Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;326:1367 (21 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1367
John Berth-Jones, consultant dermatologist1, Robert J Damstra, dermatologist2, Stefan Golsch, dermatologist3, John K Livden, associate professor4, Oliver Van Hooteghem, head of department of dermatology5, Fulvio Allegra, director6, Christine A Parker, director, clinical development and medical affairs7, on behalf of a multinational study group
1 Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry CV2 2DX, 2 Ziekenhuis Nij Smellinghe, Compagnonsplein 1, 9202 NN Drachten, Netherlands, 3 Praxis Dr Golsch, Bayerstrasse 45, D-80335 Munich, Germany, 4 Hudpoliklinikken, Teatergaten 37, N-5010 Bergen, Norway, 5 Clinique Ste Elisabeth, Place Louise Godin 15, B-5000 Namur, Belgium, 6 Institute of Medical and Surgical Dermatology, University of Parma, I-43100 Parma, Italy, 7 GlaxoSmithKline, Research and Development, Greenford, Middlesex UB6 0HE
J Berth-Jones johnberthjones{at}aol.com
Design Randomised, double blind, parallel group study of 20 weeks' duration.
Setting Dermatology outpatient clinics (6 countries, 39 centres).
Participants Adult (aged 12-65) patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis who were experiencing a flare.
Methods Participants applied fluticasone propionate (0.05% cream or 0.005% ointment; once or twice daily) regularly for four weeks to stabilise their condition. The patients whose disease was brought under control then continued into a 16 week maintenance phase, applying emollient on a daily basis with a bath oil as needed and either the same formulation of fluticasone propionate or its placebo base (emollient alone) twice weekly to the areas that were usually affected.
Main outcome measure Time to relapse of atopic dermatitis during maintenance phase.
Results 376 patients entered the stabilisation phase, and 295 continued into the maintenance phase. After 16 weeks in the maintenance phase, the disease remained under control in 133 patients (87 using fluticasone propionate twice weekly, 46 using emollient alone), 135 (40 fluticasone propionate, 95 emollient) had experienced a relapse, and 27 had discontinued. Median time to relapse was six weeks for emollient alone compared with more than 16 weeks for additional fluticasone propionate. Patients who applied fluticasone propionate cream twice weekly were 5.8 times less likely (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 10.8, P < 0.001) and patients using fluticasone propionate ointment 1.9 times less likely (1.2 to 3.2, P=0.010) to have a relapse than patients applying emollient alone. The groups showed no differences in adverse events.
Conclusion After atopic dermatitis had been stabilised the addition of fluticasone propionate twice weekly to maintenance treatment with emollients significantly reduced the risk of relapse.
In the United Kingdom both the ointment and the cream formulations of fluticasone propionate are classified as potent topical corticosteroids. Fluticasone propionate is a newer type of topical corticosteroids and has high topical anti-inflammatory effects and a low potential to cause adverse effects because of low systemic absorption and rapid metabolism and clearance.59 This trial aimed to evaluate further the use of fluticasone propionate twice weekly as part of an emollient based maintenance regimen in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.
Treatments
Initially the flare was stabilised with fluticasone propionate cream 0.05%
or fluticasone propionate ointment 0.005%, once or twice daily, for four
weeks. Patients who achieved remission (see assessments) then entered a
maintenance phase and, using the same formulation as in the stabilisation
phase, applied fluticasone propionate or its placebo base on two successive
evenings per week for up to 16 weeks. They applied treatment to all healed
sites of potential relapse and any newly occurring sites. In addition,
patients in both treatment groups routinely applied emollient twice daily
(once on treatment days) and used a bath oil as needed.
Assessments
Atopic dermatitis was assessed by using the three item severity (TIS) score
(the sum of three signs: erythema, oedema or papulations, and excoriations;
each scored 0=absent, 1=mild, 2=moderate, or
3=severe).11 We
defined a flare or relapse as a score of 4 or higher. At the start of the
study, for recruitment purposes, an index lesion was assessed, but during the
maintenance phase a flare occurring at any site was to be assessed. We defined
remission or control as an index lesion score of 1 or lower. Patients were
assessed every two weeks in the stabilisation phase and after two, six, 10,
and 16 weeks in the maintenance phase. At each visit patients were questioned
about adverse events, and the investigator recorded these. In addition
patients had regular examinations for visual evidence of skin atrophy.
Analysis
The primary end point was the time to relapse of atopic dermatitis during
the maintenance phase. We used regression analysis to compare treatment
groups, using terms for country, frequency of treatment in the stabilisation
phase, age, and sex. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate
the distribution of time to relapse of atopic dermatitis, and we calculated
summary statistics such as median time to relapse and proportions of patients
who were relapse free from the estimates. We also determined the secondary end
point, the proportion of patients with controlled atopic dermatitis at the end
of the stabilisation phase.
