ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print May 31, 2006, 10.1183/09031936.06.00119305
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Masoli, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Masoli, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, R.
Eur Respir J 2006; 28:960-967
Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2006

Inhaled fluticasone propionate and adrenal effects in adult asthma: systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Masoli1, M. Weatherall2, S. Holt3, P. Shirtcliffe1 and R. Beasley1,4

1 Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, 2 Wellington School of Medicine & Health Sciences, and 3 P3 Research, Wellington, New Zealand. 4 School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

CORRESPONDENCE: R. Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, PO Box 10055, Wellington, New Zealand. Fax: 64 44729224. E-mail: Richard.Beasley{at}mrinz.ac.nz

Keywords: Adrenal suppression, asthma, dose–response, fluticasone, meta-analysis

Received: October 11, 2005
Accepted May 20, 2006


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The dose–response relationship of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) for adrenal suppression in adults with asthma is not clear.

The current authors carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised dose–response studies of ≥4 weeks’ duration, which assessed the adrenal effects of FP by cosyntropin stimulation tests in adult asthma. The main outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with adrenal function below the lower limit of the normal range.

Five studies, with a total of 732 subjects with asthma, met the inclusion criteria. Data on daily doses >1,000 µg were limited to one study. The proportion of subjects with adrenal function below the lower limit of the normal range on placebo was 3.9%; for a 500-µg per day increase in FP dose the odds of an abnormality increased by 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.01–1.59). The continuous secondary outcome measures showed an inverse linear relationship with the FP dose up to 2,000 µg·day-1.

In conclusion, for routine prescribing within the established therapeutic dose–response range (50–500 µg·day-1), fluticasone propionate has minimal effects on adrenal function. This conclusion is limited by the paucity of long-term studies of daily doses of fluticasone propionate >1,000 µg and by the considerable individual variability in the response.

In recent years, one of the major advances in the understanding of the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of asthma has been the determination of the dose–response relationship for efficacy. It has been demonstrated that for all major clinical outcome measures in adults with moderately severe asthma, the average dose required to achieve the maximum therapeutic response is ~500 µg·day-1 of fluticasone propionate (FP) 1, 2 or mometasone 3, and ~1,000 µg·day-1 of budesonide 4, beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 5 or triamcinolone 6.

In contrast to efficacy, the dose–response relationships of the systemic effects of ICS in adults with asthma are uncertain. Research has focused primarily on adrenal suppression, but studies have yielded conflicting results. Interpretation of studies has proven difficult, in part because some studies have not been placebo controlled 7, 8 and others have been of short duration 8. In addition, many studies have reported single morning plasma cortisol measurements 9. This is an insensitive and variable measure for detecting adrenal suppression 10, 11. Other limitations have included the study of healthy volunteers rather than subjects with asthma 12 and studies in which subjects were not randomised to different doses, but were sequentially administered ICS in increasing doses 13. These limitations are reflected in the conclusions of the most recent Cochrane meta-analyses 14, 15, which state that data on the effect of ICS on adrenal function are limited and that the clinical significance of the findings is unclear.

To further investigate this issue, the current authors have undertaken a meta-analysis of the dose–response relationship of inhaled FP on adrenal function in adult asthma. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of subjects with adrenal function below the lower limit of the normal range, rather than the mean change in cortisol levels, a measurement with which many doctors are unfamiliar. In this way an attempt was made to provide data to address the question "What is the probability a patient with asthma may develop abnormal adrenal function with different doses of ICS (in this case FP)?" This study was possible only with FP, owing to the inadequate number of studies with other ICS, including BDP and budesonide, which are widely used in clinical practice.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Search strategy
Searches were conducted of Medline from January 1, 1966 to August 2003, of Embase from 1980 to August 2003 and of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, using the keywords "FP" and "adrenal" or "HPA axis" (hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis). When limited to English, the total number of studies was 2,911. GlaxoSmithKline (Brentford, UK), the manufacturer of FP, was asked for details of all relevant studies; no additional studies were identified. The current authors wrote to the authors of two studies for additional information, but this was not forthcoming. No relevant studies published in other languages were found on Medline and Embase. Finally, the reference lists of relevant studies were examined, but these revealed no further studies. The search strategy as recommended by the Quality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement is shown in figure 1Go.


