ABSTRACT. Objective. Pimecrolimus cream (SDZ ASM 981), a nonsteroid inhibitor of inflammatory cytokines, is effective in atopic dermatitis (AD).We assessed whether early treatment of AD signs/symptoms with pimecrolimus could influence long-term outcome by preventing disease flares.Methods. Early intervention with pimecrolimus was compared with a conventional AD treatment strategy (ie, emollients and topical corticosteroids). In this 1-year, controlled, double-blind study, 713 AD patients (2-17 years) were randomized 2:1 to a pimecrolimus-based or conventional regimen. Both groups used emollients for dry skin. Early AD signs/symptoms were treated with pimecrolimus cream or, in the conventional treatment group, vehicle to prevent progression to flares. If flares occurred, moderately potent topical corticosteroids were mandated. The primary efficacy endpoint was ranked flares at 6 months. Safety was monitored clinically, and a skin recall-antigen test was performed at study completion.Results. Baseline Characteristics of the Patients. The mean age for both groups was approximately 8 years, and the majority of patients had moderate disease at baseline.Patient Follow-up and Exposure to Study Medication. The mean duration of follow-up (؎standard error) was 303.7 (؎5.30) days in the pimecrolimus group and 235.2 (؎9.40) days in the control group. The discontinuation rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the pimecrolimus group (51.5% vs 31.6% at 12 months), and proportionately more patients with severe or very severe disease discontinued in the control group. The main reason for the higher discontinuation rate in the control group was unsatisfactory therapeutic effect (30.4% vs 12.4%). This resulted in a substantially higher mean number of study medication treatment days in the pimecrolimus group compared with the control group: 211.9 (69.8% of study days) versus 156.0 (66.3% of study days). Of those patients who completed 12 months on study, 14.2% and 7.0% of patients in the pimecrolimus and vehicle groups, respectively, used study medication continuously.Efficacy. Patients in the pimecrolimus group experienced significantly fewer AD flares than those in the control group, according to the primary efficacy analysis on ranked flares of AD (Van Elteren test). The proportion of patients who completed 6 or 12 months with no flares was approximately twice as high in the pimecrolimus group compared with control (61.0% vs 34.2% at 6 months; 50.8% vs 28.3% at 12 months). Fewer flares were observed in the pimecrolimus group regardless of baseline disease severity, so even severe patients derived benefit from the treatment. The analysis of time to first flare showed that treatment with pimecrolimus was associated with a significantly longer flare-free period (logrank test). Covariate analysis indicated a statistically significant effect on time to first flare of baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and whether patients had "severe" or "very severe" disease at baseline according to the Investigators'...

Summary This randomised, double‐blind, 6‐month study compared budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief with salmeterol/fluticasone and a fixed maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol, both with terbutaline for relief. Following a 2‐week run‐in, 3335 symptomatic adults and adolescents (mean FEV1 73% predicted, mean inhaled corticosteroid dose 745 μg/day) received budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg one inhalation bid plus additional inhalations as needed, salmeterol/fluticasone 25/125 μg two inhalations bid plus as‐needed terbutaline or budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg one inhalation bid plus as‐needed terbutaline. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief prolonged the time to first severe exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, emergency room treatment or oral steroids (primary variable) vs. fixed‐dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol (p = 0.0034 and p = 0.023 respectively; log‐rank test). Exacerbation rates were 19, 16 and 12 events/100 patients/6 months for salmeterol/fluticasone, fixed‐dose budesonide/formoterol and budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief, respectively, [rate reduction vs. fixed‐dose salmeterol/fluticasone (0.61; 95% CI 0.49–0.76, p < 0.001) and vs. fixed‐dose budesonide/formoterol (0.72; 95% CI 0.57–0.90, p = 0.0048)]. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and relief patients used less inhaled corticosteroid vs. salmeterol/fluticasone and fixed‐dose budesonide/formoterol patients. All treatments provided similar marked improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma‐related quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief reduces asthma exacerbations and maintains similar daily asthma control at a lower overall drug load compared with fixed‐dose salmeterol/fluticasone and budesonide/formoterol.

Budesonide/formoterol single inhaler therapy has the potential to provide a complete asthma management approach with one inhaler, demonstrating a high level of efficacy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

No abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of nebulized fluticasone propionate (FP Nebules) compared with oral soluble prednisolone in children with an acute exacerbation of asthma. The study used an international, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, parallel group design. Three hundred and twenty-one patients, aged 4-16 years old, who presented with an acute exacerbation of asthma, were randomly allocated to either nebulized FP (1 mg b.d.) or oral prednisolone (2 mg kg(-1) day(-1) for 4 days then 1 mg kg(-1) day(-1) for 3 days) for 7 days. Patients in the FP group showed a significantly greater increase in diary card morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over 7 days compared with patients in the prednisolone group (difference = 9.51 min(-1), CI = 2.1, 16.8, P = 0.034). Similar increases for both treatments were shown for evening PEF. Clinic PEF improved with both treatments, but was significantly greater in patients taking FP after 7 days (difference = 11.41 min(-1), CI = 2.8, 20.0, P = 0.029). Both treatments reduced symptom scores to a similar extent. The two treatments were well tolerated, and there was no difference in the incidence of adverse events. The present study demonstrated that nebulized FP is at least as effective as oral prednisolone in the treatment of children presenting with an acute exacerbation of 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.

We reviewed the current literature on the burden of asthma in South Africa (SA) in the context of other low-and middle-income countries and on rural and urban differences in prevalence and severity of asthma. Methods The SA Childhood Asthma Working Group (SACAWG) convened in January 2017 with six task groups, each headed by a leader (Appendix A), constituting the editorial committee on assessment of asthma epidemiology, diagnosis, control, treatments, novel treatments and self-management plans. The task groups reviewed the available scientific literature on the burden of asthma from high-quality datasets and any local data on asthma prevalence and severity in This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

No abstract