The table shows results for the primary end point. For the cream formulation we found a significant (P < 0.001) difference in time to relapse of atopic dermatitis during the maintenance phase, with a hazard ratio of 5.8 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 10.8). The median time to relapse on twice weekly fluticasone propionate exceeded 16 weeks (the duration of the study), whereas on emollient alone it was 6.1 weeks (fig 1).
|
For the ointment formulation, the difference that treatment made was also significant (P=0.010), with a hazard ratio of 1.9 (1.2 to 3.2). The median times to relapse on ointment were similar to the times achieved on cream (table and fig 2).
|
|
In comparison with fluticasone propionate cream twice weekly, more patients applying fluticasone propionate ointment twice weekly had experienced a relapse by 16 weeks (19% v 40%). The difference between the two formulations was significant (P=0.002), with a hazard ratio of 2.9 (1.5 to 5.9). Only seven patients (six using emollient alone) experienced a relapse at a new site.
Analysis of data from the stabilisation phase showed no significant difference between application once and twice daily (P=0.546 for fluticasone propionate cream and P=0.249 for fluticasone propionate ointment).
Adverse events
The most common adverse event was ear, nose, and throat infection, which
occurred in nine subjects during the stabilisation phase. Four adverse events
were classified as serious (an episode of erysipelas, an exacerbation of
asthma, and two flares of eczema). There was only one newly observed visual
sign of skin atrophy related to study treatment, and this was during the
stabilisation phase.
All treatment regimens were equally well tolerated, with only one reported drug related visual skin change (telangiectasia during the stabilisation phase) over 20 weeks. Previous studies have shown that fluticasone propionate has low atrophogenic potential and does not significantly affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis 49 although we did not assess these in this study.
|
This is the first study to compare both fluticasone propionate cream and ointment in one clinical trial. Although the concentrations of the two preparations differed they were specifically formulated to show equivalent potency as determined by the established vasoconstrictor assay.12 However this may not totally reflect performance in treating healed and active lesions of atopic dermatitis. In addition, although ointments are generally thought to be more effective than creams because of their occlusive properties, which enhance drug penetration, patients often find them messier to use and less cosmetically acceptable than creams.13 14 This may well have affected patients' compliance with the ointment; we monitored adherence to treatment by means of patients' daily diaries, but tube weights were not recorded. The unexpected difference between formulations requires further investigation.
This treatment regimen for fluticasone propionate may paradoxically be steroid sparing in patients with atopic dermatitis. It produces longer remission periods and should therefore reduce the number of acute, intensive courses of treatment with topical corticosteroids that are often required to control flares. In addition, by maintaining remission in the longer term, application of fluticasone propionate twice weekly will be limited mainly to previously healed sites, which are less permeable than inflamed lesions, and so the overall exposure to topical corticosteroids will be reduced even further. The use of the simple three item score system for monitoring the severity of atopic dermatitis will help doctors in deciding the best time to implement the twice weekly maintenance treatment. Whether or not this maintenance treatment strategy can be applied to other topical corticosteroids of lower potency remains to be established.
This is an abridged
version; the full version is on
bmj.com The authors thank the following investigators who recruited patients and took part in this study (Study FLTB4012): Belgium: M Creusot, J Delescluse, P-D Ghislain, S Henne, A Henrijean, N Kiesch, J Lambert, K Lapiere, A-F Leclerc, B Leroy, L Monbaliu, V Reding, M Song, J De Weert. Germany: E Christophers, M L Gruppi, W Kloevekorn, L Malek, M Meurer, T Ruzicka, G Wozel. Italy: P Barachini, A Garcovich, M Gatti, R Gianfaldoni, A Giannetti, G Micali, M L Musumeci, A Pompili, M B Santoni, A Sapuppo, S Seidenari, A G Di Stefano. Netherlands: L H van Bergen, P J M J Bessems, N H C M N Crombag, H J L van Gerwen, M I Koedam, G R R Kuiters, J C C A Lambers, A P Oranje, R L M A Prevoo, H B Thio, K H Tjiam, A Wolkerstorfer. Norway: L Aulie, J Austad, L I Hanssen, T Langeland, N-J Mork. United Kingdom: S Agarwal, G Barclay, J N Barker, S Blackford, J E Bothwell, R Burd, G J Charlwood, G Charlwood, M M Chowdhury, A C Chu, S Davison, H P Drewitt, L C Fuller, R A C Graham-Brown, S A Hall, K Jackson, J E Mellerio, G Osborne, O M V Schofield, C H Smith, A Takwale, C P S Thorpe, B P Wood.
Contributors: See bmj.com
Funding: Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) R & D, United Kingdom.
Competing interests: CP is employed full time by GlaxoSmithKline.
Ethical approval: The study was approved by appropriate local research ethics committees.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses