Stepping-across controlled asthmatic patients to extrafine beclometasone/formoterol combination

BackgroundAsthma management focuses on achieving and maintaining asthma control. Few studies have assessed whether complete and sustained asthma control is maintained in clinical practice after stepping-across ICS/LABA fixed combinations. Aim of this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel group, controlled study was to demonstrate clinical equivalence between equipotent doses of extrafine beclometasone/formoterol (BDP/F) pMDI and fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S) Diskus^® in maintaining lung function and asthma control.MethodsA total of 416 asthmatic patients already controlled with FP/S 500/100 μg/day (Diskus^®, pMDI or separate inhalers) were randomized to a 12-week treatment with extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg/day pMDI or FP/S 500/100 μg/day Diskus^®. Pre-dose 1-s forced expiratory volume (FEV₁) was the primary efficacy variable; secondary variables included asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-7) and FEV₁0-1 h area under the curve (FEV₁AUC_0–1h). Safety was assessed through adverse events monitoring and vital signs.ResultsAfter 12 weeks of treatment, pre-dose FEV₁ did not differ between treatments (difference between means 0.01 L; 95% CI –0.03–0.06 L) with no significant changes from baseline in both groups (p = 0.726 and p = 0.783 in BDF/F arm and FP/S, respectively). ACQ-7 score showed that control was maintained after stepping-across to extrafine BDP/F. FEV₁AUC_0–1h was significantly higher in BDP/F arm at the beginning (p = 0.004) and at the end of the 12-week treatment period (p = 0.019). No safety issues were reported in both groups.ConclusionsPatients previously controlled with FP/S in any device formulation can effectively step-across to extrafine BDP/F pMDI, maintaining lung function and asthma control with a 5-min onset of action.     

Relief of methacholine-induced bronchospasm with extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol in comparison with salbutamol in asthma

BackgroundShort-acting beta2-agonists like salbutamol and terbutaline are used as rescue medications for acute bronchoconstriction and relief of symptoms due to their rapid onset of action. The aim of this study was to assess whether inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) combination in extrafine formulation is non-inferior to salbutamol in the speed of reverting methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction and symptoms.MethodsFifty-six asthmatic patients were examined in a multicentre, randomised, double blind, double dummy, active treatment and placebo controlled three period cross-over study. On three different days, a single dose of BDP/FF 100/6 μg in pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) extrafine formulation or salbutamol 200 μg pMDI or placebo was inhaled after FEV₁ had dropped by 30–45% with methacholine challenge.ResultsThe median time to recovery of FEV₁ to 85% of baseline was similar for BDP/FF and salbutamol (3.66 and 2.15 min, respectively), but significantly longer for placebo (21.1 min). The planned analysis on adjusted mean time to recovery showed that the difference from methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction between BDP/FF and salbutamol was 3.82 min (95% confidence interval: ?0.85 to 8.5), therefore greater than 3 min supposed in the study design. The difference between BDP/FF and salbutamol was not clinically significant. The two active treatments were also comparable in terms of the relief of symptoms (as assessed by the Borg dyspnoea scale).ConclusionsBDP/FF combination has a fast onset of action, similar to that of salbutamol, and may represent a good alternative as rescue medication in asthmatic patients.     

Once-daily budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler in adults with moderate persistent asthma

Patients with moderate persistent asthma (n = 523; mean FEV1 77.4%) not fully controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; 400-1000 microg/day) were randomized to receive either once-daily budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, two inhalations); or twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg, one inhalation); or budesonide (400 microg) once-daily for 12 weeks. Once-daily dosing was administered in the evening and twice-daily dosing was administered in the morning and evening. All patients received twice-daily budesonide (200 microg) during a 2-week run-in. Compared with budesonide alone, change in mean morning and evening peak expiratory flow was greater in the once-daily budesonide/formoterol group (27 and 171 min(-1), respectively; P < 0.001) and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol group (23 and 24 l min(-1), respectively; P < 0.001). Night awakenings, symptom-free days, reliever-use-free days and asthma-control days were all improved during once-daily budesonide/formoterol therapy vs. budesonide (P < or = 0.05). Similar improvements were also seen with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (P < or = 0.05). The risk of a mild exacerbation was reduced after once- and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs. budesonide (38% and 35%, respectively; P < 0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol, once- or twice-daily, in a single inhaler improved asthma symptoms and exacerbations compared with budesonide. In the majority of patients with moderate persistent asthma requiring ICS and long-acting beta-agonists, once-daily formoterol/budesonide provided sustained efficacy over 24 h, similar to twice-daily dosing.     

Beclometasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol versus fluticasone propionate in children with asthma

Beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) extrafine is a hydrofluoroalkane-based, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free inhalation aerosol. This study was conducted to determine whether BDP extrafine and CFC-fluticasone proprionate (FP) aerosols were equivalent in terms of efficacy and tolerability in children with symptomatic mild-to-moderate asthma. Male and female patients (aged 5-12 yr) with an asthma diagnosis for > or =3 months, peak expiratory flow (PEF) > or =60% of predicted normal and suboptimal asthma control were randomised to double-blind treatment with BDP extrafine 200 microg day(-1) (n=139) or CFC-FP 200 microg day(-1) (n=141) for up to 18 weeks. After 6 and 12 weeks, study medication was 'stepped down' to 100 and 50 microg day(-1), respectively, if patients had achieved good asthma control. Patients with poor asthma control discontinued from the study and those with intermediate control continued in the study but did not undergo a dose reduction. The estimated treatment difference in morning PEF% predicted at 6 weeks was -1.9% (90% CI -4.9, 1.0). There was a trend towards a greater increase in forced vital capacity (% predicted) in the BDP extrafine group (5.3 versus 0.4%; p=0.084). A 'step-down' in therapy to 100 microg day(-1) was possible in 36% and 42% of patients in the BDP extrafine and CFC-FP groups, respectively, at 6 weeks. Both drugs were well tolerated. BDP extrafine and CFC-FP aerosols were equally effective at improving asthma control in children with mild-to-moderate asthma at the same daily dose.     

可调节剂量布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉剂与固定剂量氟替卡松/沙美特罗吸入粉剂方案治疗慢性持续性支气管哮喘的疗效比较

目的 可调节剂量(AMD)的治疗方案是近几年提出用于支气管哮喘(简称哮喘)维持治疗的一种新的措施.与传统的固定剂量(FD)的治疗方案有很大不同.也由此引发了很多争议.此实验比较了两种治疗方案可调节剂量布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉剂与固定剂量氟替卡松/沙美特罗吸入粉剂对慢性持续性哮喘患者的疗效.方法 68例哮喘患者随机分为AMD组与FD组.治疗24周后比较两组患者治疗前后的哮喘证状评分、哮喘发作次数、夜间憋醒次数、无症状天数、缓解症状所需时间以及PEF、FEV1%的变化.结果 最终59例患者完成实验.两组患者在临床症状及肺功能指标的改善等方面均相似.但是AMD组患者症状缓解时间较FD组患者更短(P<0.05).结论 两种治疗方法均能有效的控制哮喘,改善患者症状,但AMD的治疗方案能使患者获得更快的临床控制.     

EXCEL: A randomised trial comparing salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and formoterol/budesonide combinations in adults with persistent asthma

OBJECTIVES: This multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised 24-week study was designed to compare the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50/250 microg one inhalation twice daily (bid) with formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) 6/200 microg two inhalations bid in patients with persistent asthma, currently receiving 1000-2000 microg/day of inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 694 patients in the SFC group and 697 patients in the FBC group. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, mean rate of all exacerbations over 24 weeks, was similar in both treatment groups (SFC: 2.69; FBC: 2.79; SFC/FBC ratio 0.96; 95% CL 0.84, 1.10; P=0.571). A reduction in the rate of exacerbations over time was observed in both treatment groups. Overall, there was a 30% lower annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 0-49%, 52% reduction vs. 1% increase; P=0.059). This effect increased with time: in weeks 17-24 the moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 57% lower in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 21-77% reduction; P=0.006). Similar improvements in lung function, asthma symptoms and rescue medication usage were seen with both treatments and both were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily treatment with SFC and FBC over 6 months significantly improved asthma symptoms and lung function in patients with persistent asthma. The rate of exacerbations was significantly reduced over time on both treatments but SFC was found to be significantly superior to FBC in reducing the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations with sustained treatment.     

