Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16). METHODS: A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

High-dose sublingual immunotherapy with single-dose aqueous grass pollen extract in children is effective and safe: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy particularly attractive for use in children. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated efficacy and safety of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children allergic to grass pollen in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: After a baseline seasonal observation, 207 children aged 4 to 12 years with grass pollen-allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with/without bronchial asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma I/II) received either high-dose grass pollen SLIT or placebo daily for 1 pre-/co-seasonal period. The primary end point was the change of the area under the curve of the symptom-medication score (SMS) from the baseline season to the first season after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes were well days, responders, immunologic changes, and safety. RESULTS: Mean changes in the area under the curve of the SMS from the baseline to the first grass pollen season after the start of treatment were -212.5 for the active group and -97.8 for the placebo group (P = .0040). Rhinoconjunctivitis SMS (P = .0020) and separated symptom and medication scores were also statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .0121 and P = .0226, respectively). The number of well days and the percentage of responders were greater in the active group. Changes in allergen-specific IgE and IgG levels indicated a significant immunologic effect. The treatment was well tolerated, and no serious treatment-related events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that this SLIT preparation significantly reduced symptoms and medication use in children with grass pollen-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The preparation showed significant effects on allergen-specific antibodies, was well tolerated, and appeared to be a valid therapeutic option in children allergic to grass pollen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00841256.