| 1. |
- Bjermer, Leif, et al.
(author)
-
Montelukast and fluticasone compared with salmeterol and fluticasone in protecting against asthma exacerbation in adults: one year, double blind, randomised, comparative trial
- 2003
-
In: BMJ: British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 327:7420, s. 891-895
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives To assess the effect of montelukast versus salmeterol added to inhaled fluticasone propionate on asthma exacerbation in patients whose symptoms are inadequately controlled with fluticasone alone. Design and setting A 52 week, two period, double blind, multicentre trial during which patients whose symptoms remained uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids were randomised to add montelukast or salmeterol. Participants Patients (15-72 years; n = 1490) had a clinical history of chronic asthma for greater than or equal to1 year, a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) value 50-90% predicted, and a beta agonist improvement of greater than or equal to 12% in FEV1. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the percentage of patients with at least one asthma exacerbation. Results 20.1% of the patients in the group receiving montelukast and fluticasone had an asthma exacerbation compared with 19.1% in the group receiving salmeterol and fluticasone; the difference was 1% (95% confidence interval - 3.1% to 5.0%). With a risk ratio (montelukast-fluticasone/ salmeterol-fluticasone) of 1.05 (0.86 to 1.29), treatment with montelukast and fluticasone was shown to be non-inferior to treatment with salmeterol and fluticasone. Salmeterol and fluticasonc significantly increased FEV1 before a beta agonist was used and morning peak expiratory flow compared with montelukast and fluticasone (P less than or equal to0.001), whereas FEV1 after a beta agonist was used and improvements in asthma specific quality of life and nocturnal awakenings were similar between the groups. Montelukast and fluticasone significantly (P = 0.011) reduced peripheral blood eosinophil counts compared with salmeterol and fluticasone. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Conclusion The addition of montelukast in patients whose symptoms remain uncontrolled by inhaled fluticasone could provide equivalent clinical control to salmeterol.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bousquet, J, et al.
(author)
-
Increased risk of asthma attacks and emergency visits among asthma patients with allergic rhinitis: a subgroup analysis of the improving asthma control trial
- 2005
-
In: Clinical and Experimental Allergy. - : Wiley. - 1365-2222. ; 35:6, s. 723-727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis (AR) in asthmatic patients can contribute towards increased asthma exacerbations and poorer symptom control, which may increase medical resource use. We assessed asthma-related medical resource use and attacks in asthmatic patients who did and did not have concomitant AR and were adding montelukast or salmeterol to baseline treatment with inhaled. fluticasone. Methods A post hoc resource use analysis of a 52-week, double-blind multicentre clinical trial (IMPACT: IMProving Asthma Control Trial) including 1490 adults with chronic asthma, aged 15 72 years, with FEV1 50-90% of predicted and >= 12% increase in FEV1 after salbutamol administration, treated with either montelukast 10mg daily or salmeterol 50 mu g twice daily in addition to. fluticasone 200 mg, was undertaken. Asthma- related medical resource use included medical visits ( defined as either an unscheduled visit [to a general practitioner, a specialist or a nonmedical provider] or a specialist visit), emergency room visits and hospitalizations during follow-up. Asthma attacks were defined as the worsening of asthma requiring unscheduled visit, emergency visit, hospitalization or oral/intravenous/intramuscular corticosteroids. Results A self-reported history of concomitant AR was identified in 60% of the patients (n=893). Univariate analysis suggests that significantly more patients with concomitant AR experienced emergency room visits (3.6% vs. 1.7%, P=0.029) and asthma attacks (21.3% vs. 17.1%, P=0.046). Multivariate analysis adjusting for treatment group, age and baseline asthma severity confirmed these results since the presence of concomitant AR in patients with asthma increases the likelihood of emergency room visit ( odds ratio ( OR) 52.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12 - 4.80) and asthma attack (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03 - 1.77). Patients with asthma alone compared with patients with both conditions did not differ in terms of unscheduled or specialist visits and hospitalizations. Conclusions Presence of self-reported concomitant AR in patients with asthma resulted in a higher rate of asthma attacks and more emergency room visits compared with asthma patients without concomitant AR.
|
|