Efficacy and safety of inhaled ciclesonide compared with chlorofluorocarbon beclomethasone dipropionate in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Inhaled corticosteroids are recognized as first-line therapy in the management of asthma; however, their use may be limited by systemic and local side-effects. Ciclesonide, a novel pro-drug inhaled corticosteroid, is activated in the lungs and is expected to have less systemic and local side-effects. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) compared with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) in a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) formulation in adult patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study. The patients were given 800 microg/day of CFC-BDP in the four-week baseline period. After the baseline period, 319 patients were randomly allocated into three groups which, respectively, received HFA-ciclesonide 400 microg/day (without a spacer), HFA-ciclesonide 800 microg/day (without spacer) and CFC-BDP 800 microg/day (with spacer) for the eight-week treatment period. The primary efficacy variable was morning PEF. RESULTS: The morning PEF increased by 16.02 L/min in the 400 microg HFA-ciclesonide group, 23.98 L/min in the 800 microg HFA-ciclesonide group and 5.91 L/min in the 800 microg CFC-BDP group. Better outcomes were achieved by the use of 800 microg/day of HFA-ciclesonide compared with 800 microg/day of CFC-BDP (P = 0.001). There was no difference in adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSION: In adult patients with moderate to severe asthma, 800 microg/day of HFA-ciclesonide was significantly more effective than 800 microg/day of CFC-BDP. Ciclesonide at doses of 400 microg/day and 800 microg/day was safe and well tolerated.     

Once-daily dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol and once-daily budesonide in adults with mild to moderate asthma

Adherence to maintenance therapy is often poor in patients with asthma. Simplifying dosing regimens has the potential to improve both adherence and asthma-related morbidity. In this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 617 patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma (mean forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV1] 78.5% predicted) who were not optimally controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (200-500 microg/day) were randomized to once-daily budesonide/formoterol (80/4.5 microg, 2 inhalations in the evening), twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (80/4.5 microg, 1 inhalation), or a corresponding dose of budesonide once-daily (200 microg, 1 inhalation in the evening). All patients received budesonide (100 microg twice daily) during a 2-week run-in. Changes in mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) were similar for od budesonide/formoterol (23.4 l/min) and twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (24.1 l/min), and both were greater than with budesonide (5.5 l/min; both P<0.001). Evening PEF, symptom-free days, reliever-free days, and asthma control days were improved with budesonide/formoterol therapy vs. budesonide (P<0.05 vs. budesonide for all variables). All treatments were well tolerated. Budesonide/formoterol administered once daily in the evening is a convenient treatment regimen that is as effective in improving asthma control as twice-daily dosing in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.     

The association of smoking and hypertension according to cotinine-verified smoking status in 25,150 Korean adults

Purpose: The establishment of a definitive association between smoking and hypertension has been controversial in previous studies, many of which were based on self-reported smoking status and urine cotinine-verified smoking status. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the association between hypertension and smoking considering the effects of all kinds of smoker types, including hidden smokers, using new variables and a population-based sample.

Methods: Data were acquired from 25,150 men and women aged older than 29 years who participated in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES).

Results: The prevalence of hypertension was 4.7%, that of self-reported smoking was 30.8%, and that of cotinine-verified smoking was 28.5%. Of the male cotinine-verified smokers, 5.6% were self-reported nonsmokers (1.5% never-smokers and 4.1% ex-smokers), whereas, of the female cotinine-verified smokers, 46.9% were self-reported nonsmokers (40.8% never-smokers and 6.1% ex-smokers). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that, with respect to self-reported smoking status, smokers and ex-smokers were not correlated with hypertension [(odds ratio (OR): 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99–1.57) and OR: 1.20 (CI: 0.90–1.60), respectively]. When gender was considered, the adjusted OR of the association of smoking with hypertension in female participants was 1.44 (CI: 1.02–2.04) with respect to cotinine-verified smoking status.

Conclusion: This large observational study found that smoking was not associated with hypertension in the overall population, but, when the gender was considered, female smokers were more likely to demonstrate hypertension.     

