Management of persistent symptoms in patients with asthma

Control of mild to moderate asthma over 1-year with the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess asthma control using salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate (FP) in combination (SFC) versus salmeterol or FP as monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 322 symptomatic patients were recruited, of which 282 were randomised to receive either salmeterol (50 microg), FP (250 microg), or SFC (50 microg/250 microg), via a single Diskus inhaler twice daily for 12 months. Outcome variables included the number of patients requiring an increase in study medication and the number experiencing 2 exacerbations during the 12-month treatment period. Airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR) and lung function tests were performed at clinic visits. Peak expiratory flow, rescue medication use, symptom scores and adverse events were recorded in diary cards.

RESULTS

Fewer patients required an increase in study medication with SFC (10.5%) than with either FP (34.8%) or salmeterol (61.1%) (P<0.001). Significantly fewer patients experienced 2 exacerbations with SFC (4.2%), compared with FP (17.4%; P<0.01) or salmeterol (40%; P<0.001). SFC improved AHR to a significantly greater extent than FP (methacholine PC20=1.8 mg/ml vs. 1.1 mg/ml; P<0.05) or salmeterol (methacholine PC20=1.8 mg/ml vs. 0.7 mg/ml; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The protection against exacerbations may be attributed to better control of inflammation, AHR and lung function parameters achieved with salmeterol and FP in combination, compared with either treatment alone.

The pharmacokinetics of nebulized nanocrystal budesonide suspension in healthy volunteers

Nanocrystal budesonide (nanobudesonide) is a suspension for nebulization in patients with steroid-responsive pulmonary diseases such as asthma. The pharmacokinetics and safety of the product were compared to those of Pulmicort Respules. Sixteen healthy volunteers were administered nanobudesonide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, Pulmicort Respules 0.5 mg, and placebo in a four-way, randomized crossover design. All nebulized formulations were well tolerated, with no evidence of bronchospasm. Nebulization times were significantly shorter for nanobudesonide compared to Pulmicort Respules. Because of a low oral bioavailability, plasma concentration of budesonide is a good marker of lung-delivered dose. The pharmacokinetics of nanobudesonide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were approximately dose proportional with respect to Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity). Nanobudesonide 0.5 mg and Pulmicort Respules 0.5 mg exhibited similar AUCs, suggesting a similar extent of pulmonary absorption. A higher Cmax was noted with nanobudesonide 0.5 mg, and the tmax was significantly different, suggesting a more rapid rate of drug delivery of nanobudesonide 0.5 mg than Pulmicort Respules. In conclusion, nebulized nanobudesonide 0.5 mg was safe in healthy volunteers, with a similar extent of absorption as Pulmicort Respules.