Progression of Acute Lung Injury in Intratracheal LPS Rat Model: Efficacy of Fluticasone, Dexamethasone, and Pirfenidone.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential of LPS (10-300 µg/rat) administered intratracheally (i.t.) to induce reproducible features of acute lung injury (ALI) and compared the pharmacological efficacy of anti-inflammatory glucocorticoids and antifibrotic drugs to reduce the disease. Additionally, we studied the time-dependent progression of ALI in this LPS rat model. METHODS: We conducted (1) dose effect studies of LPS administered i.t. at 10, 30, 100, and 300 µg/rat on ALI at 4 h timepoint; (2) pharmacological interventions using i.t. fluticasone (100 and 300 µg/rat), i.t. pirfenidone (4,000 µg/rat), and peroral dexamethasone (1 mg/kg) at 4 h timepoint; (3) kinetic studies at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 24 h post-LPS challenge. Phenotype or pharmacological efficacy was assessed using predetermined ALI features such as pulmonary inflammation, edema, and inflammatory mediators. RESULTS: All LPS doses induced a similar increase of inflammation, edema, and inflammatory mediators, e.g., IL6, IL1ß, TNFα, and CINC-1. In pharmacological intervention studies, we showed fluticasone and dexamethasone ameliorated ALI by inhibiting inflammation (>60-80%), edema (>70-100%), and the increase of cytokines IL6, IL1ß, and TNFα (≥70-90%). We also noticed some inhibition of CINC-1 (25-35%) and TIMP1 (57%) increase with fluticasone and dexamethasone. Conversely, pirfenidone failed to inhibit inflammation, edema, and mediators of inflammation. Last, in ALI kinetic studies, we observed progressive pulmonary inflammation and TIMP1 levels, which peaked at 6 h and remained elevated up to 24 h. Progressive pulmonary edema started between 2 and 4 h and was sustained at later timepoints. On average, levels of IL6 (peak at 6-8 h), IL1ß (peak at 2-10 h), TNFα (peak at 2 h), CINC-1 (peak at 2-6 h), and TGFß1 (peak at 8 h) were elevated between 2 and 10 h and declined toward 24 h post-LPS challenge. CONCLUSION: Our data show that 10 µg/rat LPS achieved a robust, profound, and reproducible experimental ALI phenotype. Glucocorticoids ameliorated key ALI features at the 4-h timepoint, but the antifibrotic pirfenidone failed. Progressive inflammation and sustained pulmonary edema were present up to 24 h, whereas levels of inflammatory mediators were dynamic during ALI progression. This study's data might be helpful in designing appropriate experiments to test the potential of new therapeutics to cure ALI.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Generic Versus Brand-Name Fluticasone-Salmeterol to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first generic maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The inhaler, Wixela Inhub (fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris), is a substitutable version of the dry powder inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline). When approving complex generic products like inhalers, the FDA applies a special "weight-of-evidence" approach. In this case, manufacturers were required to perform a randomized controlled trial in patients with asthma but not COPD, although the product received approval for both indications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of generic (Wixela Inhub) and brand-name (Advair Diskus) fluticasone-salmeterol among patients with COPD treated in routine care. DESIGN: A 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. SETTING: A large, longitudinal health care database. PATIENTS: Adults older than 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (effectiveness outcome) and incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization (safety outcome) in the 365 days after cohort entry. RESULTS: Among 45 369 patients (27 305 Advair Diskus users and 18 064 Wixela Inhub users), 10 012 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with Advair Diskus use, Wixela Inhub use was associated with a nearly identical incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04]) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.15]). LIMITATIONS: Follow-up times were short, reflecting real-world clinical practice. The possibility of residual confounding cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: Use of generic and brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol was associated with similar outcomes among patients with COPD treated in routine practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Quantitative comparison of different inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma in children.

