Ciclesonide Group Research Articles

Inhaled ciclesonide in adults hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised controlled open-label trial (HALT COVID-19)

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9...

Ciclesonide Inhaler Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial.

Although some intravenous drugs have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no effective antiviral agents are currently available in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 14-day ciclesonide treatment vs. standard care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. A randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of ciclesonide inhalers was conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Patients were enrolled within 3 days of diagnosis or within 7 days from symptom onset and randomly assigned to receive either ciclesonide (320 µg inhalation twice per day for 14 days) or standard care. The primary endpoint was the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) eradication rate on day 14 from study enrollment. Clinical status was assessed once daily, and serial nasopharyngeal viral load was evaluated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. There were 35 and 26 patients in the ciclesonide and standard care groups, respectively. The SARS-CoV-2 eradication rate at day 14 was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.021). In multivariate analysis, SARS-CoV-2 negative conversion within 14 days was 12 times more likely in the ciclesonide group (95% confidence interval, 1.187–125.240). Additionally, the clinical failure rate (high-flow nasal oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation) was significantly lower in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.034). In conclusion, ciclesonide inhalation shortened SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding duration, and it may inhibit the progression to acute respiratory failure in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04330586.

Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Ciclesonide in Treating Patients With Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19 in the RACCO Trial: Protocol for a Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundCurrently, there are no specific effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, various COVID-19 treatment options are under investigation. It is vital to continue investigating the landscape of SARS-CoV-2–induced pneumonia and therapeutic interventions.ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a randomized controlled trial that aims to compare the pneumonia exacerbation rate between ciclesonide (ALVESCO; Teijin Pharma Limited) administration and symptomatic treatment in patients with COVID-19 and to determine the efficacy of ciclesonide. The secondary objectives are to investigate the safety of ciclesonide administration, changes in clinical and laboratory findings, and the number of viral genome copies of SARS-CoV-2 over time between the 2 groups.MethodsIn this investigator-initiated, exploratory, prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial, a total of 90 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 will be recruited from 21 hospitals in Japan based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants will be randomized either to the ciclesonide group, which will receive a 400-µg dose of ciclesonide 3 times per day over a 7-day period, or to the symptomatic treatment group. Both groups will receive antitussives and antipyretics as required. Data collection for various parameters will be conducted on days 1, 2, 4, 8, 22, and 29 to record baseline assessments and the findings over an extended period. Computed tomography images taken prior to drug administration and 1 week following treatment will be compared, and efficacy will be confirmed by checking for pneumonia exacerbation. Primary endpoint analysis will be performed using the Fisher exact test to determine statistically significant differences in the pneumonia exacerbation rate between the ciclesonide and symptomatic treatment groups.ResultsThe first trial participant was enrolled on April 3, 2020. Recruitment is expected to be completed on September 30, 2020, while follow-up assessments of all participants are expected to be completed by October 31, 2020. The study results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.ConclusionsThe RACCO (Randomized Ciclesonid COVID-19) study will provide definitive comparative effectiveness data and important clinical outcomes data between the ciclesonide and symptomatic treatment groups. If the hypotheses that pneumonia exacerbation rate reduction is more significant in the ciclesonide treatment group than in the symptomatic treatment group and that ciclesonide is safe for use are valid, ciclesonide will serve as an important therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19.Trial RegistrationJapan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs031190269; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCTs031190269International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/23830

Voice changes associated with inhaled steroids 1n obstructive lung disease patients

Background/Aims: The widespread use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the treatment of obstructive lung disease may be associated with both systemic and local side effects. These local side effects; including voice problems, oropharyngeal candidiasis, throat clearing, sense of fullness, pharyngitis, and cough, are generally viewed as minor complications of therapy in what is called steroid inhaler laryngitis (SIL). Few studies have been performed to specifically evaluate local side effects of ICS. However, they can be clinically significant, affect patient's quality of life, hinder compliance with therapy, and mask symptoms of more serious disease. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of ICS on the larynx and subsequent voice changes, and highlighting if these voice problems related to the type of inhaled corticosteroids in order to determine the importance of regular laryngeal examination in those patients. Methods: 40patients with bronchial asthma and 40 patients with COPD admitted to Chest department in Menoufia and Zagazig University Hospitals during the period from March 2017 to March 2019 were included in the study. They were divided according to the type of cortisone used into four groups; group (I): beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) users, group (II): budesonide (BUD) users, group (III): Ciclesonide users and group (IV): fluticasone propionate (FP) users. They were evaluated as regards videolaryngoscopic examination and acoustic analysis Results: The age of the patients with bronchial asthma ranged from 29 to 42years and the age of the patients with COPD ranged from 31 to 43years. There was a statistically significant difference among the four groups of cortisone inhalation regarding laryngoscopic findings; as presence of congestion (diffuse and local), mucus spills on VF and glottis gap were all higher in frequency among the group of patients used fluticasone FP, while least signs found among ciclesonide users. Also, average pitch, Jitter, H/N ratio and MPT were more worsen in fluticasone group when compared with Ciclesonide group. Conclusion: obstructive lung disease patients may suffer from voice problems related to the type of inhaled corticosteroids that could be fade when therapy is stopped. So, regular laryngeal examination in those patients is important.

Efficacy of ciclesonide, budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in moderate persistent bronchial asthma: a comparative study

Background: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide with that of budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in moderate persistent cases of bronchial asthma.Methods: This was an open label, randomized parallel group study done in Government General and Chest Hospital, Hyderabad for a period of 12 weeks. Each group had 20 patients. Group A was given ciclesonide inhalational therapy 160 mcg once daily. Group B was given budesonide inhalational therapy 400 mcg twice daily. Group C was given beclomethasone dipropionate inhalational therapy 400 mcg twice daily.Results: Symptomatic improvement was observed in all three groups. At end point, mean FEV1 in ciclesonide treatment group improved by 23.84% compared with 15.24% in budesonide and 12.93% in beclomethasone treatment groups. At end point, mean FVC value in ciclesonide treatment group improved by 6.44% compared with 1.5% in budesonide and 1.06% in beclomethasone groups. Mean FEV1/FVC also improved by 16.56% in ciclesonide group compared with 13.68% in budesonide and 11.93% in beclomethasone groups. No adverse effects were reported in any of the treatment groups.Conclusions: This study showed that ciclesonide is superior to budesonide and beclomethasone in improving lung function, decreasing symptoms and need for rescue medication in moderate persistent asthma.

Effect of Proparacaine in a Mouse Model of Allergic Rhinitis

Objectives Lidocaine, a local anaesthetic is a treatment option in uncontrolled asthma due to its immunomodulatory effects. In the present study, proparacaine (PPC), a derivative of lidocaine was examined for its therapeutic application in a mouse model of allergic rhinitis.Methods The mice were grouped into 4 groups: control group, allergic rhinitis (AR) group, ciclesonide (CIC) group, and PPC group. Nasal symptom scores, eosinophil counts, goblet cell counts, and mast cells counts in the nasal mucosa were measured. Serum ovalbumin (OVA)-specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E, OVA-specific IgG1, OVA-specific IgG2a, interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and cortisol levels were measured.Results Intranasal administration of PPC significantly decreased nasal symptoms, number of eosinophils, goblet cells, and mast cells in the lamina propria of the nasal mucosa. Serum OVA-specific IgE, OVA-specific IgG1, OVA-specific IgG2a was significantly higher in the AR compared with the control group. Serum level of IL-4 was significantly lower in the CIC group and PPC group in comparison with AR group. Serum IL-5 showed no significant difference among all groups. No significant difference in serum cortisol levels was observed among the 4 groups.Conclusion PPC appears to have a therapeutic potential in treatment of allergic rhinitis in a mouse model by reducing eosinophil, goblet cell, and mast cell infiltration in the nasal mucosa.

Ciclesonide versus other inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children.

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 Clinical study results.org 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.

