Efficacy and safety of a high purity, double virus inactivated factor VIII/von Willebrand factor concentrate (Biostate) in patients with von Willebrand disorder requiring invasive or surgical procedures.

Biostate is a double virally inactivated, plasma derived coagulation factor VIII (FVIII)/von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrate registered and used in Australia, New Zealand and Asia for the treatment of patients with haemophilia A. Although Biostate has been well characterized for FVIII and VWF (ratio 1:2 respectively) and shows a similar VWF multimeric pattern to normal plasma, limited published data is available on its clinical efficacy and safety in patients with von Willebrand disorder (VWD) who require surgical procedures. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of Biostate in all VWD patients treated at three Australian haemophilia treatment centres undergoing invasive procedures or surgery over a 29-month period between April 2003 and September 2005. A chart review of 43 VWD patients (26 VWD type 1, 12 VWD type 2, 5 VWD type 3; 21 male, 22 female; mean age 52 years, range 19-80 years) undergoing 58 surgical procedures (24 major, 34 minor) was performed. For each procedure, data were collected on Biostate dosage and administration, adverse reactions, haemostatic efficacy and bleeding events. Haemostatic efficacy of Biostate was assessed as excellent in 78% or good in 22% of procedures. There were no bleeding events attributable to lack of efficacy in any patients. No adverse reactions related to the administration of Biostate were observed. These results suggest that Biostate is both safe and efficacious for the prevention of excessive bleeding in VWD patients undergoing surgery or invasive procedures.

Treatment with intranasal fluticasone propionate significantly improves ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: If monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid can alleviate both nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis, treatment may be simplified and costs may be reduced. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray 200 microg compared with vehicle placebo and oral loratadine (LOR) 10 mg in reducing ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A total of 471 patients received vehicle placebo, LOR, or FP in this multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study. Patients were > or =12 years old with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test for a relevant allergen. During the baseline and treatment periods, patients rated the severity of eye itching, tearing, and redness via visual analogue scales that ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (most severe symptoms). The three ocular ratings were added to derive the total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients with a TOSS > or =120 on at least 4 of the 7 days before the randomization visit were enrolled. The primary outcome was the difference between FP and vehicle placebo in the mean change from baseline in the reflective TOSS overall (averaged over the 28-day treatment period). A difference between FP and vehicle placebo of 25.5 was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: The overall mean change from baseline in the TOSS was significantly greater in the FP group compared with vehicle placebo (clinically significant difference of 28.8; P<0.001) and compared with LOR (difference of 16.2; P=0.028). Overall mean (SEM) changes were -59.9 (5.4) for the placebo group, -72.5 (5.4) for the LOR group, and -88.7 (5.3) for the FP group. The FP treatment group also showed significantly greater overall mean changes in ocular itching, tearing, and redness compared with vehicle placebo (P<0.001) and compared with LOR (P< or =0.045). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with intranasal FP had clinically and statistically significant decreases in ocular symptom scores compared with vehicle placebo. Data also suggest that FP reduced ocular symptoms more than or comparable with oral LOR. Patients experiencing ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis may benefit from monotherapy with intranasal FP.

Cost-efficacy analysis of fluticasone propionate versus zafirlukast in patients with persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative value of an inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily, versus an oral leukotriene receptor antagonist, zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily, in patients with persistent asthma currently receiving short acting beta2-agonists alone. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-efficacy analysis using resource utilisation and clinical data obtained prospectively from a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled 12-week clinical trial conducted in the US. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 451 corticosteroid-naive patients with persistent asthma were treated with either fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily or zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. All patients were given salbutamol (albuterol) to be used as rescue medication. Data were examined using intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Mean daily per person cost-efficacy ratios using improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) [> or = 12% increase from baseline] were $US 3.47 for fluticasone propionate compared with $US 7.81 for zafirlukast (1999 values). The mean daily per person cost-efficacy ratios for symptom-free days obtained were $US 5.51 for fluticasone propionate compared with $US 14.98 for zafirlukast. These cost-efficacy ratios remained in favour of fluticasone propionate after a robust sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with fluticasone propionate 88 kg twice daily was the most cost effective treatment compared with zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily in this 12-week clinical trial. This analysis supports the use of fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily as first-line treatment in patients with persistent asthma previously treated with short-acting beta2-agonist alone.

