Airway and systemic effects of hydrofluoroalkane formulations of high-dose ciclesonide and fluticasone in moderate persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: There are no data comparing the relative effects of high-dose ciclesonide (CIC) and fluticasone propionate (FP) on airway and systemic outcomes in patients with moderate persistent asthma.
OBJECTIVE: We elected to evaluate the relative effects of CIC and FP on the plasma cortisol response to stimulation with human corticotropin-releasing factor (hCRF) and bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine as the primary outcome variables, in addition to secondary outcomes of overnight 10-h urinary cortisol (OUC) levels, exhaled nitric oxide levels, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life.
METHODS: Fourteen patients with moderate persistent asthma (mean FEV(1), 67% predicted [prior to each randomized treatment]) completed the study, which had a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design, per protocol. Patients stopped receiving their usual inhaled corticosteroids for the duration of the study and instead began receiving salmeterol, 50 mug twice daily, and montelukast, 10 mg once daily, for the 2-week washout periods prior to each randomized treatment, in order to prevent dropouts after withdrawal from inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients received 4 weeks of either CIC, 200 microg ex-valve (160 microg ex-actuator) four puffs twice daily, plus FP-placebo, four puffs twice daily, or FP, 250 microg ex-valve (220 microg ex-actuator) four puffs twice daily, plus CIC-placebo, four puffs twice daily. Salmeterol and montelukast were withheld for 72 h prior to each postwashout baseline visit, and CIC or FP was withheld for 12 h prior to each posttreatment visit.
RESULTS: FP, but not CIC, when compared to respective baseline values, significantly suppressed (p < 0.05) plasma cortisol levels as follows: FP prior to receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1 to 1.3; CIC prior to receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.0; FP 30 min after receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; CIC 30 min after receiving hCRF: geometric mean fold difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.2; OUC after FP administration: geometric mean fold difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.6; OUC after CIC administration: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.5. There was also a significantly lower (p < 0.05) mean value for OUC levels after FP administration than after CIC administration (geometric mean fold difference, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0). Therapy with CIC and FP, compared to respective baselines, significantly increased (p < 0.05) the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV(1), as follows: CIC: doubling dilution difference, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.6; FP: doubling dilution difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1 to 2.0. It also significantly reduced (p < 0.05) exhaled nitric oxide levels, as follows: CIC: geometric mean fold difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; FP: geometric mean fold difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8. There was no effect on other secondary efficacy outcomes.
CONCLUSION: FP, 2,000 microg daily, but not CIC, 1,600 microg daily, significantly suppressed hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis outcomes, with OUC levels being lower after FP administration than after CIC administration. Both drugs significantly improved airway outcomes in terms of methacholine bronchial hyperresponsiveness and exhaled nitric oxide levels. The present results would therefore suggest that CIC might confer a better therapeutic ratio than FP when used at higher doses.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes