Control of moderate-to-severe asthma with randomized ciclesonide doses of 160, 320 and 640 μg/day

• Main Authors: Pedersen SE, Prasad N, Goehring UM, Andersson H, Postma DS
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove Medical Press 2017-03-01
• Series: Journal of Asthma and Allergy
• Subjects: Asthma; ICS; ciclesonide
• Online Access: https://www.dovepress.com/control-of-moderate-to-severe-asthma-with-randomized-ciclesonide-doses-peer-reviewed-article-JAA

Søren E Pedersen,1 Niyati Prasad,2 Udo-Michael Goehring,3 Henrik Andersson,4 Dirkje S Postma5 1Pediatric Research Unit, Kolding Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark; 2Vertex, Phase IV & Global Strategy, London, UK; 3Vifor Pharma Ltd, Clinical Research & Biometrics, Glattbrugg, Switzerland; 4Swedish Social Insurance Agency, Government Offices of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden; 5Department of Pulmonology, Griac Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands Background: The inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) ciclesonide (Cic), controls asthma symptoms in the majority of patients at the recommended dose of 160 µg/day. However, the relationship between the level of asthma control and increasing doses of Cic is unknown. This study investigated whether long-term treatment with higher doses of Cic would further improve asthma symptoms in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS use. Patients and methods: In a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 367 patients were allocated to one of three treatment arms (Cic 160, 320 and 640 μg/day). After a single-blind, 3-week baseline period with Cic 160 µg/day, eligible patients were randomized to receive 52 weeks of treatment with Cic 160, 320 or 640 μg/day (double-blind period) during which forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), exacerbations and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores were measured. Results: Treatment with all the three doses was associated with significant improvements in ACQ scores, FEV1 and asthma symptoms (P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the three doses. The results of the primary end point analysis showed a numerical improvement in the ACQ score with Cic 640 μg/day compared with Cic 160 μg/day (least square [LS] mean: -0.122; two-sided P-value: 0.30). Post hoc subgroup analyses showed that the improvement in the ACQ score with Cic 640 μg/day compared with Cic 160 μg/day was statistically significant in subjects who experience at least one exacerbation per year (LS mean: -0.586; 95% confidence interval: -1.110, -0.062, P=0.0285). Adverse events were low and consistent with the known safety profile of Cic. Conclusion: In patients with persistent, uncontrolled asthma, increasing the Cic dose from 160 to 640 µg/day provided no clear additional effect. Patients who experience more than one exacerbation per year may benefit from higher doses; however, further studies are necessary to confirm this. All Cic doses were well tolerated. Keywords: dose-response, asthma control