Lee Daniel K C, Haggart Kay, Currie Graeme P, Bates Caroline E, Lipworth Brian J
Asthma & Allergy Research Group, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DDI 9SY, Scotland, UK.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jul;58(1):26-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02108.x.
There are no data comparing the relative efficacy of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) formulations of ciclesonide (CIC) and fluticasone propionate (FP) on airway hyper-responsiveness, in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. We therefore elected to evaluate the comparative efficacy of HFA pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations of CIC and FP, assessing methacholine challenge, in addition to exhaled nitric oxide, lung function, diary cards and quality of life.
Nineteen mild-to-moderate asthmatic patients completed the study per protocol in randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover fashion. Patients were required to stop their usual inhaled corticosteroid therapy for the duration of the study. Patients were commenced instead on salmeterol (SM) 50 microg one puff twice daily + montelukast (ML) 10 mg once daily for 2-week washout periods prior to each randomized treatment, in order to prevent dropouts. Patients received 4 weeks of either CIC 200 microg two puffs once daily (08.00 h) + CIC-placebo (PL) two puffs once daily (20.00 h) + FP-PL two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h), or FP 125 microg two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h) + CIC-PL two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h). SM + ML were withheld for 72 h prior to post-washout visits and CIC or FP was withheld for 24 h prior to study visits.
There was no significant difference between CIC vs. FP for the primary outcome of methacholine PC20 as doubling dilution (dd) shift from respective baseline; mean difference: 0.4 dd (95% CI -0.4, 1.2). Moreover, there was no difference between treatments for the sequence of CIC first vs FP second; mean difference: 0.2 dd (95% CI -1.3, 1.7) or FP first vs CIC second; mean difference: 0.9 dd (95% CI -0.1, 1.8). There were also no differences for other secondary outcomes between treatments, either respective or irrespective of sequence, as change from baseline.
There were no differences between 4 weeks of CIC 400 microg once daily and FP 250 microg twice daily on methacholine hyper-responsiveness in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Longer-term studies are indicated to evaluate their relative efficacy on asthma exacerbations.
在轻度至中度持续性哮喘中,尚无数据比较环索奈德(CIC)和丙酸氟替卡松(FP)的氢氟烷烃(HFA)制剂对气道高反应性的相对疗效。因此,我们选择评估CIC和FP的HFA压力定量吸入器制剂的比较疗效,除了呼出一氧化氮、肺功能、日记卡和生活质量外,还评估乙酰甲胆碱激发试验。
19例轻度至中度哮喘患者按照方案完成了随机、双盲、双模拟、交叉试验。患者在研究期间需停用其常用的吸入性糖皮质激素治疗。取而代之的是,在每次随机治疗前,患者开始使用沙美特罗(SM)50微克,每日两次,每次1吸+孟鲁司特(ML)10毫克,每日1次,为期2周的洗脱期,以防止患者退出研究。患者接受4周的治疗,方案为:要么每日一次,每次2吸,每次200微克CIC(08:00时)+每日一次,每次2吸CIC安慰剂(PL)(20:00时)+每日两次,每次2吸FP安慰剂(PL)(08:00时和20:00时),要么每日两次,每次2吸,每次125微克FP(08:00时和20:00时)+每日两次,每次2吸CIC安慰剂(PL)(08:00时和20:00时)。在洗脱期后的访视前72小时停用SM+ML,在研究访视前24小时停用CIC或FP。
对于乙酰甲胆碱PC20的主要结局,即从各自基线开始的加倍稀释(dd)变化,CIC与FP之间无显著差异;平均差异:0.4 dd(95%CI -0.4,1.2)。此外,CIC先于FP和FP先于CIC的治疗顺序之间也无差异;平均差异:0.2 dd(95%CI -1.3,1.7)或FP先于CIC和CIC先于FP;平均差异:0.9 dd(95%CI -0.1,1.8)。在治疗之间,无论是各自的还是不考虑顺序的其他次要结局,与基线相比也无差异。
在轻度至中度持续性哮喘中,每日一次400微克CIC和每日两次250微克FP治疗4周对乙酰甲胆碱高反应性无差异。需要进行长期研究以评估它们对哮喘发作的相对疗效。