The objective of this multicenter study was to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and acceptability of Easyhaler and Turbuhaler for the delivery of budesonide 200 micrograms/dose twice daily in steroid-naive asthmatic patients. Three hundred and twenty-six newly diagnosed, steroid-naive adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, comprising a 2-week run-in period and 8 weeks of treatment. Patients received budesonide inhalation powder 400 micrograms/day either via Easyhaler (n = 159) or via Turbuhaler (n = 167), plus salbutamol inhalation powder (100 micrograms/dose) via Easyhaler as rescue therapy. The study was completed by 292 patients: 143 in the Easyhaler group and 149 in the Turbuhaler group. The primary outcome variable, mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), improved significantly and almost similarly by 36.3 and 30.6 l/min, respectively, from run-in to weeks 7-8. At weeks 7-8, the mean (SE) difference in morning PEF between the two treatments was 7.1 (9.4) l/min (90% CI from -8.4 to 22.6) on per protocol analysis, which was within the defined limits for therapeutic equivalence. There were no significant differences between treatments in terms of secondary efficacy variables or adverse events. However, patients found Easyhaler more acceptable than Turbuhaler. The results show that budesonide via Easyhaler is clinically as effective as Pulmicort Turbuhaler when equal daily doses of budesonide are delivered to steroid-naive asthmatic patients. Moreover, patients found Easyhaler more acceptable than Turbuhaler, and a majority would prefer Easyhaler if given a choice.

3 Medical Department Carl Thiem Hospital Cottbus Acad Hospital Humboldt University of Berlin Charite Germany

Srovnání dvou práškových inhalačních systémů s budesonidem, Easyhaler a Turbuhaler, u astmatických pacientů dosud neléčených steroidy

Literatura