Acute relief of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by inhaled formoterol in children with persistent asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute bronchodilatory effect of the long-acting beta2-agonist formoterol against the short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) terbutaline during exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children with asthma. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the immediate effect of formoterol, 9 microg, vs terbutaline, 0.5 mg, and placebo administered as dry powder at different study days. Exercise challenge test was used as a model of acute bronchoconstriction. PATIENTS: Twenty-four 7- to 15-year-old children with persistent asthma. INTERVENTIONS: The children performed standardized treadmill exercise tests, breathing dry air, with a submaximal workload. Study medication was administered 5 min after exercise if FEV1 dropped > or = 15% within 5 min after exercise. FEV1 and forced expiratory flows were measured repeatedly until 60 min after dose. RESULTS: Formoterol and terbutaline offered a significant acute bronchodilatory effect from 3 min after dose compared with placebo (p < 0.001). There was no difference between formoterol and terbutaline in FEV1 5 min after dose (p = 0.15), with a mean increase from each predrug baseline of 62% of the maximum increase for both. Median times to recovery within 5% of baseline FEV1 were 5.0 min and 7.4 min for formoterol and terbutaline, respectively (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Single-dose formoterol, 9 microg, via dry powder inhaler provided an acute bronchodilatory effect similar to terbutaline during EIB in schoolchildren with persistent asthma. Formoterol is at least as effective as SABA and may be considered an alternative in the treatment of acute bronchoconstriction in school children.     

Randomised trial comparing as-needed versus regular treatment with formoterol in patients with persistent asthma

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the equivalent efficacy of inhaled formoterol in asthmatic patients, either given as-needed or on a regular twice-daily schedule. METHODS: Randomised, open 12-week study in patients with mild to moderate asthma not adequately controlled with inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone. Patients received inhaled formoterol as needed or on a regular schedule (2x2 puffs/day with 6 microg formoterol per puff). Patients in the twice-daily formoterol group could use salbutamol as a rescue medication. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with asthma exacerbations in each group. RESULTS: Thirty-nine centres randomised 359 patients. The number of patients with asthma exacerbations showed neither a clinically relevant nor a statistically significant difference between groups: formoterol as-needed: 3.95% (7 of 177); twice daily: 3.45% (6 of 174). Patients in the formoterol as-needed group used significantly less formoterol (-1.5 puffs per day; P<0.0001). Including the saved rescue medication (up to one puff per day), total beta-2 agonist use in the formoterol as-needed group decreased by approximately 2-2.5 puffs per day. Both formoterol treatment schedules were well tolerated. Musculoskeletal pain and tremor were less frequent in the formoterol as-needed group: headaches were slightly more frequent. CONCLUSION: Formoterol given as needed and without additional beta-2 agonist, and formoterol given on a regular basis twice daily, supplemented by salbutamol as a rescue medication, appeared equally effective in this clinical study. Drug consumption was markedly lower in the former group.     

Comparable long-term safety and efficacy of a novel budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler in adolescents and adults with asthma

Budesonide/formoterol in one inhaler is an established therapy for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The long-term safety and efficacy profile of a novel hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide/formoterol was compared with that of budesonide/formoterol in a dry powder inhaler (DPI; Turbuhaler). This multinational, 52-week, randomized, open, parallel-group study included patients aged > or = 12 years with asthma who had a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1)> or = 50% of predicted normal; all patients used inhaled corticosteroids (400-1200 microg/day) and needed additional short-acting beta 2-agonist therapy. Patients were randomized to receive budesonide/formoterol pMDI or DPI 160/4.5 microg, two inhalations twice daily. Safety endpoints included assessment of adverse events and laboratory parameters. Efficacy endpoints included change from baseline in FEV1 and time to first severe asthma exacerbation. Overall, 673 patients (446pMDI, 227DPI) were included. There were no clinically significant differences between treatment groups in the nature, incidence or severity of adverse events or laboratory parameters. The number of patients experiencing adverse events was comparable in the pMDI (332/446 [74%]) and DPI (175/227 [77%]) groups; the most commonly reported adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection. The proportion of patients discontinuing as a result of adverse events was low in both groups (pMDI 12/446 [3%], DPI 2/227 [1%]). Lung function was improved to a similar extent in both groups and there was no detectable difference in time to first severe asthma exacerbation. The novel HFA pMDI formulation of budesonide/formoterol is an equally well tolerated and effective treatment for adults and adolescents with asthma as the budesonide/formoterol DPI.     

