James Wolfe

Comparison of inhaled salmeterol and oral zafirlukast in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND Salmeterol, a long-acting beta2 -agonist, and zafirlukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, are both indicated for the treatment of asthma in adolescent and adult patients. OBJECTIVE We sought to compare the effect of 4 weeks of treatment with inhaled salmeterol xinafoate versus oral zafirlukast in the treatment of persistent asthma. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial. Patients, over 80% of whom were on a concurrent inhaled corticosteroid regimen, were treated for 4 weeks with either inhaled salmeterol xinafoate 42 microgram twice daily administered by means of a metered-dose inhaler or oral zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. The primary efficacy measure was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); secondary efficacy measures included evening PEF, asthma symptom scores, supplemental albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, sleep symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and FEV1. RESULTS Both inhaled salmeterol and oral zafirlukast resulted in within-group improvements from baseline in measures of pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and supplemental albuterol use. Salmeterol treatment resulted in significantly greater improvements from baseline compared with zafirlukast for most efficacy measurements, including morning PEF (29.6 vs 13.0 L/min; P </= .001), percentage of symptom-free days (22.4% vs 8.8%; P </= .001), and percentage of days and nights with no supplemental albuterol use (30.5% vs 11.3%; P </= .001). There were no differences in safety profiles as assessed by adverse event monitoring. CONCLUSION In patients with persistent asthma, most of whom were concurrently using inhaled corticosteroids, treatment with inhaled salmeterol provided significantly greater improvement than oral zafirlukast in overall asthma control over the 4-week treatment period.

Mometasone furoate: efficacy and safety in moderate asthma compared with beclomethasone dipropionate

BACKGROUND Mometasone furoate (MF) is a new inhaled glucocorticoid administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI). OBJECTIVE MF-DPI was evaluated for safety and efficacy and compared with placebo DPI and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI) in the treatment of patients with moderate persistent asthma. METHODS Eligible patients (n = 227), 13 to 75 years of age, maintained on inhaled glucocorticoids before entering the trial, were randomized to receive: MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily, MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily, BDP MDI, 168 microg, twice daily, or placebo in a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind study. RESULTS At endpoint, FEV1 (primary efficacy variable) significantly improved for all three active treatments compared with placebo (P < .01, all comparisons). The response to MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily treatment was approximately twice as large as the response to MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily or BDP MDI treatment, although the differences between these groups did not reach statistical significance. Secondary efficacy variables including PEFR, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, and albuterol use showed similar trends. The MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily and BDP MDI, 168 microg, twice daily treatment groups produced comparable results for all efficacy variables. CONCLUSIONS MF-DPI, 100 microg and 200 microg, twice daily were well-tolerated and significantly improved lung function and symptom control in the treatment of patients with moderate persistent asthma. In this study, MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily seemed to be the most effective dosage.

Dose-Related Response to Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate in Patients with Methacholine-Induced Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Dose-response relationships with inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma have been difficult to establish. A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of low doses of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients with mild to moderate asthma. Methacholine challenge testing was conducted in addition to measurement of traditional efficacy variables. After a single-blind screening period, 138 patients > or = 12 years of age were randomly assigned to receive placebo, FP 50 microg, or FP 100 microg, twice daily for 8 weeks. The results of methacholine challenge testing averaged over all visits favored FP 200 microg/day over placebo and FP 100 microg/day (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between placebo and FP 100 microg/day. Mean changes from baseline to endpoint favored each dose of FP over placebo based on forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), patient-measured peak expiratory flow (PEF), total symptom scores, and rescue bronchodilator use (p < 0.05); there were no differences in these parameters between the two doses of FP. The addition of methacholine challenge testing allowed definition of a dose-response relationship that was not apparent with traditional efficacy variables.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 44 μg/salmeterol 21 μg administeredin a hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaleras an initial asthma maintenance treatment

