Response profiles to fluticasone and montelukast in mild-to-moderate persistent childhood asthma. Comparison of fluticasone propionate and sodium cromoglycate for the treatment of childhood asthma (an open parallel group study). A randomized controlled trial of inhaled flunisolide in the management of acute asthma in children. Outpatient management of childhood asthma by paediatrician or asthma nurse: randomised controlled study with one year follow up. EXCEL: A randomised trial comparing salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and formoterol/budesonide combinations in adults with persistent asthma. Steroid-sparing effects of fluticasone propionate 100 microg and salmeterol 50 microg administered twice daily in a single product in patients previously controlled with fluticasone propionate 250 microg administered twice daily. A placebo-controlled, crossover comparison of salmeterol and salbutamol in patients with asthma. Deterioration in asthma control when subjects receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 100/50 mcg Diskus are "stepped-down". Combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone in mild asthma : a placebo-controlled comparison. Daily versus as-needed inhaled corticosteroid for mild persistent asthma (The Helsinki early intervention childhood asthma study). An antiinflammatory effect of salmeterol, a long-acting beta(2) agonist, assessed in airway biopsies and bronchoalveolar lavage in asthma. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination provides more effective asthma control than low-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus montelukast. Long-term treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol via Diskus improves asthma control versus fluticasone propionate alone. Characterization of within-subject responses to fluticasone and montelukast in childhood asthma. Do inhaled corticosteroids impair long-term growth in prepubertal cystic fibrosis patients? Traditional and patient-centred outcomes with three classes of asthma medication. Asthma exacerbations in African Americans treated for 1 year with combination fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone propionate alone.
Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children.
                We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).
                An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated.
                Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast.
                The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA. Inhaled corticosteroids are highly effective in the treatment of asthma at all ages and their use in younger children is increasing. As concerns exist about the long-term systemic side-effects of high dose inhaled corticosteroids, current guidelines continue to recommend sodium cromoglycate (SCG) as first line regular medication for children with frequent symptoms. Few published studies have compared the safety and efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids with SCG in children. This study compares SCG with the new inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (FP), which has theoretical advantages over other currently available corticosteroids due to its negligible oral bioavailability. This was a randomized, open, multi-centre, parallel group comparison of 50 micrograms FP twice daily and 20 mg SCG four times daily over 8 weeks, preceded by a 2-week baseline period. Sixty-two general practices and two hospital centres enrolled 225 asthmatic children aged 4-12 years (110 received FP; 115 received SCG). Outcome measures improved in both groups, with a significant difference in favour of FP for the key variables of mean morning and evening % predicted PEFR and % of symptom-free days and nights. No significant difference was observed for FEV1, or relief medication use. Two children taking FP and 10 children taking SCG withdrew because of adverse events. This study showed that low dose FP was effective and superior to SCG in young children with mild-moderate asthma. Safety studies of longer duration are needed before changing the current recommendations for inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may provide benefit in the therapy of acute asthma. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that ICS are as effective as oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the management of acute childhood asthma.
                A randomized, masked, placebo-controlled study was conducted in children aged 6 to 16 years seeking emergent care for an acute exacerbation of asthma. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: group 1 (OCS), oral prednisone, 2 mg/kg (maximum of 60 mg/d) for 7 days, and placebo pressurized metered-dose inhaler with valved holding chamber, four inhalations bid; and group 2 (ICS), flunisolide, four inhalations (1 mg) bid for 7 days, and daily placebo tablets. Spirometry (FEV(1)) was performed at baseline, day 3, and day 7 of the study. A symptom diary and twice-daily peak expiratory flow were recorded.
                A total of 58 subjects receiving ICS (n = 27) or OCS (n = 28) were enrolled. Baseline asthma severity, race, gender, and age were balanced between the two groups. chi(2) showed no significant difference in symptom severity between the two groups at any time during the study. FEV(1) percentage of predicted was lower in the ICS group on day 3 (65% vs 78%, p = 0.03) and on day 7 (77% vs 95%, p = 0.002).
                ICS were found to be useful in the management of acute asthma in children; however, spirometry data suggested a more rapid resolution of asthma with OCS. Until now, care provided by asthma nurses has been additional to care provided by paediatricians. A study was undertaken to compare nurse led outpatient management of childhood asthma with follow up by a paediatrician.
                Seventy four children referred because of insufficient control of persistent asthma were randomly allocated to 1 year follow up by a paediatrician or asthma nurse. The main outcome measure was the percentage of symptom-free days. Additional outcome measures were airway hyperresponsiveness, lung function, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), number of exacerbations, number of additional visits to the general practitioner, absence from school, functional health status, and disease specific quality of life.