Figure 1
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1— Process of inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. RCT: randomised controlled trial; HPA: hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal.

 
Inclusion criteria
Two of the current researchers examined each article’s title and abstract, then the full article if necessary. To be included in this meta-analysis, a study had to meet the following criteria. It had to: 1) be a placebo-controlled, randomised trial of adolescents (aged >12 yrs) or adults with asthma; 2) use at least one dose of FP administered twice daily; 3) have a duration of ≥4 weeks; and 4) contain data on plasma cortisol response to cosyntropin stimulation. The stimulation test involved either 0.25 mg cosyntropin i.v. infusion over 6 h, with plasma cortisol concentration measured for ≥12 h after the start of the infusion, or 0.25 mg cosyntropin injected i.m. or i.v. with plasma cortisol concentration measured after 30–60 min. Both methods result in maximal acute stimulation of the adrenal gland 10, 11. Studies in which participants were taking inhaled, intranasal or oral corticosteroids within 1 month of screening, or took concurrent intranasal corticosteroids during the study, were excluded because of the potential confounding effect on adrenal function.

Data extraction
The main analysis was based on the proportion of individuals with a response to cosyntropin stimulation below the lower limit of the normal range, referred to as "abnormal adrenal function". The primary outcome variable was the number of subjects with a peak plasma cortisol concentration of <18 µg·dL-1 or a rise in plasma cortisol concentration of <7 µg·dL-1 post-stimulation 10, 11. The secondary outcome variables were the number of subjects with a peak plasma cortisol concentration of <18 µg·dL-1, the mean 8-h area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) for plasma cortisol, and the mean peak plasma cortisol concentration with cosyntropin stimulation. Standardised data were obtained from the study publications and the GlaxoSmithKline internal study reports. The data were extracted by two of the current researchers (M. Masoli and R. Beasley).

Data analysis
The main analysis was logistic regression modelling of whether the proportion of subjects with abnormal HPA-axis measurements was related to the dose of inhaled FP. Where appropriate, a general additive model was also used as an exploratory tool to assess whether there was any curvature in the relationship between the logit of the proportion of subjects with an abnormal test and the dose of FP. As values of "zero" are excluded from ordinary logistic regression, a sensitivity analysis was also undertaken in which "one" was added to each of the study-dose combinations where there were no participants with adrenal suppression. The proportion of subjects with abnormal baseline cortisol stimulation tests was available in only some of the studies and, when present, was not matched with the number of subjects with abnormal cortisol stimulation tests during treatment. As a result, it was not possible to use this information in the analysis of the dose–response relationship for inhaled FP and HPA function.

The current authors planned a meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratio for abnormality for doses of 500 µg·day-1 versus placebo and 1,000 µg·day-1 versus placebo, using an inverse variance weighting approach 16, 17; however, insufficient data were available to perform this analysis.

For analysis of the mean 8-h AUC for plasma cortisol and the mean peak plasma cortisol concentration (Peak), the meta-analysis was a meta-regression technique using the inverse estimated variances at each dose in a weighted regression and consisted of calculating the correct estimate of the standard error of the regression estimates from the diagonal elements of the inverse of the weighted regression matrix 16. For the plots of AUC and Peak, the confidence limits for the predicted responses were calculated according to the method of Draper and Smith 18.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Five studies met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (table 1Go) 19–22, of which two were published together 20. In total, 732 adolescents and adults with asthma were included in the studies. The doses of FP ranged 100–2,000 µg·day-1, with three studies including a prednisone treatment arm 19–21. FP was administered via metered dose inhaler (MDI) in two studies 19, 21, and Diskhaler in three studies 20, 22. The studies were of 4–12 weeks’ duration. Four studies measured plasma cortisol in response to 6-h cosyntropin infusion and one study utilised the short cosyntropin test. Two further studies could not be included in the meta-analysis as the findings were published in abstract form only and data were not available in standardised form 23, 24. Five studies were excluded in which subjects took either inhaled or intranasal corticosteroids at the time of recruitment or took concomitant intranasal corticosteroids during the period of the study 25–29. There was one published study in which data were not in the required format 30, three studies in which adrenal function was assessed by urine cortisol assessment 28, 31, 32 and one study with a duration of 3 weeks 33.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— Summary of studies used in the meta-analysis