BACKGROUND: The GINA recommends inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for the treatment of steps 2-3 of childhood asthma. However, the difference in efficacy between these drugs remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of different ICS drugs in the treatment of childhood asthma. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials of ICSs in the treatment of childhood asthma. Using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as the primary outcome, a time-course model of ICSs was constructed. In addition, the symptom-free days% were analyzed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Six studies involving 2237 children that reported FEV1 were included. The results showed that the ET50 of ciclesonide (CIC) and budesonide (BUD) was 1.23 and 2.97 weeks, respectively. Compared with them, FP had a higher efficacy. In terms of symptom-free days%, we found that the efficacy of beclometasone dipropionate was lower than that of CIC and fluticasone propionate. CONCLUSION: In this study, the efficacy of three ICS drugs was quantitatively compared, providing necessary information for the implementation of medication guidelines for steps 2-3 of asthma in children. IMPACT: This study analyzed the entire time-course of the drug efficacy of Inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma in children aged 5-12, which found that although the maximum efficacy of both ciclesonide and budesonide was the same, the onset speed of ciclesonide was faster than that of budesonide. The above information provides the necessary quantitative information for the implementation of medication guidelines for steps 2-3 asthma in children.

Medication Adherence Rates in Adolescents With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Are Low and Are Associated With Health Habits.

Although swallowed topical steroids are effective in inducing histological remission in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), their efficacy is limited by treatment nonadherence. In this study, we objectively measured adherence rates to swallowed topical steroids in adolescents with EoE over the course of 8 weeks and analyzed the association between adherence rate, disease and demographic features, symptom severity, and medication-taking habit strength. We found that approximately 20% of adolescents with EoE were over-dosing on their medications. After excluding these patients, mean adherence rate was 67.0% (±19.4%) and median adherence rate was 63% (interquartile range 53%-88%). Adherence was not associated with demographic features, disease history, symptom severity, or quality of life but was associated with habit strength (Pearson r = 0.48, P = 0.04). These findings suggest that habit strength may serve as a potential target for interventions aimed at improving adherence in adolescents with EoE.

Variability in Swallowed Topical Corticosteroid Practice Patterns for Treatment of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

Given the variety of preparations and lack of standardization of swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) for treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), we sought to better understand STC prescribing practices of pediatric gastroenterologists. A 12-question survey was distributed to members of North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Special Interest Group and responses were analyzed. Forty-two of 68 physicians responded. Oral viscous budesonide (OVB) was overall first choice STC in 31 (74%) survey respondents, with OVB most frequently utilized in patients under 5 years old and fluticasone propionate in patients 13-18 years old. Nineteen types of mixing vehicles were used for OVB preparation, the 3 most frequent being sucralose, honey, and artificial maple syrup. Insurance coverage, cost, and patient compliance were most frequently cited barriers to STC use. Highly variable STC prescribing practices reported by this group highlights the need for standardization of STC treatment in EoE.

LABA/LAMA versus LABA/ICS fixed-dose combinations in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in preventing moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. METHODS: A literature search was performed using public databases. The time course characteristics of the probability of a moderate or severe exacerbation in stable COPD patients treated with LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS FDCs were described by the parametric survival function. A random-effects model in a single-arm meta-analysis was used to analyze the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and pneumonia. RESULTS: Twenty studies including 23,955 participants were included. The proportion of participants with a history of COPD exacerbation (%) in the previous year and the postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (%predicted) were important factors affecting drug efficacy. After adjusting the above factors to median levels of 100% and 45.5%, respectively, the moderate or severe exacerbation rates at 52 weeks for olodaterol/tiotropium, formoterol/budesonide, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, formoterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/fluticasone, salmeterol/fluticasone, and vilanterol/umeclidinium were 38.3%, 41.0%, 42.6%, 47.0%, 47.5%, 47.9%, and 53.0%, respectively. In terms of safety, significant differences were observed among drugs containing different LABA/LAMA FDCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that not all LABA/LAMA FDCs were superior to LABA/ICS FDCs in safety and in preventing moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with stable COPD, providing important quantitative information for COPD-related guidelines.