Background We wanted to evaluate whether treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and an inhaled long-acting β 2 -agonist is more effective than an inhaled corticosteroid alone for patients using as-needed albuterol who are initiating maintenance treatment. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) 88 μg and salmeterol 42 μg combined in a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free (hydrofluoroalkane 134a) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with the individual agents alone, each delivered through an MDI containing CFC propellants, in patient with persistent asthma previously uncontrolled with as-needed short-acting β 2 -agonists alone. Methods Patients with asthma (n = 283) were randomized to twice-daily treatment for 12 weeks with FP 88 μg combined with salmeterol 42 μg (FSC) in a CFC-free MDI or the individual components alone from CFC-containing MDIs. Results At endpoint, mean change from baseline in morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second was significantly ( P ≤ 0.016) greater with FSC (0.69 L) compared with FP (0.51 L) or salmeterol (0.47 L). Fewer patients treated with FSC withdrew due to worsening asthma (1%) compared with FP (3%) or salmeterol (8%; P = 0.024). FSC significantly increased ( P ≤ 0.002) morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate at endpoint (66.5 and 51.5 L/min, respectively) compared with FP (43.0 and 29.9 L/min, respectively) and salmeterol (29.2 and 21.6 L/min, respectively). In addition, asthma symptom scores were reduced, and percentages of days with no asthma symptoms increased in all treatment groups. Conclusions Treatment with FSC in a CFC-free MDI is more effective than FP or salmeterol alone in asthma patients who are symptomatic taking short-acting β 2 -agonists alone.

Salmeterol powder compared with albuterol aerosol as maintenance therapy for asthma in adolescent and adult patients.

Two multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled studies involving 451 adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma compared the efficacy and safety of salmeterol powder 50 micrograms twice daily with albuterol 180 micrograms four times daily or placebo (with albuterol as needed) for 12 weeks. Patients had forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 50% to 80%. Throughout the 12-week treatment period, the mean change from baseline in percentage of predicted FEV1 was significantly greater with salmeterol than with placebo; mean area under the curve for FEV1 was significantly greater with salmeterol than with albuterol or placebo. Significant improvements in morning and evening peak expiratory flow, percentage of nights without awakening, and asthma symptoms were observed with salmeterol. Salmeterol was well tolerated, and no clinically significant changes in electrocardiographic activity were observed.

Does measuring BHR add to guideline derived clinical measures in determining treatment for patients with persistent asthma

RATIONALE Little is known about the use of biomarkers in guiding treatment decisions in routine asthma management. The objective of this study was to determine whether adding a LABA to an ICS would control bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) at an overall lower dose of ICS when titration of medication was based upon the assessment of routine clinical measures with or without the measurement of BHR. METHODS After a 2-week run-in period, subjects (> or = 12 years) were randomized to one of three treatment groups. Two groups followed a BHR treatment strategy (based on clinical parameters [lung function, asthma symptoms, and bronchodilator use] and BHR) and were treated with either fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC(BHR) group) or fluticasone propionate (FP(BHR) group) (n=156 each). The third group followed a clinical treatment algorithm (based on clinical parameters alone) and were treated with fluticasone propionate (FP(REF) group; n=154). All treatments were administered via Diskus. Treatment doses were adjusted as needed every 8 weeks for 40 weeks according to the subjects derived severity class, which was based on clinical measures of asthma control with or without BHR. RESULTS The mean total daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dose during the double-blind treatment period was lower, although not statistically significant, in the FSC(BHR) group compared with the FP(BHR) group (a difference of -42.9 mcg; p=0.07). Compared with the FP(REF) group, the mean total daily ICS dose was higher in the FSC(BHR) group (a difference of 85.2 mcg) and was significantly higher in the FP(BHR) group (a difference of 131.2 mcg, p=0.037). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that for most subjects, control of BHR was maintained when treatment was directed toward control of clinical parameters. In addition, there was a trend towards control of BHR and clinical measures at a lower dose of ICS when used concurrently with salmeterol.