 
Primary outcome variable: abnormal peak or change in cortisol level post-stimulation
The proportion of subjects with adrenal function below the lower limit of the normal range at the end of treatment is shown in table 2Go. In a simple linear logistic regression of the probability of abnormal adrenal function versus dose of FP, the coefficient relating the logit of the probability to dose had a value±SE of 6.49x10-4±3.20x10-4 (p = 0.042; fig. 2Go). This is moderate evidence of a linear relationship between inhaled FP dose and the logit of the probability of an abnormality, i.e. there is a curved relationship between the inhaled FP dose and the probability of an abnormality. This indicates that the risk ratio for developing an abnormality on adrenal function testing is constant between successive increased doses of FP (e.g. 500 µg versus placebo or 1,000 µg versus 500 µg). The predicted probabilities of an abnormality of adrenal function in relation to dose of FP are shown in table 3Go and figure 2Go. The proportion of subjects with abnormal adrenal function on placebo was 3.9% (seven out of 180). For a 500-µg increase in the daily dose of FP, the odds of an abnormality increased by 1.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.89).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2— Subjects with an abnormal adrenal response at end of treatment

 

Figure 2
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2— The raw percentages ({circ}) and fitted logistic regression line (–––) with 95% confidence limits (----) for the relationship between fluticasone propionate (FP) dose and probability of an abnormal cortisol stimulation test (peak cortisol <18 µg·dL-1 or change in cortisol <7 µg·dL-1).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3— Predicted probability of an abnormal adrenal response in relation to fluticasone propionate dose

 
To include all available data, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken in which any cell count of zero was increased to one. With this strategy, there was a decrease in the strength of the linear association between the FP dose and the logit of the probability of an abnormality. For a 500-µg increase in the daily dose of FP, the odds of an abnormality were 1.26 (95% CI 0.94–1.70).

Secondary outcome variables
Abnormal cortisol peak
In a simple linear logistic regression of the probability of abnormality of the peak cortisol level versus the inhaled FP dose, the coefficient relating the logit of the probability to dose had a value±SE of 1.49x10-3±3.69x10-4 (p<0.0001; fig. 3Go). This suggests a linear relationship between the inhaled FP dose and the logit of the probability of an abnormality. The proportion of subjects with abnormal adrenal function on placebo was 0.6% (oen out of 180). For a 500-µg increase in the daily dose of FP, the odds of an abnormality increased by 2.10 (95% CI 1.46–3.02). The sensitivity analyses resulted in a decrease in the slope of the relationship between FP dose and the probability of an abnormality.


Figure 3
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3— The raw percentages ({circ}) and fitted logistic regression line (–––) with 95% confidence limits (----) for the relationship between fluticasone propionate (FP) dose and the probability of an abnormal cortisol stimulation test (peak cortisol <18 µg·dL-1).

 
Mean AUC and peak cortisol analyses
Three studies contributed to the meta-regression of FP dose and the mean AUC and peak cortisol levels (table 4Go) 16, 20. There was a significant linear decline in mean AUC with dose, with a slope coefficient -3.36x10-2 (95% CI -0.45x10-2– -6.26x10-2; fig. 4Go). There was a significant linear decline in mean peak cortisol with dose, with a slope coefficient of -4.7x10-4 (95% CI -0.3x10-4– -9.2x10-4; fig. 5Go). These analyses suggest that for both mean AUC and peak cortisol analyses, there was an inverse linear relationship between adrenal function and dose of FP.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4— Comparison of different methods of assessing adrenal function: subjects with an abnormal response versus mean area under the curve (AUC) and mean peak cortisol level post-stimulation

 

Figure 4
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4— The plot of actual ({circ}) and fitted linear regression (–––) with 95% confidence limits (----) for the relationship between fluticasone propionate (FP) dose and area under the curve (AUC) for cortisol concentration.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5— The plot of actual ({circ}) and fitted linear regression (–––) with 95% confidence limits (----) for the relationship between fluticasone propionate (FP) dose and peak mean cortisol concentration.

