Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Inhaled corticosteroids in clinical practice
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Inhaled corticosteroids in clinical practice

1,239
views

Published on

Inhaled corticosteroids in clinical practice …

Inhaled corticosteroids in clinical practice

Presented by Sasikarn Suesirisawad, MD.


0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,239
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
90
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sasikarn Suesirisawad, MD
  • 2.  Mechanism of action Structure of ICS PK/PD ICS comparison Device comparison Side effect Clinical response
  • 3.  Suppression of inflammation Increased expression of beta 2-receptors and enhanced coupling of beta 2-receptors to G- proteins
  • 4. Fernando M et al.Am J Respir Crit CareMed Vol 185, Iss. 1, pp 12–23, Jan 1, 2012
  • 5.  Anti-inflammatory gene activation Switching off inflammatory genes Inflammatory cell inhibition
  • 6.  2 types of glucocorticoid receptors (GR)  GR alpha  GR beta Glucocorticoid action facilitated by GR alpha, but inhibited by GR beta.
  • 7. Clark AR et al.J Endocrinol.
  • 8.  Increased beta 2-agonist effects. Protection from down-regulation of beta 2- receptors that associated with long-term beta 2-agonist used. Reversal or prevention of uncoupling of beta 2-receptors from G proteins Nino G et al. JACI
  • 9. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 10. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 11. Johnson M et al. JACI. 1996;97(1 Pt 2):169.
  • 12. Franklin Cerasoli et al. Chest 2006;130;54S-64S
  • 13. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 14. Stuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000
  • 15.  BDP and ciclesonide are prodrugs. Advantage of prodrugs can be minimization of oropharyngeal adverse effects because parent compound that inhaled through inhalation device is not active. Ciclesonide metabolized to des-CIC through cytosolic esterases in airways Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 16.  Dexamethasone has binding affinity of 100 MF: the highest receptor affinity with 2200 FP: 1800 Beclomethasone monopropionate: 1345 Des-CIC: 1200 Budesonide: 935 Triamcinolone acetonide: 233 Flunisolide: 180 BDP: 53 Ciclesonide: 12 Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 17.  Pulmonary bioavailability of ICS is rate and extent drug reaches its site of action Systemic bioavailability shows rate and extent of drug that reaches blood(correlates with adverse effects) High pulmonary bioavailability and low oral bioavailability desired. Oral bioavailability depends on delivery device used. Oral bioavailability can be determined by measuring plasma levels or amount of drug excreted in urine over specific period.  Belomethasone-17-monopropionate : 26%.  Flunisolide: 7%.  FP & ciclesonide: < 1%  MF: <1%, 11% Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am ( ) –
  • 18. Stuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000
  • 19. Franklin Cerasoli et al. Chest 2006;130;54S-64S
  • 20. Franklin Cerasoli et al. Chest 2006;130;54S-64S
  • 21. Franklin Cerasoli et al. Chest 2006;130;54S-64S
  • 22. Zia R Tayab et al. Expert opin. Drug Deliv. (2005) 2(3):519-532
  • 23. Budesonide BeclomethasoneFluticasone
  • 24. Stuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000
  • 25.  Depends on several factors 1. physical properties of agent (density, hygroscopy charge, velocity) 2. particle size and shape of inhaled drug 3. delivery device 4. technique Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am25 2005 469-488
  • 26. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am25 2005 469-488
  • 27. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am25 2005 469-488
  • 28. Melanie Hubner et al. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am25 2005 469-488
  • 29.  3 types Small volume nebulizer (SVN) Metered-dose inhaler (MDI) Dry powder inhaler (DPI) Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 30. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 31. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 32. Mestitz H et al. Chest 1989;96:1237-1240
  • 33. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 34. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Aerosol doses are generally smaller  Lung deposition is relatively low than systemic doses. fraction of total dose. Onset of effect is faster than oral.  Correct breathing pattern & use of device can affect lung deposition. Drug delivered directly to lung, minimal systemic exposure.  Difficulty coordinating hand action and inhalation with MDIs. Systemic side effects are less frequent and severe.  Lack of knowledge of use of devices. Less painful and comfortable.  Number and variability of device types confuses pts and clinicians. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 35. Rau JL Jr. Respiratory care pharmacology, 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002: 39
  • 36. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, Expert Panel II: Guidelines for diagnosis and management of asthma, Bethesda, MD; 1997. National Institutes of Health.