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) has emerged as an alternative therapy, since it is administered every 24 h, in contrast to other ICS/LABAs such as fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/Salm), which requires administration every 12 h. Concerns have arisen over whether the benefit generated by FF/VI justifies the additional costs it involves over FP/Salm. This study aimed at assessing the health and economic consequences of FF/VI in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs for FF/VI and FP/Salm were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: We estimated a gain of 16.8 and 10.7 QALYs per patient per year on FF/VI and FP/Salm, respectively. At the same time, we observed a difference of US$216 in total discounted cost per person-year on FF/VI with respect to FP/Salm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FF/VI was USD $70 per QALY with respect to FP/Salm. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: FF/VI is more cost-effective than FP/Salm. The evidence supports using FF/VI therapy in Colombia, and the study should be replicated in other middle-income countries.

Predictors of success/failure in the control of asthmatic smoking patients under conditions of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking directly affects the airway, where it triggers a very strong local inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictors of improvement or worsening of asthma control in asthmatic smokers. METHODS: Observational, prospective, multicenter, single cohort study, carried out in the outpatient pulmonology departments with a follow-up period of 6 months. The treatment was adjusted according to the indications of standard clinical practice. RESULTS: 196 patients were included, with a mean age of 54.64 years.39% of the patients were active smokers. Interpreting an Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of ≤ 0.75 as asthma control, this was achieved in 30.2% of the cases. Patients with greater adherence were more likely to improve their asthma symptoms (p < 0.05), defined as a decrease in ACQ of 0.5 points or more at the final visit, while taking concomitant medication was a negative risk factor for improvement (p < 0.001). An eosinophil value >300 was a predictor for achieving control (p < 0.01). Patients treated with fluticasone propionate/formoterol versus those receiving budesonide/formoterol or beclomethasone/formoterol had a lower ACQ score (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Asthmatic patients with active tobacco exposure and a higher number of anti-asthma medications are more likely to have poorer control. Correct adherence to treatment is the main intervention to be performed to achieve the control. An eosinophil count greater than 300 was the main predictor for achieving control. Fluticasone propionate/formoterol FP/FORM was associated with a greater likelihood of improving ACQ score.

The clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate combined with ACEI/ARB in the treatment of immunoglobulin A nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerulopathy worldwide, and lacks the effective treatment. The study was aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate aerosol combined with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor / angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) in the treatment of IgAN. METHODS: 142 patients with biopsy-proven IgAN at Shenzhen People?s hospital from June 2018 to June 2020 were enrolled. The patients were randomly divided into the supportive care plus fluticasone group and the supportive care group. The patients of the supportive care plus fluticasone group were treated with fluticasone propionate aerosol (250 ?g Bid) combined with ACEI/ARB, while the supportive care group was merely treated with ACEI/ARB. The patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 9 months after enrollment. Primary outcomes include changes in proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). RESULTS: The level of proteinuria in the supportive care plus fluticasone group was significantly lower compared with the supportive care group at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months. Meanwhile, during the follow-up period, no serious adverse events were recorded during the study in either group. However, fluticasone treatment did not alleviate the decline in eGFR. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone propionate aerosol combined with ACEI/ARB can reduce the level of proteinuria in thetreatment of IgAN, and has no significant effects on renal function.

Fluticasone propionate suppresses the SARS-CoV-2 induced increase in respiratory epithelial permeability in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Disruption of the nasal epithelial barrier is believed to play a role in Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. Fluticasone propionate has been shown to restore the nasal epithelial barrier in allergic rhinitis to the level of healthy controls. The therapeutic potential of nasal steroid sprays in COVID-19 has recently been reported. However, further insight into the mode of action is warranted. OBJECTIVES: To explore the in vitro mechanisms of the preventive potential of fluticasone propionate in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Human air liquid interface cultures of Calu-3 cells and primary nasal epithelial cells isolated from healthy donors were used to investigate the preventive effect of fluticasone propionate on SARS-CoV-2 induced barrier disruption, virus replication and ACE2 expression. RESULTS: 48 hours pre-treatment with fluticasone propionate prevented the SARS-CoV-2 induced increase in fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran 4 kDa permeability and reduced infection with SARS-CoV-2. Pre-treatment with fluticasone propionate also decreased ACE2 expression in SARS-CoV-2 infected Calu-3 cells. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone propionate pre-treatment prevented SARS-CoV-2 increased epithelial permeability, reduced ACE2 expression and SARS-CoV-2 infection, underscoring the therapeutic potential of fluticasone propionate in the context of COVID-19.

