4.5 Article

Dose effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate in persistent asthma: A randomized trial

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 642-650

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.01.004

关键词

Asthma; Dose-response; Evening dosing; Fluticasone furoate; Inhaled corticosteroids; Once-daily dosing

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline [FFA109687]
  2. Merck Sharpe and Dohme
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Ception
  5. MedImmune
  6. Novartis
  7. UCB Pharma
  8. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0510-10249] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of inhaled once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF) administered in the evening in patients with persistent asthma not controlled by short-acting beta(2) agonists, and to determine the dose(s) suitable for further development. Methods: Of 1459 patients screened, 598 received one of six treatments: placebo, FF (25 50 mu g, 100 14 or 200 mu g) once daily each evening, or fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 mu g twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose evening forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). Results: A dose response effect was observed for once-daily FF 25-200 mu g including (p < 0.001) and excluding placebo (p = 0.03). FF 50-200 mu g once daily significantly increased FEV1 from baseline (p < 0.05 vs placebo), by >200 mL for FF 100 mu g and 200 mu g. Significant improvements were also achieved for peak expiratory flow, and percentage symptom-free and rescue-free 24 h periods. The magnitude of effect was at least as good as twice-daily FP. Overall, once-daily FF was well tolerated with no systemic corticosteroid effects. Conclusion: FF 50-200 mu g/day once daily in the evening demonstrated dose-related efficacy in asthma with 100-200 mu g appearing to be the optimal doses for further evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00603382. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据