Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and exercise-induced asthma in children with persistent asthma

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

Comparison of the effect of fluticasone combined with salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma: review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of fluticasone + salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Studies meeting specific selection criteria were selected from online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to evaluate the effect size of continuous variables, while rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, including 8,272 pediatric asthma patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among these, 4,133 patients were in the salmeterol + fluticasone group. The changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with asthma in the salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, WMD = 3.26, 95% CI: 1.52-5.00, P = 0.0002). Asthma exacerbation between two groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, Z = 2.18, P = 0.03). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma (P > 0.05). When the control group was treated with double dose fluticasone, the difference of changes in FEV1 and asthma exacerbation in children with asthma between the two groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is better than fluticasone alone, and the efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is equal to doubling the dose of fluticasone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

Objective: To investigate whether once-daily (OD) fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) provides greater long-term protection from postexercise fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) than twice-daily (BD) fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted in patients (aged 12-50 years) on low-/mid-dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroid. Following a 4-week run-in period (FP 250 µg BD), patients with a ≥ 20% decrease in postexercise FEV₁ received FF/VI 100/25 µg OD or FP 250 µg BD for 2 weeks. Exercise challenges were carried out 23 h after the first dose of study medication, and 12 and 23 h after evening clinic dose at the end of the 2-week treatment period. After a 2-week washout period (FP 250 µg), patients crossed over treatments, with procedures and tests repeated. The primary endpoint was mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV₁ following exercise challenge 12-h postevening dose on Day 14. Results: The mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV₁ after the 12-h exercise challenge (Day 14) was 15.02% with FF/VI, and 16.71% with FP (difference, -1.69; 95% confidence interval, -3.76 to 0.39; p = 0.109). After the 23-h exercise challenge (Day 14), respective mean maximal decreases were 11.90% and 14.05% (difference, -2.15; 95% confidence interval, -4.31 to 0.01). Conclusion: The study failed to show a difference between FF/VI and FP at providing long-term protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction update-2016

The first practice parameter on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was published in 2010. This updated practice parameter was prepared 5 years later. In the ensuing years, there has been increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EIB and improved diagnosis of this disorder by using objective testing. At the time of this publication, observations included the following: dry powder mannitol for inhalation as a bronchial provocation test is FDA approved however not currently available in the United States; if baseline pulmonary function test results are normal to near normal (before and after bronchodilator) in a person with suspected EIB, then further testing should be performed by using standardized exercise challenge or eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH); and the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (omega-3 fatty acids) has been challenged. The workgroup preparing this practice parameter updated contemporary practice guidelines based on a current systematic literature review. The group obtained supplementary literature and consensus expert opinions when the published literature was insufficient. A search of the medical literature on PubMed was conducted, and search terms included pathogenesis, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapy (both pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical) of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or exercise-induced asthma (which is no longer a preferred term); asthma; and exercise and asthma. References assessed as relevant to the topic were evaluated to search for additional relevant references. Published clinical studies were appraised by category of evidence and used to document the strength of the recommendation. The parameter was then evaluated by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent organizations, as well as the general membership. Based on this process, the parameter can be characterized as an evidence- and consensus-based document.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Pediatric exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: contemporary developments in epidemiology, pathogenesis, presentation, diagnosis, and therapy

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction is transient narrowing of the airways following strenuous exercise. It is the earliest sign of asthma and the last to resolve. EIB is found in 90 % of asthmatics and reflects underlying control of asthma. This review is focused on the contemporary developments in pediatric EIB: the epidemiology, pathogenesis, presentation, diagnosis and management. Proper diagnosis by objective pulmonary function and/or exercise challenge and therapy should allow the pediatric asthmatic to enjoy a healthy lifestyle including participation in the chosen sport.

Beta₂-agonists for exercise-induced asthma

BACKGROUND

It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on asthma management recommend the use of beta2-agonists at any stage of the disease. At present, however, no consensus has been reached about the efficacy and safety of beta2-agonists in the pretreatment of exercise-induced asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. For the purpose of the present review, both of these conditions are referred to by the acronymous EIA, independently from the presence of an underlying chronic clinical disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of inhaled short- and long-acting beta2-agonists, compared with placebo, in the pretreatment of children and adults with exercise-induced asthma (or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction).

