Suppr超能文献

一项为期12周的跨国随机研究,比较环索奈德和布地奈德对哮喘患者的疗效和耐受性。

A multinational, 12-week, randomized study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide and budesonide in patients with asthma.

作者信息

Hansel Trevor T, Benezet Olivier, Kafé Henri, Ponitz Hans-Hermann, Cheung David, Engelstätter Renate, Barnes Peter J

机构信息

National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 2006 Jun;28(6):906-20. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.06.014.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a new lung-activated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has shown efficacy in previous placebo-controlled and comparative studies in patients with persistent asthma. It is important to compare new treatments with existing ICSs to obtain relative data concerning their efficacy and tolerability.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of ciclesonide QD with budesonide BID in patients with asthma.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized study was conducted at 62 study sites across Europe. Male and female patients aged 12 to 75 years with primarily mild to moderate asthma were enrolled. This study was double blind with respect to the ciclesonide dose and open label for budesonide, as placebofor budesonide was not available. Patients were randomly assigned to receive inhaled ciclesonide 80 or 320 microg QD (morning) or budesonide 200 microg BID for 12 weeks. Efficacy and tolerability assessments were performed at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 12. The primary end point was the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 12 weeks. Secondary end points were changes from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom scores, and rescue medication use. Tolerability was assessed throughout the study by monitoring of standard laboratory variables (hematology and biochemistry); physical examination, including vital signs; reporting of adverse events (AEs); and 24-hour urinary cortisol as a measure of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-four patients were randomized (301 men, 253 women; mean age, 41.3 years; ciclesonide 80 microg QD, 182 patients; ciclesonide 320 microg QD, 195; budesonide 200 microg BID, 177). Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, including age, sex, weight, and (FEV1) were similar between the 3 groups. Compared with baseline values, week-12 FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] [SEM] A, +0.267 [0.035], +0.256 [0.033], and +0.355 [0.034] L, respectively; all, P<0.001) and morning PEF (LSM [SEM] Delta, +12 [5], +17 [4], and +21 [4] L/min, respectively; all, P<or=0.008) were significantly improved with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD and budesonide 200 microg BID. At 12 weeks, ciclesonide was found to be noninferior to budesonide with regard to mean changes from baseline in (FEV1) (intent to treat [ITT]: 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.192 to 0.015; 97.5 CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -0.200 to 0.001) and morning PEF (ITT. 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 80 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -22 to 5; 97.5% CI for ciclesonide 320 microg QD vs budesonide 200 microg BID, -17 to 10). Similar findings were seen in the per-protocol population. Week-12 daily, daytime, and nighttime asthma symptom scores and rescue medication use were significantly decreased from baseline in all 3 treatment groups (all, P<0.001). The prevalences of AEs were similar across all 3 treatment groups. Week-12 mean urinary cortisol excretion was statistically similar to baseline with both ciclesonide doses (Delta, -0.54 and +0.16 nmol/mmol creatinine with ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD, respectively) but was significantly reduced from baseline with budesonide (Delta, -1.42 nmol/mmol creatinine; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in patients with primarily mild to moderate asthma suggest that ciclesonide 80 and 320 microg QD were similar to budesonide 200 microg BID in improving pulmonary function, controlling asthma symptoms, and reducing the need for rescue medication use. Unlike budesonide, ciclesonide was not associated with significant urinary cortisol suppression in these patients.

摘要

背景

环索奈德是一种新型的肺激活吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS),在既往针对持续性哮喘患者的安慰剂对照和对比研究中已显示出疗效。将新疗法与现有ICS进行比较以获取有关其疗效和耐受性的相对数据非常重要。

目的

本研究比较了环索奈德每日一次(QD)与布地奈德每日两次(BID)在哮喘患者中的疗效和耐受性。

方法

这项为期12周的随机研究在欧洲的62个研究地点进行。纳入了年龄在12至75岁之间、主要为轻度至中度哮喘的男性和女性患者。本研究对环索奈德剂量采用双盲,对布地奈德采用开放标签,因为没有布地奈德的安慰剂。患者被随机分配接受吸入性环索奈德80或320微克QD(早晨)或布地奈德200微克BID,为期12周。在第0周(基线)、4周、8周和12周进行疗效和耐受性评估。主要终点是12周时1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)相对于基线的变化。次要终点是早晨呼气峰值流速(PEF)、哮喘症状评分和急救药物使用相对于基线的变化。在整个研究过程中,通过监测标准实验室变量(血液学和生物化学)、体格检查(包括生命体征)、不良事件(AE)报告以及24小时尿皮质醇作为下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺轴功能的指标来评估耐受性。

结果

554例患者被随机分组(301例男性,253例女性;平均年龄41.3岁;环索奈德80微克QD组182例患者;环索奈德320微克QD组195例;布地奈德200微克BID组177例)。三组之间的人口统计学和基线临床特征,包括年龄、性别、体重和(FEV1)相似。与基线值相比,第12周时环索奈德80和320微克QD组以及布地奈德200微克BID组的FEV1(最小二乘均值[LSM][标准误]分别为A,+0.267[0.035]、+0.256[0.033]和+0.355[0.034]升;均P<0.001)和早晨PEF(LSM[标准误]分别为Δ,+12[5]、+17[4]和+21[4]升/分钟;均P≤0.008)均有显著改善。在第12周时,发现环索奈德在FEV1相对于基线的平均变化方面不劣于布地奈德(意向性治疗[ITT]:环索奈德80微克QD组与布地奈德200微克BID组的97.5%CI为-0.192至0.015;环索奈德320微克QD组与布地奈德200微克BID组的97.5%CI为-0.200至0.001)以及早晨PEF(ITT。环索奈德80微克QD组与布地奈德200微克BID组的97.5%CI为-22至5;环索奈德320微克QD组与布地奈德200微克BID组的97.5%CI为-17至10)。在意向性分析人群中也观察到了类似的结果。在所有三个治疗组中,第12周时每日、白天和夜间的哮喘症状评分以及急救药物使用均较基线显著降低(均P<0.001)。所有三个治疗组的AE发生率相似。两种环索奈德剂量在第12周时的平均尿皮质醇排泄在统计学上与基线相似(环索奈德80和320微克QD组分别为Δ,-0.54和+0.16纳摩尔/毫摩尔肌酐),但布地奈德组较基线显著降低(Δ,-1.42纳摩尔/毫摩尔肌酐;P<0.05)。

结论

这项针对主要为轻度至中度哮喘患者进行的研究结果表明,环索奈德80和320微克QD在改善肺功能、控制哮喘症状以及减少急救药物使用方面与布地奈德200微克BID相似。与布地奈德不同,环索奈德在这些患者中未导致显著的尿皮质醇抑制。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验