A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of macrolide in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. [Effects of high doses of beclomethasone dipropionate in bronchial asthma]. The clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate (Fluvent) compared with beclomethasone dipropionates (Becotide) in patients with mild to moderate brochial asthma at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Effect of inhaled corticosteroids on bronchial hyperresponsiveness in patients with mild asthma. Beclomethasone dipropionate dry-powder inhalation compared with conventional aerosol in chronic asthma. Fluticasone propionate compared with theophylline for mild-to-moderate asthma. Effect of feedback letters to physicians and pharmacists on the appropriate use of medication in the treatment of asthma.
The antiinflammatory effect of macrolide antibiotics has been well-established, as has their role in the treatment of certain disorders of chronic airway inflammation. Several studies have suggested that long-term, low-dose macrolides may be efficacious in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis; however, these studies have lacked a control group. To date, this effect has not been tested in a randomized, placebo-controlled study.
                The authors conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial on 64 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Subjects received either 150 mg roxithromycin daily for 3 months or placebo. Outcome measures included the Sinonasal Outcome Test-20 (SNOT-20), measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow, saccharine transit time, olfactory function, nasal endoscopic scoring, and nasal lavage assays for interleukin-8, fucose, and a2-macroglobulin.
                There were statistically significant improvements in SNOT-20 score, nasal endoscopy, saccharine transit time, and IL-8 levels in lavage fluid (P<.05) in the macrolide group. A correlation was noted between improved outcome measures and low IgE levels. No significant improvements were noted for olfactory function, peak nasal inspiratory flow, or lavage levels for fucose and a2-macroglobulin. No improvement in any outcome was noted in the placebo-treated patients.
                These findings suggest that macrolides may have a beneficial role in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis, particularly in patients with low levels of IgE, and supports the in vitro evidence of their antiinflammatory activity. Additional studies are required to assess their place in clinical practice. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of high dose inhaled steroids, we examined the effects of standard doses (400 micrograms/day) and high doses (800 micrograms/day) of inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP, Becotide Inhaler), and the dose for regular use (800 micrograms/day) of salbutamol (Salb. Asmidon Air) on pulmonary function, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and asthma attack score. The subjects were 17 out-patients with mild or moderate bronchial asthma who were not receiving any anti-allergics or steroids. The patients were randomly allocated into three groups i.e., Group I: BDP 400 micrograms/day, Group II: BDP 800 micrograms/day and Group III: Salb. 800 micrograms/day. The administration period was 8 weeks. Pulmonary function test were performed and bronchial hyperresponsiveness was examined before and after the 8 weeks of treatment and attack scores were recorded during this period. It was found that inhalations of 400 micrograms/day and 800 micrograms/day BDP improved FEV1.0% value, peak flow, F-V curve, Dmin. and SGrs/Grs cont. Particularly, inhalation of 800 micrograms/day of BDP significantly improved these values and reduced attack scores in the early stages of the 8 week treatment. In contrast, there was a trend for inhalation of Salbutamol to enhance bronchial hyperresponsiveness and not to improve pulmonary function and asthma attack score. In conclusion, 800 micrograms/day of inhaled BDP is considered to be useful in the treatment of mild or moderate bronchial asthma. This open, randomized trial was conducted at the Medical Out patient Department of University College Hospital, Nigeria to compare the clinical efficacy of Beclomethasome dipropionate (Becotide) with Fluticasone propionate (Fluvent) in patients with mild to moderate bronchial asthma. The study was performed as a week screening, 8-weeks open comparative clinical trial involving Fluticasone propionate (Fluvent) at a daily dose of 22 microg and Beclomethasone Dipropionate (Becotide) at a dose of 400 microg daily delivered through pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). The main objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of Fluvent in patients with mild to moderate asthma compared to Becotide. At the second visit (end of 1 week), 10 patients were given either Becotide of Fluvent but all were maintained on as needed beta2agonist (Salbutamol inhaler) therapy throughout the study. Efficacy was assessed by changes in symptoms, number of times beta2-agonist was used and results of pulmonary function tests (PEFR and FEV1) while safety was assessed by adverse event experiences. The baseline characteristics of the patients randomized into the two drug groups were comparable and of no statistical significance. The changes in the pulmonary function tests as well as the reduction in the asthma symptoms suggest a statistically significant improvement in the asthma status of the patients. However, these changes were more rapid among the patients using Fluvent. Also, there was higher percentage decline in the episodes of asthma symptoms either in the morning, day or night in the Fluvent group than Becotide group. The drugs were well tolerated and no adverse event was noticed on any of the patients. We therefore concluded that Fluvent would be more efficacious than Becotide in the treatment of Asthma. We studied the effect of inhaled budesonide on bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) in twenty mild asthmatic patients. The study was conducted as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Before entering the study, the patients performed methacholine inhalation challenge (MIC) using a reservoir method to assess BHR. Then, they were randomly