 
Comparison with prednisone 10 mg
Proportion of subjects taking prednisone 10 mg with abnormality
Three studies gave data for the proportion of subjects with an abnormality following treatment with 10 mg·day-1 of prednisone 19–21. The pooled number of subjects with an abnormality (cortisol peak <18 µg·dL-1 or change <7 µg·dL-1 cortisol post-stimulation) was 13 out of 69 (18.8%; 95% CI 11.3–29.8%). By comparison, the estimate under the linear logistic model of dose–response relationship of the proportion abnormal on 2,000 µg·day-1 FP was 13.3% (95% CI 5.3–29.6%).

Continuous measures of adrenal function
The pooled estimate for mean AUC for the group taking 10 mg·day-1 prednisone, based on two studies 19, 20 was 136.4 µg·dL-1·h (95% CI 128.6–144.1 µg·dL-1·h). In comparison, the linear regression model predicts for 2,000 µg·day-1 FP a value of 145.5 µg·dL-1·h (95% CI 98.8–192.1 µg·dL-1·h).

The pooled estimate for peak cortisol for the group taking 10 mg·day-1 prednisone, based on two studies 19, 20 was 21.4 µg·dL-1 (95% CI 18.4–24.4 µg·dL-1). In comparison, the linear regression model predicts for 2,000 µg·day-1 FP a value of 22.9 µg·dL-1 (95% CI 15.9–29.9 µg·dL-1).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The major finding of this meta-analysis is that for all outcome variables examined, FP had minimal effects on adrenal function when prescribed within the therapeutic dose–response range of 50–500 µg·day-1 to adult subjects with asthma.

Methodological issues
Before discussing the results of this meta-analysis in detail, it is necessary to consider the major methodological issues relevant to its design. The first was the use of the proportion of subjects with adrenal function below the lower limit of the normal range as the main outcome variable. The reason for this novel approach was to address the question which doctors require in considering the use of ICS, namely "What is the probability that my patient may develop abnormal adrenal function with different doses of ICS (in this case FP)?" However, even with this approach, there is considerable uncertainty about the clinical significance of these criteria. This is illustrated by the finding that ~4% of subjects on placebo had abnormal adrenal function, reflecting the derivation of the "normal values" as encompassing 95% of the unaffected population. As a result, a measurement below the lower limit does not necessarily indicate that an individual has clinically significant adrenal suppression at risk of an adverse event in a stress situation. However, it does provide a useful method to assess the relative effect of different doses of ICS on adrenal function when comparison is made with placebo.

Another issue in relation to the assessment of adrenal function was the requirement for dynamic stimulation tests. Unfortunately, most studies have assessed morning cortisol levels. This is recognised as a screening test for adrenocortical excess but is an insensitive measure and poor predictor of adrenal suppression 11, 12. In contrast, dynamic stimulation tests assess adrenal reserve and give an estimation of the capacity of the HPA axis to respond to stress. Measurement of urinary-free cortisol excretion is problematic owing to the inevitable compliance difficulties with urine collection, a lack of sensitivity and use of immunoassays that may be subject to interference produced by the metabolism of oral corticosteroids or ICS 34.

The duration of treatment with ICS therapy was another consideration. Although basal adrenal function can be easily physiologically perturbed over hours to days by short-term administration of ICS, clinically significant suppression of the HPA axis with adrenocortical atrophy requires weeks or months of exogenous glucocorticoid exposure 35. Studies were excluded if they were not of ≥4 weeks’ duration, although even with this criterion, there were no studies of ≥3 months’ duration. This is relevant because the risk of adrenal suppression is greater with increasing duration of high-dose ICS therapy 36.