Effects of 24-week add-on treatment with ciclesonide and montelukast on small airways inflammation in asthma

BackgroundEosinophilic inflammation of the small airways is a key process in asthma that often smolders in treated patients. The long-term effects of add-on therapy on the persistent inflammation in the small airways remain unknown. ObjectiveTo examine the effects of add-on therapy with either ciclesonide, an inhaled corticosteroid with extrafine particles, or montelukast on small airway inflammation. MethodsSixty patients with stable asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid treatment were enrolled in a randomized, open-label, parallel comparison study of 24-week add-on treatment with ciclesonide or montelukast. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups: ciclesonide (n = 19), montelukast (n = 22), or no add-on as controls (n = 19). At baseline and at weeks 4, 12, and 24, extended nitric oxide analysis; pulmonary function tests, including impulse oscillometry; blood eosinophil counts; and asthma control tests (ACTs) were performed. ResultsA total of 18 patients in the ciclesonide group, 19 in the montelukast group, and 15 in the control group completed the study and were analyzed. With repeated-measures analysis of variance, ciclesonide produced a significant decrease in alveolar nitric oxide and a significant improvement in ACT scores over time. Montelukast produced significant decreases in alveolar nitric oxide concentrations and blood eosinophil counts over time and slightly improved ACT scores, whereas no such changes were observed in the control group. Alveolar nitric oxide concentrations with ciclesonide and reactance area at low frequencies with montelukast produced greater improvements over time compared with control. ConclusionCiclesonide add-on therapy and montelukast add-on therapy may act differently, but both separately can improve small airway abnormalities and provide better asthma control. Trial Registrationumin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: UMIN000001083

Ciclesonide in wheezy preschool children with a positive asthma predictive index or atopy

Few large-scale studies have examined inhaled corticosteroid treatment in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. We assessed the effects of ciclesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. We included children 2-6 yrs with recurrent wheeze and a positive asthma predictive index or aeroallergen sensitization to, excluding patients with episodic viral wheezing. After a 2-4-week baseline period, patients with ongoing symptoms or rescue medication use were randomised to once-daily ciclesonide 40, 80, 160 μg or placebo for 24 weeks. The number of wheeze exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was unexpectedly low in all groups: 25 (10.2%) in placebo group, as compared to 11 (4.4%), 18 (7.3%), and 17 (6.7%) in ciclesonide 40, 80, and 160 μg, respectively. The difference in time to first exacerbation was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.786), but the difference in exacerbation rates between placebo and the pooled ciclesonide groups was (p = 0.03). Large and significant (p < 0.0001) improvements in symptom scores and rescue medication use occurred in all groups, including placebo. Improvements in FEV(1) and FEF(25-75) (measured in 284 4-6 yr olds) were larger in the ciclesonide than in the placebo group. No differences in safety parameters (adverse events, height growth, serum and urinary cortisol levels) between ciclesonide and placebo were observed. In preschool children with recurrent wheeze and a positive asthma predictive index, ciclesonide modestly reduces wheeze exacerbation rates and improves lung function. A large placebo response and unexpected selection of patients with mild disease may have affected outcomes, highlighting the heterogeneity of preschool wheezing disorders.

