No abstract

The anti-asthmatic effects of theophylline may supplement those of inhaled steroids in asthma. The aim of the present trial was to study how the addition of theophylline compares to doubling the dose of inhaled steroid in asthmatics who remain symptomatic on beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 400 microg x day(-1). The trial was designed as a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in several European countries. Sixty nine patients were treated for 6 weeks with theophylline plus BDP 400 microg x day(-1), compared to 64 patients treated with BDP 800 micro x day(-1). The mean+/-SD serum theophylline concentration was 10.1+/-4.2 mg x L(-1). Lung function measurements were made throughout the study and patients kept daily records of peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptoms and salbutamol usage. Forced expiratory volume in one second and PEF at week 6 were significantly increased by both treatments (p<0.01). PEF variability was reduced by about 30% in both groups. There were significant improvements in asthma symptoms and rescue medication use (p<0.001). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. The study demonstrated clinical equivalence of theophylline plus beclomethasone dipropionate 400 microg x day(-1) and beclomethasone dipropionate 800 microg x day(-1) in patients whose asthma is not controlled on beclomethasone dipropionate 400 microg x day(-1). The results support the use of theophylline as a steroid-sparing agent. The combination of low-dose inhaled steroid plus theophylline is a suitable treatment for moderate asthma.

No abstract

Background: Roflumilast, an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is currently in clinical development for the treatment of asthma. Objectives: This pilot study examined the effect of roflumilast on allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to histamine challenge and asthmatic response to allergen challenge. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, 2-period, crossover trial, 13 patients with mild allergic asthma [mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) % predicted = 86%] received a single dose of oral roflumilast 1,000 µg or placebo. Patients were administered roflumilast 60 min before allergen challenge, and asthmatic responses were assessed via change in FEV₁ ≤9 h after allergen challenge. AHR to histamine provocation was measured before and repeated 24 h after allergen provocation. Patients inhaled histamine in doubling concentrations until attaining a decrease in FEV₁ of ≤20% (PC₂₀FEV₁). Results: Roflumilast had no detectable bronchodilator activity 60 min after administration. Roflumilast significantly attenuated AHR compared with placebo, with a mean change in pre- to postallergen challenge PC₂₀FEV₁ ratio of 1.23 ± 2.75 and 2.51 ± 2.95 for roflumilast and placebo, respectively (p = 0.002). During the late asthmatic response, roflumilast reduced the mean maximum decrease in FEV₁ from 2 to 9 h after allergen challenge compared with placebo (p = 0.005). Additionally, FEV₁ at 9 h after challenge was significantly higher in patients treated with roflumilast (p = 0.03). Early asthmatic responses to allergen challenge were not significantly reduced by the single dose of roflumilast. Conclusions: Roflumilast attenuated allergen-induced AHR in patients with mild asthma. These results support further investigation of roflumilast as an anti-inflammatory treatment of asthma.

Ciclesonide is an onsite-activated inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the treatment of asthma. This study compared the efficacy, safety and effect on quality of life (QOL) of ciclesonide 160 microg (ex-actuator; nominal dose 200 microg) vs. budesonide 400 microg (nominal dose) in children with asthma. Six hundred and twenty-one children (aged 6-11 yr) with asthma were randomized to receive ciclesonide 160 microg (ex-actuator) once daily (via hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler and AeroChamber Plus spacer) or budesonide 400 microg once daily (via Turbohaler) both given in the evening for 12 wk. The primary efficacy end-point was change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Additional measurements included change in daily peak expiratory flow (PEF), change in asthma symptom score sum, change in use of rescue medication, paediatric and caregiver asthma QOL questionnaire [PAQLQ(S) and PACQLQ, respectively] scores, change in body height assessed by stadiometry, change in 24-h urinary cortisol adjusted for creatinine and adverse events. Both ciclesonide and budesonide increased FEV1, morning PEF and PAQLQ(S) and PACQLQ scores, and improved asthma symptom score sums and the need for rescue medication after 12 wk vs. baseline. The non-inferiority of ciclesonide vs. budesonide was demonstrated for the change in FEV1 (95% confidence interval: -75, 10 ml, p = 0.0009, one-sided non-inferiority, per-protocol). In addition, ciclesonide and budesonide showed similar efficacy in improving asthma symptoms, morning PEF, use of rescue medication and QOL. Ciclesonide was superior to budesonide with regard to increases in body height (p = 0.003, two-sided). The effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was significantly different in favor of ciclesonide treatment (p < 0.001, one-sided). Both ciclesonide and budesonide were well tolerated. Ciclesonide 160 microg once daily and budesonide 400 microg once daily were effective in children with asthma. In addition, in children treated with ciclesonide there was significantly less reduction in body height and suppression of 24-h urinary cortisol excretion compared with children treated with budesonide after 12 wk.