Comparison of once-daily mometasone furoate versus once-daily budesonide in patients with moderate persistent asthma

We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily mometasone furoate (MF) administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI) with once-daily budesonide (BUD)-DPI and placebo in patients with moderate persistent asthma previously using twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids. A total of 262 patients (> or = 12 years of age) with moderate persistent asthma were randomised to once-daily morning treatment with MF-DPI 440 microg (metered dose), BUD-DPI 400 microg (metered dose), or placebo in an eight-week, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. The primary efficacy variable was percent change in FEV1 from baseline to endpoint (last evaluable visit). At endpoint, the percent change in FEV1 was significantly greater (p < 0.01) following treatment with MF-DPI 440 microg (8.9%) than with both BUD-DPI 400 microg (2.1%) and placebo (-3.9%). Secondary efficacy variables, including morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates, albuterol use, percentage of asthma symptom-free days, and physician-evaluated response to therapy were also significantly improved at endpoint in the MF-DPI group compared with both the placebo and BUD-DPI groups (p < 0.05). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, once-daily treatment in the morning with MF-DPI 440 microg significantly improved pulmonary function and asthma control compared with morning administration of BUD-DPI 400 microg and placebo.     

Comparison of the efficacy of ciclesonide 160 microg QD and budesonide 200 microg BID in adults with persistent asthma: a phase III, randomized, double-dummy, open-label study

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of ciclesonide 160 mug QD (given either in the morning or evening) was compared with budesonide 200 mug BID in adults with stable asthma that was pretreated with inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: This was a randomized, 3-arm, parallel-group study comparing ciclesonide (given in a double-blind, double-dummy regimen) with open-label budesonide. After 2 to 2.5 weeks, during which patients were treated with budesonide 200 microg BID, patients (n = 405) were randomly assigned to receive ciclesonide 160 microg QD AM or 160 microg QD pm, or budesonide 200 microg BID (all administered by metered-dose inhaler) for 12 weeks. All patients received 2 puffs of medication (or placebo) in the morning and evening. The primary efficacy variable was the difference in spirometric forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1) in liters) from randomization to study end. Secondary efficacy end points were forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow by spirometry, and diary assessments of peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use. Adverse events were assessed by patient report, investigator observation, physical examination, and laboratory testing; events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: Baseline demographic characteristics with regard to sex, age, weight, smoking status, baseline medication use, and FEV(1) were balanced among the treatment groups. Over the course of treatment, both ciclesonide and budesonide maintained FEV(1) compared with baseline. Both ciclesonide regimens were as effective as budesonide 200 microg BID in maintaining FEV(1) during the treatment period versus baseline (ciclesonide 160 microg QD am: 95% CI, -0.120 to 0.045 vs budesonide; P = NS; ciclesonide 160 microg QD pm: 95% CI, -0.061 to 0.105 vs budesonide; P = NS). Ciclesonide 160 microg QD (morning or evening) was comparable with budesonide 200 microg BID for maintaining pulmonary function, asthma symptom scores, and rescue medication use. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different among the treatment groups, and most adverse events were not related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, ciclesonide 160 microg QDwas as effective as budesonide 200 microg BID (400 microg total daily dose) in these adults with persistent asthma. Both treatments were well tolerated.     

Cerivastatin, a New Potent Synthetic HMG Co-A Reductase Inhibitor: Effect of 0.2 mg Daily in Subjects With Primary Hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND: Reduction of serum cholesterol, most notably low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Statins have been shown to effectively reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol via inhibition of the hydroxymethyl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase. Cerivastatin is the most potent HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor currently under study in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: A parallel group, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of three different dosing regimens of 0.2 mg/day of cerivastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, in patients with hypercholesterolemia. After a 10-week diet-placebo lead-in period, 319 patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >160 mg/dL were randomized to 4 weeks of treatment with one of the following regimens: cervastatin 0.1 mg twice daily, cerivastatin 0.2 mg once daily with the evening meal, cerivastatin 0.2 mg once daily at bedtime or placebo. All three active treatment groups produced statistically significant (P <.05) changes compared to aseline and placebo in total cholesterol (0.1 mg twice daily \_18.9%; 0.2 mg once daily with the evening meal: \_21.9%; 0.2 mg once daily at bedtime: \_22.1%; placebo: 0.0%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.1 mg twice daily: \_25.7%; 0.2 mg once daily with the evening meal: \_29.4%; 0.2 mg once daily at bedtime: \_30.4%; placebo: 1.4%) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.1 mg twice daily: 5.3%; 0.2 mg once daily with the evening meal: baseline and placebo, were also reduced by all active treatments (0.1 mg twice daily: \_11.6% [P =.05]; 0.2 mg once daily with the evening meal: \_11.6% [P =.05]; and 0.2 mg at bedtime: \_10.9% [P =.07]). The percentage change in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol after 4 weeks of therapy for the once-daily cerivastatin groups was statistically significantly greater (P <.05) than the cerivastatin twice daily regimen. A treatment responser was seen by 1 week of therapy and was maximal by 3 weeks. The drug was well tolerated in all three dosing regimens and resulted in no significant increase in biochemical or clinical side effects compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Cerivastatin is a novel, highly potent, well-tolerated HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor that produces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reductions of approximately 30% when administered at 0.2 mg once a day in the evenings.     

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.     

Comparison of mometasone furoate administered by metered dose inhaler with beclomethasone dipropionate

This study compared the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate (MF) administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI) 56, 200 or 500 pg b.i.d., with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 microg b.i.d. and placebo. Adult patients (n=395), with moderate persistent asthma (FEV1 50-90% of predicted normal), previously maintained on inhaled corticosteroids, were enrolled at 16 centres in a four-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, dose-ranging trial. At endpoint, FEV1 was significantly improved (p<0.01) with MF-MDI 56, 200 and 500 microg b.i.d., as well as with BDP (6%, 13%, 14% and 4%, respectively), compared with placebo (-12%). Mean change in FVC, FEF2575%, and a.m. and p.m. peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) were also significantly improved for all active treatment groups at endpoint compared with placebo. Asthma symptoms and quality of life (SF-36) related to physical functioning improved with active treatments relative to placebo. All doses of MF-MDI were well tolerated. Treatment with MF-MDI 200 pg b.i.d. was superior to BDP MDI 168 microg b.i.d. or MF-MDI 56 microg b.i.d., with no additional benefit derived from a higher MF-MDI 500 microg b.i.d. dose. MF-MDI was well tolerated, with superior efficacy compared with BDP MDI in these patients with moderate persistent asthma.     

Candesartan cilexetil: comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily administration for systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, forced-titration, parallel-arm study was designed to compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of candesartan cilexetil, a potent antagonist of the angiotensin II receptor subtype AT1, administered once daily with that of the same agent administered twice daily at the same total daily dose of 16 mg. After a 4- to 5-week placebo run-in period, 277 patients with a sitting diastolic BP of 95 to 109 mm Hg were randomly allocated to receive placebo (n = 92) or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to either 16 mg once daily (n = 91) or 8 mg twice daily (n = 94) for 4 weeks. At 8 weeks, mean reductions in trough sitting diastolic BP were similar for the once- and twice-daily treatment groups (9.4 and 10.3 mm Hg, respectively). After 8 weeks of treatment, no statistically significant differences were observed in diastolic or systolic BP, peak or trough BP, or sitting or standing BP between the 2 active-treatment groups. The rates of positive responses (defined as a trough sitting diastolic BP of <90 mm Hg or a decrease in BP of > or =10 mm Hg) were also similar (approximately 60%) in the once- and twice-daily candesartan cilexetil groups. Furthermore, placebo-corrected trough-to-peak ratios for sitting diastolic BP exceeded 75% for both candesartan cilexetil regimens, indicating a persistent 24-hour duration of drug effect. Ambulatory BP monitoring performed in a subset of patients (n = 44) confirmed the consistent 24-hour BP-lowering effect and preservation of diurnal variation with once-daily dosing. No significant between-group differences were observed in the incidence or severity of clinical or laboratory adverse events. The results of this study suggest that identical daily doses of candesartan cilexetil administered once or twice daily have comparable efficacy and tolerability and that no additional clinical benefit is derived from twice-daily administration.     