It was necessary to exclude studies in which subjects used regular ICS therapy during the period prior to enrolment in the study, or concomitant use of intranasal corticosteroids during the study 15, 26–29. The current authors also excluded studies in healthy nonasthmatic subjects due to the differential response in terms of adrenal suppression observed between asthmatic and nonasthmatic subjects 37, 38.

These stringent inclusion criteria markedly reduced the number of studies that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Five studies with 732 subjects were included, with only one study which investigated doses >1,000 µg·day-1. As a result, one of the conclusions of this meta-analysis is that there are insufficient data to determine confidently the long-term adrenal effects of FP in particular at doses >1,000 µg·day-1. Further studies are required, including studies of novel dry-powder and hydrofluoroalkane-134a-containing MDIs, and studies in children, for which adequate data are currently unavailable 39.

Major findings
The major finding of this meta-analysis was that from a baseline proportion of subjects with abnormal adrenal function of ~4%, the odds ratio of an abnormality increased ~1.4-fold for each 500 µg·day-1 increase in FP dose. This means that with regular FP treatment at 500 µg·day-1, the proportion of subjects with an abnormal adrenal function test increases from ~4% to 5.5%. The strength of the association decreased with the sensitivity analysis undertaken, to the extent that it was not statistically significant. In considering the clinical significance of these findings, the proportion of subjects with abnormal adrenal function tests in this study represents the proportion below the lower limits of the normal range derived to encompass 95% of the unaffected population, not necessarily those at risk of an adverse event due to clinically significant adrenal suppression. With the more conventional continuous measures of mean AUC and peak cortisol levels, a linear decline was observed with increasing FP doses of up to 2,000 µg·day-1.

Inclusion of a treatment group taking 10 mg·day-1 in three of the studies allowed a comparison with FP for effects on adrenal function. An indirect comparison, based on the predicted effect of 2,000 µg·day-1 FP, suggests the effect on adrenal function of this FP dose was similar to that of 10 mg·day-1 oral prednisone, although the confidence intervals for the predictions were wide. This finding reinforces the importance of regularly reviewing patients on high doses of ICS and attempting to back-titrate the dose to within the therapeutic range.

Other systemic effects
The findings are consistent with the recent case–control studies of the dose–response of ICS and risk of both fractures and cataracts, based on the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database 40, 41. These showed a gradual increase in risk of fracture with increasing doses of ICS, with a relative risk of 1.4 with 800–1,600 µg·day-1 BDP or equivalent, increasing to 1.9 at doses >1,600 µg·day-1 40. In terms of cataracts, an increased risk of 1.2 was observed at doses of 400–1,600 µg·day-1 BDP or equivalent, increasing further to 1.7 with doses >1,600 µg·day-1 41. These findings are broadly consistent with those observed with adrenal suppression in this meta-analysis in demonstrating a relatively flat dose–response up to at least 1,600 µg·day-1 BDP, equivalent to 800 µg·day-1 FP.

Therapeutic index
The present findings allow determination of a therapeutic ratio of efficacy/systemic adverse effects across a wide range of doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate in adult asthma. The current authors have previously shown that for most asthmatic patients, 80–90% of the maximum therapeutic effect of fluticasone propionate can be obtained with doses ~200 µg·day-1, with the maximum effect achieved at doses ~500 µg·day-1 1, 2. The similar determination of the dose–response of the adrenal effects of fluticasone propionate have shown that there is a small absolute risk to an individual receiving inhaled fluticasone propionate within this therapeutic range. However, with higher doses (not uncommonly used in clinical practice) 42, there is an increasing risk of adrenal suppression, despite minimal further efficacy, indicating a progressively worse therapeutic index. These conclusions are limited by the paucity of long-term studies investigating doses of fluticasone propionate >1,000 µg·day-1, and the considerable individual variability in response to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
 
