Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Beclomethasone Dipropionate Dry Powder Inhaler (Clickhaler®) for the Treatment of Adult Asthma

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy protocol was used to compare the safety and efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) delivered by a novel dry powder inhaler (DPI, Clickhaler®) or by a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (MDI) plus spacer. There was a four-week run-in period, completed by 240 adult patients, who received BDP via an MDI. Patients with stable asthma were then randomized into a 12-week treatment period and received BDP (<2 mg/day via DPI or MDI). There were no significant differences in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (primary endpoint), evening PEF, overall daytime or nighttime symptom scores, or lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, forced vital capacity) between DPI and MDI. The safety profiles were similar and patient acceptability for Clickhaler was high. In conclusion, BDP administered via Clickhaler was found to be clinically equivalent to an optimally used MDI. Patients with stable asthma currently receiving BDP via MDI may be effectively switched to treatment via Clickhaler DPI.     

Performance of Turbuhaler® in Patients with Acute Airway Obstruction and COPD,and in Children with Asthma

The dry-powder inhaler (DPI) Turbuhaler((R)) has been on the market for nearly two decades. Products containing terbutaline, formoterol, budesonide, and the combination budesonide/formoterol are widely used by patients with asthma and COPD. Most patients and physicians find Turbuhaler((R)) easy to use, and local side effects are rare. This is thought to arise from the lack of additives or only small amounts in the formulation, in addition to minimal deposition of the drug in the oropharynx and on the vocal cords during inspiration.The function of Turbuhaler((R)) has frequently been questioned. This article aims to review and clarify some key issues that have been challenged in the literature (e.g. the effectiveness of Turbuhaler((R)) in patients with more restricting conditions), to discuss the importance of lung deposition, and to explain the low in vivo variability associated with Turbuhaler((R)) and the lack of correlation with the higher in vitro variability.Turbuhaler((R)), like other DPIs, is flow dependent to some degree. However, a peak inspiratory flow (PIF) through Turbuhaler((R)) of 30 L/min gives a good clinical effect. These PIF values can be obtained by patients with conditions thought to be difficult to manage with inhalational agents, such as asthmatic children and adult patients with acute severe airway obstruction and COPD. Excellent clinical results with Turbuhaler((R)) in large controlled studies in patients with COPD and acute severe airway obstruction provide indirect evidence that medication delivered via Turbuhaler((R)) reaches the target organ.Due to the large amount of small particles and the moderate inbuilt resistance in Turbuhaler((R)), which opens up the vocal cords during inhalation, Turbuhaler((R)) is associated with a high lung deposition (25-40% of the delivered dose) compared with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and other DPIs. A good correlation has been found between lung deposition and clinical efficacy. A high lung deposition always results in the best ratio between clinical efficacy and risk of unwanted systemic activity. Studies with Turbuhaler((R)) also show that the in vivo variation in lung deposition is significantly lower compared with a pMDI or, for example, the Diskus((R)) inhaler, and much lower than the in vitro dose variability seen in laboratory tests. Turbuhaler((R)) appears to be a reliable DPI which can be used with confidence by patients with airway diseases, including those with clinical conditions believed to be difficult to manage with inhalational therapy.     

The Role of Budesonide in Adults and Children with Mild‐to‐Moderate Persistent Asthma

Asthma, a chronic and potentially life‐threatening disease of the airways, affects patients of all ages. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the recommended first‐line therapy for patients with persistent asthma. To review the clinical efficacy and tolerability data available on budesonide in the treatment of mild‐to‐moderate persistent asthma, a MEDLINE database search was performed for 1996–2003 using the following key words: budesonide, inhaled corticosteroid, efficacy, safety, systemic. When administered once or twice daily, budesonide effectively controls asthma in children, adolescents, and adults with mild‐to‐moderate asthma. Budesonide can be delivered effectively via a dry powder inhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler®) in patients aged ≥ 6 years or as an inhalation suspension (Pulmicort Respules®) in children as young as 12 months. With over 20 years' clinical exposure, budesonide has been demonstrated to be well tolerated in the treatment of chronic asthma in patients as young as 12 months. Specifically, at doses required to treat mild or moderate persistent asthma, budesonide does not affect hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis function, bone mineral density, cataract formation, or final adult height. As Pulmicort Turbuhaler®, budesonide is the only ICS to achieve a Food and Drug Administration pregnancy category B rating. Early intervention with budesonide is recommended in asthma management: maximum benefit from therapy is reported in patients treated within 2 years of disease recognition. Budesonide is effective and well tolerated in the control of mild‐to‐moderate persistent asthma in patients aged 12 months and older. There is no evidence for variation in efficacy in population subgroups.     