Comparative efficacy of once versus twice daily mevinolin in the therapy of familial hypercholesterolemia

Mevinolin, a competitive inhibitor of the rate-limiting enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis, is an effective hypocholesterolemic agent in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia when given in a twice-daily regimen. The present study compares the hypocholesterolemic effects of mevinolin given in a twice-daily dosage regimen with the same total dosage given either once in the morning or once in the evening in 12 patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Ten patients took a total daily dose of 40 mg of mevinolin and two took 20 mg. On the twice-daily dosage regimen, plasma concentrations of total cholesterol decreased 29.5% and 35.9% as compared with 21.4% and 26.9% with mevinolin given once in the morning and 27% and 32.2% with the drug given once in the evening. These values are all significantly different from baseline, but differences between the three treatment regimens do not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07 for the twice-daily versus once-in-the-morning dosage regimens). We conclude that once-daily administration of mevinolin, particularly in the evening, is an effective hypocholesterolemic regimen in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.     

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma

BACKGROUND: The addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo. METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.     

Twice or four times daily beclomethasone dipropionate in mild stable asthma?

A double-blind cross-over study lasting 16 weeks was conducted to establish if a twice daily regimen of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) was as effective in controlling asthma as a four times daily regimen. The patient's need for inhaled steroids (100 mcg BDP qds) was confirmed prior to entering the study by deterioration of peak expiratory flow rates and/or increased bronchodilator usage during a single-blind placebo period of 6 weeks. Thirty six asthmatics were eligible to enter the study and completed both treatment periods. Daily record cards of symptom scores, four times daily peak expiratory flow rate measurements and inhaled bronchodilator usage were recorded throughout the study. There was no significant difference between the mean PEFR measurements taken four times each day and the variability in PEFR, between the two treatment groups. Symptom scores for cough, wheeze, breathlessness and overall disability also showed no significant difference. Symptomatic inhaler usage for the two groups was similar. Lung function measurements of FEV1, FVC and VC were almost identical; FEV1 being 2.1 l on twice daily regimen and 2.2 l on four times daily regimen. A slight variation was observed in PEFR taken at the end of each treatment period at the clinic visits, being 361 l/min on twice daily and 380 l/min on four times daily drug dosage. In stable asthmatics, the control of asthma measured both symptomatically and by daily lung function was independent of dosing schedule, but twice daily treatment may well lead to better compliance.     

A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group study of budesonide inhalation suspension in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids with a metered-dose or dry powder inhaler

BACKGROUND: Nebulized budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) is approved in the United States for children with asthma aged 1 to 8 years. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of BIS 0.5 mg QD and 2.0 mg BID in terms of the mean change from baseline to end of treatment in predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). METHODS: In this 12-week, partially blinded, randomized study, subjects aged >or=12 years with moderate to severe persistent asthma previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) by dry powder inhaler (DPI) or metered-dose inhaler (MDI) continued therapy during a 2- to 3-week run-in period and then switched to BIS 0.5 mg QD, 1.0 mg QD, 1.0 mg BID, or 2.0 mg BID, or budesonide DPI 400 microg BID (active reference arm). Besides FEV1 (the primary variable), other outcome variables included changes in forced vital capacity (FVC) from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 12 and to the average over the treatment period; as well as changes from baseline to the end of treatment in diary-collected daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use, nighttime awakenings due to asthma, morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), percentages of symptom-free and medication-free periods, and the incidence of predefined asthma events. Adverse events were recorded by subjects. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of budesonide were assessed in all treatment arms. Efficacy analyses included data in a modified intent-to-treat approach. Differences in the change from baseline to end of treatment in FEV1 were assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For secondary variables, changes from baseline to each visit or to the treatmentperiod average were compared among groups using an ANCOVA model. P or=65 years. There was no significant difference in mean change in predose FEV1 between BIS 0.5 mg QD and BIS 2.0 mg BID (0.02 vs 0.01 L). On average, mean values for the BIS dosage groups did not indicate any deterioration from baseline to the treatment period for variables associated with asthma control such as FEV1, FVC, daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use, nighttime awakenings, morning and evening PEF, percentages of symptom-free and rescue medication-free periods, and predefined asthma events. The BIS 1.0-mg BID treatment appeared to be closest to budesonide DPI in plasma budesonide concentrations and improvement in predose FEV1 (0.08 vs 0.12 L). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, no difference in efficacy between BIS 2.0 mg BID and 0.5 mg QD was found in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma when transitioned from ICSs delivered with a DPI or MDI. Subjects taking all BIS dosages experienced similar responses for variables associated with asthma control.     

