Joris Menten

Montelukast and fluticasone compared with salmeterol and fluticasone in protecting against asthma exacerbation in adults: one year, double blind, randomised, comparative trial

Abstract Objectives To assess the effect of montelukast versus salmeterol added to inhaled fluticasone propionate on asthma exacerbation in patients whose symptoms are inadequately controlled with fluticasone alone. Design and setting A 52 week, two period, double blind, multicentre trial during which patients whose symptoms remained uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids were randomised to add montelukast or salmeterol. Participants Patients (15-72 years; n = 1490) had a clinical history of chronic asthma for ≥ 1 year, a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1) value 50-90% predicted, and a β agonist improvement of ≥ 12% in FEV 1. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the percentage of patients with at least one asthma exacerbation. Results 20.1% of the patients in the group receiving montelukast and fluticasone had an asthma exacerbation compared with 19.1% in the group receiving salmeterol and fluticasone; the difference was 1% (95% confidence interval -3.1% to 5.0%). With a risk ratio (montelukast-fluticasone/salmeterol-fluticasone) of 1.05 (0.86 to 1.29), treatment with montelukast and fluticasone was shown to be non-inferior to treatment with salmeterol and fluticasone. Salmeterol and fluticasone significantly increased FEV 1 before a β agonist was used and morning peak expiratory flow compared with montelukast and fluticasone (P ≤ 0.001), whereas FEV 1 after a β agonist was used and improvements in asthma specific quality of life and nocturnal awakenings were similar between the groups. Montelukast and fluticasone significantly (P = 0.011) reduced peripheral blood eosinophil counts compared with salmeterol and fluticasone. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Conclusion The addition of montelukast in patients whose symptoms remain uncontrolled by inhaled fluticasone could provide equivalent clinical control to salmeterol.

Montelukast versus salmeterol in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND Montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, and salmeterol, a long-acting beta(2)-receptor agonist, each have demonstrated benefits in the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in short-term studies. Direct comparisons between these agents in long-term studies are limited. OBJECTIVE We sought to compare montelukast and salmeterol in the long-term treatment of EIB. METHODS One hundred ninety-seven patients with mild asthma and a postexercise fall in FEV(1) of at least 18% were randomized (double-blind) to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or salmeterol 50 microg twice daily for 8 weeks. Exercise challenge was repeated at day 3, week 4, and week 8 after randomization near the end of the dosing interval for both drugs. The primary efficacy endpoint was the maximal percent fall in postexercise FEV(1) at week 8. RESULTS Montelukast was effective in treating EIB without inducing tolerance and provided superior (P </=.001) protection than salmeterol at weeks 4 and 8, with comparable protection at day 3. The frequency of respiratory clinical adverse events (P =.046) and discontinuations because of clinical adverse events (P =.052) were less with montelukast. CONCLUSION The effect of montelukast was greater than that of salmeterol in the chronic treatment of EIB over a period of 8 weeks in patients with mild asthma as demonstrated by effect size, maintenance of effect, and fewer respiratory clinical adverse events during the study period. Montelukast may be a better alternative to salmeterol as a controller agent for the chronic treatment of EIB.

Montelukast improves symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis over a 4-week treatment period

Background:  Proinflammatory mediators such as the cysteinyl leukotrienes are important in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, given once daily in the morning for treatment of seasonal (fall) allergic rhinitis for 4 weeks.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating the clinical benefit of montelukast for treating spring seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND Symptoms of allergic rhinitis are mediated in part by cysteinyl leukotrienes. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical benefit of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, administered once daily for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study enrolled 1,214 healthy, nonsmoking outpatients aged 15 to 85 years with spring allergic rhinitis, positive skin test to a spring allergen, and predefined daytime nasal symptoms. After a 3- to 5-day placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with montelukast 10 mg (n = 522), loratadine 10 mg (n = 171), or placebo (n = 521) once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks. During the run-in and treatment periods, symptoms were evaluated in a daily diary using a 0 (best) to 3 (worst) scale. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of randomized patients were clinically similar in the three treatment groups. Montelukast was significantly more effective than placebo (P = 0.003) in improving the daytime nasal symptoms score (difference in least square means, -0.09; 95% confidence interval, -0.16, -0.03) averaged over 2 weeks of therapy. The treatment effect of montelukast was significantly greater (P < 0.05), relative to placebo, for all secondary endpoints, including nighttime symptoms and daytime eye symptoms, patient and physician global evaluations of allergic rhinitis, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life. Loratadine, which served as a positive control, was significantly more effective than placebo for most endpoints, validating the study results. Both montelukast and loratadine were well tolerated. CONCLUSION Therapy with montelukast significantly improves assessments of symptom severity as well as quality-of-life parameters for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

A multicenter study of the tolerability of tirofiban versus placebo in patients undergoing planned intracoronary stent placement

BACKGROUND The use of intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-receptor antagonists has been shown to improve outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Tirofiban has shown benefit in a wide range of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. Although this agent has been used in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a literature search identified no prospective data comparing tirofiban with placebo in patients undergoing planned intracoronary stent placement. OBJECTIVE This study examined the tolerability of tirofiban in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention with planned intracoronary stent placement. METHODS This was a multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients scheduled to undergo PTCA with planned intracoronary stent placement. Patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to receive tirofiban as an intravenous bolus (10 microg/kg over 3 minutes) and maintenance infusion (0.10 microg/kg per minute for 36 hours) or a bolus and infusion of placebo. All patients received periprocedural aspirin and heparin and an optional postprocedural thienopyridine (ticlopidine or clopidogrel). Laboratory and safety monitoring were performed throughout the 36 hours after the procedure and at hour 40 or hospital discharge. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with bleeding, defined according to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial criteria. The number of patients with cardiac events (death, myo- cardial infarction, urgent revascularization) during the first 30 days after stent placement was also assessed. RESULTS Eight hundred ninety-four patients (536 tirofiban, 358 placebo) were enrolled, all of whom received aspirin and heparin periprocedurally and optional ticlopidine or clopidogrel after the procedure. No significant between-group differences were observed in the incidence of TIMI major bleeding (0.2% tirofiban, 0.6% placebo) or any TIMI bleeding (3.2% and 1.7%, respectively). The incidence of TIMI minor bleeding was higher with tirofiban than with placebo (2.8% vs 0.6%). The 30-day incidence of the composite end point of any cardiac event was 3.9% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS On a background of concomitant aspirin, heparin, and a thienopyridine, tirofiban was generally well tolerated in patients undergoing PTCA with planned intracoronary stent placement. Further investigation is needed to ascertain the optimal dosing of tirofiban and heparin to achieve reductions in ischemic complications of intracoronary stenting with an acceptable incidence of bleeding complications.

Comparison of oral montelukast and inhaled cromolyn with respect to preference, satisfaction, and adherence: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to compare parent and child preference, satisfaction, and adherence of oral montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, with those of inhaled cromolyn. Background Parents are actively involved in the care of their young children with asthma. Parent and child preference and satisfaction are critical in maintaining adherence to asthma therapy and achieving optimal therapeutic outcomes. Methods Children aged 6 to 11 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma entered a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover trial. Children received montelukast (one 5-mg chewable tablet at bedtime) or cromolyn (2 mg 4 times daily via metered-dose inhaler), each for 4 weeks. A 2-week washout period separated the treatment periods. Parent and child preference for montelukast versus cromolyn and satisfaction with each treatment were assessed with 1-question preference and multiquestion satisfaction questionnaires. Adherence with study medications and beta-agonist use was assessed by means of diary cards. Results Two hundred sixty-six children entered the trial. Of 254 parents included in the analysis, 249 parents (98%) expressed a preference; of these, significantly more preferred oral montelukast over inhaled cromolyn (219 [88%] vs 30 [12%], P P P 95% of days) to montelukast therapy, whereas 122 children (48%) were adherent to cromolyn therapy ( P P = 0.001). Both therapies were generally well tolerated. Conclusions Parent and child preference, satisfaction, and adherence were all significantly better with oral montelukast compared with inhaled cromolyn. Treatment with oral montelukast may improve the outcomes of asthma therapy in children.