Pycnogenol® as an Adjunct in the Management of Childhood Asthma

A randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study involving 60 subjects, aged 6–18 years old, was conducted over a period of 3 months to determine the effect of Pycnogenol® (a proprietary mixture of water‐soluble bioflavonoids extracted from French maritime pine) on mild‐to‐moderate asthma. After baseline evaluation, subjects were randomized into two groups to receive either Pycnogenol® or placebo. Subjects were instructed to record their peak expiratory flow with an Assess® Peak Flow Meter each evening. At the same time, symptoms, daily use of rescue inhalers (albuterol), and any changes in oral medications were also recorded. Urine samples were obtained from the subjects at the end of the run‐in period, and at 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐month visits. Urinary leukotriene C₄/D₄/E₄ was measured by an enzyme immunoassay. Compared with subjects taking placebo, the group who took Pycnogenol® had significantly more improvement in pulmonary functions and asthma symptoms. The Pycnogenol® group was able to reduce or discontinue their use of rescue inhalers more often than the placebo group. There was also a significant reduction of urinary leukotrienes in the Pycnogenol® group. The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of Pycnogenol® as an adjunct in the management of mild‐to‐moderate childhood asthma.     

Once‐Daily Inhaled Budesonide for the Treatment of Asthma: Clinical Evidence and Pharmacokinetic Explanation

Background. Budesonide, a widely used inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a favorable therapeutic ratio, is available via a dry powder inhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler®) and as a suspension for nebulization (Pulmicort Respules®). Methods. MEDLINE and an AstraZeneca database were searched to identify relevant controlled clinical trials published between 1986 and 2002 using the key words budesonide OR inhaled corticosteroid, AND once daily. Results. Thirty‐four controlled clinical studies involving once‐daily administration of budesonide to asthmatic patients were identified. Excluding long‐term studies, this review presents data from 23 controlled studies for 4466 adults or adolescents and 1532 children with asthma and demonstrates efficacy of budesonide in both corticosteroid‐naïve patients and patients previously treated with ICS. Once‐daily administration of budesonide achieves clinical efficacy comparable with that of twice‐daily regimens in patients with mild‐to‐moderate asthma and is equally effective when given in the morning or evening. Once‐daily administration simplifies treatment regimens and may improve patient compliance. The tolerability profiles of budesonide once‐daily via Turbuhaler® or as budesonide inhalation suspension are good and comparable with those for twice‐daily dosing. Conclusions. Once‐daily budesonide is effective and well tolerated as initial treatment for adults and children with mild asthma and as maintenance therapy in patients with more severe asthma once asthma control has been achieved.     

Treatment of Persistent Asthma With Symbicort® (Budesonide/Formoterol Inhalation Aerosol): An Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting β2-Adrenergic Agonist in One Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler

Objective. Budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol (Symbicort® AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination administered twice daily via one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of persistent asthma in patients ≥12 years of age whose asthma cannot be controlled by an ICS alone. The objective was to review efficacy, safety, and pharmacogenetic data on budesonide/formoterol pMDI in the treatment of persistent asthma. Methods. The authors searched PubMed and respiratory meeting databases to identify asthma studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Studies involving traditional and patient-reported outcomes, safety, tolerability, or pharmacogenetics were included. Results. In two 12-week pivotal trials in adolescents and adults, treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 μg × 2 inhalations (320/9 μg) twice daily for moderate to severe persistent asthma or 80/4.5 μg × 2 inhalations (160/9 μg) twice daily for mild to moderate persistent asthma, demonstrated greater efficacy and similar tolerability compared with placebo and the same nominal dose of its monocomponents. Comparisons with formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) for predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and with budesonide pMDI for 12-hour mean postdose FEV₁ demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory contributions of budesonide and formoterol, respectively. Evaluations of patient-reported outcomes, including asthma-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction, further supported the clinical benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. In a 52-week tolerability study of patients aged ≥12 years, budesonide/formoterol pMDI was delivered at up to double the maximum dose (640/18 μg twice daily) and demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of budesonide (640 μg twice daily), with no unexpected pattern of abnormalities. Additional studies reported that budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 μg twice daily and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 μg twice daily have similar efficacy and tolerability, with significantly more patients achieving ≥15% improvement in FEV₁ within 15 minutes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with fluticasone/salmeterol DPI. Moreover, inheritance of the Gly16Arg polymorphism of the β₂-adrenergic receptor does not appear to affect clinical outcomes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Conclusion. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI administered twice daily is effective and generally well tolerated in patients whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.     