Once-daily budesonide inhalation powder (Pulmicort Turbuhaler®) improves health-related quality of life in adults previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids

In the treatment of asthma, the conventional measures used to monitor a patient's progress and health status do not address the impact of functional impairments associated with the disease that may affect the patient's daily life. Unlike those measures, health-related quality of life (HRQL) reflects the physical, psychological, and social difficulties a patient perceives on a day-to-day basis. This study was conducted to determine the effects of once-daily budesonide inhalation powder via the Pulmicort Turbuhaler on the HRQL in adult patients with asthma previously treated with other inhaled corticosteroids. A total of 184 patients 18 to 70 years of age who previously received inhaled corticosteroids were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients were randomly assigned to budesonide 400 microg once daily or to placebo for 12 weeks. Each patient's HRQL was assessed at randomization and at weeks 4 and 12 with the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). More patients receiving budesonide than those receiving placebo reported statistically significant (P < or = .05) improvements in HRQL at weeks 4 and 12. With the exception of the domain pertaining to exposure to environmental stimuli, differences from placebo in overall AQLQ scores and individual domain scores were clinically important (> or = 0.5 units). In addition, 2.4 patients needed to be treated with once-daily budesonide for 1 patient to demonstrate clinically important improvement. Budesonide 400 microg administered once daily via the Pulmicort Turbuhaler provides statistically significant and clinically important HRQL benefit in adult patients with asthma previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids.     

Efficacy, tolerability, and effect on asthma-related quality of life of formoterol bid via multidose dry powder inhaler and albuterol QID via metered dose inhaler in patients with persistent asthma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Inhaled beta(2)-agonists are widely used in asthma treatment. The design limitations of pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) have prompted the development of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) for the delivery of asthma medications. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and effect on asthma-related quality of life (QOL) of a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoreceptor agonist, formoterol, delivered via multidose DPI, compared with albuterol delivered via pMDI or placebo in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in outpatient clinics at 18 US centers. Adolescents and adults with persistent asthma received formoterol 10 pg BID via multidose DPI, albuterol 180 microg QID via pMDI, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the 12-hour AUC of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) after 12 weeks treatment. Secondary efficacy variables included asthma-related QOL, asthma symptom scores, rescue medication use, and other pulmonary function measures. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients (147 females, 92 males; age range, 13-85 years) with persistent asthma were enrolled (formoterol, n = 80; albuterol, n = 79; placebo, n = 80). Formoterol delivered via the multidose DPI resulted in clinically relevant and statistically significant increases in 12-hour AUC of FEV(1) after 12 weeks of treatment compared with albuterol pMDI and placebo (P < 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively). Asthma-related QOL (total score) was significantly improved with formoterol treatment compared with placebo (P < 0.015). Nocturnal asthma symptom scores significantly improved with formoterol compared with albuterol and placebo (P < 0.001 and P < 0.003, respectively) and rescue medication use was significantly less with formoterol compared with albuterol and placebo (P < 0.004 and P < 0.002, respectively). Treatment with formoterol was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, 12 weeks of treatment with formoterol 10 microg BID delivered via a multidose DPI provided significantly greater 24-hour bronchodilation compared with albuterol and placebo and resulted in significant improvements in asthma-related QOL compared with placebo. Formoterol was well tolerated in these patients.     

Efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol administered twice daily via hydrofluoroalkane 134a metered-dose inhaler in adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week study