Efficacy and safety of high-dose budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) compared with budesonide administered either concomitantly with formoterol or alone in patients with persistent symptomatic asthma

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg, two inhalations bd, is an effective and well-tolerated maintenance therapy for patients not controlled on inhaled corticosteroids alone. The authors assessed the efficacy and safety of a higher dose of budesonide/formoterol in patients with persistent symptomatic asthma. METHODS: This was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy randomized study. Budesonide/formoterol 320/9 microg, two inhalations bd (1280/36 microg/day), was compared with corresponding doses of budesonide during weeks 1-12 and budesonide plus formoterol via separate inhalers during weeks 1-24. Efficacy was assessed during weeks 1-12; the primary variable was morning PEF. Safety was assessed over weeks 1-24. RESULTS: Patients (n=456; aged 12-79 years) had a mean reversibility in FEV1 of 28% and mean pre-study inhaled corticosteroid dose of 1038 microg/day. Mean morning PEF increased by 37 L/min and 36 L/min with budesonide/formoterol and budesonide plus formoterol, respectively, versus an increase of 5 L/min with budesonide (P<0.001 for both vs. budesonide). Budesonide/formoterol increased time to first mild exacerbation (P<0.005) versus budesonide. Budesonide/formoterol and budesonide plus formoterol had similar efficacy. All treatments were well tolerated and the incidence of class-related adverse events was similarly low in all groups. Changes in serum potassium and plasma cortisol were comparable across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, two inhalations bd) is effective and well tolerated in patients with persistent symptomatic asthma. The findings also support the safety of regular high-dose formoterol (36 microg/day).     

An economic evaluation of combination treatment with budesonide and formoterol in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Patients with mild asthma may benefit from increasing their inhaled corticosteroid dose, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist, or both. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of these options. Patients aged > or = 12 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma (n = 1272) were randomised to twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide 100 microg, budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, budesonide 200 microg, or budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg for 12 months. Clinical variables included lung function, number of symptom-free days and number of severe exacerbations. Data on medication use, hospitalisation, visits to health professionals and time off work due to asthma were combined with Swedish unit cost data (1999) to estimate the mean annual cost per patient. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg had the greatest efficacy and effectiveness. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg was both more effective and less costly than budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, so a cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated for this comparison. The cost-effectiveness ratio for budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg compared with budesonide 200 microg alone was SEK 21 per symptom-free days gained. The combination of budesonide and formoterol in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma improved effectiveness at modest additional cost.     

Asthma exacerbations and socio-economic status in French adults with persistent asthma: A prospective cohort study

Introduction: Adults disadvantaged by poor socio-economic status (SES) are more severely affected by asthma compared to those with better SES. We aimed to determine whether the frequency of asthma exacerbations (AEx), as well as aspects related to AEx management, differed based on SES in patients treated with daily treatments. Methods: This study, part of the prospective observational cohort ASTRO-LAB, included French adult patients with persistent asthma. Patients were considered as low SES if they benefited from publicly funded special health insurance and/or were perceived as low SES by their general practitioner. AEx was defined as at least one of the following: asthma-related oral corticosteroid course, medical contact, hospitalization, and death. We examined associations between SES and AEx frequency, perceived triggering factors and type of medical contact after AEx. Results: In our sample of 255 patients, 11.40% were considered as low SES. Patients with low SES did not report significantly more AEx than medium/high SES patients during one-year follow-up (0.79 versus 0.55, p = 0.38). The type of medical contact during AEx differed significantly between the two groups (p = 0.03): patients with medium/high SES consulted their general practitioner more frequently (OR = 2.23, 95% CI = 0.91–5.50, p = 0.08) and were less likely to visit an emergency department or be hospitalized (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.09–0.84, p = 0.02). Conclusions: AEx frequency did not differ significantly between low and medium/high SES patients, but differences were found in the management of AEx. Studies are needed to better understand the relation between precariousness and management of asthma.     

Effect of oral prednisolone on the bronchoprotective effect of formoterol in patients with persistent asthma.