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified by electronic searching of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meetings. Searches are current as of August 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any study design, published in full text, that assessed the effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on EIA in adults and children. We excluded studies that did not clearly state diagnostic criteria for EIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials consisting of 1139 participants. Forty-eight studies used a cross-over design, and five were performed in accordance with a parallel-group design. Forty-five studies addressed the effect of a single beta2-agonist administration, and eight focused on long-term treatment. We addressed these two different intervention regimens as different comparisons.Among primary outcomes for short-term administration, data on maximum fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed a significant protective effect for both short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -17.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) -19.51% to -15.84%, P = 0.00001, 799 participants from 72 studies). The subgroup analysis of studies performed in adults compared with those performed in children showed high heterogeneity confined to children, despite the comparable mean bronchoprotective effect.Secondary outcomes on other pulmonary function parameters confirmed a more positive and protective effect of beta2-agonists on EIA compared with placebo. Occurrence of side effects was not significantly different between beta2-agonists and placebo.Overall evaluation of the included long-term studies suggests a beta2-agonist bronchoprotective effect for the first dose of treatment. However, long-term use of both SABA and LABA induced the onset of tolerance and decreased the duration of drug effect, even after a short treatment period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of low to moderate quality shows that beta2-agonists, both SABA and LABA, when administered in a single dose, are effective and safe in preventing EIA.Long-term regular administration of inhaled beta2-agonists induces tolerance and lacks sufficient safety data. This finding appears to be of particular clinical relevance in view of the potential for prolonged regular use of beta2-agonists as monotherapy in the pretreatment of EIA, despite the warnings of drug agencies (FDA, EMA) regarding LABA.

A review of guidelines and pharmacologic options for asthma treatment, with a focus on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

Asthma affects millions of individuals worldwide. Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction is common in patients diagnosed with asthma, but may also occur in patients without chronic asthma. Patients with isolated exercise-induced bronchoconstriction may require pretreatment with inhaled short-acting β-agonists prior to exercise. Patients diagnosed with asthma can achieve good control of the symptoms of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with appropriate treatment of underlying chronic asthma. Current guidelines suggest staging patients with asthma based on severity of symptoms and initiating therapy according to their stage. Pharmacotherapy for asthma management consists of both quick-relief medications (short-acting β-agonists) as well as maintenance, or long-term control, medications (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β-agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, cromolyn, and theophylline).

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination on exercise in pediatric and adolescent patients with asthma

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to demonstrate that four weeks of fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 micrograms (mcg) combined with salmeterol 50 mcg twice daily (BID) via DISKUS(®) resulted in protection against bronchospasm induced by activity, as measured by standardized exercise challenge testing in pediatric and adolescent subjects who required regular use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of persistent asthma.

METHODS

Prior to study entry, all patients reported regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). During screening all patients demonstrated ≥20% fall in FEV(1) following exercise.

RESULTS

A total of 231 subjects aged 4 to 17 were randomized to the two study treatments: 113 to the FP/salmeterol combination group (FSC) and 118 to receive FP 100 mcg BID. Of the subjects randomized, 106 (94%) subjects in the FSC 100/50 group and 108 (92%) subjects in the FP 100 group completed the study. At the end of treatment (Week 4), both FSC and FP protected against a fall in FEV(1) following exercise in patients who at baseline experienced ≥20% fall in FEV(1) following exercise. A mean decrease in FEV(1) of 9.9% was observed in the FSC 100/50 group as compared with a mean decrease of 11.1% in the FP 100 group; there was no statistical difference between treatments.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC 100/50 and FP 100 provided protection against an exercised-induced fall in FEV(1); but statistically significant differences we not noted. Both treatments were well-tolerated over four weeks and FSC 100/50 had an adverse event profile comparable to that observed with FP 100.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.