Comparison of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol combination therapy and montelukast in patients who are symptomatic on short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone.

The objective of this study was to determine whether initial maintenance therapy for the treatment of inflammation and bronchoconstriction associated with persistent asthma is more effective with a combination product (100 microg of fluticasone propionate and 50 microg of salmeterol [FSC]) administered twice daily through the Diskus device (GlaxoWellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC) or with montelukast at 10 mg once daily. A 12-wk, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted with 423 patients 15 yr of age and older with asthma and who were symptomatic while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone. At end point, FSC resulted in significantly greater increases in morning predose FEV(1) (0.54 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.27 +/- 0.03 L), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (89.9 +/- 6.7 vs. 34.2 +/- 4.7 L/min), evening PEF (69.9 +/- 5.8 vs. 31.1 +/- 4.5 L/min), the percentage of symptom-free days (48.9 +/- 2.9 vs. 21.7 +/- 2.5%), the percentage of rescue-free days (53.0 +/- 2.8 vs. 26.2 +/- 2.5%), and the percentage of nights with no awakenings (23.0 +/- 2.5 vs. 15.5+/-2.4%) compared with montelukast (p < or = 0.001, all comparisons). FSC significantly reduced asthma symptom scores (-1.0 +/- 0.1 vs. -0.6 +/- 0.1), rescue albuterol use (-3.3 +/- 0.2 vs. -1.9 +/- 0.2 puffs/d), and the number of exacerbations (0 vs. 11) compared with montelukast (p < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. In summary, treatment of the two main components of asthma (inflammation and bronchoconstriction) with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in a combination product was a more effective initial maintenance treatment strategy than treatment with montelukast, a single-mediator antagonist.

Improved asthma control after changing from low-to-medium doses of other inhaled corticosteroids to low-dose fluticasone propionate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of changing from low-to-medium doses of other inhaled corticosteroids to low-dose fluticasone propionate. METHODS: Data from 11 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trials in adults (>= 12 years; n = 1453; % predicted FEV1 = 42% to 89%) and 4 trials in children (4-11 years; n = 161; % predicted FEV1 = 50% to 112%) with chronic asthma were retrospectively analyzed. Symptomatic adults (n = 1181) treated with low-to-medium doses of beclomethasone dipropionate (168-672 mcg/day), triamcinolone acetonide (400-1200 mcg/day), or flunisolide (>=1000 mcg/day) were switched to low-dose fluticasone propionate (176 or 200 mcg daily) for 6-26 weeks. Patients (n = 272) remaining on low-dose beclomethasone dipropionate (336 mcg daily) served as controls. Pediatric patients previously treated with low doses of triamcinolone acetonide (4-8 puffs/day), or low-to-medium doses of beclomethasone dipropionate (4-8 puffs/day) or flunisolide (2-6 puffs/day), were changed to low-dose fluticasone propionate (100 mcg daily) for 12-52 weeks. RESULTS: Improvements in FEV1, morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue albuterol use, asthma symptom scores, and symptom-free days were significantly greater in adults who changed from low-to-medium doses of beclomethasone dipropionate or triamcinolone acetonide to low-dose fluticasone propionate (P <.001). Regardless of the degree of asthma severity, these improvements were 1.5- to 4-fold greater in adult patients changed to low-dose fluticasone propionate vs those remaining on low-dose beclomethasone dipropionate. Significant improvements in lung function, albuterol use, and asthma symptoms (P <=.002) were also seen in pediatric patients who changed from beclomethasone dipropionate, flunisolide, or triamcinolone acetonide to a much lower dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (100 mcg fluticasone propionate daily). Drug-related adverse events were low in adults and children, and were comparable among adults receiving low-dose fluticasone propionate or beclomethasone dipropionate. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that patients with persistent asthma can change from other inhaled corticosteroids to a lower dose of fluticasone propionate and still maintain or improve asthma control.

Comparison of inhaled salmeterol and oral zafirlukast in asthmatic patients using concomitant inhaled corticosteroids.

CONTEXT: For asthmatic patients who remain symptomatic on inhaled corticosteroids, augmenting the therapy with additional long-term control medication is advocated. Long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists and leukotriene modifiers are 2 therapeutic alternatives in the long-term controller class. OBJECTIVE: To compare the addition of a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist to the addition of an oral leukotriene modifier for asthma therapy in patients who remain symptomatic on inhaled corticosteroids. DESIGN: Double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter clinical studies. SETTING: 54 outpatient clinical centers. PATIENTS: 429 male and female patients with asthma 12 years of age and older who were symptomatic while taking inhaled corticosteroids. INTERVENTIONS: Salmeterol xinafoate 42 mcg via metered dose inhaler twice daily or oral zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, supplemental albuterol use, asthma quality of life scores, and adverse events. RESULTS: Inhaled salmeterol provided significantly greater improvement in pulmonary function as well as significantly greater relief of both daytime and nighttime asthma symptoms compared with oral zafirlukast in patients concurrently treated with inhaled corticosteroids. The use of supplemental albuterol was reduced to a greater extent with salmeterol compared with zafirlukast. Patients treated with salmeterol showed significantly greater improvement in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores and were satisfied with how fast, how long, and how well the medication worked compared with patients in the zafirlukast group. Both treatments were well tolerated and demonstrated similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma not sufficiently controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone, the combination of inhaled salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids is superior to the combination of oral zafirlukast and inhaled corticosteroids as stepwise therapy.

Salmeterol powder provides significantly better benefit than montelukast in asthmatic patients receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Comparison of inhaled salmeterol powder vs oral montelukast treatment in patients with persistent asthma who remained symptomatic while receiving inhaled corticosteroids. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter trials of 12-week duration. SETTING: Outpatients in private and university-affiliated clinics. PATIENTS: Male and female patients > or = 15 years of age with a diagnosis of asthma (baseline FEV(1) of 50 to 80% of predicted) and symptomatic despite receiving inhaled corticosteroids. INTERVENTIONS: Inhaled salmeterol xinafoate powder, 50 microg bid, or oral montelukast, 10 mg qd. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Treatment with salmeterol powder resulted in significantly greater improvements from baseline compared with montelukast for most efficacy measurements, including morning peak expiratory flow (35.0 L/min vs 21.7 L/min; p < 0.001), percentage of symptom-free days (24% vs 16%; p < 0.001), and the percentage of rescue-free days (27% vs 20%; p = 0.002). Total supplemental albuterol use was decreased significantly more in the salmeterol group compared with the montelukast group (- 1.90 puffs per day vs - 1.66 puffs per day; p = 0.004) and nighttime awakenings per week decreased significantly more with salmeterol than with montelukast (- 1.42 vs - 1.32; p = 0.015). Patients treated with inhaled salmeterol were significantly more satisfied with their treatment regimen and how well, how fast, and how long it worked than were patients who were treated with oral montelukast. The safety profiles for the two treatments were similar. CONCLUSION: In patients with persistent asthma who remain symptomatic while receiving inhaled corticosteroids, adding inhaled salmeterol powder provided significantly greater improvement in lung function and asthma symptoms and was preferred by patients over oral montelukast.

