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.
If side effects are important, why are we so ignorant of the dose inhaled?
Inhaled steroids play an extremely important part in
the treatment of asthma. They are now regarded as the first line
prophylactic drug for adults1 and are used by many as a
first line prophylactic agent for children. Important side effects are
rarely seen in users of low dose inhaled steroids, but there is concern
over the potential effects of high dose inhaled steroids. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has recently concluded that clinically important
systemic adverse effects can occur at licensed doses of inhaled
corticosteroids,2 the risks being increased after prolonged high dose therapy. Effects mentioned included adrenal suppression, osteoporosis or changes in bone mineral density, growth
retardation in children, cataracts, and glaucoma. A major problem in
trying to identify possible side effects Studies on the effect of inhaled steroids usually quote the prescribed
dose. This is simply the strength of inhaler times the number of doses
a patient is taking. For example, two actuations of a 100 µg
strength (the nominal dose per actuation) metered dose inhaler twice
daily is 400 µg/day. Marketing inhalers of different strengths and
not making clear which is which on the label is forbidden by the
Medicines Control Agency. However, when nebuliser and spacer devices
are used the prescribed dose may bear little resemblance to the dose
actually available for the patient to inhale In the United Kingdom drug delivery devices made outside pharmaceutical
companies may be marketed without a licence and sold to the general
public. The manufacturers of such devices do not have to provide
information on the amount of drug the patient is likely to receive when
using their device, and pharmaceutical companies are required to
provide information on drug delivery devices only if they recommend a
specific device for their product.
The type of device used may affect the delivery of inhaled steroids.
For instance, beclomethasone dipropionate administered by nebulisation
actually delivered a fraction of a similar nominal dose delivered by
large volume spacer.3 Major differences in the dose
inhaled may also occur between devices of the same class. We have
recently found that the dose of budesonide a 10 year old patient may
inhale from a "breath enhanced, open vent" nebuliser is four times
that available from an "open vent" device and twice that available
from a conventional nebuliser (unpublished). Parents buying a nebuliser
will be totally unaware that the dose of steroid their child will
inhale may vary by a factor of four depending on their choice of nebuliser.
The effect of the drug delivery device used on the level of side
effects is rarely taken into account when evaluating side effects. In
many published studies it is not clear how patients took their
medication. For example, a recent study identified a possible
association between the use of inhaled steroids and the development of
posterior subcapsular and nuclear cataracts.4 Higher
cumulative lifetime doses of beclomethasone dipropionate were
associated with higher risks of posterior subcapsular cataracts, the
highest prevalence (27%) being found in subjects whose lifetime dose
was over 2000 mg. It would be of interest, and reassuring, to know
whether patients using a spacer device had a lower incidence of side
effects. Spacer devices used with pressurised metered dose inhalers
reduce oropharyngeal deposition of aerosolised steroids,5 and hence the total body dose, without affecting the dose delivered to
the airways. Their use has been documented to reduce
hypothalamic-pituitary axis suppression by beclomethasone
dipropionate,6 and the British asthma guidelines recommend
their use for the delivery of inhaled steroids.
Without information on the likely dose of drug inhaled, the results of
clinical trials may also be misinterpreted.7 If more than
one type of nebuliser or spacer is used in a trial the results should
not be pooled as patients will probably have received different doses.
The practice of subjecting patients to the risks and inconvenience of a
clinical trial without taking the confounding effect of different drug
delivery devices into account should be questioned. Similarly,
regulatory authorities should review the information required of the
manufacturers of drugs and drug delivery devices about the delivery of
inhaled steroids. This may help in interpreting trial data for
therapeutic effect and possible side effects. Advisory bodies on asthma
management may also be able to give more informed information to both
prescribers and patients.
Although significant side effects are apparently rare in users of low
dose inhaled steroids, information on the dose of drug inhaled is of
therapeutic importance. Patients are being prescribed inhaled steroids
at younger ages, and lifetime doses may greatly exceed those reported
in the current literature. Current advice remains that the dose of
inhaled steroid, whatever the delivery device, should be titrated to
the lowest dose at which effective control of asthma is maintained.
Department of Child Health, Leicester Royal Infirmary,
Leicester LE2 7LX
and, indeed, in assessing
clinical trials of inhaled steroids
is determining the amount of drug
patients have actually inhaled. Compliance and inhaler technique vary
considerably, but even when these are optimal the dose of drug inhaled
may vary by up to fourfold without the patient, prescriber, researcher,
or regulator being aware.
the received dose.
Peter Barry
© BMJ 1999
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+