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol (SAL) delivered via a single hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) 134a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with those of its 2 components alone delivered via a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI and placebo (PLA) delivered via HFA MDI in adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma that was not controlled by medium doses (equivalent to FP 440-660 microg/d) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled, parallel-group study consisting of a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by a 12-week, double-blind treatment period. Participants had to be > or =12 years of age and have a diagnosis of asthma requiring pharmacotherapy for at least 6 months before the study. Patients had to have used ICS therapy for > or =3 months before the study and at a consistent dose for the previous month. Lack of asthma control was defined as a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) that was 40% to 85% of the predicted value. Patients could not enter the double-blind treatment period if they had 3 days when they required >12 puffs of rescue albuterol per day or >3 nighttime awakenings due to asthma that required treatment with albuterol during the 7 days before the randomization visit. Patients were randomized to receive one of the following treatments delivered via MDI twice daily for 12 weeks: FSC 220/42 microg HFA (2 inhalations of FSC 110/21 microg; 125 microg/21 microg ex-valve); FP 220 microg CFC (2 inhalations of FP 110 microg); SAL 42 microg CFC (2 inhalations of 21 microg); or 2 inhalations of PLA HFA. The primary efficacy end point for FSC versus FP was the mean area under the 12-hour serial FEV(1) curve relative to the prerandomization baseline (FEV(1) AUC(bl)). The primary efficacy end points for FSC versus SAL were the mean change from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) at end point and the probability of not being withdrawn from the study due to worsening asthma. Tolerability assessments included electrocardiograms, routine clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, oropharyngeal examinations, and physical examinations. Adverse events were assessed at each clinic visit. RESULTS: Thirty-two adolescent and 333 adult patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment. The treatment groups were comparable at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics (mean age, 38-41 years; white race, 78%-88%) and pulmonary function (mean percent predicted FEV(1), 68%-69%; mean asthma symptom score, 1.6 [scale 0-5]; and mean daily albuterol use, 3.1 puffs). After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean FEV(1) AUC(bl) was significantly greater in patients who received FSC compared with those who received FP, SAL, or PLA (7.0, 3.6, 5.3, and 1.4 L-h, respectively; all comparisons, P < or = 0.020). At end point, the mean change from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) for FSC was significantly greater than that for FP, SAL, and PLA (0.41, 0.19, 0.15, and -0.12 L; all comparisons, P < or = 0.001). During 12 weeks of treatment, 7% of patients receiving FSC were withdrawn due to worsening asthma, compared with 24% of patients receiving SAL and 54% of patients receiving PLA (P < 0.001); 11% of patients receiving FP were withdrawn due to worsening asthma. Treatment with FSC resulted in significant improvements in morning and evening peak expiratory flow compared with FP, SAL, and PLA (both, P < 0.001); need for rescue albuterol compared with FP and PLA (P < or =0.005); and asthma symptom scores compared with PLA (P < 0.001). The tolerability of FSC was similar to that of FP or SAL alone. The incidence of possibly drug-related adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups, and the most common (occurring in > or= 2% of patients) were headache (1%-4%), throat irritation (1%-2%), candidiasis of the mouth/throat (0%-2%), unspecified oropharyngeal plaques (0%-2%), and palpitations (0%-2%). CONCLUSIONS: In these adolescent and adult patients whose asthma was not controlled by medium doses of an ICS, FSC delivered via HFA 134a MDI (2 inhalations of 110/21-microg strength administered BID) was more effective in improving lung function than FP or SAL monotherapy or PLA. All treatments were well tolerated.     

Can a low or moderate dose of inhaled budesonide replace oral non-steroidal anti-asthma treatment?

The efficacy of inhaled budesonide was assessed as an adjunct to and as a replacement for oral bronchodilators in an open study of 27 asthmatic patients. The patients had been treated regularly with oral bronchodilators but not with oral inhaled, or nasal steroids during the 2 3 months prior to the study. The study consisted of four treatment periods: 1, oral bronchodilator plus inhaled placebo for 1 week; 2, oral bronchodilator plus 400 micrograms inhaled budesonide twice daily for 3 weeks; 3,400 micrograms inhaled budesonide twice daily for 3 weeks; 4,200 micrograms inhaled budesonide twice daily for 3 weeks. Lung function measurements increased when budesonide was included with oral bronchodilators and there was a corresponding decrease in symptoms and rescue inhaler usage. Removal of oral bronchodilators from therapy did not significantly alter lung function and symptoms, whereas decreasing the dose of budesonide produced a slight reduction in peak expiratory flow and an increase in inhaled bronchodilator consumption.     

Effect of montelukast,a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist,on peak expiratory flow variability

BACKGROUND: Peak expiratory flow (PEF) is an important measure of airway functin in asthma. PEF variability (PEFvar) assessment is described in asthma treatment guidelines as another means of evaluating patient status and response to therapy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the clinical effect of oral montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, on PEFvar in asthmatic patients and to assess the relationship of PEFvar with other clinical measures. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, details of which have been published previously. Eligible patients had chronic stable asthma, had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) that was 50% to 85% of the predicted value, used inhaled beta-agonists, had at least 15% improvement in absolute FEV1 after inhaled beta-agonist administration, and showed a minimal predefined level of daytime asthma symptoms. Treatment consisted of a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by a 12-week, double-blind treatment period (montelukast 10 mg or matching placebo once daily at bedtime). RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-one patients (age range, 15-79 years) were randomized to treatment at 50 centers. Baseline PEFvar was 11.44% +/- 6.55% and 10.62% +/- 6.48% in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively. PEFvar decreased 20.1% and 7.5% from baseline in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively. The between-group difference was significant (P < 0.001). PEFvar had low correlation with other clinical measures. CONCLUSIONS: Over 12 weeks of treatment, montelukast significantly reduced PEFvar compared with placebo, indicating improved asthma control. The relative reduction in PEFvar was similar in patients with different degrees of variability at baseline. PEFvar did not correlate highly with other outcome variables and may measure different aspects of the disease.     

Effects of the inhaled corticosteroids fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and flunisolide and oral prednisone on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in adult patients with asthma

Two multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies were conducted in adult patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma to assess the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function. The first study compared fluticasone propionate 100 and 500 microg twice daily, triamcinolone acetonide 300 and 500 microg twice daily, oral prednisone 10 mg every morning, and placebo. The second study compared fluticasone propionate 100 and 250 microg twice daily, flunisolide 500 microg twice daily, and placebo. Therapeutic doses of fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and flunisolide were found to be comparable to each other and to placebo in their lack of adrenal suppressive effects, based on mean plasma cortisol responses to 6-hour cosyntropin infusion. Prednisone produced significantly greater suppression of HPA-axis function than did any of the inhaled corticosteroids or placebo (P<0.001). Mean reductions from baseline in 8-hour area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and 8-hour peak plasma cortisol concentrations and the mean percentage of change from baseline in 8-hour AUC were significantly greater after treatment with triamcinolone acetonide 500 microg twice daily compared with placebo (P< or =0.042). These findings indicate that fluticasone propionate has no greater systemic effect than either triamcinolone acetonide or flunisolide at doses appropriate for patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.     

Long-term management of patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease -- a Norwegian randomised prospective study comparing the effects of esomeprazole and ranitidine treatment strategies on health-related quality of life in a general practitioners setting

This article reports quality of life (QoL) aspects of a study that investigated the efficacy of three treatment regimens in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients. Following a 4-week symptom-control phase (esomeprazole 40 mg once daily), patients were randomised to 6 months' esomeprazole 20 mg once daily continuously (n = 658), on-demand (n = 634) or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily continuously (n = 610). Esomeprazole 40 mg once daily improved QoL during the symptom-control phase. At 6 months, both esomeprazole regimens were more effective than ranitidine in all dimensions of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (p < 0.0001). Esomeprazole continuous and on-demand led to a significant improvement in symptoms (Overall Treatment Evaluation questionnaire) compared with ranitidine (continuous: 80.2%, on-demand: 77.8%, vs. ranitidine 47.0%; p < 0.001). Esomeprazole once daily continuously maintained QoL better than esomeprazole on-demand and was associated with greater patient satisfaction. In conclusion, esomeprazole 20 mg once daily continuously and on-demand were more effective than ranitidine continuously for maintaining QoL.     

