Improvement of asthma control with beclomethasone extrafine aerosol compared to fluticasone and budesonide. Air trapping in mild and moderate asthma: effect of inhaled corticosteroids. Hydrofluoroalkane-134A beclomethasone or chlorofluorocarbon fluticasone: effect on small airways in poorly controlled asthma. Beclometasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol versus fluticasone propionate in children with asthma. Airway and systemic effects of hydrofluoroalkane fluticasone and beclomethasone in patients with asthma. A randomized, double-blind comparison of beclomethasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol and fluticasone propionate. Efficacy of HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate extra-fine aerosol (800 microg day(-1)) versus HFA-fluticasone propionate (1000 microg day(-1)) in patients with asthma. Comparison of the anti-inflammatory effects of extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone vs fluticasone dry powder inhaler on exhaled inflammatory markers in childhood asthma.
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. Air trapping reflects small airway obstruction in asthma and can be assessed quantitatively by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) is deposited across all sizes of airways, including the small ones. However, its long-term effect on air trapping remains unknown in uncontrolled asthma.
                To compare the effect of inhaled corticosteroids of different particle size - HFA-BDP and fluticasone propionate (FP) - on lung attenuation in mild-to-moderate uncontrolled asthma.
                A randomized study was performed to analyze the effect of HFA-BDP (400 microg/d) or FP (500 microg/d) given over a period of 3 months to patients with uncontrolled mild-to-moderate asthma. HRCT was performed with spirometric gating, and lung attenuation was measured at residual volume and at pulmonary total capacity. The difference between inspiratory and expiratory attenuation was calculated as an air trapping index.
                Twenty-five out of 58 patients had abnormal air trapping and could be included in the study. Lung attenuation significantly diminished in the posterior zones of the lung after a 3-month treatment with HFA-BDP or FP, but the difference between the groups was not significant. Adjusted mean variations of the air trapping index from baseline to treatment completion were 34.3 (11.2, 57.3) and 27.3 (6.4, 48.2) for the HFA-BDP and FP groups, respectively. However, the reduction of air trapping area was more pronounced in the group treated with HFA-BDP.
                Inhaled corticosteroids decrease air trapping in uncontrolled asthma regardless of their particle size.
                In mild-to-moderate asthma, air trapping assessed by HRCT may be a new outcome related to the control of the disease. Inflammation in asthma extends into the small airways (< 2 mm diameter). Most inhaled corticosteroids are suspensions with a particle size > 2 mm. Therefore, inflammation in the small airways of patients with asthma may not be adequately treated with these preparations. Some inhaled corticosteroids, on the other hand, are compounded with alcohol, resulting in a solution producing an aerosol that has a mean particle diameter of < 2 mm. This study was designed to compare the addition of equivalent amounts of two inhaled corticosteroids (one a suspension and one a solution) to the treatment of patients with asthma, which was uncontrolled despite treatment with moderate to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids and usually additional controller medications. The study was performed with 30 patients, > or = 18 years of age. Subjects were randomized in a single-blind fashion to receive, in addition to their current asthma therapy, either CFC-FP 220 microg each morning and 110 microg each evening (n = 10) or HFA-BDP 160 mcg twice daily (n = 20). Pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry, single breath nitrogen washout for closing volume and residual volume by plethysmography were assessed before and after 3 months of therapy. In the subjects who received HFA-BDP, the ratio of closing volume (CV) to vital capacity (VC) and residual volume (RV) decreased significantly (p = 0.0214 and 0.0433, respectively), whereas forced expiratory flow over 25-75% of the vital capacity (FEF25-75%), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and morning peak flow improved significantly (p = 0.0014, 0.0184, and 0.0321). Improvements from baseline of CV, CV/VC, and postbronchodilator FEF25-75%, were statistically significant in the HFA-BDP group compared with the CFC-FP group (p = 0.0049, 0.0194, and 0.0355, respectively). These preliminary findings suggest that the addition of HFA-BDP, compared with CFC-FP in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite receiving moderate to high doses of inhaled steroids, has a greater effect on parameters reflecting small airway patency presumably secondary to reduction in inflammation. 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. With the transition to hydrofluoroalkane-134a propellants in metered dose inhalers, it is important to consider the efficacy and safety profiles of formulations containing inhaled corticosteroids. We examined the airway and systemic effects of hydrofluoroalkane-134a fluticasone propionate (FLU-HFA) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BEC-HFA) at recommended labelled doses.
                Twenty mild to moderate asthmatics were randomised in crossover fashion to receive 6 weeks of 500 micro g/day followed by 1000 micro g/day FLU-HFA and BEC-HFA. Measurements were made at baseline after placebo run in and washout, and after each randomised treatment. The primary airway outcome for benefit was the dose of methacholine provoking a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of 20% or more (methacholine PD(20)) and for systemic adverse effects was overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine (OUCC).
                For mean responses, both doses of BEC-HFA and FLU-HFA produced significant improvements in PD(20) compared with baseline. The improvement was not significantly greater with 1000 micro g/day FLU-HFA versus BEC-HFA, a 1.69 fold difference (95% CI 0.94 to 3.04). Both doses of BEC-HFA but not FLU-HFA caused significant suppression of OUCC compared with baseline, with significantly (p<0.05) lower values at 1000 micro g/day for BEC-HFA versus FLU-HFA (1.97 fold difference (95% CI 1.28 to 3.02)).
                There was no difference in the airway and systemic effects in patients with mild to moderate asthma between FLU-HFA and BEC-HFA at a dose of 500 micro g/day. At 1000 micro g/day there was increased systemic bioactivity with BEC-HFA compared with FLU-HFA, without any gain in airway efficacy. Inhaled corticosteroids provide first-line treatment for asthma. An advance to improve potency was to produce new molecules with increased glucocorticoid receptor affinity (eg, fluticasone propionate [FP]). An alternative is to deliver more medication to both the large and small airway inflammation of asthma by using an extrafine aerosol (eg, beclomethasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol [BDP-extrafinel).