Tolerability Profiles of Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists and Long-Acting β2-Adrenoceptor Agonists in Combination with Inhaled Corticosteroids for Treatment of Asthma: A Review

Inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor agonists, and leukotriene receptor antagonists are widely used for treatment of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy, whereas long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists are indicated as add-on therapy in patients not adequately controlled with corticosteroids alone. A number of studies have investigated the efficacy of combinations of these drugs in asthma, but several issues concerning the safety of these treatments are highly debated. This review provides a critical appraisal of the tolerability profiles of long-acting β₂-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma.     

Patient Satisfaction with Budesonide Turbuhaler™ Versus Triamcinolone Acetonide Administered via Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler in a Managed Care Setting

Dissatisfaction with medication may negatively affect compliance and thus the effectiveness of the treatment. However, no prospective well-controlled studies have assessed the relative patient satisfaction with competing inhaled corticosteroids in a real-life setting. The objective of the current study was to compare the relative patient satisfaction with budesonide inhalation powder administered via Turbuhaler (AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE) (200 to 1600 µg/d using one of 3 dosing strengths: 100, 200, or 400 µg per inhalation) and triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (200 to 1600 µg/d) among persons treated in managed care settings. A total of 945 subjects 18 years of age or older diagnosed with asthma and enrolled in 25 managed care organizations participated in this prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-month study. As part of the study, subjects completed a self-administered, 17-item patient satisfaction questionnaire that addressed 4 domains: side effects, knowledge/ease of use, convenience, and overall satisfaction. Questionnaire reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and validity was examined by correlating subscale scores with symptom-free days and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. The satisfaction questionnaire also included a previously validated section addressing patient compliance. Patients receiving budesonide had significantly higher scores for all four satisfaction subscales throughout the study period than did those receiving triamcinolone acetonide. Similarly, compliance scores were consistently higher for the budesonide group. The difference between the treatment groups in overall satisfaction scores at the end of the study was clinically meaningful. Patients treated with budesonide were significantly more satisfied and compliant with their inhaled corticosteroid regimen compared with patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide.     

Mefloquine versus Sulfadoxine–Pyrimethamine for Intermittent Preventive Treatment in Pregnancy: A Joint Analysis on Efficacy and Tolerability

Since there is no ideal candidate to replace sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine (SP) for intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp), alternatives need to be evaluated on basis of their benefit–risk ratio. We reanalyzed the first Beninese trial on mefloquine (MQ) versus SP for IPTp using a multiple outcome approach, which allowed the joint assessment of efficacy and tolerability. Overall superiority of MQ to SP was defined as superiority on at least one efficacy outcome (low birth weight [LBW], placental malaria, or maternal anemia), non-inferiority on all of them as well as on tolerability defined as cutaneous or neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs) or low compliance with the treatment. The analysis included 1,601 women. MQ was found to be overall superior to SP (P = 0.004). Performing several sensitivity analyses to handle both missing data and stillbirths provided similar results. Using MQ for IPTp as an example, we show that a multiple outcome analysis is a pragmatic way to assess the benefits/disadvantages of one drug compared with another. In the current context of a lack of antimalarials that could be used for IPTp, such a statistical approach could be widely used by institutional policy makers for future recommendations regarding the prevention of malaria in pregnancy (MiP).     