                There were no significant differences at the end of the 1 year study period between the two treatment groups in percentage of symptom-free days (mean difference 2.5%; 95% CI -8.8 to 13.8), airway hyperresponsiveness (log10 PD20 0.06; -0.19 to 0.32), functional health status (10.1; -0.3 to 19.8), disease specific quality of life of patients (0.08; -0.9 to 0.7), and disease specific quality of life of caregivers (0.09; -0.2 to 0.3), nor in any other outcome parameters. Most outcome parameters improved considerably over the 1 year study period. These improvements were achieved although the daily dose of ICS was reduced by a mean of 26% compared with the dose received by children at referral. All parents were satisfied with the asthma care received.
                After initial assessment in a multidisciplinary clinic, childhood asthma can be successfully managed by an asthma nurse in close cooperation with a paediatrician. During close follow up by paediatrician or asthma nurse, asthma control improved despite a reduction in ICS dose. This multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised 24-week study was designed to compare the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50/250 microg one inhalation twice daily (bid) with formoterol/budesonide combination (FBC) 6/200 microg two inhalations bid in patients with persistent asthma, currently receiving 1000-2000 microg/day of inhaled corticosteroids.
                The intent-to-treat population comprised 694 patients in the SFC group and 697 patients in the FBC group.
                The primary endpoint, mean rate of all exacerbations over 24 weeks, was similar in both treatment groups (SFC: 2.69; FBC: 2.79; SFC/FBC ratio 0.96; 95% CL 0.84, 1.10; P=0.571). A reduction in the rate of exacerbations over time was observed in both treatment groups. Overall, there was a 30% lower annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 0-49%, 52% reduction vs. 1% increase; P=0.059). This effect increased with time: in weeks 17-24 the moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 57% lower in the SFC group compared with the FBC group (95% CI 21-77% reduction; P=0.006). Similar improvements in lung function, asthma symptoms and rescue medication usage were seen with both treatments and both were well tolerated.
                Twice-daily treatment with SFC and FBC over 6 months significantly improved asthma symptoms and lung function in patients with persistent asthma. The rate of exacerbations was significantly reduced over time on both treatments but SFC was found to be significantly superior to FBC in reducing the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations with sustained treatment. Concurrent use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist provides better overall asthma control than the use of higher doses of ICS alone.
                The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether fluticasone propionate (FP) combined with salmeterol in the Diskus device can be used to reduce the dose of ICS in patients currently stable on medium-dose ICS while maintaining asthma control.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12- to 24-week trial consisting of a 3-part run-in period. The run-in period was designed to first establish FP 250 microg administered twice a day (bid) via Diskus as the minimum effective dose. During run-in period 1, patients received FP 220 microg bid or the equivalent for 10 to 14 days. Controlled patients moved to run-in period 2 (5-28 days), which assessed asthma stability on FP 100 microg bid administered via Diskus. Only patients who became unstable on FP 100 microg bid were eligible to enter run-in period 3 (26-30 days), during which they were placed on FP 250 microg bid and those regaining asthma control were eligible for randomization. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who remained in the study with no evidence of worsening asthma. Secondary efficacy measures included FEV1, morning peak expiratory flow, percent of symptom-free days, and daily albuterol use.
                Only 5% of patients treated with FP100/salmeterol withdrew because of worsening asthma in the first 12 weeks; this compared with 7% in the FP250 group. All patients from a subset of sites continued in the study for an additional 12 weeks; only an additional 1% of patients treated with either FP100/salmeterol or FP250 withdrew because of worsening asthma. Secondary efficacy measures confirmed primary efficacy results.
                In patients requiring FP250 bid for asthma stability, FP100/salmeterol bid was steroid-sparing, allowing a 60% reduction in the FP dose while maintaining overall asthma control. We compared the effects of salmeterol (Sm) (50 micrograms twice daily) with that of salbutamol (Sb) (200 micrograms four times daily) and placebo (P) in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma with asthma symptoms and related the effectiveness of these therapies between patients who used concurrent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and those who did not. The study was a 12-wk, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial with 367 adult asthmatics randomized to each trial medication for 4 wk. Inhaled Sb was provided as rescue medication to all patients throughout the trial. Only 80% of patients, albeit the majority, were receiving maintenance treatment with ICS throughout this trial; this reflects practice current in early 1990. Each study day, patients recorded their morning and evening peak expiratory flows (PEF), assessment of asthma symptoms, and use of rescue medication. Both morning and evening PEF were greater during treatment with Sm than with Sb (mean differences between the treatments of 29.8 and 14.3 L/min, respectively) or P (27.7 and 20.3 L/min, respectively) (p < 0.0001). Sm was also more effective than Sb or P in lowering diurnal variation in PEF and increasing the percentage of symptom-free days and rescue-free days and nights with no sleep disturbance (p < or = 0.0004). Sb was more effective than P in increasing evening PEF and the percentage of symptom-free days (p < 0.05) and rescue-free days (p < 0.0001). The same clinical superiority of Sm compared with Sb and P was observed in those patients using ICS (p < 0.001 for all treatment comparisons), and to a greater extent than in those patients not using ICS (i.e., Sm was more effective than Sb and P in just six of the 20 treatment comparisons; p < 0.05). In conclusion, Sm 50 micrograms twice daily is effective in the management of mild-to-moderate asthma and it further improves asthma control in patients already using ICS. In this study, 647 subjects stable on fluticasone propionate/salmeterol Diskus 100/50 mcg BID (FSC) were randomized to continue FSC 100/50 mcg BID or "step down" to either fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 mcg BID, salmeterol (SAL) 50 mcg BID, or montelukast (MON) 10 mg once daily for 16 weeks. Overall asthma control significantly improved in the FSC group; whereas, "stepping down" to FP, SAL, or MON resulted in deterioration in asthma control, as determined by decreased measures of lung function and clinical features. This study provides support that treatment of both inflammation and smooth muscle dysfunction may be necessary to achieve and maintain asthma control in patients uncontrolled on ICS. Combined therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) is the recommended approach for the treatment of patients with asthma that is uncontrolled on ICSs alone. Additional studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with ICSs and LABAs in patients with mild asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) with once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) over a 12-week treatment period in patients with mild persistent asthma.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study carried out in primary care or at a hospital outpatient department and included patients 12-79 years of age with mild persistent asthma (n = 458). After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized to receive SFC 50 microg/100 microg (n = 149), FP 100 microg (n = 154) or placebo (n = 155) once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was patient-recorded pre-dose mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Other assessments included asthma symptom scores, use of rescue medication and investigator-recorded exacerbations. Lung function was measured and assessed during clinic visits.
                For the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change in morning PEF, SFC achieved significantly greater increases from baseline than both placebo (difference in adjusted means 23 L/min; 95% CI 15.0, 30.3; p < 0.001) and FP (difference in adjusted means 14 L/min; 95% CI 6.3, 21.7; p < 0.001). Compared with those who received FP, patients in the SFC group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean evening PEF (95% CI 11.7, 28.1; p < 0.001), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (95% CI 0.093, 0.257; p < 0.001), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (95% CI 0.242, 0.617; p < 0.001), the percentage of symptom-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.87; p = 0.011), and the percentage of rescue medication-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.90; p = 0.018). During weeks 5-12, 52% of patients in the SFC group achieved 'well controlled' asthma, compared with 42% and 26% of patients in the FP and placebo groups, respectively. Only one patient (receiving placebo) had a severe asthma exacerbation during the study; the frequency of adverse events was similar across the three treatment groups.
                Once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg provided significantly greater improvements in lung function and in asthma symptoms than once-daily FP 100 microg alone in patients with mild persistent asthma. However, twice-daily treatment with either SFC or ICSs plus short acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists could be required to achieve guideline-defined asthma control in some patients. To compare the effect of inhaled budesonide given daily or as-needed on mild persistent childhood asthma. Patients, design and
                176 children aged 5-10 years with newly detected asthma were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: (1) continuous budesonide (400 microg twice daily for 1 month, 200 microg twice daily for months 2-6, 100 microg twice daily for months 7-18); (2) budesonide, identical treatment to group 1 during months 1-6, then budesonide for exacerbations as needed for months 7-18; and (3) disodium cromoglycate (DSCG) 10 mg three times daily for months 1-18. Exacerbations were treated with budesonide 400 microg twice daily for 2 weeks.
                Lung function, the number of exacerbations and growth.
                Compared with DSCG the initial regular budesonide treatment resulted in a significantly improved lung function, fewer exacerbations and a small but significant decline in growth velocity. After 18 months, however, the lung function improvements did not differ between the groups. During months 7-18, patients receiving continuous budesonide treatment had significantly fewer exacerbations (mean 0.97), compared with 1.69 in group 2 and 1.58 in group 3. The number of asthma-free days did not differ between regular and intermittent budesonide treatment. Growth velocity was normalised during continuous low-dose budesonide and budesonide therapy given as needed. The latter was associated with catch-up growth.
                Regular use of budesonide afforded better asthma control but had a more systemic effect than did use of budesonide as needed. The dose of ICS could be reduced as soon as asthma is controlled. Some children do not seem to need continuous ICS treatment. The addition of long-acting beta(2) agonists to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy in symptomatic patients with asthma improves clinical status more than increasing the dose of ICS. It has been suggested that these benefits could be at the cost of an increase in airway inflammation, but few histopathological studies have been performed in the relevant group. In a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned 50 symptomatic patients with asthma who were receiving ICS (range, 100 -500 microgram/d) to 12 wk of supplementary treatment with salmeterol (50 microgram twice daily) or fluticasone (100 microgram twice daily) or placebo. Bronchial biopsies and BAL were obtained from 45 patients before and after treatment and analyzed. After treatment with salmeterol there was no deterioration of airway inflammation as assessed by mast cells, lymphocytes, or macrophages in BAL or biopsies, but rather a significant fall in EG1-positive eosinophils in the lamina propria (from a median 18.3 to 7.6 cells/mm, p = 0.01), which was not seen after treatment with fluticasone. The only cellular effect of added fluticasone was a decrease in BAL lymphocyte activation. There was a concurrent improvement in clinical status, more marked with salmeterol than with increased ICS. Thus, adding salmeterol to ICS is not associated with increased "allergic" airway inflammation, but conversely with a complementary antieosinophil effect. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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.
                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. This 52-week study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 250/50 micrograms versus fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 micrograms in subjects with persistent asthma symptomatic on open-label FP 100 micrograms. The primary objective of this study was to show that FSC 250/50 micrograms was superior to FP 250 micrograms at increasing pulmonary function as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second over a 52-week treatment period. A secondary objective was to compare the rate of asthma attacks defined as (1) a sustained 2-day decrease in morning peak expiratory flow or increase in albuterol use for 2 consecutive days, (2) an asthma exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, or (3) an unscheduled clinic or hospital visit for acute asthma symptoms. Three hundred six subjects received FSC 250/50 micrograms and 315 subjects received FP 250 micrograms. Both treatments were administered twice daily. Treatment with FSC 250/50 micrograms resulted in a significant improvement in lung function compared with FP 250 micrograms (p < 0.001). Additionally, treatment with FSC 250/50 micrograms resulted in a reduction in the rate of exacerbations of asthma (i.e., requiring systemic corticosteroids or unscheduled urgent care intervention) compared with FP 250 micrograms (0.170 versus 0.273, respectively; p = 0.017). There was no differentiation between treatments for less severe attacks of asthma. FSC 250/50 micrograms showed consistently greater improvement in lung function, symptom control, and decreased albuterol use. In addition, FSC 250/50 micrograms-treated subjects experienced fewer severe asthma exacerbations than subjects treated with FP 250 micrograms. Responses to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) vary among asthmatic patients.
                We sought to determine whether responses to ICSs and LTRAs are concordant for individuals or whether asthmatic patients who do not respond to one medication respond to the other.
                Children 6 to 17 years of age with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to one of 2 crossover sequences, including 8 weeks of an ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 microg twice daily), and 8 weeks of an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly depending on age), in a multicenter, double-masked, 18-week trial. Response was assessed on the basis of improvement in FEV 1 and assessed for relationships to baseline asthma phenotype-associated biomarkers.
                Defining response as improvement in FEV 1 of 7.5% or greater, 17% of 126 participants responded to both medications, 23% responded to fluticasone alone, 5% responded to montelukast alone, and 55% responded to neither medication. Compared with those who responded to neither medication, favorable response to fluticasone alone was associated with higher levels of exhaled nitric oxide, total eosinophil counts, levels of serum IgE, and levels of serum eosinophil cationic protein and lower levels of methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function; favorable response to montelukast alone was associated with younger age and shorter disease duration. Greater differential response to fluticasone over montelukast was associated with higher bronchodilator use, bronchodilator response, exhaled nitric oxide levels, and eosinophil cationic protein levels and lower methacholine PC(20) and pulmonary function values.