Fluticasone propionate compared with zafirlukast in controlling persistent asthma: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (an inhaled corticosteroid) with zafirlukast (a leukotriene modifier) for persistent asthma. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy trial, patients underwent an 8- to 14-day run-in period followed by 12 weeks of treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate (88 mg twice daily by metered-dose inhaler), oral zafirlukast (20 mg twice daily), or placebo. POPULATION: We included a total of 338 persistent asthma patients, 12 years of age or older, using short-acting b2-agonists alone. OUTCOMES: measured Efficacy outcomes included changes in pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, rescue albuterol use, nighttime awakenings due to asthma, and quality of life. Safety outcomes included asthma exacerbations, adverse events, and clinically significant laboratory test results. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, patients taking fluticasone propionate experienced significantly greater improvements in all clinical parameters (symptom scores, percentages of symptom-free and albuterol-free days, albuterol use, and nighttime awakenings) compared with patients taking zafirlukast (P <.05) or placebo (P <.05). Treatment with fluticasone propionate resulted in significantly greater improvements in pulmonary function compared with zafirlukast (P <.05) or placebo (P <.05). Fewer fluticasone propionate patients (4%) had an exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids compared with those taking zafirlukast (12%) or placebo (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled fluticasone propionate is more effective than zafirlukast in controlling asthma symptoms, improving pulmonary function, and improving quality of life for patients who are symptomatic with the use of short-acting b2-agonists alone.

Use of changes in symptoms to predict changes in lung function in assessing the response to asthma therapy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of adult patients with asthma are managed by primary care providers. Although there is no generally accepted gold standard for the assessment of asthma severity in general practice, treatment decisions and modifications to therapy are strongly influenced by patients' symptoms and history of asthma medication use. OBJECTIVES: The primary goal of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between changes in asthma symptoms during treatment and changes in lung function, as measured by peak expiratory flow (PEF). A secondary goal was to compare the relative efficacy (in terms of improvement in asthma symptoms and lung function) of 3 commonly used asthma treatments: inhaled fluticasone propionate, inhaled salmeterol xinafoate, and oral zafirlukast. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparison employing regression analyses of asthma symptom and lung function data from 2890 male and female adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma who were enrolled in 8 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group studies. Data on patients' self-rated symptoms, PEF, supplemental albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, and frequency of asthma exacerbations were used to ascertain whether there was a correlation between changes in asthma symptoms and changes in pulmonary function, and to compare treatment effects. RESULTS: Changes in patients' ratings of asthma symptoms after treatment with study medications showed a strong correlation with changes in lung function. Similarly, changes in lung function were strongly correlated with changes in supplemental beta-agonist use and quality of life. In addition, fluticasone or salmeterol treatment resulted in significantly greater increases in mean morning PEF (P < 0.001), significantly greater decreases in symptom scores (P < or = 0.004), significantly fewer nights with awakenings due to symptoms (P < or = 0.017), and significantly greater reductions in supplemental beta-agonist use (P < 0.001) compared with zafirlukast treatment or placebo. Patients treated with fluticasone or salmeterol also experienced significantly lower rates of asthma exacerbation (3%) during treatment than did those receiving zafirlukast (7%) or placebo (12%) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, fluticasone and salmeterol, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings support the validity of primary care practitioners' basing asthma-management decisions on patients' symptoms.

Salmeterol plus theophylline combination therapy in the treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD often require multiple therapies to improve lung function and decrease symptoms and exacerbations. Salmeterol and theophylline are indicated for the treatment of COPD, but the use of these agents in combination has not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of salmeterol plus theophylline vs either agent alone in COPD. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial in 943 patients with COPD. After an open-label theophylline titration period (serum levels, 10 to 20 microg/mL), patients were randomly assigned to receive salmeterol (42 microg bid) plus theophylline, salmeterol (42 microg bid), or theophylline for 12 weeks. Serial pulmonary function tests were completed on day 1 and treatment week 12. Patients kept diary cards and noted their peak flow rates, symptom scores, and albuterol use, and periodically completed quality-of-life and dyspnea questionnaires. RESULTS: All three groups significantly improved compared with baseline. Combination treatment with salmeterol plus theophylline provided significantly (p < or = 0.045) greater improvements in pulmonary function; significantly (p < or = 0.048) greater decreases in symptoms, dyspnea, and albuterol use; and significantly fewer COPD exacerbations (p = 0.023 vs theophylline). In general, treatment with salmeterol provided greater improvement in lung function and satisfaction with treatment compared with theophylline. Salmeterol treatment was also associated with significantly fewer drug-related adverse events (p < or = 0.042) than either treatment that included theophylline. The safety profile (adverse events, vital signs, and ECG findings) of the two treatments that included theophylline were similar. CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD may benefit from combination treatment with salmeterol plus theophylline, without a resulting increase in adverse events or other adverse sequelae.

Addition of salmeterol to low-dose fluticasone versus higher-dose fluticasone: an analysis of asthma exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Adding salmeterol to low-dose fluticasone propionate (FP) produces greater improvements in pulmonary function and symptom control than increasing the dose of FP in patients who remain symptomatic with low-dose FP. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the rates and characteristics of asthma exacerbations in patients after adding salmeterol to low-dose FP with the rates and characteristics of exacerbations in patients receiving higher dose FP. METHODS: In 2 multicenter, double-blind studies, 925 patients 12 years of age and older receiving 88 microg twice daily FP randomly received either 42 microg of salmeterol and 88 microg of FP or an increased dose of FP (220 microg) twice daily for 24 weeks. Exacerbation rates and clinical measures of asthma worsening were assessed for all patients who experienced an asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: The addition of salmeterol resulted in a significantly lower rate and number of exacerbations compared with higher dose FP. A total of 41 (8.8%) patients experienced 47 exacerbations with the addition of salmeterol compared with 63 (13.8%) patients with 75 exacerbations in the group receiving increased-dose FP (P =.017). Salmeterol plus low-dose FP was significantly more protective than increased-dose FP in preventing asthma exacerbations, as assessed by the time to first exacerbation (P <.05). In both groups clinical indicators of worsening asthma showed parallel changes before asthma exacerbation, and greater improvements were observed after exacerbation with salmeterol compared with higher dose FP. CONCLUSION: Salmeterol plus low-dose FP was more effective than higher dose FP alone in reducing asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The ability to detect deteriorating asthma and the severity of exacerbation was similar between groups.

Use of a long-acting inhaled beta2-adrenergic agonist, salmeterol xinafoate, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition in which continuous bronchodilation may have clinical advantages. This study evaluated salmeterol, a beta-agonist bronchodilator with a duration of action substantially longer than that of short-acting beta-agonists, compared with ipratropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, and placebo in patients with COPD. Four hundred and five patients with COPD received either salmeterol 42 microg twice daily, ipratropium bromide 36 microg four times daily, or placebo for 12 wk in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients were stratified on the basis of bronchodilator response to albuterol (> 12% and > 200-ml improvement) and were randomized within each stratum. Bronchodilator response was measured over 12 h four times during the treatment period. Salmeterol provided similar maximal bronchodilatation to ipratropium but had a longer duration of action and a more constant bronchodilatory effect with no evidence of bronchodilator tolerance. Both active treatments were well tolerated. Salmeterol was an effective bronchodilator with a consistent effect over this 12-wk study in patients with COPD, including those "unresponsive" to albuterol. The long duration of action of salmeterol offers the advantage of twice daily dosing compared with the required four times a day dosing with ipratropium.

Onset of therapeutic effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of rhinitis has been demonstrated in multiple controlled clinical studies. The onset of therapeutic effect of FP in these clinical trials appears to occur within 12 hours after administration of the initial dose. OBJECTIVE: This article presents an analysis from previous clinical trials that examined the efficacy of intranasal FP in patients with rhinitis to ascertain whether the time to onset of the therapeutic effect of this medication could be determined. METHODS: Completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with FP were evaluated to determine whether onset of effect could be evaluated based on the study designs. A study was deemed acceptable for evaluation of onset of effect if at least one evaluation of the intensity of nasal symptoms was completed within 12 hours after the initial dose of study medication and daily evaluations were made thereafter. Adult patients were included in the onset analysis if they received an initial FP dose of 200 microg. Pediatric patients who received an initial FP dose of 100 microg were also included. Onset of effect was evaluated by 1) examining the timepoints at which statistically significant differences were observed between FP and placebo in mean change from baseline for total nasal symptom score (TNSS); and by 2) using a binary probability model of success/failure to determine statistically significant differences from placebo. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the criteria to evaluate onset of therapeutic effect; 3,605 patients with rhinitis received FP and 2,271 patients received placebo. This database represents the largest compilation of data ever assembled to determine the onset of therapeutic effect of a corticosteroid nasal spray. Two studies used a "park design" to examine onset of effect; statistically significant differences in TNSS favoring FP were achieved at hours 2 to 4 and at hour 12, respectively. Using a binary probability model of success/failure for analysis of TNSS in the remaining 20 studies not specifically designed to evaluate onset of effect, numerically greater improvements in TNSS for FP compared with placebo were found in 19 of the 20 studies within 12 hours of the administration of the first dose (P < .001). Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant improvement for TNSS within 12 hours postdose in five of the studies for FP compared with placebo and in none for placebo compared with FP. CONCLUSIONS: Onset of therapeutic effect occurs within 12 hours, and as early as 2 to 4 hours in some patients, after administration of the first dose of FP aqueous nasal spray.

Low-dose fluticasone propionate compared with montelukast for first-line treatment of persistent asthma: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Both inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are used in the maintenance treatment of persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose fluticasone propionate (FP) and montelukast as first-line maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients by using short-acting beta2-agonists alone to treat persistent asthma. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 533 patients (>15 years old) with persistent asthma who remained symptomatic while taking short-acting beta2-agonists alone were treated with FP (88 microg [2 puffs of 44 microg] twice daily) or montelukast (10 mg once daily) for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with treatment with montelukast, treatment with FP resulted in significantly greater improvements at endpoint in morning predose FEV(1) (22.9% vs 14.5%, P <.001), forced midexpiratory flow (0.66 vs 0.41 L/sec, P <.001), forced vital capacity (0.42 vs 0.29 L, P =.002), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (68.5 vs 34.1 L/min, P <.001), and evening PEF (53.9 vs 28.7 L/min, P <.001). Similar improvements in PEF were observed in patients with milder asthma (>70%-80% predicted FEV(1)). At endpoint, FP was more effective than montelukast at decreasing rescue albuterol use (3.1 puffs/day vs 2.3 puffs/day, P <.001), asthma symptom scores (-0.85 [48.6% decrease] vs -0.60 [30.5%], P <.001), and nighttime awakenings due to asthma (-0.64 awakenings/night [62% decrease] vs -0.48 awakenings/night [47.5%], P =.023), and FP increased the percentage of symptom-free days (32.0% vs 18.4% of days, P <.001) compared with montelukast. The adverse event and asthma exacerbation profiles for FP and montelukast were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose FP is more effective than montelukast as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with persistent asthma who are undertreated and remain symptomatic while taking short-acting beta2-agonists alone.

Prospective randomised open-label comparison of danaparoid with dextran 70 in the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia with thrombosis: a clinical outcome study.

