-life conditions support findings from controlled clinical studies regarding efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide in patients with mild to moderate bronchial asthma. No unexpected ADRs were detected.

Similar Results in Children with Asthma for Steady State Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Ciclesonide Inhaled with or without Spacer

Background:

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid administered by a metered dose inhaler (MDI) to treat bronchial asthma. After inhalation, the inactive ciclesonide is converted by esterases in the airways to active metabolite desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC).

Aim:

To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of des-CIC in children after administration of therapeutic dose of ciclesonide with and without spacer (AeroChamber Plus^™).

Methods:

Open-label, 3 period, cross over, repeated dose, PK study in 37 children with mild to moderate stable asthma (age: 6–11 y; body weight: 20–53 kg). During each 7-day treatment period, ciclesonide was inhaled once in the morning: A) 160 μg MDI with spacer, B) 80 μg MDI with spacer, and C) 160 μg MDI without spacer. Serum PK parameters of ciclesonide and des-CIC were determined on Day 7 of each period. The primary PK parameters were the AUC_τ and C_max for des-CIC.

Results:

Inhaling ciclesonide with spacer led to a dose proportional systemic exposure (AUC_τ) of des-CIC (0.316 μg*h/L for 80 μg and 0.663 μg*h/L for 160 μg). The dose-normalized systemic exposure for des-CIC (based on AUC_τ) was 27% higher after inhalation of ciclesonide 80 μg or 160 μg with spacer than without spacer; the corresponding C_max values for des-CIC were, respectively, 63% and 55% higher with spacer. No clinically relevant abnormalities or adverse drug reactions were observed.

Conclusions:

Inhalation of therapeutic ciclesonide dose with spacer led to a slight increase in the systemic exposure of des-CIC, which does not warrant dose adjustment.

Ciclesonide and the treatment of asthma

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) constitute the guideline-recommended first-line therapy for persistent asthma. However, concerns regarding ICS-related adverse events may contribute to their underutilization by physicians and patients.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The currently available published data on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, safety and efficacy of the ICS, ciclesonide, is described. Peer-reviewed publications (1996 - 2009) on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile, safety and efficacy of ciclesonide were reviewed.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Ciclesonide is delivered as an inactive prodrug, which is cleaved to the active molecule by intracellular esterases located in the lungs. This and other pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties may limit the amount of active molecule outside the lung and may reduce the incidence of side effects. Randomized placebo-controlled studies found that ciclesonide can initiate and maintain disease control in subjects with persistent asthma of all disease severities. Moreover, studies have found that ciclesonide is as effective as other ICSs in establishing and controlling disease symptoms. Controlled clinical trials also showed that ciclesonide is associated with minimal systemic and local treatment-related adverse events.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Published findings indicate that ciclesonide is effective at initiating and maintaining asthma control and is well tolerated, with a positive safety profile.

A 24-week comparison of low-dose ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in mild to moderate asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ciclesonide (80 microg/day) with fluticasone propionate (200 microg/day) in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged 12-75 years and previously treated with low doses of inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate 250 microg/day or equivalent) entered a 2-4 week run-in period during which only rescue medication was permitted. For inclusion into the double-blind, 24-week treatment period, patients had to show a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) of 61-90% predicted and a decrease in FEV(1) during run-in of >or=10%. Patients (n = 480) were randomized to ciclesonide 80 microg (ex-actuator) once daily in the evening or fluticasone propionate 100 microg (ex-valve) twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in FEV(1). Secondary efficacy variables included asthma control and asthma-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

Both treatments significantly increased FEV(1) and other lung function variables from baseline (p < 0.0001, both groups, all variables). The least squares mean increases in FEV(1) were 0.46L (ciclesonide) and 0.52L (fluticasone propionate); non-inferiority of ciclesonide to fluticasone propionate was demonstrated (p = 0.0002, per-protocol analysis). Five patients in each group experienced asthma exacerbations. Improvements in the percent of days with asthma control (days with no asthma symptoms and no use of rescue medication) and asthma-specific quality of life were comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed similar efficacy of ciclesonide 80 microg once daily and fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The low dose of ciclesonide was efficacious during long-term treatment. EudraCT number: 2004-001072-39.

Lower-leg growth rates in children with asthma during treatment with ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate

Measurement of short-term lower-leg growth rate in children by knemometry has become established as an integral part of the available measures of systemic activity of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the novel ICS ciclesonide (CIC) and the ICS fluticasone propionate (FP) on lower-leg growth rate and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function in children with mild asthma. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study, 28 children, aged 6-12 yr, sequentially received daily doses of CIC 320 μg, FP 375 μg (330 μg ex-actuator) and placebo via a spacer in a randomized order. Each 2-wk treatment period was followed by a 2-wk washout period. Knemometry was performed at the beginning and end of each treatment period. Cortisol levels in 12-h overnight urine were measured at the end of each treatment period. No statistically significant differences were seen in lower-leg growth rates between CIC (0.30 mm/wk) and placebo (0.43 mm/wk) treatments. Lower-leg growth rate during FP treatment (0.08 mm/wk) was significantly reduced compared with both placebo [least squares (LS) mean: -0.35 (95% CI: -0.53, -0.18; p = 0.0002)] and CIC [LS mean: -0.23 (95% CI: -0.05, -0.40; p = 0.0137)]. Cortisol levels in 12-h overnight urine were significantly lower in the FP group when compared with CIC (p < 0.05); however, there were no statistically significant differences between each of the active treatments and placebo. CIC had no significant effect on lower-leg growth rate in children aged 6-12 yr with mild asthma. In contrast, a similar dose of FP significantly reduced lower-leg growth rate compared with placebo and CIC.

Once-daily ciclesonide via metered-dose inhaler: Similar efficacy and safety with or without a spacer

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as first-line treatment for adults and children with persistent asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that patients taking medium- or high-dose ICS delivered by metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) should use a spacer device.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 12-week, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide 160microg once daily delivered via hydrofluoroalkane-MDI alone (CIC160) or with a spacer (either an AeroChamber Plus [CIC160P] or an AeroChamber MAX [CIC160M]) in patients with persistent asthma. The primary efficacy variable was change in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) from baseline to study end.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in FEV(1) were observed from baseline to study end in each treatment group; least squares mean change from baseline ranged between 0.32 and 0.34L in the per-protocol (PP) analysis and similar results were observed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (p<0.0001 for all). Non-inferiority of CIC160P and CIC160M to CIC160 was observed for both PP and ITT populations (p<0.0001 [one-sided]). In all groups, daily asthma symptom scores were reduced to 0 and significant reductions were observed in rescue medication use at study end (p<0.0001 versus baseline for all). Ciclesonide was well tolerated in all groups and no cases of oral candidiasis were reported. Morning serum cortisol levels significantly increased in all groups from baseline to study end (p< or =0.0389), with no significant between-treatment differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with persistent asthma, ciclesonide was shown to have similar efficacy and tolerability when administered via MDI alone or with a spacer.

Ciclesonide: a review of its use in the management of asthma

Ciclesonide (Alvesco) is an inhaled corticosteroid used in the preventative treatment of persistent bronchial asthma in adults, adolescents and, in some countries, children. The drug is delivered by a non-chlorofluorocarbon hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI). In the lungs, ciclesonide is converted to an active metabolite, which is responsible for the beneficial effects of the drug in patients with asthma. Ciclesonide and its active metabolite have low systemic bioavailability and therefore have a low potential to produce systemic adverse events. Inhaled ciclesonide delivered by HFA-MDI is effective in the prophylactic treatment of persistent asthma in adults, adolescents and children, and is generally well tolerated. In general, ciclesonide improves lung function and reduces asthma symptoms and rescue medication use in adults and adolescents with asthma of varying severity. The drug is generally no less effective than other inhaled corticosteroids with regard to maintaining or improving lung function and may have a more favourable tolerability profile than some other agents in this class. Ciclesonide has also shown efficacy in paediatric patients with asthma. Data on its long-term effects on other clinical outcomes, such as asthma exacerbations, would be of interest. Further comparative and long-term studies would also be beneficial in order to definitively position ciclesonide with respect to other inhaled corticosteroids. In the meantime, ciclesonide offers an effective and well tolerated first-line preventative treatment option for persistent asthma.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled steroids for chronic asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are an integral part of asthma management, and act as an anti-inflammatory agent in the airways of the lung. These agents confer both significant benefit in terms of symptom management and improvement in lung function, but may also cause harm in terms of local and systemic side-effects. Ciclesonide is a novel steroid that is metabolised to its active component in the lung, making it a potentially useful for reducing local side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide relative to those of other inhaled corticosteroids in the management of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel or crossover studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other steroids both at nominally equivalent dose or lower doses of ciclesonide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty one trials involving 7243 participants were included. Equal daily doses of ciclesonide and beclomethasone (BDP) or budesonide (BUD) gave similar results for peak expiratory flow rates (PEF), although forced vital capacity (FVC) was higher with ciclesonide. Data on forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) were inconsistent. Withdrawal data and symptoms were similar between treatments. Compared with the same dose of fluticasone (FP), data on lung function parameters (FEV1, FVC and PEF) did not differ significantly. Paediatric quality of life score favoured ciclesonide. Candidiasis was less frequent with ciclesonide, although other side-effect outcomes did not give significant differences in favour of either treatment. When lower doses of ciclesonide were compared to BDP or BUD, the difference in FEV1 did not reach significance but we cannot exclude a significant effect in favour of BDP/BUD. Other lung function outcomes did not give significant differences between treatments. Paediatric quality of life scores did not differ between treatments. Adverse events occurred with similar frequency between ciclesonide and BDP/BUD. Comparison with FP at half the nominal dose was undertaken in three studies, which indicated that FEV1 was not significantly different, but was not equivalent between the treatments (per protocol: -0.05 L 95% confidence intervals -0.11 to 0.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review give some support to ciclesonide as an equivalent therapy to other ICS at similar nominal doses. The studies assessed low doses of steroids, in patients whose asthma required treatment with low doses of steroids. At half the dose of FP and BDP/BUD, the effects of ciclesonide were more inconsistent The effect on candidiasis may be of importance to people who find this to be problematic. The role of ciclesonide in the management of asthma requires further study, especially in paediatric patients. Further assessment against FP at a dose ratio of 1:2 is a priority.

Ciclesonide versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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