Efficacy in asthma of once-daily treatment with fluticasone furoate: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel long-acting inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF 200 mcg or 400 mcg once daily, either in the morning or in the evening, and FF 200 mcg twice daily (morning and evening), for 8 weeks in patients with persistent asthma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Asthma patients maintained on ICS for ≥ 3 months with baseline morning forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) 50-80% of predicted normal value and FEV₁reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml were eligible. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline FEV₁at week 8 in pre-dose (morning or evening [depending on regimen], pre-rescue bronchodilator) FEV₁.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 545 patients received one of five FF treatment groups and 101 patients received placebo (intent-to-treat population). Each of the five FF treatment groups produced a statistically significant improvement in pre-dose FEV₁compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening and FF 200 mcg twice daily produced similar placebo-adjusted improvements in evening pre-dose FEV₁at week 8 (240 ml vs. 235 ml). FF 400 mcg once daily in the morning, although effective, resulted in a smaller improvement in morning pre-dose FEV₁than FF 200 mcg twice daily at week 8 (315 ml vs. 202 ml). The incidence of oral candidiasis was low (0-4%) and UC excretion was comparable with placebo for all FF groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>FF at total daily doses of 200 mcg or 400 mcg was significantly more effective than placebo. FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening had similar efficacy to FF 200 mcg twice daily and all FF regimens had a safety tolerability profile generally similar to placebo. This indicates that inhaled FF is an effective and well tolerated once-daily treatment for mild-to-moderate asthma.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00398645">NCT00398645</a></p

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: impact of practice level device switching on asthma control

Background As more inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) devices become available, there may be pressure for health-care providers to switch patients with asthma to cheaper inhaler devices. Our objective was to evaluate impact on asthma control of inhaler device switching without an accompanying consultation in general practice. Methods This 2-year retrospective matched cohort study used the UK General Practice Research Database to identify practices where ICS devices were changed without a consultation for ≥5 patients within 3 months. Patients 6–65 years of age from these practices whose ICS device was switched were individually matched with patients using the same ICS device who were not switched. Asthma control over 12 months after the switch was assessed using a composite measure including short-acting β-agonist and oral corticosteroid use, hospitalizations, and subsequent changes to therapy. Results A total of 824 patients from 55 practices had a device switch and could be matched. Over half (53%) of device switches were from dry powder to metered-dose inhalers. Fewer patients in switched than matched cohort experienced successful treatment based on the composite measure (20% vs. 34%) and more experienced unsuccessful treatment (51% vs. 38%). After adjusting for possible baseline confounding factors, the odds ratio for treatment success in the switched cohort compared with controls was 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.44; p < 0.001) and for unsuccessful treatment was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.47 to 2.56; p < 0.001). Conclusion Switching ICS devices without a consultation was associated with worsened asthma control and is therefore inadvisable

Asthma out of control? A structured review of recent patient surveys.

BACKGROUND : An understanding of the needs and behaviors of asthma patients is important in developing an asthma-related healthcare policy. The primary goal of the present review was to assess patient perspectives on key issues in asthma and its management, as captured in patient surveys.METHODS : Local, national, and multinational asthma surveys were reviewed to assess patient perspectives, and where possible healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives, on key issues, including diagnosis, treatment, control, quality of life, and other patient-centered outcomes. Twenty-four surveys, conducted or published between 1997 and 2003 in Europe and North America, were included in this review. Substantial differences among studies prevented a formal meta-analysis; instead, data were pooled to allow for general comparisons and qualitative analysis. RESULTS : The results indicate that patients' knowledge of the underlying causes of asthma and treatment options remains inadequate. Moreover, patients often tolerate poor symptom control, possess meager knowledge of correct drug usage, and display insufficient adherence to therapy. Many patients have a low expectation of receiving an appropriate therapy or of having a positive encounter with the HCP. Among HCPs, there is evidence of inadequate understanding of disease etiology and poor or unstructured communication with patients, resulting often in inaccurate assessment of disease severity. Moreover, patients often underreport their symptoms and severity, which in turn could lead to misclassification and undertreatment. CONCLUSION : Improving patient education about the importance of achieving optimal asthma control, along with improved communication between patients and HCPs, emphasizing treatment options and optimal treatment of inflammation, may lead to better outcomes and improved asthma management in daily practice