Exhaled nitric oxide and urinary EPX levels in infants: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Objective markers of early airway inflammation in infants are not established but are of great interest in a scientific setting. Exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and urinary eosinophilic protein X (uEPX) are a two such interesting markers.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To investigate the feasibility of measuring FeNO and uEPX in infants and their mothers and to determine if any relations between these two variables and environmental factors can be seen in a small sample size. This was conducted as a pilot study for the ongoing Swedish Environmental Longitudinal Mother and child Asthma and allergy study (SELMA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive infants between two and six months old and their mothers at children's health care centres were invited, and 110 mother-infant pairs participated. FeNO and uEPX were analysed in both mothers and infants. FeNO was analyzed in the mothers online by the use of the handheld Niox Mino device and in the infants offline from exhaled air sampled during tidal breathing. A 33-question multiple-choice questionnaire that dealt with symptoms of allergic disease, heredity, and housing characteristics was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>FeNO levels were reduced in infants with a history of upper respiratory symptoms during the previous two weeks (p < 0.002). There was a trend towards higher FeNO levels in infants with windowpane condensation in the home (p < 0.05). There was no association between uEPX in the infants and the other studied variables.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The use of uEPX as a marker of early inflammation was not supported. FeNO levels in infants were associated to windowpane condensation. Measuring FeNO by the present method may be an interesting way of evaluating early airway inflammation. In a major population study, however, the method is difficult to use, for practical reasons.</p

Inhaled ciclesonide versus inhaled budesonide or inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled fluticasone for chronic asthma in adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is a new inhaled corticosteroids licensed for the prophylactic treatment of persistent asthma in adults. Currently beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide and fluticasone propionate are the most commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma but there has been no systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety ciclesonide to these agents. We therefore aimed to systematically review published randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness and safety of ciclesonide compared to alternative inhaled corticosteroids in people with asthma. METHODS: We performed literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, the COCHRANE LIBRARY and various Internet evidence sources for randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone or budesonide or fluticasone in adult humans with persistent asthma. Data was extracted by one reviewer. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. There were no trials comparing ciclesonide to beclomethasone. There was no significant difference between ciclesonide and budesonide or fluticasone on the following outcomes: lung function, symptoms, quality of life, airway responsiveness to a provoking agent or inflammatory markers. However, the trials were very small in size, increasing the possibility of a type II error. One trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 47% of that of budesonide while another trial demonstrated that the combined deposition of ciclesonide (and its active metabolite) in the oropharynx was 53% of that of fluticasone. One trial demonstrated less suppression of cortisol in overnight urine collection after ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (geometric mean fold difference = 1.5, P < 0.05) but no significant difference in plasma cortisol response. CONCLUSION: There is very little evidence comparing CIC to other ICS, restricted to very small, phase II studies of low power. These demonstrate CIC has similar effectiveness and efficacy to FP and BUD (though equivalence is not certain) and findings regarding oral deposition and HPA suppression are inconclusive. There is no direct comparative evidence that CIC causes fewer side effects since none of the studies reported patient-based outcomes

Inhaled corticosteroids in childhood asthma: the story continues

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of persistent asthma in children. Treatment with ICS decreases asthma mortality and morbidity, reduces symptoms, improves lung function, reduces bronchial hyperresponsiveness and reduces the number of exacerbations. The efficacy of ICS in preschool wheezing is controversial. A recent task force from the European Respiratory Society on preschool wheeze defined two different phenotypes: episodic viral wheeze, wheeze that occurs only during respiratory viral infections, and multiple-trigger wheeze, where wheeze also occurs in between viral episodes. Treatment with ICS appears to be more efficacious in the latter phenotype. Small particle ICS may offer a potential benefit in preschool children because of the favourable spray characteristics. However, the efficacy of small particle ICS in preschool children has not yet been evaluated in prospective clinical trials. The use of ICS in school children with asthma is safe with regard to systemic side effects on the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, growth and bone metabolism, when used in low to medium doses. Although safety data in wheezing preschoolers is limited, the data are reassuring. Also for this age group, adverse events tend to be minimal when the ICS is used in appropriate doses

A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75613/1/j.1365-2133.2006.07538.x.pd