allocated to receive budesonide turbuhaler (200 micrograms/dose) or placebo turbuhaler two inhalations, twice daily for eight weeks. During the study, each patient recorded daily asthma score and daily number of puffs of beta 2 agonist and they were assessed at weeks 4 and 8. At the end of the treatment, MIC was repeated again. Patients receiving budesonide showed a significant improvement in airway responsiveness compared with those receiving placebo (p < 0.05). They also showed a significant improvement in asthma severity score and a significant decrease in beta 2 agonist bronchodilator use. This study also suggested that inhaled corticosteroids may be the primary treatment in patients, even with mild asthmatic and well-controlled symptoms. In a double-blind study beclomethasone dipropionate inhaled as a dry powder in doses of 100 microgram four times daily and 150 microgram four times daily was compared with the conventional aerosol dose of 100 microgram four times daily in 20 outpatients with chronic asthma. Each of the three treatments was given for four weeks. The dry powder in a dose of 150 microgram four times daily had advantages over the other two treatments in terms of FEV1 and the number of exacerbations of asthma during the study. There were no adverse reactions to inhaling dry-powder beclomethasone. It was concluded that this new way of administering the drug was effective in chronic asthma, and should allow most patients with chronic asthma who cannot use conventional pressurised aerosols efficiently to benefit from inhaled corticosteroid treatment. The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate, was compared with the oral bronchodilator theophylline in the maintenance treatment of asthma.
                The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of twice-daily inhaled fluticasone propionate, 50 micrograms, and fluticasone propionate, 100 micrograms, with that of theophylline in the maintenance treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma.
                In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 353 adult and adolescent patients with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled beta-agonist therapy alone received fluticasone propionate, 50 micrograms, or fluticasone propionate, 100 micrograms, by metered-dose inhaler; theophylline capsules; or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Only inhaled albuterol was permitted as needed for acute symptoms.
                Both fluticasone propionate groups had a significantly greater probability of remaining in the study (ie, meeting asthma stability criteria) than did either the theophylline or placebo group (P < or = .008); 39% and 51% in the theophylline and placebo groups, respectively, were withdrawn due to lack of treatment efficacy compared with 14% and 21% in the fluticasone propionate, 50 micrograms, and fluticasone propionate, 100 micrograms, groups. Both fluticasone propionate groups experienced significantly greater improvement in FEV1 and PEF compared with patients in the theophylline or placebo group (P < or = .004). The incidence of potentially drug-related adverse events was significantly greater in the theophylline group (25%) than in the placebo group (11%) (P = .031), while there were no differences between placebo and fluticasone propionate, 50 micrograms, (18%) or fluticasone propionate 100 micrograms, (22%).
                Twice daily treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate 50 micrograms or 100 micrograms was significantly more effective than theophylline in the treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma. Suboptimal medication treatment of asthma has been reported. More specifically, short-acting beta 2-agonists are overused, while inhaled corticosteroids are underused. This can be related in part to poor adherence by patients to the prescribed regimen and to professionals' failure to comply with practice guidelines. Feedback seems to have an effect on professional practices related to medication use.
                To assess the impact of feedback letters to physicians and pharmacists on their patients' appropriate use of asthma medication.
                Two randomized trials were set up in the province of Quebec, Canada: one with physicians and another with pharmacists. A sample of voluntary physicians and pharmacists was randomly assigned to either the experimental group or to the control group. Those in the experimental groups received three consecutive feedback letters over a 9-month period summarizing the asthma medications acquired by their patients over the preceding year. The feedback focused on short-acting beta 2-agonists, long-acting beta 2-agonists and antileukotrienes and provided information on compliance with five appropriate-use criteria. Pharmacists received aggregate profiles and individual profiles with patients' names, while most physicians received aggregate profiles for all their eligible patients. Each mailing also included a pamphlet that summarized practice guidelines on asthma treatment.
                Seventy-one physicians and 60 pharmacists participated in the study. Physicians who received the feedback letters did not differ from those in the control group in terms of their proportion of prescriptions compliant with the criteria, either before the feedback or after it (p > 0.05). The before-after difference was also similar between groups. The same was true for pharmacists. However, although the before-after difference for criteria 1 (frequency of use of short-acting beta 2-agonists) and 2 (frequency of use of long-acting beta 2-agonists) did not reach the usual statistical significance threshold of 0.05, the p value was under 0.10.
                As designed in this study, feedback provided to physicians did not improve the appropriate use of asthma medication. However, feedback to pharmacists is promising, especially when including patients' names so that pharmacists can intervene more specifically.
Considering the small number of patients studied, there is insufficient evidence to support or to refute the use of macrolides in patients with chronic asthma. Further studies are needed in particular to clarify the potential role of macrolides in some subgroups of asthmatics such as those with evidence of chronic bacterial infection.