Montelukast: data from clinical trials in the management of asthma

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and adverse effects of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist used to treat asthma, and to discuss the therapeutic role of montelukast as long-term medication and difficulties associated with the management of asthma. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (up to May 1999) was conducted to identify relevant English-language publications, including preclinical studies, clinical trials, and recent reviews. STUDY SELECTION: All available published reports of controlled, clinical trials of montelukast in adults and children with asthma were summarized, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic effects of montelukast. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on the safety and efficacy of montelukast was evaluated on the basis of patient selection, study design, methodology, and statistical significance as compared with placebo or inhaled corticosteroid treatment. DATA SYNTHESIS: Montelukast is approved for the prophylaxis and chronic treatment of asthma at a dose of 10 mg once daily for adolescents (> or =15 y) and adults and 5 mg once daily for children (6-14 y). In placebo-controlled clinical trials, montelukast significantly improved pulmonary lung function (as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 sec), significantly reduced beta2-agonist use, and significantly improved patient-reported end points in adults and children (> or =6 y) with chronic asthma. In adults, a similar magnitude of improvement in lung function is seen with or without inhaled corticosteroid use; the effects of montelukast may be additive to those of inhaled corticosteroids and permit the reduction of the required dose of inhaled corticosteroids. In cases of exercise-induced asthma (adults and children), montelukast treatment attenuates the fall in pulmonary function following exercise. It attenuates both the early- and late-phase responses of asthma after allergen inhalation. Improvements in asthma control are similar in asthmatic patients who are aspirin-sensitive or not aspirin-sensitive and can be seen within one day of treatment. Tolerance does not develop, and the adverse events do not differ from those of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast is indicated for the prophylaxis of chronic asthma in adults and children (> or =6 y). It may be considered for use as first-line therapy in patients with mild persistent asthma or for additional control in patients who are still symptomatic while receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. It may also be used for additional control in aspirin-sensitive asthmatic patients. Consideration may be given for using montelukast to allow tapering of the dose of inhaled corticosteroids while maintaining clinical stability. Chronic treatment with montelukast can provide additional control of symptoms during exercise, but inhaled beta2-agonists remain first-line therapy for prophylaxis and treatment.     

Appropriate insulin regimes for type 2 diabetes: a multicenter randomized crossover study

OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the rate of hypoglycemia and metabolic control achieved on once-daily ultralente insulin administration with twice-daily NPH insulin administration in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient treatment satisfaction and quality of life were also examined before and during each treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A crossover study was performed involving five centers and 79 patients with type 2 diabetes (fasting blood glucose > 8 mmol/l) with a 2-month run-in followed by two 6-month periods of either NPH or ultralente insulin administration. Patients were managed by a specialist nurse using a dosage adjustment protocol. RESULTS: HbA1c was lower with NPH insulin therapy during each of the 6-month periods (9.7 +/- 0.2 vs. 9.1 +/- 0.3 and 9.8 +/- 0.2 vs. 9.0 +/- 0.3 mmol/l; both P < 0.01). The difference was accounted for by higher evening glucose levels with ultralente insulin (fasting 8.2 +/- 0.3 vs. 8.2 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, 6:00 P.M. 11.5 +/- 0.4 vs. 10.6 +/- 0.4 mmol/l). Despite worse control, the total number of hypoglycemic episodes was greater with ultralente insulin (220 vs. 171), and hypoglycemic episodes requiring third-party assistance occurred almost entirely with ultralente (14 vs. 1). Treatment satisfaction scores increased more with NPH insulin compared with ultralente and rose further upon changing to NPH insulin, but fell upon changing to ultralente insulin. These changes were highly significant (P < 0.001). Diabetes quality of life improved on both regimens. CONCLUSIONS: These data clearly demonstrate the lower hypoglycemia rate, better glucose control, and greater treatment satisfaction accompanying therapy for type 2 diabetes with twice daily NPH compared with once daily ultralente insulin.     

Use of a pharmacologic indicator to compare compliance with tablets prescribed to be taken once, twice, or three times daily

By use of an interview, return tablet count, and a pharmacologic indicator (low-dose phenobarbital), we compared compliance with tablets prescribed to be taken once, twice, or three times daily. One hundred seventy-nine patients with type II diabetes were randomly allocated to take one 2 mg phenobarbital tablet once, twice, or three times daily for 28 days. Phenobarbital level/dose ratios indicated that compliance was similar with once- and twice-daily regimens, and both were better than thrice-daily dosing. Mean return tablet counts suggested that compliance was best with the once-daily regimen; both twice- and thrice-daily regimens were similarly inferior. This difference between the techniques may be explained by the inadequacies of the residual tablet count, which identified only 13% of cases identified by phenobarbital. We conclude that compliance with the once-daily regimen was best, but that compliance with a twice-daily regimen was very similar, and both were superior to dosing three times a day.