A study on the clinical equivalence and patient preference of fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily via the Diskus/Accuhaler inhaler or the Diskhaler inhaler in adult asthmatic patients

New developments in inhaler devices within pharmaceutical companies: A systematic review of the impact on clinical outcomes and patient preferences

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies offer an increasing number of inhaler devices, whether or not together with new substances, for maintenance treatment of patients with COPD or asthma. However, well-designed studies to support these developments are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research was to evaluate how far new developments of inhaler devices are scientifically supported and translate into improvements of patient preferences and/or clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve randomised controlled trials in patients with COPD or asthma that studied the in-company evolution of inhaler devices. Results were tabulated and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were found comparing Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®), Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)) vs. Diskhaler(®)(Rotadisk(®)) or pMDI, Ellipta(®) vs. Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)), Nexthaler(®) vs. pMDI, or Breezhaler(®) vs. Aerolizer(®). These studies show that developments of inhaler devices may improve patient satisfaction but do not lead to demonstrable improvements in clinical efficacy. Current changes of devices are most commonly parallelled by changes in administration frequency towards once daily treatment. The only well-documented effect was found for the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler, which realises a more than 3-fold lowering of the once-daily tiotropium dose through increased performance of the inhaler device. There are however, no data on clinical efficacy or safety comparing the two devices at the same dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Future developments of inhaler devices should all require well-designed studies to demonstrate patient benefit.

Fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma.2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one published and unpublished trials (representing 55 group comparisons, 10,797 participants) met the inclusion criteria. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids, FP did not exhibit a dose-response effect in the lower dose comparisons in FEV1 (50mcg, 100mcg, 200mcg and 4-500mcg daily). There were no statisitically significant differences between 4-500mcg and 800-1000mcg, and between 50-100 and 800-1000mcg of FP. When 200mcg was compared with 800-1000mcg daily FEV1 favoured the four/five fold increase. For PEF, a dose response was present with FP when low and moderate, and low and high doses of FP were compared. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence of a pronounced dose response in FEV1 with increasing doses of fluticasone. The number of studies contributing to our primary outcomes was low. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are statistically significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Comparison between compliance of fluticasone propionate diskhaler and of fluticasone propionate diskus in adult bronchial asthma patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Because inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) play a central role in the management of asthma, new drug delivery systems for fluticasone propionate, Diskhaler (FPdh) and Diskus (FPdk), were developed. However, few studies have focused on compliance with these drug delivery systems, which can influence drug efficacy. Hence, we compared compliance with FPdk versus that with FPdh.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a survey of pharmacists dispensing anti-asthmatic drugs to adult asthma patients who visited participating pharmacies between October 2002 and November 2003. Patients were limited to regular users of FPdh or FPdk whose medication had not been changed for >6 months before the survey. Compliance and daily administration frequency of ICS were evaluated on the basis of pharmaceutical records. Data on asthma status and various other factors affecting ICS compliance were obtained by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Data were acquired on 337 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, age, and duration between the FPdk and FPdh groups. Although FPdk compliance was significantly higher than that of FPdh, conversely there was no significant difference in daily dose and administration frequency between the 2 groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the rate of concomitant drug and in various influencing factors associated with drug compliance. Regarding compliance of concomitant drug, that of oral sustained-released theophylline was significantly lower in FPdk versus FPdh users.

CONCLUSION

In the area of drug compliance, FPdk is superior to FPdh. Although the reason for this is unclear, it is probably due to the characteristics of FPdk itself.