M. Masoli developed the protocol, organised the search, undertook data extraction and wrote the paper. M. Weatherall was responsible for the statistical methodology and data analysis, and contributed to the final manuscript preparation. S. Holt and P. Shirtcliffe were involved in the study concept and manuscript preparation. R. Beasley was involved in the study concept, oversaw the study and contributed to the final manuscript preparation. M. Masoli will act as guarantor for this paper.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Holt S, Suder A, Weatherall M, Cheng S, Beasley R. Dose-response relation of inhaled fluticasone propionate in adolescents and adults with asthma: meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:1–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Masoli M, Weatherall M, Holt S, Beasley R. Clinical dose-response relationship of fluticasone propionate in adults with asthma. Thorax 2004;59:16–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Sharpe M, Jarvis B. Inhaled mometasone: a review of its use in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. Drugs 2001;61:1325–1350.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Masoli M, Holt S, Weatherall M, Beasley R. Dose-response relationship of inhaled budesonide in adult asthma: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir J 2004;23:1–7.[Free Full Text]
  5. Busse WW, Brazinsky S, Jacobson K, et al. Efficacy response of inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate in asthma is proportional to dose and is improved by formulation with a new propellant. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104:1215–1222.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Welch MJ, Levy S, Smith JA, Feiss G, Farrar JR. Dose-ranging study of the clinical efficacy of twice-daily triamcinolone acetonide inhalation aerosol in moderately severe asthma. Chest 1997;112:597–606.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Ayres JG, Bateman ED, Lundback B, Harris TAJ. High dose fluticasone propionate, 1 mg daily versus fluticasone propionate, 2 mg daily, or budesonide, 1.6 mg daily in patients with chronic severe asthma. Eur Respir J 1995;8:579–586.[Abstract]
  8. Derom E, Van Schoor J, Verhaeghe W, Vincken W, Pauwels R. Systemic effects of inhaled fluticasone propionate and budesonide in adult patients with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:157–161.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Toogood JH, Baskerville J, Jennings B, Lefcoe NM, Johansson S-A. Bioequivalent doses of budesonide and prednisone in moderate and severe asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1989;84:688–700.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Aron DC. Diagnostic implications of adrenal physiology and clinical epidemiology for evaluation of glucocorticoid excess and deficiency. In: De Groot LJ, Jameson JL, eds. Endocrinology. 4th Edn. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2001; pp. 1655–1670
  11. Isselbacher KJ, Braunwald E, Wilson JD, Martin JB, Fauci AS, Kasper DL eds. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 13th Edn. New York, McGraw-Hill Inc, 1994; pp. 1953–1976
  12. Donnelly R, Williams KM, Baker AB, Badcock C-A, Day RO, Seale JP. Effects of budesonide and fluticasone on 24-hour plasma cortisol: a dose-response study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;156:1746–1751.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Martin RJ, Szefler SJ, Chinchilli VM, et al. Systemic effect comparisons of six inhaled corticosteroid preparations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1377–1383.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Adams N, Bestall JM, Lasserson TJ, Jones PW. Inhaled fluticasone versus inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2005;2:CD002310
  15. Adams N, Bestall J, Jones P. Inhaled budesonide at different doses for chronic asthma. Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2005;4:CD003271
  16. Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Chichester, Wiley, 2002; pp. 157–160
  17. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statist Med 2002;21:1539–1558.
  18. Draper N, Smith H. Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd Edn. New York, Wiley, 1998
  19. Kellerman D, Stricker W, Howland W. Effects of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) on the HPA axis of patients with asthma. Eur Respir J 1996;9: Suppl. 23 162s
  20. Sorkness CA, LaForce C, Storms W, Lincourt WR, Edwards L, Rogenes PR. Effects of the inhaled corticosteroids fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide and flunisolide and oral prednisone on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in adult patients with asthma. Clin Ther 1999;21:353–367.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Li JTC, Goldstein MF, Gross GN, et al. Effects of fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, prednisone, and placebo on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:622–628.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Wasserman SI, Gross GN, Schoenwetter WF, Munk ZM, Kral KM, Kellerman DJ. A 12-week dose-ranging study of fluticasone propionate powder in the treatment of asthma. J Asthma 1996;33:265–274.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Tita J, LaForce C, Howland WC, et al. Use of 6-hr cosyntropin stimulation tests to evaluate potential effects of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP), inhaled triamcinolone acetonide (TAA), placebo (PBO) and oral prednisone on HPA axis function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:A355
