Effect of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in a single device, fluticasone propionate, and montelukast on overall asthma control, exacerbations, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are the most effective class of anti-inflammatory agents and are recommended for patients with persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of (1) fluticasone propionate, 100 microg, and salmeterol, 50 microg; (2) fluticasone propionate, 100 microg; and (3) montelukast, 10 mg, as first-line maintenance treatment for persistent asthma. METHODS: Combined analysis of 4 clinical trials, 2 that compared fluticasone propionate-salmeterol with montelukast and 2 that compared fluticasone propionate with montelukast as initial asthma therapy. RESULTS: The 4 studies had a total of 1,910 patients 15 years or older with symptomatic asthma previously treated with inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists alone. At the end point, there were significantly greater increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (0.57 L; P < or = .004) vs fluticasone propionate (0.48 L) and montelukast (0.31 L) and significantly greater increases in morning peak expiratory flow rate (84.9 L/min; P < .001) vs fluticasone propionate (56.0 L/min) and montelukast (36.1 L/min). Fluticasone propionate-salmeterol significantly increased the percentage of symptom- and rescue-free days and significantly reduced albuterol use vs fluticasone propionate and montelukast (P < or = .04 for both). Patients treated with fluticasone propionate and montelukast had 2.6 and 3.6 greater risk, respectively, of having an asthma-related exacerbation vs fluticasone propionate-salmeterol users. In addition, mean daily exacerbation costs per treated patient were dollars 0.41 for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol, dollars 4.60 for fluticasone propionate, and dollars 7.57 for montelukast, whereas mean daily costs per patient exacerbation for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol, fluticasone propionate, and montelukast were dollars 29, dollars 128, and dollars 154, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic asthma previously treated with short-acting beta2-agonists only who require maintenance therapy are likely to have greater clinical benefits, lower risk of an asthma exacerbation, and reduced exacerbation-related costs when initiating therapy with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate or montelukast.

Concurrent use of intranasal and orally inhaled fluticasone propionate does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function.

Two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group safety and efficacy studies included evaluation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis effects of concurrent treatment with intranasal and orally inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP). In the first study, patients with asthma who were > or =12 years of age were assigned randomly to receive twice-daily doses (either 88 or 220 microg) of orally inhaled FP delivered from a metered-dose inhaler (MDI). In the second study, patients were assigned randomly to receive either orally inhaled FP 250 microg or orally inhaled FP 250 microg/salmeterol 50 microg delivered via the Diskus device. In both studies, patients with rhinitis were allowed to continue the use of intranasal FP at their usual dosing. Treatment periods were 26 weeks and 12 weeks for the MDI and Diskus studies, respectively. HPA-axis effects were assessed using response to short cosyntropin stimulation testing. The number and percentage of patients with an abnormal cortisol response, defined as a morning plasma cortisol of <5 microg/dL, a poststimulation peak of <18 microg/dL, or a poststimulation rise of <7 microg/dL, were summarized in two subgroups: patients who used intranasal FP and those who did not. The concurrent administration of intranasal FP and orally inhaled FP via an MDI or Diskus or via Diskus with salmeterol was not associated with HPA-axis effects compared with orally inhaled FP alone. The results of these two studies suggest that concurrent use of intranasal FP with orally inhaled FP administered via MDI or Diskus for treatment of comorbid rhinitis and asthma does not increase the risk of HPA-axis abnormalities.

The efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate in the relief of ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to decrease ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis as well as nasal symptoms. The primary objective of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). We pooled efficacy data from seven multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of similar design. Each study evaluated the efficacy of intranasal FP, 200 micrograms, given once daily in the treatment of nasal and ocular symptoms associated with SAR. At baseline and after 7 and 14 days of treatment, clinicians rated the severity of four individual ocular symptoms (itching, tearing, redness, and puffiness) via visual analog scales of 0-100, where 0 = no symptoms and 100 = worst symptoms. The four ratings were added to form the total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients rated the overall severity of their ocular symptoms (all symptoms evaluated with a single score) daily on diary cards in a similar fashion. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in the clinician-rated TOSS. A between-group difference of 25 points in the mean change from baseline TOSS by day 14 was considered clinically relevant. The FP group had greater mean changes from baseline in the TOSS and in all four individual symptom scores compared with placebo at days 7 and 14. At day 7, mean decreases from baseline in the TOSS were 76.0 points for the FP group and 50.9 points for the placebo group (p < 0.001), a difference between groups of 25.1. At day 14, mean decreases from baseline in the TOSS were 91.8 points for the FP group and 60.2 points for the placebo group (p < 0.001), a difference between groups of 31.6. Consistent with the clinician-rated data, patient-rated data showed a significantly greater reduction in the overall ocular symptom score for the FP group compared with placebo for both weeks 1 and 2 (p < 0.001). Intranasal FP provides safe and effective relief of ocular symptoms associated with SAR. Patients with allergic rhinitis who also have ocular symptoms as a component of their disease may benefit from intranasal FP monotherapy without the addition of topical ophthalmologic agents or oral antihistamines. Such an approach may have advantages regarding compliance and cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Lack of effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in 2- and 3-year-old patients.

OBJECTIVE: Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP) at the highest recommended doses does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function in adults or older children, but its potential effects in children younger than 4 years have not been previously studied. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effects of FP on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol levels in children 2 to 3 years of age. METHODS: Patients ages 2 to 3 years with symptoms of allergic rhinitis were administered FP 200 microg/day (FP200 QD) or vehicle placebo for 6 weeks. RESULTS: The FP200 QD group (n = 33) was equivalent to the placebo group (n = 32) in mean change from baseline in the primary safety measure of 12-hour creatinine-corrected urinary-free cortisol concentration (geometric mean difference [standard error; SE] for placebo-FP200 QD = 0.96 [1.20]; 95% confidence interval 0.66, 1.39) at the end of the treatment period. The adjusted geometric mean change from baseline value was 0.98 for FP200 QD (SE = 1.14) and 0.94 for placebo (SE = 1.15); a value of 1.0 reflects no change from baseline. Cough and fever were the most common adverse events reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: FP200 QD was equivalent to placebo with respect to effects on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol in 2- and 3-year-old patients. FP200 QD was well-tolerated in these very young children with allergic rhinitis.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with montelukast.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is well documented in the literature. Additionally, an expert panel has concluded that intranasal corticosteroids are the first line of therapy when obstruction is a major component of rhinitis. Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist recently approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a 15-day course of intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 microg, once daily (FP200QD), to oral montelukast 10 mg, once daily (MON10QD), in relieving daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms associated with SAR. METHODS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population consisted of 705 eligible males and females (> or = 15 years) with SAR randomized to either FP200QD (N = 353) or MON10QD (N = 352). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in subject-rated daytime total nasal symptom scores (the sum of four individual scores: nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), evaluated via visual analog scales, and averaged over weeks 1 to 2. Secondary endpoints included the four daytime individual nasal symptom scores, the nighttime total, and individual nasal symptom scores (each evaluated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences favoring FP200QD over MON10QD were observed for the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), daytime individual nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), nighttime total (P < 0.001), and all individual nasal symptom scores (P < or = 0.002) over the 15-day treatment period. FP200QD and MON10QD were both well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this well controlled study demonstrated that FP200QD was consistently superior to MON10QD with regard to every efficacy endpoint evaluated, including daytime and nighttime nasal congestion, in subjects with SAR.

Loss of response to treatment with leukotriene receptor antagonists but not inhaled corticosteroids in patients over 50 years of age.

BACKGROUND: There are limited published data describing the relative efficacy of available treatment options in younger versus older patients with persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and zafirlukast (Z) in younger (12 to 49 years of age) versus older (50 years and older) patients with asthma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of five randomized, double-blind, double-dummy studies 4 to 12 weeks in duration of 1,742 patients <50 years of age and 243 patients aged 50 years or older. Interventions were inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) 88 microg, oral Z 20 mg, or placebo twice daily. RESULTS: Treatment with FP resulted in significantly greater improvements than Z in all efficacy measurements (except for nighttime awakenings) regardless of age. In older patients, treatment with FP significantly increased pulmonary function compared with Z: FEV (FP= +0.19 L; placebo = -0.34 L; Z = -0.06 L); AM peak expiratory flow rate [PEFR] (FP = +25 L/minute; placebo = -18 L/minute; Z = +4 L/minute); PM PEFR (FP = +24 L/minute; placebo = -24 L/minute; Z = +5 L/minute; P < or = 0.023; for all comparisons). Compared with Z, treatment with FP in older patients also resulted in significantly greater increases in the percentage of symptom-free days (25% vs 13%) and rescue-free days (35% vs 17%); and significantly greater reductions in albuterol use (-1.6 vs -0.3 puffs/day) and the percentage of patients with exacerbations (2.7% vs 14.3%; P < or = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of age, treatment with FP in patients with asthma significantly improved pulmonary function and overall asthma control. In contrast, treatment with Z in older patients with asthma resulted in small improvements in asthma symptoms, whereas lung function improved minimally or not at all, and exacerbations increased. These data suggest that FP effectively controls inflammation in older patients, whereas Z may mask inflammation and may not provide the level of bronchodilatory or anti-inflammatory activity needed for effective asthma control in older patients.

Intranasal fluticasone propionate is effective for perennial nonallergic rhinitis with or without eosinophilia.

BACKGROUND: Although response to intranasal corticosteroid therapy has been reported in patients with nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilic syndrome (NARES), efficacy specifically in non-NARES patients has not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate (FP) in the treatment of patients with perennial nonallergic rhinitis, with and without nasal eosinophilia. METHODS: Data from 983 patients in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PNAR trials were integrated. Patients received a total daily dose of FP 200 microg (n = 332), FP 400 microg (n = 325), or placebo (n = 326) for 28 days. Patients were > or =12 years of age with perennial rhinitis and negative skin tests to all allergens relevant to the geographic region. Nasal eosinophils were evaluated using a five-point scale. Patients were classified as non-NARES with a point score of 0 (n = 674; 69%); patients with a point score between I and 4 were classified as NARES (n = 309; 31%). Efficacy of FP was evaluated by the mean change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS), a sum of patient ratings of nasal obstruction, postnasal drip, and rhinorrhea. RESULTS: Patients with either NARES or non-NARES had similar statistically significant improvement with FP 200 microg or 400 microg compared with placebo; thus, the total group comprising both varieties of rhinitis responded to FP. In the total population, both FP treatment groups showed significantly greater improvement in TNSS compared with placebo during each week of treatment (P < or = 0.002), with mean changes in TNSS for day 22 to day 28 ranging from -84 and -85 in the FP 200 microg and FP 400 microg groups, respectively, to -64 in the placebo group. The three study treatment groups had similar proportions of non-NARES (68 to 69%) and NARES (31 to 32%) patients at baseline. In the non-NARES subgroup, mean changes in TNSS for each treatment group were similar to changes seen in the total population. In the NARES subgroup, mean changes in TNSS for the FP 200 microg and placebo groups were similar to changes seen in the total population; mean change in TNSS for the FP 400 microg group was somewhat greater than changes seen in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal FP is an effective treatment for perennial nonallergic rhinitis with or without nasal eosinophilia (NARES or non-NARES).

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination compared with montelukast for the treatment of persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Medications that are able to effectively treat both components are advantageous. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist combination product with a leukotriene antagonist for initial maintenance therapy in patients who were symptomatic while receiving short-acting beta2-agonists alone. METHODS: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted in 432 patients 15 years of age and older with persistent asthma who were symptomatic on short-acting beta2-agonists alone. Fluticasone propionate 100 microg and salmeterol 50 microg combination product (FSC) twice daily or montelukast 10 mg once daily was administered. RESULTS: At endpoint, compared with montelukast, FSC significantly increased morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (0.61 +/- 0.03 L vs 0.32 +/- 0.03 L), morning peak expiratory flow rate (peak expiratory flow rate; 81.4 +/- 5.9 L/minute vs 41.9 +/- 4.8 L/minute), evening peak expiratory flow rate (64.6 +/- 5.3 L/minute vs 38.8 +/- 4.7 L/minute), the percentage of symptom-free days (40.3 +/- 2.9% vs 27.0 +/- 2.7%), the percentage of rescue-free days (53.4 +/- 2.8% vs 26.7 +/- 2.5%), and the percentage of nights with no awakenings (29.8 +/- 2.5% vs 19.6 +/- 2.1%) (P < or = 0.011, all comparisons). At endpoint, FSC significantly reduced asthma symptom scores (-1.0 +/- 0.1 vs -0.7 +/- 0.1) and rescue albuterol use (-3.6 +/- 0.2 puffs/day vs -2.2 +/- 0.2 puffs/day) compared with montelukast (P < 0.001). At endpoint, patients treated with FSC also had a significantly greater improvement in quality of life scores and were more satisfied with their treatment compared with montelukast-treated patients (P < or = 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Initial maintenance therapy with FSC provides greater improvement in asthma control and patient satisfaction than montelukast.

No growth suppression in children treated with the maximum recommended dose of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for one year.

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (at a maximum recommended dose of 200 micrograms each day) administered daily for one year was conducted to evaluate its potential effects on growth, measured by stadiometry, in prepubescent children with perennial allergic rhinitis (n = 150; age 3.5 to 9.0 years). The results demonstrate equivalent growth velocity over a one-year treatment period between children receiving fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and children receiving vehicle placebo. In addition, children in both treatment groups had similar increases in height over the same period. Baseline height was 119.1 cm (SE = 0.72) in the fluticasone propionate group (n = 56) and 119.0 cm (SE = 0.71) in the vehicle placebo group (n = 52). Mean height at the end of one year of treatment was 125.5 cm (SE = 0.18) in the fluticasone propionate group (n = 44) and 125.4 cm (SE = 0.19) in the vehicle placebo group (n = 39) (least-squares mean difference -0.12; 95% confidence interval [-0.600, 0.352]). The effects of fluticasone propionate on one-year growth velocity were also comparable to those of vehicle placebo. The confidence interval for the treatment difference lay within the prospectively defined equivalence bounds (of -0.8, +0.8 cm/year) and contained zero. The incidence of adverse events considered to be at least possibly drug-related did not differ between the fluticasone propionate group and the vehicle placebo group. The results of this one-year, double-blind study demonstrate that fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray at the maximum recommended dose of two sprays per nostril (200 micrograms) once daily was equivalent to vehicle placebo with no effects on growth rate in prepubescent children.