Effect of Ciclesonide on Bronchial Asthma in Athletes

Background. Although it is well established that the incidence of bronchial asthma is higher in the athlete population than in the general population, little information exists about the efficacy of treatment of bronchial asthma in the athlete population. Objectives. We conducted this study with the objective of determining the efficacy of treatment of bronchial asthma in an athlete population living in Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of bronchial asthma in an athlete population. Athletes diagnosed as having asthma, based on the Global Initiatives for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, who visited the Niigata Institute for Health and Sports Medicine between January 2007 and June 2008 were enrolled in this study. We compared two groups of patients, a group treated with ciclesonide (CIC) alone and another treated with montelukast alone, with the treatment duration lasting at least 3 months in both groups. The CIC or montelukast groups were compared in terms of the clinical symptoms, pulmonary function parameters, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO). Results. There were no significant differences in the sex distribution, age, frequency of symptoms, pulmonary function parameters, or other examination data before treatment between the CIC and montelukast groups. The CIC group tended to show better symptom control and to need fewer changes of treatment than the montelukast group. While improvements of the pulmonary function parameters and FENO values were observed in the CIC group, no significant changes of these parameters were observed in the montelukast group. Conclusions. These data suggest that CIC offers greater promise for the control of asthma than montelukast in the athlete population, although further investigation is required.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Aerosol-based corticosteroid nasal formulations may be preferred over current aqueous nasal sprays by some patients because they traditionally cause less pharyngeal and anterior nose runoff. To determine the optimal dose, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Patients 12 years or older with a history of SAR received ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol to a total dose of 75, 150, or 300 microg or placebo once daily (half dose per nostril) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy assessment was patient-reported average morning and evening reflective (24-hour) total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy assessments included patient-reported average morning and evening instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), patient-reported morning iTNSS, physician-assessed nasal signs and symptom severity, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire responses. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction from baseline in average morning and evening rTNSS (24-hour) vs placebo, with treatment differences as follows: 0.81 (P = .001; 300 microg), 0.90 (P < .001; 150 microg), and 0.66 (P = .01; 75 microg). Improvements in average morning and evening iTNSS and patient-reported morning iTNSS were also significantly improved regardless of dose (P < or = .003 for all ciclesonide groups vs placebo). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (< 1.6% for all) and similar among groups. Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated statistically significant improvements in SAR symptoms vs placebo. On the basis of comparable efficacy and safety profiles observed for all doses, these results suggest that the 75-microg and 150-microg doses of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane appear appropriate for further evaluation of efficacy.

Ciclesonide improves health-related quality of life in adults and adolescents with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) provides information on patients' everyday physical, emotional, and social difficulties that traditional measurements of asthma severity (pulmonary function assessments and asthma symptom scores) may not reflect. Our objective is to evaluate the effect of ciclesonide (CIC) on HRQOL in a combined analysis of two identical, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials. Patients (N=1015) with mild-to-moderate asthma (aged >or=12 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 s 60-85% predicted at randomization after administration of single-blind placebo during baseline [5-28 days]) were randomized to receive placebo or CIC 80, 160, or 320 microg (ex-actuator) once daily. HRQOL was assessed using the Juniper Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). The overall AQLQ score and individual domain scores (activity limitation, symptoms, emotional function, and exposure to environmental stimuli) were recorded at baseline, week 4 and week 12. Statistically significant improvements (p<0.0001) in overall AQLQ scores were observed for all CIC groups versus placebo (CIC80, 0.50; CIC160, 0.61; CIC320, 0.69; placebo, 0.14) from baseline to week 12. Similar significant improvements were observed for all CIC groups in the four individual domain scores, except the CIC80 environmental stimuli domain score. A greater proportion of CIC-treated patients achieved a minimally important difference in overall AQLQ score (>or=0.5 improvement) by week 4, which was sustained through to week 12, compared with placebo (week 12: CIC80, 47.1%; CIC160, 50%; CIC320, 50.6%; placebo, 31%). In this combined analysis, once-daily CIC significantly improved HRQOL compared with placebo, in adults/adolescents with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

Efficacy and safety of once‐daily inhaled ciclesonide in adults with mild to moderate asthma: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study*

Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for the management of asthma, although side-effects may limit their use. Ciclesonide, a novel pro-drug inhaled corticosteroid, exerts potent and prolonged local anti-inflammatory effects in the lungs, and is considered to have an improved safety and tolerability profile. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in adult patients with mild to moderate asthma. A placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted. During the 4-week baseline period, patients were given 400 microg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate in a chlorofluorocarbon formulation. After the baseline period, 311 patients were given once-daily 100, 200 or 400 microg of ciclesonide or placebo for an 8-week treatment period without the use of a spacer. The primary efficacy variable was morning PEF. Changes in the morning PEF (least squares mean) at the end of the study were 4.23 L/min (P < 0.001) in the 100 microg group, 3.75 L/min (P < 0.001) in the 200 microg group, -0.40 L/min (P < 0.001) in the 400 microg group, as compared with -24.95 L/min in the placebo group. In the ciclesonide groups, the PEF remained at the same level as the baseline period. No large differences were observed between the placebo group and the ciclesonide groups regarding safety. Once-daily administration of ciclesonide at doses of 100, 200 or 400 microg was shown to be effective in adult patients with mild to moderate asthma. Ciclesonide is considered to have favourable safety profiles and be well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide, 200 μg once daily, for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial AR (PAR). In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults and adolescents with at least a 2-year history of PAR received intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Patient-evaluated total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs), physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity scores, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were evaluated. Patient baseline characteristics were similar in the ciclesonide (n = 238) and placebo (n = 233) groups and were consistent with moderate PAR severity. Ciclesonide therapy significantly reduced average morning and evening reflective TNSSs compared with placebo (P < .001) and significantly reduced average morning and evening instantaneous TNSSs (P = .001) over 6 weeks of treatment. At the end point, a greater decrease from baseline was observed in physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity for the ciclesonide group compared with the placebo group (P = .051). An appreciable improvement in combined Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores at the end point was also observed in the ciclesonide group (P = .01 vs placebo). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. In this study, intranasal ciclesonide treatment was associated with significant reductions in nasal symptoms and appreciable improvements in health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with PAR. Ciclesonide was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo.

Similar Efficacy of Ciclesonide Once Daily Versus Fluticasone Propionate Twice Daily in Patients with Persistent Asthma

This 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of once daily ciclesonide and twice daily fluticasone propionate in patients aged 12–75 years with persistent asthma. Patients were randomized to once-daily ciclesonide 80 μg (n = 278) or 160 μ g (n = 271), or twice daily fluticasone propionate 88 μ g (n = 259) (all ex-actuator). Significant improvements from baseline were seen in all three treatment groups for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma symptom scores and rescue medication use (all p < 0.0001). Asthma exacerbation rates were low (each ciclesonide group, n = 2; fluticasone group, n = 1). Adverse event reporting indicated good tolerability. Once daily ciclesonide 80 μg or 160 μg showed comparable efficacy and tolerability to twice daily fluticasone propionate 88 μg in persistent asthma.

A comparative study of inhaled ciclesonide 160 µg/day and fluticasone propionate 176 µg/day in children with asthma

Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with high anti-inflammatory activity and low incidence of local and systemic adverse effects. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of CIC with fluticasone propionate (FP) in children and adolescents with persistent asthma. This was a 12-week, randomized, double blind, parallel-group study. After a 2-to 4-week baseline period, a total of 556 children (ages 6-15 years) with asthma (forced expiratory volume in 1 sec [FEV(1)], 50% to 90% predicted) were treated twice daily with CIC 80 microg (ex-actuator, equivalent to 100 microg ex-valve) or FP 88 microg (ex-actuator, equivalent to 100 microg ex-valve) administered via a hydrofluoroalkane-propelled metered-dose inhaler. A statistically significant increase from baseline was observed in FEV(1) for both CIC (285 +/- 16 ml) and FP (285 +/- 15 ml) (P < 0.0001 for both) and in morning and evening peak expiratory flow (P < 0.0001 for both). Significant improvements were seen in asthma symptoms, use of rescue medication, and asthma symptom-free days in both treatment groups, without any differences between the treatment groups in changes from baseline. Two FP-treated patients experienced oral candidiasis and one patient experienced voice alteration. Creatinine-adjusted 24-hr urine cortisol levels increased from baseline levels by 10% in the CIC group (P < 0.05) and by 6% in the FP group (not significant). The efficacy and safety of CIC 160 microg/day were comparable to those of FP 176 microg/day in children with asthma.