                To demonstrate clinical equivalence of BDP-extrafine (400 microg daily) and FP (400 microg daily) in symptomatic asthmatic patients over the course of 6 weeks.
                This was a double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter, 6-week study in adults with asthma taking conventional FP 100 to 250 microg daily or equivalent, and displaying signs/symptoms of active disease requiring additional therapy.
                Eighty-eight patients were randomized to BDP-extrafine (and FP-placebo) and 84 to FP (and BDP-placebo). There were no significant differences between treatments with respect to symptom control, as evidenced by mean change from baseline in percentage days without asthma symptoms/nights without sleep disturbance observed at weeks 1 to 2, 3 to 4, or 5 to 6. Mean changes from baseline in AM PEFR at weeks 5 to 6 for BDP-extrafine (19.0) and FP (30.5) were equivalent (P = 0.022 for equivalence). There were significant (P < 0.001) within-treatment-group differences in mean change from baseline in AM PEFR at weeks 1 to 2 for both treatments. There was no difference in the incidence of patients reporting at least one adverse event during the study (BDP-extrafine 41%; FP 37%). Mean percentage change from baseline for AM plasma cortisol at week 6 was + 17.7% for BDP-extrafine and +4.2% for FP (P = 0.066 for difference).
                BDP-extrafine and FP at doses of 400 microg daily provided equivalent asthma control in patients with symptomatic asthma and exhibited similar safety profiles. Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) extra-fine aerosol and HFA-fluticasone propionate (HFA-FP) are chlorofluorocarbon-free inhalers. We conducted an 8-week, open study to demonstrate the equivalence of HFA-BDP (800 microg day(-1)) and HFA-FP (1000 microg day(-1)) in moderate to severe asthma. Symptomatic patients on 500-1000 microg day(-1) CFC-BDP (or equivalent) and short-acting beta-agonist, were randomized to HFA-BDP (n = 101) or HFA-FP (n = 97) after 7-14 (+/-2) day run-in. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 198), both treatments provided clinically and statistically significant improvements in asthma control, with increases in peak expiratory flow in the morning (AM PEF) and asthma symptoms (within treatment analysis P<0.05). Mean (SE) change in AM PEF from baseline at week 8 was equivalent (defined as 90% CI for the mean difference between treatments within +/-25 l min(-1)) in the two groups: 29.59 (5.19) l min(-1) for HFA-BDP vs. 17.3 (5.45) l min(-1) for HFA-FP (90% CI-0.02, 24.91). For the perprotocol population (n = 121), the mean (SE) change in AM PEF from baseline was not equivalent; AM PEF improved to a significantly greater extent in the HFA-BDP group than HFA-FP group [34.84 (7.08) vs. 20.63 (7.32) l min(-1) P<0.01; 90% CI; 2.66, 31.10]. At week 8 in the ITT population, there were no statistically significant differences in FEV1, beta-agonist use, asthma symptom/sleep disturbance scores, or percentage of days without asthma symptoms/sleep disturbance. There was a significantly greater reduction from baseline in mean eosinophil count for HFA-BDP compared with HFA-FP at weeks 3 and 8 (P<0.01), and eosinophil cationic protein value at week 8 (P<0.01). Both treatments were well tolerated and there were no statistically significant differences in urinary cortisol creatinine parameters. In conclusion, this study showed that, in patients with moderate-to-severe symptomatic asthma, HFA-BDP extra-fine aerosol 800 microg(-1) was at least as effective and equally well tolerated as 1000 microg day(-1) HFA-FP. Extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone differs from other inhaled corticosteroids by its fine aerosol characteristics. Therefore, extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone may be particularly useful for treating peripheral airway inflammation in asthma.
                To analyze the anti-inflammatory effects of extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone vs fluticasone dry powder inhaler (DPI) in asthmatic children by measuring bronchial and alveolar nitric oxide (NO) and inflammatory markers in exhaled breath condensate (EBC).
                In a 6-month crossover study, 33 children aged 6 to 12 years with moderate persistent asthma were randomly treated with extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone (200 microg daily via an Autohaler) and fluticasone DPI (200 microg daily via a Diskus). The primary outcome variables were alveolar NO concentration and bronchial NO flux. The secondary outcome variables were levels of inflammatory markers in EBC, lung function indices, symptoms, exacerbations, and adverse effects. All the variables were recorded at baseline and after each treatment period.
                Mean +/- SE alveolar NO concentration and bronchial NO flux were comparable after treatment with hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone vs fluticasone DPI (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs 4.3 +/- 0.5 ppb, P = .55, and 1,124.3 +/- 253.6 vs 1,029.1 +/- 195.5 pL/s, P = .70, respectively). In addition, levels of inflammatory markers in EBC, lung function indices, and symptoms did not differ between treatments. Patients used fewer beta2-agonists during the last 2 weeks of hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone treatment.
                The anti-inflammatory effects of hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone are similar to those of fluticasone DPI in children with moderate persistent asthma.
There was no significant difference between FP and extrafine HFA-BDP on FEV1 or peak flow at a dose ratio of 1:1. However, the number of studies and width of the confidence intervals in the analyses do not exclude a clinically meaningful difference between these two drugs. Difficulty in the successful manipulation of the devices studied may be a barrier to the widespread use of MDIs. Only two small paediatric studies were included in the review, so extrapolation of the findings of this review to children is limited. Further longer term studies in adults and children with moderate and severe asthma are required.