Patient satisfaction with budesonide Turbuhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in a managed care setting

Dissatisfaction with medication may negatively affect compliance and thus the effectiveness of the treatment. However, no prospective well-controlled studies have assessed the relative patient satisfaction with competing inhaled corticosteroids in a real-life setting. The objective of the current study was to compare the relative patient satisfaction with budesonide inhalation powder administered via Turbuhaler (AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE) (200 to 1600 microg/d using one of 3 dosing strengths: 100, 200, or 400 microg per inhalation) and triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (200 to 1600 microg/d) among persons treated in managed care settings. A total of 945 subjects 18 years of age or older diagnosed with asthma and enrolled in 25 managed care organizations participated in this prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-month study. As part of the study, subjects completed a self-administered, 17-item patient satisfaction questionnaire that addressed 4 domains: side effects, knowledge/ease of use, convenience, and overall satisfaction. Questionnaire reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and validity was examined by correlating subscale scores with symptom-free days and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. The satisfaction questionnaire also included a previously validated section addressing patient compliance. Patients receiving budesonide had significantly higher scores for all four satisfaction subscales throughout the study period than did those receiving triamcinolone acetonide. Similarly, compliance scores were consistently higher for the budesonide group. The difference between the treatment groups in overall satisfaction scores at the end of the study was clinically meaningful. Patients treated with budesonide were significantly more satisfied and compliant with their inhaled corticosteroid regimen compared with patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide.

Inhaled fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. 2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2005) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using RevMan (Analyses 1.0.2).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three studies (45 data sets with 8913 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was high. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids a dose-response effect was present with FP for change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). For low doses (100 versus 200 microg/day) the weighted mean difference (WMD) was 6.29 litres/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.28 to 10.29. Comparing medium (400 to 500 microg/day) to low dose (200 microg/day) FP the WMD was 6.46 litres/min (95% CI 3.02 to 9.89); this effect was more pronounced in one trial with more severely asthmatic children. For FP 100 versus 400 to 500 microg/day the WMD was 8 litres/min (95% CI 1 to 15) and at high versus low doses (800 to 1000 versus 50 to 100 microg/d) the WMD was 22 litres/min (95% CI 15 to 29). When high and medium doses were compared there was no significant difference in the change in morning PEF: at 400 to 500 versus 800 to 1000 microg/day the WMD was 0.16 litres/min (95% CI 6.95 to 6.63). There was no dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effects of fluticasone are dose dependent but relatively small. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids

A randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and tolerability of salmeterol 25 microg/fluticasone propionate 125 microg (two puffs, twice daily) delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and salmeterol 50microg/fluticasone propionate 250 microg (one puff, twice daily) delivered via a Diskus inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included evening PEF, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, day and night symptom scores, rescue medication and patient self-evaluation of efficacy. Safety was assessed according to adverse events recorded. Both treatments were equipotent and significantly improved morning PEF (HFA-MDI 40 l/min; Diskus 42 l/min; p < 0.05) and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05) from baseline, over 1-4 weeks. Similarly, both treatments were well tolerated. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via an HFA-MDI or Diskus inhaler provides a choice of efficacious delivery systems in Chinese patients whose asthma is poorly controlled on ICSs alone.

Development and validation of a patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire for inhalation devices

INTRODUCTION

The Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) is a multi-item measure of respiratory inhalation device satisfaction and preference designed to be easily understood and administered to patients with asthma and COPD. This study assessed its validity, reliability and responsiveness and explored the between-group difference in PASAPQ scores that is meaningful.

METHODS

The field test version was developed using literature, focus groups and expert opinion. Item reduction followed. The assessment of the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the PASAPQ utilized data from two clinical studies comparing devices delivering the same medication, and was performed with pre-specified criteria. A minimally important difference (MID) was estimated using both anchor- and distribution-based approaches.

RESULTS

Two factors of the PASAPQ, 'performance' and 'convenience', were consistent across studies. Missing and out-of-range data were minimal (<1%) and respondents used a full range of response options. All items correlated most highly with their hypothesized scale and all exceeded the minimum correlation criteria of 0.40. Cronbach's alfa was high (0.87-0.94), providing support for internal reliability for the PASAPQ. Correlations of the overall satisfaction item with the performance domain ranged from 0.78 to 0.91, the convenience domain ranged from 0.54 to 0.71, and the total score ranged from 0.78 to 0.90. These moderate-to-strong correlations provide substantial support for the validity of the PASAPQ domains and total score. Discriminate validity was assessed by calculating PASAPQ scores for patients' ratings of the device that they preferred compared with the other, non-preferred device. The preferred device was rated higher on all satisfaction measures, supporting the ability of the PASAPQ to discriminate between preferred and non-preferred devices. Although a difference of 3 or 4 points may be sufficient to observe a small effect difference between groups, most of the MID estimates were in the 8-10 point range.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our analyses across asthma, COPD and patients with mixed respiratory disease (with features of both COPD and asthma), study designs and data sets lead us to conclude that the PASAPQ is a practical, valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring respiratory device satisfaction. Furthermore, a difference in satisfaction scores between treatment groups of 10 points is, conservatively, a difference that is meaningful to patients.

Time course of action of two inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate and budesonide

BACKGROUND

It is important to be able to compare the efficacy and systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids but their slow onset of action makes it difficult to measure the maximum response to a given dose. Submaximal responses could be compared if the time course of action of the inhaled corticosteroids being compared was similar. We have compared the time course of action of fluticasone and budesonide, measuring response as change in the provocative dose of adenosine monophosphate causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PD20AMP).

METHODS

Eighteen subjects with mild asthma, aged 18-65, took part in a three way randomised crossover study. Subjects took fluticasone (1500 microg/day), budesonide (1600 microg/day), and placebo each for 4 weeks with a washout period of at least 2 weeks between treatments; PD20AMP and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were measured during and after treatment. The time taken to achieve 50% of the maximum response (T50%) was compared as a measure of onset of action.

RESULTS

There was a progressive increase in PD20AMP during the 4 weeks of treatment with both fluticasone and budesonide but not placebo; the increase after 1 and 4 weeks was 2.28 and 4.50 doubling doses (DD) for fluticasone and 2.49 and 3.65 DD for budesonide. T50% was 9.3 days for fluticasone and 7.5 days for budesonide with a median difference between fluticasone and budesonide of 0.1 days (95% CI -1.4 to 2.65). There was a wide range of response to both inhaled corticosteroids but good correlation between the response to fluticasone and budesonide within subjects. FEV1 and morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) increased during the first week of both active treatments and were stable thereafter. There was a small progressive improvement in nocturnal symptoms with both active treatments.

CONCLUSION

PD20AMP was a more sensitive marker of response to inhaled corticosteroid therapy than FEV1 and PEFR. The time course of action of fluticasone and budesonide on PD20AMP is similar, suggesting that comparative studies of their efficacy using 1 or 2 week treatment periods are valid. When a new inhaled corticosteroid becomes available, a pilot study comparing its time course of action with that of an established corticosteroid should allow comparative studies to be performed more efficiently.

The influence of inhaler selection on efficacy of asthma therapies

Many different devices are available to aid inhalational drug delivery. Although each device is claimed to have advantages over its rivals, the evidence to support greater efficacy of a particular device is scanty. Most comparative studies are underpowered or flawed in their design. They may use inappropriate end-points, or involve healthy subjects, whose response may be very different from the patient with acute severe asthma. The dosage of drug used in a trial may be at the shallow part of the dose-response curve, masking differences in devices. Only in a few cases have clinical trials detected a significant difference between devices, and trials have rarely taken patient preference into account. The most efficacious device in practice is likely to be the one that the patient will use regularly and in accordance with a health care workers' recommendations.

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist (beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist) as the preferred maintenance therapy for moderate and severe persistent asthma. Advair/Seretide Diskus also registered as Accuhaler is fixed-dose salmeterol (a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist) and fluticasone propionate (a corticosteroid) administered via a single powder inhalation device. The clinical effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with persistent asthma symptoms has been established in comparative clinical trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, based on data from these clinical trials, have been conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in various countries. In patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was associated with more favourable (lower) cost-effectiveness ratios than fluticasone propionate monotherapy, oral montelukast plus inhaled fluticasone propionate, inhaled budesonide, and inhaled formoterol plus budesonide. As the initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was cost effective relative to montelukast monotherapy. Although the total cost of asthma management tended to be slightly higher with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than with fluticasone propionate or montelukast monotherapy, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate consistently had a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of per successfully treated week or symptom-free day and/or was associated with small incremental costs to achieve significant additional clinical benefits. In clinical practice, salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate was associated with lower asthma-related costs than treatment with other maintenance therapies.In patients with asthma symptoms despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores relative to salmeterol or placebo monotherapy, in emotional function domain scores relative to fluticasone propionate or budesonide, and in asthma symptoms domain scores relative to budesonide. In patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall AQLQ scores compared with fluticasone propionate or montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate administered via a single inhaler represents a cost-effective treatment option (relative to fluticasone propionate at the same nominal dosage, budesonide, formoterol plus budesonide and montelukast plus fluticasone propionate) in patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroid therapy. In patients with asthma not controlled with short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a cost effective treatment relative to monotherapy with montelukast. Importantly, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with improvements in health-related quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 250 microg administered once daily in patients with persistent asthma treated with or without inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown fluticasone propionate (FP) 100, 200, and 500 microg administered once daily to be effective in the treatment of asthma. The efficacy of a once daily regimen of FP 250 microg has not been evaluated previously.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled FP 250 microg administered once daily in patients currently receiving inhaled short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) alone or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

METHODS

In two separate studies, 408 patients in the SABA study and 401 patients in the ICS study were randomly assigned to receive FP 250 microg or placebo for 12 weeks through the Diskus device (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) each morning.

RESULTS

At the study endpoint, SABA patients treated with FP and placebo had mean increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline of 0.23 +/- 0.03 L and 0.10 +/- 0.03 L, respectively (P < 0.001). ICS patients treated with FP had a mean increase of 0.08 +/- 0.02 L compared with a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of -0.08 +/- 0.03 L with placebo (P < 0.001). Changes of similar magnitude in morning peak expiratory flow rates were seen with FP in both the SABA and ICS studies. Fewer FP-treated ICS study patients were withdrawn from the study as a result of predetermined asthma stability criteria and, therefore, those patients had a greater probability of remaining in the study than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FP 250 microg, once daily, produced greater improvements in pulmonary function and asthma symptom control than placebo. This new treatment regimen provides clinicians with an additional therapeutic option for patients with asthma previously treated with either beta2-agonists alone or ICS.

Combination therapy with inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids: a paradigm shift in asthma management

Long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids are classes of drugs with different mechanisms of action that are commonly used to provide effective long-term control of persistent asthma. Scientific and clinical data support the complementary mechanisms of action of the inhaled corticosteroids and the long-acting beta2-agonists in achieving a superior level of asthma control. In addition, evidence supports significant reductions in exacerbations and effective control of airway inflammation with an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist versus higher dosages of inhaled corticosteroids or combinations of other therapeutic agents with an inhaled corticosteroid. Finally, there are distinct economic advantages to combining an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist in the treatment of asthma relative to other treatment regimens.

Rationale for the choice of an aerosol delivery system

The choice of an aerosol delivery system depends on numerous factors such as the drug itself, the characteristics of the aerosol generator, the patient and his or her disease, the physician, and the clinical setting, notably an emergency situation or not. Some rules always apply: an ultrasonic nebulizer should not be used to aerosolize a drug suspension; whenever possible, the same type of aerosol generator should be used for all inhaled medications received by a given patient; for outpatients, education is a major factor to ensure treatment efficacy. When the deposition of the aerosolized drug is aimed at the terminal respiratory units, nebulizers that generate micronic aerosols should be chosen. When the deposition of the aerosolized drug is aimed at the conducting airways, the metered dose inhaler (MDI) is the first choice. However, the MDI is often ill-used, notably in children and elderly people. Therefore, other inhalation devices have been developed: spacers, dry-powder inhalers, breath-actuated MDIs and, more recently, piezo-electric devices. They have been shown to increase lung deposition of drugs in poor coordinators but they all have limitations, which may affect their clinical efficacy. These limitations include the cumbersome dimensions of spacers, the dependency of lung deposition of dry powders on the inspiratory flow rate, the need for reformulation of breath-actuated or not MDIs with CFC-free gases. Nebulization of drugs should be considered only when no portable device is available for the considered drug, or in case of failure of other forms of aerosol administration.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination provides more effective asthma control than low-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus montelukast

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a disease of chronic inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) provide important anti-inflammatory treatment but may not provide optimal control of asthma when taken alone. Two therapeutic alternatives for enhanced asthma control are to substitute the combination of fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol (FP/Salm Combo) through the Diskus inhaler or to add montelukast to existing ICS therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy and safety of FP/Salm Combo through the Diskus inhaler versus montelukast added to FP (FP + montelukast) in patients whose symptoms were suboptimally controlled with ICS therapy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 12-week study in 447 patients with asthma who were symptomatic at baseline while receiving low-dose FP. Patients were treated for 12 weeks with one of the following: (1) combination of FP 100 microg plus salmeterol 50 microg twice daily through the Diskus inhaler, or (2) FP 100 microg twice daily through the Diskus inhaler plus oral montelukast 10 mg once daily.

RESULTS

FP/Salm Combo treatment provided better overall asthma control than FP + montelukast with significantly greater improvements in morning peak expiratory flow (+24.9 L/min vs +13.0 L/min, P <.001), evening peak expiratory flow (+18.9 L/min vs +9.6 L/min, P <.001), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (+0.34 L vs +0.20 L, P <.001), as well as a change in the percentage of days with no albuterol use (+26.3% vs +19.1%, P =.032) and the shortness of breath symptom score (-0.56 vs -0.40, P =.017). The groups had comparable improvements in chest tightness, wheeze, and overall symptom scores. Asthma exacerbation rates were significantly lower (P =.031) in the FP/Salm Combo group (4 patients, 2%) than in the FP + montelukast group (13 patients, 6%). Adverse event profiles were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients on low-dose ICS therapy had significantly greater improvement in asthma control when switched to the FP/Salm Combo than when montelukast was added to ICS therapy.

Inhaled fluticasone propionate: a review of its therapeutic efficacy at dosages < or = 500 microg/day in adults and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma

Fluticasone propionate is a corticosteroid with comparatively high receptor affinity and topical activity. Inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day provided effective corticosteroid maintenance treatment in patients with mild to moderate asthma in randomised, controlled clinical studies of 4 to 24 weeks in duration. Dosages of 50 to 250 microg twice daily produced consistent improvement in spirometric measures of lung function, reduced the frequency of as-needed beta2-agonist bronchodilator use, asthma symptom scores and night-time wakenings, and prevented asthma exacerbations compared with placebo. Fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily provided significantly greater improvements in lung function than nedocromil 4 mg 4 times daily, theophylline (5 to 15 mg/L) or zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. Health-related quality of life improved significantly with fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily, but not zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily or placebo. In comparative trials in which fluticasone propionate was given at half the dosage of beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide or flunisolide, fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily produced equivalent or greater improvement in spirometric parameters and equivalent reductions in the use of as-needed beta2-agonists than beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide or flunisolide. Fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily was generally more effective than triamcinolone acetonide 200 microg 4 times daily in two 24-week trials. The combination of inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =250 plus salmeterol < or =50 microg twice daily allowed for the use of lower dosages of the inhaled corticosteroid. The incidence of adverse events in patients receiving inhaled fluticasone propionate 50 to 250 microg twice daily was similar to that in beclomethasone dipropionate 168 to 500 microg twice daily and budesonide 100 to 600 microg twice daily recipients and greater than that in recipients of triamcinolone acetonide 200 microg 4 times daily in comparative trials. The incidence of oral candidiasis was < or =8% in patients treated with fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily or other agents. There was no evidence of clinically significant hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression with fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily in comparative trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day is an effective antiinflammatory therapy for mild to moderate asthma in adolescents and adults. The drug is more effective than nedocromil, theophylline or zafirlukast and is at least as effective as other inhaled corticosteroids administered at twice the fluticasone propionate dosage. The addition of inhaled salmeterol allows the use of lower maintenance dosages of fluticasone propionate. The drug is well tolerated and there is no evidence of a clinically significant effect of this dosage on HPA axis function. Hence, fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day is a particularly suitable agent for patients with mild to moderate asthma.