Time Trends of the Prevalence of Asthma,Rhinitis and Eczema in Thai Children–ISAAC (International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood) Phase Three

Using the same questionnaire as in ISAAC Phase One study conducted in 1995, the ISAAC Phase Three was carried out in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 2001, among children aged 6–7 and 13–14 years. There was an increase in the prevalence of the three diseases in the younger age group, i.e., current asthma, rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, and flexural eczema. In the older age group, the prevalence of rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis increased. There was no change of prevalence of asthma in Bangkok, but prevalence decreased in Chiang Mai. Prevalence of eczema in older children increased in Bangkok, but remained the same in Chiang Mai.     

Clinical Efficacy of ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin

The cliniueal efficacy, antibacterial activity and adverse effects of ciprofloxacin (CPLX) and ofloxacin (OFLX) produced in our country were compared in five clinical hospitals in Beijing and Guangzhou in 1992. Two groups, each consisting of 100 cases, were treated with. CPLX and OFLX respectively. The total     

Efficacy and Safety of Indacaterol,a New 24-hour β 2-Agonist,in Patients with Asthma: A Dose-Ranging Study

Background. Indacaterol is a new once-daily inhaled β₂-agonist in clinical development for asthma as a component of a fixed-dose combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. Objectives. To investigate the efficacy and safety of indacaterol in patients with chronic persistent asthma. Methods. A total of 115 patients were randomized in a double-blind, incomplete-block cross-over design to sequences of four 7-day treatment periods (separated by 7-day washouts) with indacaterol 100, 200, 300, 400, or 600 μ g or placebo, once daily, via single-dose dry-powder inhaler. After the fourth washout, patients received 1 day of open-label formoterol 12 μ g twice daily. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was measured for 24 hours post-dose on days 1 and 7. Results. For standardized (with respect to time) FEV₁ area under the curve at 22 to 24 hours (AUC_22–24h) on day 1, indacaterol doses ≥200 μ g were superior to placebo (p < 0.05) and similar or greater than formoterol 12 μg twice daily. By day 7, mean differences from placebo in FEV₁ standardized AUC_22–24h were 0.08, 0.16, 0.15, 0.11, and 0.16 L for indacaterol 100, 200, 300, 400, and 600 μg, respectively (all p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Mean FEV₁ for indacaterol doses ≥ 200 μg on day 7 was higher than placebo (p < 0.05) pre-dose and at all post-dose time points. AEs were generally mild in severity; no serious AEs occurred. No clinically meaningful differences were observed between treatments in any safety assessments. Conclusions. Once-daily indacaterol demonstrated sustained 24-hour bronchodilator efficacy, with similar efficacy on days 1 and 7, and was generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy of tiotropium in COPD patients with FEV1 ≥ 60% participating in the UPLIFT® trial

GOLD stage II COPD encompasses patients with FEV? 50-80% predicted. A published trials review suggested that benefits of maintenance therapy are limited to patients with FEV? <60% predicted. We previously reported data demonstrating the efficacy of tiotropium in GOLD stage II disease in the 4-year UPLIFT? trial, and present here a further analysis of a sub-category of GOLD stage II patients with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥60% predicted from UPLIFT?. Outcomes included pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, exacerbations, SGRQ and mortality. Of the 5,992 UPLIFT? cohort, 1,210 (632 tiotropium, 578 control) had baseline post-bronchodilator FEV? ≥60% predicted (range 60-78%), mean age was 64 years, 70% were men, and mean SGRQ total score was 39.9 units. Mean annual rate of post-bronchodilator FEV? decline was 41 (tiotropium) and 49 (control) mL/year (P = 0.07); corresponding pre-bronchodilator values were 32 and 37 mL/year (P = 0.24). Morning pre-drug FEV? and FVC improvements for tiotropium versus control were 87-127 mL and 139-186 ml, respectively (P < 0.001, all time-points). SGRQ total score improvements (tiotropium-control) were 2.0-3.4 units (P < 0.05 for all); a higher percentage of patients had an improvement of ≥4 units with tiotropium (P <0.05). Tiotropium reduced risk for an exacerbation (HR [95% CI] = 0.83 [0.71, 0.96]) and mortality for the 4-year protocol-defined treatment period (HR [95% CI] = 0.66 [0.45, 0.96]). Tiotropium treatment provides clinical efficacy in patients with GOLD stage II disease with an FEV? ≥60% predicted, supporting current GOLD guidelines for COPD treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00144339).     

Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol HFA 134A MDI in Patients with Mild‐to‐Moderate Persistent Asthma

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) (44 µg)/salmeterol (21 µg) delivered as two inhalations twice daily via a single hydrofluoroalkane (HFA 134a) metered dose inhaler (MDI) (FSC) with that of placebo HFA 134a (PLA), fluticasone propionate 44 µg chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) alone and salmeterol 21 µg CFC alone (S) in patients (n = 360) with persistent asthma previously treated with β₂‐agonists (short‐ or long‐acting) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). After 12 weeks of treatment, patients treated with FSC had a significantly greater increase (p ≤ 0.006) in mean FEV₁ AUC(bl) compared with PLA, FP, or S. At end point, mean change from baseline in morning predose FEV₁ for FSC (0.58 L) was significantly (p ≤ 0.004) greater than PLA (0.14 L), FP (0.36 L), and S (0.25 L). Patients treated with FSC also had a significantly higher probability of remaining in the study without being withdrawn due to worsening asthma (2%) compared with those in the PLA (29%) and S (25%) groups (p < 0.001). Finally, treatment with FSC resulted in significantly (p ≤ 0.007) greater improvements in morning and evening peak expiratory flow, need for rescue albuterol, and asthma symptom scores compared with FP, S, and PLA. The safety profile of FSC was also similar to FP or S alone. Initial maintenance treatment of the two main components of asthma, inflammation, and smooth muscle dysfunction (e.g., bronchoconstriction), with FSC results in greater overall improvements in asthma control compared with treatment of either individual component alone.     

Comparison of the Asthma in America and Asthma Insight and Management surveys: did asthma burden and care improve in the United States between 1998 and 2009?

Significant changes in asthma treatment guidelines and therapies occurred between the period of time in which the Asthma in America (AIA) and Asthma Insight and Management (AIM) surveys were conducted: 1998 and 2009, respectively. This study compares asthma burden and management in 1998 and 2009. Both surveys were telephone based and conducted across the United States. The AIA survey included 2509 patients with asthma (aged <1 year to 89 years old), 512 physicians, and 1000 adults from the general population. The AIM survey included 2500 patients (aged ≥12 years), 309 physicians, and 1090 adults from the general population. Patient responses were weighted to match the entire population of U.S. patients with asthma. The impact of asthma burden and care on the general population and on asthma patients was slightly lower or unchanged in the AIM survey versus the AIA survey. Acute care use (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or other urgent care visits) was common in AIA (36%) and AIM (34%) surveys. Most physicians were aware of guidelines in AIA (90%) and AIM (96%), but fewer "always" followed them (AIA, 36%; AIM, 28%). Spirometry was often used to aid in diagnosis by asthma care specialists (AIA, 73%; AIM, 76%) but infrequently by nonsubspecialists (AIA, 27%; AIM, 38%). Most physicians prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for mild (AIA, 70%; AIM, 83%) or moderate (AIA, 89%; AIM, 83%) persistent asthma. In the AIM survey, 38% of specialists prescribed ICSs combined with a long-acting β2-agonist for moderate asthma. The state of U.S. asthma care and clinical outcomes changed little from 1998 to 2009.     

Expression of Transforming Growth Factor β1 in Bronchial Biopsies in Asthma and COPD

The role of transforming growth factor β₁ (TGF β₁) in airway remodeling in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been fully described. To evaluate the possible pathogenetic role of TGF β₁ in asthma and COPD, immunohistochemical expression of TGF β₁ was described in bronchial biopsies from patients with asthma and COPD compared with healthy individuals. Twelve subjects with asthma, 13 subjects with COPD, and 10 healthy individuals enrolled in the study. Bronchial biopsies were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and anti‐TGF β₁ antibody. As a result, immunoreactive TGF β₁ was mainly localized in association with connective tissue in all groups. The staining intensity was not statistically different among the groups in bronchial epithelium, whereas it was significantly higher in the group of asthma in the submucosa. Because there is evidence showing a significant increase of staining intensity in the submucosa from asthmatics but not from subjects with COPD, we may conclude that TGF β₁ may play a significant role in pathogenesis of asthma but not in COPD.