  • 37. ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE Aerosolize many drug solution.  Treatment may range from 5-25 min. Aerosolize drug mixture (>1 drug)  Equipment required may be large and Minimal pt cooperation cumbersome. Useful in very young, very old, distressed pt  Need for power source. Drug concentration and dose can be  Potential drug delivery into eye with face modified. mask. Normal breathing pattern can be used and  Variability in performance characteristics breath-hold is not required for efficacy among different types, brand and model.  Assembly and cleaning are required.  Contamination is possible. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 38. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 39. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 40. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 41. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 42. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 43. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 44. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 45. ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE  Hand-breath coordination required Portable, light, compact  Fixed drug concentration and doses Multiple dose convenience  Reaction to propellant Short treatment time  FB aspiration from debris-filled Reproducible emitted doses mouthpiece  High oropharyngeal deposition No drug preparation required  Difficult to determine dose Difficult to contamination remaining in canister without dose counter Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 46. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 47. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 48. ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE Reduce mouth/throat drug  Large and cumbersome compared impaction and loss to pMDI alone Increase inhaled drug by 2-4 times  More expensive and bulky than pMDI alone  Some assembly may be needed Allow use pMDI when pt is short of  Pt error in firing multiple puffs into breath chamber prior to inhaling or delay No drug preparation between actuation and inhalation Simplifies coordination pMDI  Possible contamination with actuation and inhalantion inadequate cleaning Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 49. Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 50. Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Turbuhaler DishkhalerEasyhaler Accuhaler Swinghaler
  • 51. ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE Small and portable  Dependence on pt’s inspiratory flow  Pt less aware of delivered dose Built-in dose counter  Relatively high oropharyngeal Propellant free impaction. Breath-actuated  Vulnerable to ambient humidity or Short preparation and exhaled humidity into mouthpiece administration time  Different DPIs with different drug  Easy for pt to confuse direction Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 52.  Failure to coordinate MDI actuation on inhalation Too short period of breath hold after inhalation Too rapid inspiratory flow rate Inadequate shaking/mixing before use Abrupt discontinuation of inspiration as aerosol hits throat Firing MDI multiple times during single inhalation Firing MDI into mouth but inhaling through nose Exhaling during actuation Putting wrong end of inhaler in mouth Holding canister in wrong position Failing to remove cap before use Excessive use of MDI beyond rated capacity (loss of dose count) Wasting of remaining doses Lack of adequate hand strength or flexibility to activate MDI McFadden ER Jr. JACI 1995;96:278-283.
  • 53.  Incorrect assembly of add-on device Failure to remove electrostatic charge in many holding chambers/spacers Lengthy delay between MDI actuation and inhalation from holding chamber/spacer Inhaling too rapidly Firing multiple puffs into holding chamber/spacer before inhaling Wildhaber JH et al. Thorax -
  • 54.  Not holding device correctly while loading dose Exhaling through mouthpiece Not exhaling to residual volume before inhaling Not inhaling forcefully Inadequate or no breath hold Exhaling into mouthpiece after inhaling Use of multi-dose reservoir designs (eg, Turbuhaler) in high ambient humidity which can reduce fine particle dose Melani AS et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;93:439-446.
  • 55.  Failure to assemble equipment properly Spillage of dose by tilting some nebulizers Failure to keep mouthpiece in mouth during nebulization Failure to mouth breathe Deborah et al. American Association for respiratory care 2011
  • 56.  Dysphonia  The most common complaint is of hoarse voice  May occur > 50 % of pts using MDI. Thrush  Mouth should be rinse discarded Cough and throat irritation  accompanied by reflex bronchoconstriction, given via MDIs. rectified by switching to DPI. Unusual local complications: perioral dermatitis, tongue hypertrophy, increased thirst. Roland NJ et al. Chest. 2004;126(1)213
  • 57.  Growth deceleration  Growth retardation may ccurs with low to medium doses depending on ICS and delivery system.  Velocity reduced in the first 6 mo-1 yr of therapy and then returns to normal.  Effect is generally small (1–2 cm total) and no evidence of ‘catch-up’ growth, predicted adult height is not affectedStuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000
  • 58. Brian J et al. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:941-955
  • 59.  Intraocular pressure  Increase risk of glucoma Cataracts  Risk factor for posterior subcapsular cataract Gonzalez AV et al.Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Pelkonen A et al. JACI.2008;122(4):832.
  • 60.  Skin change and bruising  dose dependent at high daily doses Adverse airway effects  No evidence for atrophy of airway epithelium Infection  High dose ICS increase risk activation of TB  No increase risk pneumonia Psychiatric effect  Psychiatric disturbance Pierre Ernst et al. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2012, 18:85–89 Stuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000
  • 61.  Step down treatment to the lowest possible dose of ICS that maintains symptom control. Increase medication frequency while decreasing daily dose . Optimize compliance Optimize delivery (use spacer in adults, spacer and facemask in children) Evaluate and treat for complicating features of asthma Maximize nonpharmacologic treatment (eg, trigger avoidance)
  • 62.  Improvement  Symptoms: the first 1–2 wks and max in 4–8 wks.  LFT: 1–2 wk and plateau at 4 wk but may increase slightly thereafter for 6–8 wk.  BHR: 2–3 wk and max in 1–3 mo but may continue to improve over 1 yr  FeNO: max decrease within 1 wk  Decreases Sensitivity to exercise challenge: 4 wksStuart W. Stoloff et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011, 11:000–000