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

Department of Respiratory Diseases & Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogada 44, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Respiratory medicine (Impact Factor: 3.09). 08/2010; 104(8):1121-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.03.032
Source: PubMed


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

1 Follower
13 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The small airways are currently a hot topic in the respiratory world. This airways region has long been known as the "quiet zone" of the lung, but a recent resurgence of interest by researchers using modified respiratory physiological techniques from the past and novel imaging modalities, has now allowed clinicians to (1) assess the presence of disease in this region and, in particular, (2) determine airway responses from inhaled therapy directed to this region. This review addresses the role of the small airways in asthma and the effect of treatment of this region by small particles of inhaled corticosteroid on clinical outcomes in patients with asthma, with a focus on the novel corticosteroid formulation of ciclesonide.
    Hot Topics in Respiratory Medicine 01/2013; DOI:10.4147/HTR-132313
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence. To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012. Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide. 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. Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2). An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 03/2013; 2(2):CD010352. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010352 · 6.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Growth impairment in children with asthma, as a consequence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), is a major issue. Adverse systemic effects of ICS have been reviewed extensively, but no clinically relevant effects are reported if they are used in an appropriate dose as advocated in most guidelines. Growth studies can be divided into knemometry studies, intermediate term studies, and long term studies up to final adult height. These different studies provide different information. Knemometry demonstrates a dose dependent systemic effect, while all intermediate term studies demonstrate growth reduction of approximately one cm after one year of treatment. Most reassuring is that this delay seems to be temporary. The one study with a follow-up to final height shows no differences between the ICS and non-ICS treated children. The studies suggest that the use of ICS with respect to growth is safe if these drugs are used in a low to medium dose.
    Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 06/2013; 14(2):107-111. DOI:10.1016/j.prrv.2012.05.001 · 2.20 Impact Factor
Show more