Comparable efficacy of ciclesonide once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in asthma. Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide once daily and fluticasone propionate twice daily in children with asthma. Ciclesonide is more effective than budesonide in the treatment of persistent asthma. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide 160 microg once daily vs. budesonide 400 microg once daily in children with asthma.
Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy in asthma, but local and systemic side effects and adherence remain a concern. Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid with on-site lung activation that provides potent anti-inflammatory activity and has been shown to have a good safety profile, even at high doses.
                The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate at comparable daily doses in patients with asthma.
                In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study, 529 patients were randomized to ciclesonide 160 microg once daily or fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in lung function.
                Both ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1s, forced vital capacity, and morning peak expiratory flow compared with baseline (p<0.0001 for all variables). Both medications reduced asthma symptoms and rescue medication use within the first 24 h. At the tested dose, both medications were equally safe and well tolerated.
                Ciclesonide 160 microg once daily was as effective as fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily in improving lung function and asthma symptoms, and in reducing rescue medication use in patients with asthma. Ciclesonide is a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Information about its clinical efficacy and safety in relation to other ICS in children is needed for clinical positioning.
                This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, three-arm, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide with fluticasone propionate in children with mainly moderate and severe persistent asthma.
                Seven hundred and forty-four patients (aged 6-11 years) were randomized to ciclesonide (80 or 160 microg once daily) or fluticasone propionate (88 microg twice daily), following a 2-4-week run-in. Efficacy measurements included forced expiratory flow in 1s (FEV(1)), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use and quality of life. Systemic effect was assessed by 24-hour urine free cortisol adjusted for creatinine.
                FEV(1) and morning PEF increased from baseline in all groups (p<0.0001). Ciclesonide 160 microg was not inferior to fluticasone propionate 176 microg for FEV(1) (p=0.0030, one-sided). In all groups, asthma symptom score sums and rescue medication use significantly improved (p<0.0001). The percentages of asthma symptom-, rescue medication- and nocturnal awakening-free days were high, with no significant differences between treatments. Quality of life scores improved with all treatments (p<0.0001). A significant dose-response occurred between low and higher doses of ciclesonide for exacerbations and asthma control definitions. The incidences of adverse events were comparable across treatments. Urine free cortisol levels decreased significantly with fluticasone propionate (p=0.0103), but not with ciclesonide.
                Once-daily ciclesonide has a clinical effect similar to that of fluticasone propionate, but does not suppress cortisol excretion, in children with moderate and severe asthma. Ciclesonide is a lung-activated inhaled corticosteroid that provides effective control of persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily ciclesonide versus once-daily budesonide in patients with asthma.
                A total of 399 patients with asthma were randomised to receive once-daily ciclesonide 320 microg ex-actuator (equivalent to 400 microg ex-valve) or once-daily budesonide 400 microg for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)). Additional efficacy variables included forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptoms, use of rescue medication and time to onset of effect. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.
                Both ciclesonide and budesonide significantly increased FEV(1) from baseline (416 and 321 ml, respectively; p<0.0001). The increase in FEV(1) was significantly greater in ciclesonide-treated patients (95% confidence interval: 0.016-0.174; p=0.019 versus budesonide). Similarly, ciclesonide and budesonide significantly improved FVC and PEF from baseline (p<0.0001), and significantly greater increases occurred with ciclesonide (p=0.034 and 0.019 versus budesonide, respectively). Analysis of morning PEF revealed an earlier onset of action for ciclesonide versus budesonide; a significant improvement was seen by day 2 (p=0.039 versus baseline) with ciclesonide compared with day 7 for budesonide (p=0.047 versus baseline). Adverse events occurred with a similar incidence in both treatment groups. Neither treatment caused significant changes in urinary cortisol levels.
                Once-daily ciclesonide was more effective than once-daily budesonide in improving FEV(1), FVC and PEF. Ciclesonide also had an earlier onset of action than budesonide in patients with persistent asthma. Both ciclesonide and budesonide had good safety and tolerability profiles. 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.
An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making.  
Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.