Reply

Reply

Comparative efficacy of once-daily ciclesonide and budesonide in the treatment of persistent asthma

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide, a new-generation, on-site-activated, inhaled corticosteroid, with once-daily budesonide in persistent asthma. Eligible patients requiring budesonide or equivalent 320-640 microg (ex-mouthpiece, equivalent to 400-800 microg; Turbohalertrade mark) daily entered a 2-week baseline, and then a 2- to 4-week pretreatment period (budesonide 1280 microg/day; ex-mouthpiece, equivalent to 1600 microg/day). Patients with an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) of 7% or 0.15 L were randomised to ciclesonide 320 microg (ex-actuator, equivalent to 400 microg ex-valve) via a hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) without a spacer or budesonide 320 microg once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. Change in FEV1 was the primary endpoint. In all, 359 patients were randomised. The FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) decreased by 0.18 and 0.12L, respectively, in the ciclesonide group, and by 0.23 and 0.21L in the budesonide group. For FEV1, ciclesonide was noninferior and numerically superior to budesonide. For FVC, ciclesonide was statistically superior to budesonide (P=0.010). Asthma symptom scores were comparable; the median percentage of symptom-free days was significantly higher for ciclesonide (43.6%) versus budesonide (25.8%) (P=0.017). Rescue medication use decreased significantly only for ciclesonide patients (P=0.009). Frequency of adverse events was low in both groups. Ciclesonide 320 microg once daily by HFA-MDI without a spacer was at least as effective as budesonide 320 microg once daily in persistent asthma.

Once-daily ciclesonide improves lung function and is well tolerated by patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for persistent asthma. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. An integrated analysis of 2 identical, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials was conducted. Patients (n = 1015; aged > or =12 years) with mild-to-moderate asthma (FEV1 of 60% to 85% of predicted value) were randomized to ciclesonide 80 microg (CIC80), 160 microg (CIC160), or 320 microg (CIC320), once daily (exactuator doses) in the morning or placebo for 12 weeks. All ciclesonide groups showed significant improvements from baseline to week 12 in FEV1 compared with the placebo group (CIC80, 0.12 L [P = .0007]; CIC160, 0.13 L [P = .0004]; and CIC320, 0.14 L [P < .0001]). Likewise, FEV1 percent predicted, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, 24-hour asthma symptom score, daily albuterol use, and nighttime awakenings were significantly improved in all ciclesonide groups compared with the placebo group. Overall ciclesonide safety profile and rates of oropharyngeal adverse events for all groups were low and similar to those of the placebo group. Fewer ciclesonide-treated patients exhibited asthma-aggravated adverse events, and fewer ciclesonide-treated patients discontinued the study for any reason or because of a lack of efficacy compared with those in the placebo group. No suppression of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function (as assessed by means of 24-hour urinary cortisol levels corrected for creatinine and peak serum cortisol levels after stimulation with low-dose [1 microg] cosyntropin) was observed with any dose of ciclesonide. In this integrated analysis, ciclesonide once daily administered in the morning is effective and well tolerated.

Effect of ciclesonide and fluticasone on hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis function in adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Despite their proven efficacy in the treatment and prevention of asthma exacerbations, current inhaled corticosteroids carry safety concerns, especially adrenal suppression. Ciclesonide (hydrofluoroalkane propellant) is a novel inhaled corticosteroid with few, if any, clinical adverse events. To evaluate the potential effects of ciclesonide therapy on the dynamic cortisol response to sequential low- and high-dose cosyntropin stimulation in adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week study in adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. One hundred sixty-four patients were randomized and treated; 148 patients completed the study. Fluticasone propionate (chlorofluorocarbon propellant) was used as an active comparator. The doses administered were 320 microg of ciclesonide once daily, 320 microg of ciclesonide twice daily, and 440 microg of fluticasone propionate twice daily, all doses ex-actuator. For both ciclesonide groups, changes in mean low- and high-dose peak serum cortisol levels and in 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels corrected for creatinine were small vs baseline and comparable with placebo. For the fluticasone propionate group, significant reductions vs placebo in serum cortisol levels in response to high-dose cosyntropin stimulation and in 24-hour urinary free cortisol levels were observed. Oral candidiasis rates were 2.5% for 320-microg/d ciclesonide, 2.4% for 640-microg/d ciclesonide, and 22.0% for 880-microg/d fluticasone propionate. These findings confirm the safety of ciclesonide therapy, demonstrating that at doses up to 640 microg/d, the drug does not affect sensitive markers of adrenal function.