Three hundred forty-nine patients with asthma previously treated with medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids during a 2-wk, single-blind, run-in period were randomized to treatment with salmeterol 50 mu g combined with fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 mu g, salmeterol 50 mu g, FP 250 mu g, or placebo, each given twice daily through a Diskus device for 12 wk. Mean change in FEV1 at endpoint was significantly (p less than or equal to 0.001) greater with the salmeterol/FP combination product (0.48 L) than with placebo (-0.11 L), salmeterol (0.05 L), or FP (0.25 L). The combination product significantly increased the area under the 12-h serial FEV1 curve relative to baseline over that with placebo, salmeterol, or FP at Day 1, Week 1, and Week 12 (p less than or equal to 0.025). Patients in the combination-product group had a significantly greater probability of remaining in the study without being withdrawn because of worsening asthma than did patients in the placebo, salmeterol, or FP groups (p less than or equal to 0.002). The combination product significantly increased (p < 0.001) morning PEF at endpoint (53.5 L/min) as compared with placebo (-14 L/min), salmeterol (-11.6 L/min), or FP (15.2 L/min). The combination product significantly (p less than or equal to 0.011) reduced asthma symptom scores and supplemental albuterol use, and significantly increased the percentage of nights with no awakenings as compared with placebo, salmeterol, and FP (p less than or equal to 0.016). Combination treatment with salmeterol 50 mu g and FP 250 mu g given twice daily from the Diskus device provided better asthma control and greater improvement in pulmonary function than did the individual agents, and may simplify the management of asthma in patients who need both classes of drugs for optimal control of their disease.

Background: The efficacy and safety of the aerosol metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation of salmeterol for asthma symptoms have been established. Recently, salmeterol has been introduced as a micronized powder formulation administered via a breath-activated multidose powder inhaler (Diskus).Objective: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study involving 498 adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of salmeterol powder 50 mu g twice daily via Diskus, salmeterol aerosol 42 mu g twice daily via MDI, and placebo.Methods: Patients were randomized to one of the three treatment groups for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by serial measurements of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV,) over 12 hours, daily peak expiratory flow (PEF), self-rated asthma symptom scores, nighttime awakenings, and supplemental albuterol use. Safety of each treatment was evaluated by monitoring vital signs, electrocardiograms, Holter monitoring, and occurrence of adverse events.Results: As compared with placebo, both salmeterol powder and aerosol produced significant improvement in FEV, and PEF and decreased nighttime awakenings and supplemental albuterol use. There were no significant differences in the efficacy of the two salmeterol formulations. The magnitude of improvement in pulmonary function was undiminished over the 12-week study. Both formulations of salmeterol were well tolerated, with safety profiles not significantly different from placebo.Conclusion: Results of this study indicate that salmeterol, administered either as a powder 50 mu g twice daily via Diskus or as an aerosol 42 mu g twice daily via MDI, produces clinically significant and comparable improvement in pulmonary function and is well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND:There are limited published data regarding the efficacy of once- versus twice-daily administration of flutica-sone propionate. OBJECTIVE:Our purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of fluticasone propionate powder 200 microg/d administered as a once- or twice-daily dosage regimen in patients who were currently being treated with bronchodilators only (BD patients) and in patients who required inhaled corticosteroids for maintenance treatment of asthma (ICS patients). METHODS:Five hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following inhaled treatments through the Diskus device (Glaxo Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC) for 12 weeks: fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily (FP100BID) or 200 microg once daily (FP200QD) or placebo. RESULTS:BD patients treated with FP100BID, FP200QD, and placebo had mean increases in FEV(1) from baseline to end point of 0. 49 L, 0.37 L, and 0.21 L, respectively (P <.001, FP100BID vs placebo; P =.05, FP200QD vs placebo). ICS patients treated with FP100BID and FP200QD had mean increases in FEV(1) of 0.27 L and 0.11 L, respectively, compared with a decrease in FEV(1) of -0.08 L with placebo (P <.001, FP100BID vs placebo; P =.023, FP200QD vs placebo). BD patients treated with FP100BID and FP200QD had mean increases in morning peak expiratory flow from baseline to end point of 31 L/min and 27 L/min, respectively, compared with a 1 L/min increase in patients treated with placebo. ICS patients treated with FP100BID had a mean increase in morning peak expiratory flow (from baseline to end point) of 18 L/min compared with mean decreases of -3 L/min and -12 L/min in the FP200QD and placebo groups, respectively. More patients were withdrawn from placebo (26% and 48%, in BD and ICS patients, respectively) than from fluticasone propionate (7%-9% [BID-QD] and 18%-32% [BID-QD], in BD and ICS patients, respectively) because of failure to meet predetermined asthma stability criteria. CONCLUSION:The efficacies of FP100BID and FP200QD were comparable with regard to improvement in pulmonary function and asthma stability in BD patients. In ICS patients, asthma control was maintained with FP200QD, whereas FP100BID provided greater improvements in pulmonary function and asthma stability.

Background: The treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis often requires the use of a decongestant to improve nasal congestion, along with an antihistamine to adequately control other nasal, as well as nonnasal symptoms. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 874 patients with moderate to severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis were treated with one of the following: SCH 434 QD (a combination of 10 mg of loratadine in the coating and 240 mg of pseudoephedrine sulfate in an extended-release core) once daily, 10 mg of loratadine once daily, 120 mg of pseudoephedrine sulfate every 12 hours, or placebo for 2 weeks. Results: SCH 434 QD was consistently superior to placebo in controlling the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Composite symptom scores (total, total nasal, and total nonnasal) were reduced significantly in patients treated with SCH 434 QD as compared with placebo (p < 0.01). When compared with its individual components, reductions in mean symptom scores were consistently greater, numerically, in patients treated with SCH 434 QD than in patients who were treated with either loratadine or pseudoephedrine alone. SCH 434 QD was superior to pseudoephedrine in reducing nonnasal symptoms at all time points (p < 0.01), and superior to loratadine in relieving nasal stuffiness at end point (p < 0.01). In the physicians' evaluation of therapeutic response, the SCH 434 QD group had the greatest number of patients with a good or excellent response at end point (58%). All treatments were generally well tolerated with no serious or unusual adverse events. Insomnia and nervousness, adverse events commonly associated with pseudoephedrine, were noted in a significantly greater number of patients treated with SCH 434 QD or pseudoephedrine (p ≤ 0.04) as compared with those treated with loratadine or placebo. Conclusions: The results of the study demonstrate that SCH 434 QD is more effective than placebo or either of its components alone in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. (J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL 1995;96:139-47.)