Treatment with Fluticasone Propionate Increases Antibiotic Efficacy during Treatment of Late-Stage Primary Pneumonic Plague.

Severe and late-stage pneumonias are often difficult to treat with antibiotics alone due to overwhelming host inflammatory responses mounted to clear infection. These host responses contribute to pulmonary damage leading to acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death. In order to effectively treat severe and late-stage pneumonias, use of adjunctive therapies must be considered to reduce pulmonary damage when antimicrobial agents can be administered. Pneumonic plague, a severe pneumonia caused by inhalation of Yersinia pestis, is a fatal disease that causes death within 6 days without antibiotic intervention. Late-stage pneumonic plague is difficult to treat, as antibiotics must be delivered within 24 h after onset of symptoms to be effective. Here, we use a murine model of primary pneumonic plague to examine how host inflammatory responses impact antibiotic treatment of late-stage pneumonic plague. We developed a murine infection model demonstrating the poor outcomes associated with delayed delivery of antibiotics. We show that pretreatment of mice with intranasal fluticasone propionate increased the efficacy of delayed antibiotic delivery and enhanced murine survival. Mice receiving fluticasone propionate also showed decreased bacterial burden and reduced inflammatory pathology in the lungs. Further, we show that treatment and survival correlated with decreased levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and reduced neutrophil infiltration to the lungs. This work demonstrates how host inflammatory responses complicate treatment of late-stage pneumonic plague and suggests that targeting of host inflammatory responses may improve treatment of severe, late-stage pneumonia.

Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.

BACKGROUND: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. RESULTS: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSION: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.

Determination of a treatment response threshold for the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are measured using the validated EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS); however, a threshold for treatment response has not been defined. We aimed to determine a cut-point for endoscopic response as measured by EREFS. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing budesonide slurry with swallowed fluticasone multidose inhaler for initial treatment of EoE. In the parent trial, EREFS was determined before and after treatment (score range 0-9), as were histologic findings and dysphagia symptoms. We performed tabular, flexible trend, and dependent mixture analyses of measures of treatment response to select the best clinical EREFS threshold. RESULTS: In the 111 included patients (mean age 39 years; 67 % male; 96 % white), an EREFS threshold of ≤ 2 was 80 % sensitive (95 % confidence interval [CI] 69 % to 88 %) and 83 % specific (95 %CI 67 % to 94 %) for histologic response (peak of < 15 eosinophils per high-power field). Flexible trend analysis and dependent mixture modeling similarly suggested that a threshold of ≤ 2 best captured the correlation of EREFS with histologic and symptomatic measures. Dependent mixture modeling found near-total membership in the response class at EREFS of 0 or 1 and > 75 % at EREFS of 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: An EREFS of ≤ 2 was the best clinical threshold for endoscopic response to topical steroid treatment, and was consistent with clinical and histologic response. Therefore, future studies can report a binary outcome of endoscopic response when EREFS is 2 or less.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

Fluticasone/formoterol compared with other ICS/LABAs in asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics. METHODS: The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage. CONCLUSION: FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.

Symptom control in patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or budesonide/formoterol) in the US: a retrospective matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy, reduces the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improves lung function and symptom control in patients with asthma. However, real-world data remain limited among asthma patients in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study propensity score (PS) matched adult asthma patients initiating once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with patients initiating twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (B/F) 160/4.5 mcg using a US claims database (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2018). Asthma control was measured by the mean number of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) canisters dispensed per patient-year (PPY) during follow-up. Time to first, and rates of, overall and severe asthma exacerbations were also measured. RESULTS: After PS matching, 18,531 patients receiving FF/VI were matched to 18,531 patients receiving B/F. Mean SABA canisters dispensed PPY was significantly lower for FF/VI users compared with B/F users (FF/VI: 1.47, B/F: 1.64; p < 0.001). FF/VI use resulted in 13% significantly lower risk of having an overall asthma-related exacerbation and 22% lower risk of a severe exacerbation versus B/F use (overall exacerbation hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.87 [0.82-0.92], p < 0.001; severe exacerbation HR [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.63-0.97], p = 0.027). Asthma-related exacerbation rates per 100 patient-days were also significantly lower for the FF/VI group compared with the B/F group (overall: 0.0475 vs. 0.0558, p < 0.001; severe: 0.0026 vs. 0.0033, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, initiation of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg in adults with asthma was associated with lower use of SABA and fewer asthma-related exacerbations, which may indicate better asthma control, when compared with use of twice-daily B/F 160/4.5 mcg.

Quantitative comparison of dose-effect and time-course of fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate in adult and adolescent patients with persistent asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in adolescents and adults with asthma. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for placebo-controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time-course of the primary outcome (trough forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1 ]). Secondary outcomes (asthma symptoms, quality of life and exacerbations) were also compared via a meta-analysis. A total of 14 articles were included in the analysis, involving 6640 subjects. The efficacy plateau of the two drugs could be reached in 2 weeks. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV1 (95% CI) at week 2 of FF at 200 and 100 µg/day were 0.168 L (0.064-0.199) and 0.127 L (0.048-0.163), respectively. The changes from the baseline in trough FEV1 (95% CI) at week 2 of FP at 1000, 500, 250 and 100 µg/day were 0.133 L (0.049-0.171), 0.127 L (0.043-0.163), 0.117 L (0.039-0.150) and 0.093 L (0.032-0.129), respectively. The efficacy of FP had reached a plateau at the maximum evaluated dose (1000 µg/day), while a plateau effect was not seen at the maximum evaluated dose of FF (200 µg/day). In terms of secondary outcomes, the relative effects of the two drugs relative to the placebo were similar and did not show obvious dose-effect relationships. In this study, the time-course and dose-effect characteristics of FP, FF and placebo were quantitatively evaluated, providing necessary quantitative information for asthma-related guidelines.

Inhaled corticosteroids, COPD, and the incidence of lung cancer: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate on whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce the incidence of lung cancer amongst patients with Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD). We aimed to perform a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis on available observational data. METHODS: We performed both a dose response and high versus low random effects meta-analysis on observational studies measuring whether lung cancer incidence was lower in patients using ICS with COPD. We report relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as risk difference. We use the GRADE framework to report our results. RESULTS: Our dose-response suggested a reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for every 500 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS (RR 0.82 [95% 0.68-0.95]). Using a baseline risk of 7.2%, we calculated risk difference of 14 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 24.7-3.8 fewer]). Similarly, our results suggested that for every 1000 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS, there was a larger reduction in incidence of lung cancer (RR 0.68 [0.44-0.93]), with a risk difference of 24.7 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 43.2-5.4 fewer]). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low, due to risk of bias and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: There may be a reduction in the incidence for lung cancer in COPD patients who use ICS. However, the quality of the evidence is low to very low, therefore, we are limited in making strong claims about the true effect of ICS on lung cancer incidence.

Clinical efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: MP-AzeFlu is a novel option for therapy of allergic rhinitis (AR). The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, compared to placebo and azelastine monotherapy. METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of using MP-AzeFlu nasal spray on July 26, 2019. In these studies, we selected patients with clinical symptom scores. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed by I2. RESULTS: Among the 336 citations retrieved, 6 articles with over 6000 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis revealed that MP-AzeFlu was superior to placebo ( - 2.43 [95%CI,  - 2.73 to  - 2.14], P < 0.00001) and azelastine ( - 1.27 [95% CI,  - 1.57 to  - 0.97], P < 0.00001) in reflective total nasal symptom score. In the MP-AzeFlu group, the instantaneous total nasal symptom score ( - 2.56 [95% CI,  - 3.02 to  - 2.10], P < 0.00001) and the reflective total ocular symptom score ( - 1.22 [95% CI,  - 1.57 to  - 0.87], P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSION: MP-AzeFlu is as safe and mild as placebo and azelastine, which also is associated with symptom relief and the improvement of quality of life in AR patients. MP-AzeFlu can provide better clinical benefits than two currently available first-line intranasal therapies. It is an ideal therapy for AR patients.