Tolerance to the bronchoprotective effects by long-acting beta2-agonists (LAB) in patients with asthma is not prevented by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This study examined whether oral prednisolone can restore the bronchoprotective effects of formoterol in 24 patients with persistent asthma already treated with ICS (at least 800 microg budesonide x day(-1) or equivalent) and LAB, using a parallel-group design. During a 2-week run-in period and during the study, patients used formoterol 12 microg twice daily by Turbuhaler, instead of their own LAB. At baseline and at the end of 7-days treatment with oral placebo or prednisolone (30 mg x day(-1)), provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (PC20 histamine) was measured on two separate days after randomized single-dose inhalation of placebo (postP) or formoterol (postF). In addition, PC20postF was measured 24 h after starting oral treatment. The protective effect by formoterol at baseline and during treatment was calculated as the difference between the logs of PC20postP and PC20postF. The mean+/-SEM in doubling dose (DD) bronchoprotective effect at baseline was 0.8+/-0.4 DD in the placebo group and 1.0+/-0.4 DD in the prednisolone group. At the end of the treatment period, the protective effect changed to 1.0+/-0.5 DD and 0.8+/-0.6 DD in the placebo and prednisolone treated groups, respectively. This change was not different between the groups (p > 0.4). In conclusion, the bronchoprotective effect by formoterol is not influenced by 1 week prednisolone treatment in patients with asthma who are using regular inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists. These findings indicate that tolerance to long-acting beta2-agonists cannot be restored by oral steroid therapy.     

Improvement of asthma control with beclomethasone extrafine aerosol compared to fluticasone and budesonide

Qvar Autohaler efficacy on asthma control, assessed with E. Juniper asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), was compared with fluticasone and budesonide. An open randomized study, stratified (2:1) on the intake of long-acting beta2-mimetics (LAbeta2), was performed in patients with moderate to severe poorly controlled asthma (defined by at least one nocturnal discomfort in the last 5 days or a mean of 2 puffs of short-acting beta2-mimetics in the last 7 days or exercise dyspnea) despite treatment with beclomethasone < or = 1000 microg/day (or equivalent). 460 patients received Qvar Autohaler 800 microg/day (n = 149), fluticasone Diskus 1000 microg/day (n = 149) or budesonide Turbuhaler 1600 microg/day (n = 162) during 12 weeks. Asthma control improved in all groups, with no difference between groups. For patients treated with LAbeta2 (n = 286) a significantly greater improvement of the ACQ score was obtained with Qvar Autohaler versus fluticasone (1.0 +/- 1.0 vs. 0.6 +/- 0.9; P = 0.019), but not versus budesonide (0.9 +/- 0.9). Pulmonary function test improvements were similar in the 3 groups. The significant improvement in asthma control in patients receiving LAbeta2 suggests potential advantages for extrafine aerosols as part of anti-inflammatory treatment optimization.     

Non-pulmonary effects induced by the addition of formoterol to budesonide therapy in patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to assess the non-pulmonary effects of a 2-week treatment with the addition of formoterol to budesonide therapy in 10 patients with mild or moderate asthma. METHODS: Each patient was invited to perform a screening visit which included spirometry before and after inhalation of 12 microg formoterol with a metered dose inhaler (MDI), measurement of arterial blood pressure, baseline electrocardiography and 24-hour Holter monitoring, and a test for evaluating upper limb tremor. Patients then began bronchodilating therapy with 12 microg formoterol MDI and 400 microg budesonide Turbuhaler b.i.d. Each patient was also given a peak flowmeter and a diary in which he had to record the morning and evening values measured before taking inhaled drugs. Two weeks later, the patients repeated the same examinations; the diary card was returned 2 months after the beginning of the study. RESULTS: Adding formoterol to budesonide therapy caused a significant improvement in lung function, but neither induced any statistically significant effect on mean heart rate, nor altered the circadian rhythm of autonomic regulation nor elicited significant alterations in cardiac morphology. However, the evaluation of upper limb tremor revealed a statistically significant increase (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that adding the recommended dose of formoterol to an inhaled corticosteroid therapy does not induce significant cardiac undesirable effects, although tremor, surely due to stimulation of beta(2) receptors of the skeletal muscles, may sometimes be a limiting effect.