AIM: To compare clinical outcomes in a randomised comparison of treatment with danaparoid sodium (a heparinoid), or dextran 70, for heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT) plus thrombosis. METHODS: Forty-two patients with recent thrombosis and a clinical diagnosis of probable HIT who presented at ten Australian hospitals during a study period of six and one half years were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with intravenous danaparoid or dextran 70, each combined with oral warfarin. Thirty-four patients (83%) had a positive platelet aggregation or 14C-serotonin release test for HIT antibody. Twenty-five received danaparoid as a bolus injection of 2400 anti-Xa units followed by 400 units per hour for 2 h, 300 units per hour for 2 h, and then 200 units per hour for five days. Seventeen received 1000 mL dextran 70 on day one and then 500 mL on days 2-5. Patients were reviewed daily for clinical evidence of thrombus progression or resolution, fresh thrombosis or embolism, bleeding or other complications. The primary trial endpoint was the proportion of thromboembolic events with complete clinical resolution by the time of discharge from hospital. RESULTS: With danaparoid, there was complete clinical recovery from 56% of thromboembolic events compared to 14% after dextran 70 (Odds Ratio 10.53, 95% Confidence Interval 1.6-71.4; p = 0.02). Clinical recovery with danaparoid was complete or partial in 86% of thromboembolic events compared with 53% after dextran 70 (Odds Ratio 4.55, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2-16.7; p = 0.03). Overall clinical effectiveness of danaparoid was rated as high or moderate in 88% of patients compared with 47% for dextran 70 (p = 0.01). One patient given danaparoid died of thrombosis compared with three patients given dextran 70. The platelet count returned to normal after a mean of 6.7 days with danaparoid and 7.3 days with dextran 70. There was no major bleeding with either treatment. CONCLUSION: danaparoid plus warfarin treatment for HIT with thrombosis is effective, safe, and superior to dextran 70 plus warfarin.

Fluticasone propionate versus zafirlukast: effect in patients previously receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

BACKGROUND: The use of inhaled corticosteroids compared with leukotriene modifying drugs in the treatment of persistent asthma has not been extensively studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a low dose of fluticasone propionate (FP) and zafirlukast in patients previously maintained on inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: Patients (> or = 12 years old; FEV1 = 60% to 85% of predicted) with persistent asthma who were previously treated with low doses of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) 400 to 800 microg/day or beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 to 336 microg/day were randomized to treatment with FP aerosol 88 microg BID (FP, n = 221) or zafirlukast 20 mg BID (n = 216) over 6 weeks. RESULTS: Treatment with FP significantly increased the mean change at endpoint (the last post-baseline observation) in FEV1 (0.22 L versus 0.03 L, P < .001), morning PEF (17.8 versus 3.1 L/min, P = .004), evening PEF (16.7 versus 2.6 L/min, P = .002), the percentage of symptom-free days (16.2 versus 7.1%, P = .007), and the percentage of rescue-free days (23.4 versus 9.3%, P < .001), and significantly decreased rescue albuterol use (-0.66 puffs/day versus an increase of 0.27 puffs/day, P < .001) and combined symptom scores (-0.13 versus an increase of 0.08, P < .001) compared with zafirlukast. Treatment with FP maintained the percentage of awakening-free nights (-1.0 +/- 1.0); in contrast, treatment with zafirlukast reduced the percentage of awakening-free nights (-9.0 +/- 1.6, P < .001). A clinically meaningful difference (change of > or = 0.5; P < .001) was observed between FP and zafirlukast in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) global score and for each domain score except activity limitation (change of 0.3, P < .001). Significantly more patients in the zafirlukast group experienced an asthma exacerbation (n = 14) compared with FP-treated patients (n = 5, P = .035). Patients in the zafirlukast group were significantly more likely to be withdrawn due to lack of efficacy (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Switching patients from low doses of inhaled corticosteroids to a lower total microgram dose of FP improves pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and quality of life, while switching to the leukotriene receptor antagonist zafirlukast may result in worsening of asthma control. This was indicated by the significant number of zafirlukast-treated patients who were dropped from the study due to lack of efficacy within 6 weeks of discontinuing inhaled corticosteroids.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination provides more effective asthma control than low-dose inhaled corticosteroid plus montelukast.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.