IngentaConnect Proventil HFA Provides Protection from Exercise-Induced Bronchoco...

Abstract:

Introduction: During the 1970s, scientists suggested that the growing use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was contributing to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer with potentially harmful results. A committee on the ozone layer organized the preparation of the Montreal Protocol. This protocol mandated the cessation of production and use of CFCs by January 1, 1996. The primary exemption to this ban is for the use of CFCs as propellants in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma. Suitable replacement hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellants, such as HFA-134a, for use in MDIs have been identified. Albuterol, a selective beta-adrenergic agonist, currently widely available for inhalation asthma therapy, has been reformulated in HFA-134a (Proventil HFA).

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Proventil HFA to Ventolin, Proventil, and placebo (HFA-134a) MDI in protecting asthmatic patients from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Methods: This was a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover study of asthmatic patients with documented exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Twenty patients self-administered two puffs of either Proventil HFA, Ventolin, Proventil or placebo, from an MDI, 30 minutes prior to performing a standardized exercise challenge at the study site. Spirometry was performed predose and 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after completion of the exercise challenge. Heart rate and blood pressure were measured just prior to spirometry and a 12-lead ECG was performed 15 minutes after completion of the exercise challenge for measurement of the QT corrected interval.

Results: The primary efficacy variable was the smallest percent change from the predose FEV₁ following exercise. The smallest percent change from predose FEV₁ for Proventil HFA was 2.0 +/- 9.9 SD, similar to the 2.0 +/- 11.4 SD for Ventolin, and the 3.6 +/- 10.2 SD for Proventil. The smallest percent change from predose FEV₁ for each of the active treatments was significantly difference from placebo, -23.7 +/- 14.5. Twelve of the patients had a >/= 20% fall in FEV₁ postexercise with placebo pretreatment, but only 1, 1, and 0 had >/=20% FEV₁ falls after treatment with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, and Proventil respectively. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and QT corrected interval were similar for the three active treatments following exercise.

Conclusions: Proventil HFA provides protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction comparable to Ventolin and Proventil and protection superior to placebo. Proventil HFA has a safety profile similar to Ventolin when used to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Proventil HFA Provides Protection from Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction Comparable to Proventil and Ventolin