  24. LaForce C, Goldstein M, Storms W, et al. Comparison of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) and flunisolide (FLN) effects on the HPA axis as assessed by 6-hour cosyntropin infusion testing. Eur Respir J 1996;9: Suppl. 23 163s
  25. Chervinsky P, van As A, Bronsky EA, et al. Fluticasone propionate aerosol for the treatment of adults with mild to moderate asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;94:676–683.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Pearlman DS, Noonan MJ, Tashkin DP, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of twice daily fluticasone propionate powder versus placebo in the treatment of moderate asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1997;78:356–362.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Pearlman DS, Stricker W, Weinstein S, et al. Inhaled salmeterol and fluticasone: a study comparing monotherapy and combination therapy in asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999;82:257–265.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Nathan RA, Li JTC, Finn A, et al. A dose-ranging study of fluticasone propionate administered once daily via multidose powder inhaler to patients with moderate asthma. Chest 2000;118:296–302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Shapiro G, Lumry W, Wolfe J, et al. Combined salmeterol 50 µg and fluticasone propionate 250 µg in the discus device for the treatment of asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:527–534.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Li JT, Ford LB, Chervinsky P, et al. Fluticasone propionate powder and lack of clinically significant effects on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and bone mineral density over 2 years in adults with mild asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:1062–1068.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Pearlman DS, White MV, Lieberman AK, et al. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination compared with montelukast for the treatment of persistent asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002;88:227–235.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Weinstein S, Korenblat P, Raphael G, et al. Fluticasone propionate HFA-134a significantly improves lung function in inhaled corticosteroid naïve asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165: Suppl. 8 A770
  33. Casale TB, Nelson HS, Stricker WE, Raff H, Newman KB. Suppression of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity with inhaled flunisolide and fluticasone propionate in adult asthma patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2001;87:379–385.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Fink RS, Pierre LN, Daley-Yates PT, Richards DH, Gibson A, Honour JW. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function after inhaled corticosteroids: unreliability of urinary free cortisol estimation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:4541–4546.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Dluhy RG. Clinical relevance of inhaled corticosteroids and HPA axis suppression. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;101: Suppl. 4 S447–S450.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Brown PH, Blundell G, Greening AP, Crompton GK. Hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression in asthmatics inhaling high dose corticosteroids. Respir Med 1991;85:501–510.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Brutsche MH, Brutsche IC, Munawar M, et al. Comparison of pharmacokinetics and systemic effects of inhaled fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma and healthy volunteers: a randomised crossover study. Lancet 2000;356:556–561.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Harrison TW, Tattersfield AE. Plasma concentrations of fluticasone propionate and budesonide following inhalation from dry powder inhalers by healthy and asthmatic subjects. Thorax 2003;58:258–260.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Masoli M, Weatherall M, Holt S, Beasley R. Systematic review of the dose-response relation of inhaled fluticasone propionate. Arch Dis Child 2004;89:902–907.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Hubbard RB, Smith CJP, Smeeth L, Harrison TW, Tattersfield AE. Inhaled corticosteroids and hip fracture: a population-based case–control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1563–1566.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Smeeth L, Boulis M, Hubbard R, Fletcher AE. A population based case-control study of cataract and inhaled corticosteroids. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:1247–1251.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Black PN, Lawrence BJ, Goh KH, Barry MS. Differences in the potencies of inhaled steroids are not reflected in the doses prescribed in primary care in New Zealand. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:431–435.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Masoli, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Masoli, M.
Right arrow Articles by Beasley, R.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS