We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparative efficacy and safety of low-dose fluticasone propionate and montelukast in children with persistent asthma.
Journal of Pediatrics 2005 August
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy, safety, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) versus montelukast (MON) in 342 children (6 to 12 years of age) with persistent asthma.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of treatment with FP inhalation powder 50 mug twice daily or MON chewable 5 mg once daily for 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Compared with MON, FP significantly increased mean percent change from baseline FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) (P=.002), morning PEF (peak expiratory flow) (P=.004), evening PEF (P=.020), and percent rescue-free days (P=.002) at end point, and it significantly reduced nighttime symptom scores (P <.001) and mean total (P=.018), and nighttime (P <.001) albuterol use. Withdrawals from the study were more frequent with MON (21%) than with FP (13%). Adverse events (69% vs 71%) and mean end point to baseline 12-hour urinary cortisol excretion ratios were similar. Parents and physicians were more satisfied with FP treatment than with MON (P=.006 and P=.016, respectively, at Week 12). Mean total daily asthma-related cost per patient in the FP group was approximately one-third of that in the MON group ($1.25 vs $3.49).
CONCLUSION: FP was significantly more effective than MON in improving pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and rescue albuterol use. Both therapies had similar safety profiles. Parent- and physician-reported satisfaction ratings were higher with FP treatment, and asthma-related costs were lower.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of treatment with FP inhalation powder 50 mug twice daily or MON chewable 5 mg once daily for 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Compared with MON, FP significantly increased mean percent change from baseline FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) (P=.002), morning PEF (peak expiratory flow) (P=.004), evening PEF (P=.020), and percent rescue-free days (P=.002) at end point, and it significantly reduced nighttime symptom scores (P <.001) and mean total (P=.018), and nighttime (P <.001) albuterol use. Withdrawals from the study were more frequent with MON (21%) than with FP (13%). Adverse events (69% vs 71%) and mean end point to baseline 12-hour urinary cortisol excretion ratios were similar. Parents and physicians were more satisfied with FP treatment than with MON (P=.006 and P=.016, respectively, at Week 12). Mean total daily asthma-related cost per patient in the FP group was approximately one-third of that in the MON group ($1.25 vs $3.49).
CONCLUSION: FP was significantly more effective than MON in improving pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, and rescue albuterol use. Both therapies had similar safety profiles. Parent- and physician-reported satisfaction ratings were higher with FP treatment, and asthma-related costs were lower.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app