                Response to fluticasone and montelukast vary considerably. Children with low pulmonary function or high levels of markers associated with allergic inflammation should receive ICS therapy. Other children could receive either ICSs or LTRAs. Despite absence of clear proof of efficacy, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is widespread in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Therefore, the effect of ICS on lung function and other clinical variables was studied in 27 prepubertal CF children with mild to moderate lung disease. In a prospective double-blind case-controlled study, fluticasone propionate 500 microg or placebo were administered twice daily during 12 months. The mean (standard error of the mean, SEM) patient age was 8.2 (0.6) years in the placebo group and 9.0 (0.5) years in the fluticasone group. The mean (SEM) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) was 91% (4%) in the placebo group and 86% (4%) in the fluticasone group. There was no statistically significant difference in the evolution of lung function and the number of respiratory exacerbations between groups. However, longitudinal growth in fluticasone patients was significantly slower than in placebo patients: 3.96 (0.29) cm versus 5.49 (0.38) cm [p<0.005, analysis of variance (ANOVA)] over the 12-month study duration. This resulted in a significant change in height standard deviation score (SDS) of -0.38 (0.09) in the fluticasone group versus -0.01 (0.07) in the placebo group (p<0.003, ANOVA). No catch-up growth was noted 1-2 years after discontinuation of inhaled steroids. The use of high-dose ICS in CF patients with mild lung disease may lead to persistent growth impairment. Lung function is commonly used as the primary endpoint in asthma clinical trials, but it may not reflect changes which are important to patients. The present study compared changes in, and relationships between, traditional and patient-centred end-points during treatment with three classes of asthma medication. Subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma were randomised to double-blind, double-dummy crossover treatment with eformoterol 12 microg b.i.d. or montelukast 10 mg q.d., then single-blind treatment with fluticasone 250 microg b.i.d./placebo capsules, with 6-week treatment periods and 1-week washouts. Individual "traditional" end-points (symptoms, reliever use, forced expiratory volume in one second per cent predicted, morning peak expiratory flow, airway hyperresponsiveness) and "patient-centred" end-points (asthma control questionnaire, quality of life, patient global assessments) were assessed. Principal component analysis and linear modelling were used to explore overall rank orders for treatment, and relationships between outcomes. A total of 58 subjects were randomised. The rank order of benefit from eformoterol and fluticasone differed for three factors derived from principal component analysis (eformoterol>fluticasone for symptom/reliever use factor, fluticasone>eformoterol for lung function factor, eformoterol=fluticasone for patient-centred factor). Montelukast was ranked third for all three factors. A significant relationship between patient-based variables and lung function was found only for montelukast treatment. In asthma treatment, traditional end-points do not fully capture patient-centred benefits, and the relationship between end-points differs with medication class. This long-term prospective study was conducted in African Americans with persistent asthma to examine the safety and effectiveness of the combination of the inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (FP), and the long-acting beta-agonist, salmeterol, compared with FP alone.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multi-center trial in adolescent and adult subjects >/=12 years of age symptomatic on a low dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). The study consisted of a 2-week screening period on low dose ICS; a 4-week open-label FP 250 mcg twice daily (BID) run-in; a 52-week double-blind period (FP/salmeterol [FSC] 100/50 mcg [n=239] or FP 100 mcg [n=236] BID), and a 4-week FP 250 mcg BID run-out period. Annualized exacerbation rate was the primary outcome for comparing the two treatments. Other measures of asthma control included peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, and albuterol use. Safety was assessed through adverse events.
                Exacerbation rates were not significantly different in those treated with FSC 100/50 mcg (0.449 per year) compared with FP 100 mcg (0.529 per year, p=0.169). When the per-protocol analysis was applied, the rates were 0.465 and 0.769 per year for FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg, respectively. Treatment with FSC 100/50 mcg provided statistically greater improvements in lung function measures and nighttime awakenings (p</=0.050) and demonstrated numerically lower daily symptoms (p=0.216) and albuterol use (p=0.122). Two subjects treated with FSC 100/50 mcg were hospitalized for an asthma exacerbation compared to three treated with FP 100 mcg. The overall incidence of adverse effects during double-blind treatment was similar between the FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg treatment groups (61% and 68%, respectively). Frequent study visits were required of subjects during this long-term study, and it remains unknown whether this intervention may affect generalizability.
                In this large, prospective study among African Americans with asthma, the addition of salmeterol to FP resulted in a similar low rate of exacerbations and improved other markers of asthma control. Both FSC 100/50 mcg and FP 100 mcg were well-tolerated, and the overall safety-profiles were similar over 1 year of treatment.
ICS were superior to SCG on measures of lung function and asthma control for both adults and children with chronic asthma. There were few studies reporting on quality of life and health care utilization, which limited our ability to adequately evaluate the relative effects of these medications on a broader range of outcomes. Although there were no differences in adverse effects between ICS and SCG, most trials were short and may not have been of sufficient duration to identify long-term effects. Our results support recent consensus statements in the U.S. and elsewhere that favour the use of ICS over SCG for control of persistent asthma.