Efficacy and safety of low-dose fluticasone propionate compared with zafirlukast in patients with persistent asthma.

To compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and zafirlukast in patients with relatively stable persistent asthma who were previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta(2)-agonists.A total of 440 patients (> or =12 years of age) previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids (beclomethasone dipropionate or triamcinolone acetonide) and short-acting beta(2)-agonists were included in this randomized double-blind study. After an 8-day run-in period, patients were treated with fluticasone (88 microg) or zafirlukast (20 mg) twice daily for 6 weeks. Outcome measures included pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)], peak expiratory flow [peak flow]), albuterol use, asthma symptoms, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and asthma exacerbations. Patients treated with fluticasone (n = 224) experienced greater mean increases in FEV(1) (0.24 L vs. 0.08 L, P <0.001), morning peak flow (30 L/min vs. 6 L/min, P <0.001), and evening peak flow (23 L/min vs. 5 L/min, P <0.001) during the study than did those treated with zafirlukast (n = 216). Fluticasone-treated patients had significantly greater increases in the mean percentages of symptom-free days (22% vs. 8%, P <0.001), rescue-free days (23% vs. 10%, P = 0.002), nights with uninterrupted sleep (<1% vs. -5%, P = 0.006), and fewer asthma exacerbations (1% vs. 6%, P = 0.005). Fewer fluticasone-treated patients were withdrawn due to lack of efficacy (2% vs. 13%, P <0.001).Inhaled fluticasone was more effective than zafirlukast in maintaining or improving asthma control in patients with relatively stable asthma who were switched from low-dose inhaled corticosteroids.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose fluticasone propionate compared with montelukast for maintenance treatment of persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effects of an inhaled corticosteroid with those of a leukotriene modifier on measures of clinical efficacy, subject preference, and safety in patients with persistent asthma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 17, 1998, and May 26, 2000, we conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study of patients aged 15 years or older with persistent asthma. The patients were symptomatic while taking short-acting beta2-agonists alone and were treated with fluticasone propionate (88 microg [2 puffs of 44 microg] twice daily) or montelukast (10 mg/d) for 24 weeks. Measures of pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, physician assessments of efficacy, patient satisfaction, asthma-related quality of life, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 522 patients were randomized to receive fluticasone or montelukast, and 395 patients completed the study. At end point, treatment with fluticasone significantly improved pulmonary function, asthma symptom scores, the percentage of symptom-free days, rescue albuterol use, and the number of nighttime awakenings due to asthma when compared with montelukast (P< or = .002, each comparison). Significantly more patients were satisfied with fluticasone therapy (83%) compared with montelukast therapy (66%) (P<.001), and fluticasone therapy was rated as effective by a significantly greater portion of physicians (67%) than was montelukast therapy (54%) (P<.001). Treatment with fluticasone significantly improved asthma-related quality-of-life measures compared with montelukast (P< or =.01). The incidence of asthma exacerbations was similar in the fluticasone (19 patients, 7%) and montelukast (21 patients, 8%) treatment groups, although slightly more patients in the montelukast group were withdrawn from the study because of asthma exacerbations (6% vs 4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with a low dose of inhaled fluticasone is more effective than oral montelukast as first-line maintenance therapy for the treatment of persistent asthma.