Dataset Information

Intranasal fluticasone furoate in pediatric allergic rhinitis: randomized controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious anti-inflammatory medications for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the efficacy and safety of intranasal corticosteroids in children have not yet been subject to specific research in China. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) in a Chinese pediatric population.

Methods

In this phase 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, pediatric AR patients aged 2-12 years were randomized 1:1:1, receiving either FFNS 55 µg or 110 µg or placebo. Electronic diary cards were completed to record symptoms, rescue medication use, and treatment compliance. Anterior rhinoscopy and overall response to therapy were evaluated and recorded.

Results

Patients treated with FFNS at either dose experienced a significantly greater reduction in daily reflective total nasal symptom score compared with placebo. This was maintained in a younger subset of patients (2-6 years). Drug-related adverse events occurred in <20% of patients in all groups. FFNS was well tolerated at both doses.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety profiles for FFNS 55 µg or 110 µg in Chinese pediatric populations (2-12 years), supporting its use in clinical treatment for AR children, including younger children aged 2-6 years.

Impact

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intranasal fluticasone furoate in Chinese pediatric allergic rhinitis. This research not only addresses the deficiency in efficacy and safety data for intranasal corticosteroids in very young patients (aged 2-6 years) worldwide but also demonstrates that fluticasone furoate nasal spray shows a favorable benefit/risk profile at different dose levels. Our data will be of interest to the broad readership of Pediatric Research and will positively contribute to the dialog regarding the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children aged 2-6 years.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8249237 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) for the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis have been previously demonstrated in several clinical studies. The objective of this pilot study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FFNS 110 mcg once daily with placebo in patients with irritant (non-allergic) rhinitis triggered predominantly by air pollution.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study of subjects in Thailand with irritant rhinitis who received either FFNS 110 mcg (N=53) or placebo (N=49) once-daily. Subjects with a ≥2 year history of air pollution as their predominant rhinitis trigger, negative skin test to local seasonal/perennial allergens, positive histamine skin test, and normal sinus radiograph were enrolled if they met minimum reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) ≥4.5 (maximum=9) and a nasal congestion score of ≥2 (maximum =3). All were assessed for nasal eosinophilia at study entry and completion. Air quality was monitored throughout the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline over the treatment period in daily rTNSS, the average of the morning and evening rTNSS. The key secondary measure was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in morning pre-dose instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS).ResultsThe Air Quality Index (AQI) during the study generally did not reach unhealthy levels. Baseline daily rTNSS scores were similar between treatment groups (FFNS=6.7; placebo=6.4). The least square mean change from baseline in rTNSS was -2.17 and -2.10 for FFNS and placebo, respectively, with a difference of -0.065 (p=0.845). Gradual improvements were seen in both treatment groups for iTNSS; however, the treatment difference (-0.075) was not statistically significant (p=0.827). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for AM and PM rTNSS, individual nasal symptoms, daily reflective, AM and PM reflective and AM pre-dose instantaneous total ocular symptom scores (TOSS) or individual ocular symptom scores. Nasal cytology at baseline found more than two-thirds of subjects had <20% eosinophils. Adverse events were few and similar between groups and noted as mild in intensity.ConclusionSubjects receiving FFNS had similar improvement to placebo in their rhinitis symptoms. The lack of a treatment effect may be in part due to the overall good air quality present throughout the study or an insufficient dose or duration of FFNS. The safety findings showed FFNS 110 mcg once daily to be well tolerated.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Batefenterol (BAT) is a bi-functional molecule with both muscarinic antagonist and ?2-adrenoceptor agonist pharmacology. This Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluated the safety and tolerability of BAT 300??g with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100??g administered via the ELLIPTA inhaler (BAT/FF 300/100). METHODS:Subjects with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized 2:1 to receive BAT/FF 300/100 or placebo once daily for 6?weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 0-4-h weighted mean (WM) heart rate (HR, measured by electrocardiogram [ECG]) on Day 42. Other endpoints included WM and maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval (ECG on Days 1, 28, and 42), HR measured by Holter monitoring (Day 42), and standard safety assessments. Study protocol was approved by an Investigational Review Board. RESULTS:Sixty-two patients were randomized and received ?1 dose of study medication (BAT/FF 300/100 n?=?42; placebo n?=?20). Mean age was 62.5?years (standard deviation [SD] 8.17). Study completion rates were 83% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 100% (placebo). Screening mean (SD) post-bronchodilator percentage-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1?s was 57.57 (11.42) in the BAT/FF 300/100 group and 55.68 (14.03) in the placebo group. BAT/FF 300/100 was non-inferior to placebo for the primary endpoint, treatment difference: -?2.2 beats per minute (bpm), 95% confidence interval [CI]: -?6.2, 1.7). There were no clinically relevant differences between treatment groups in WM or maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval, or mean HR based on Holter monitoring on Day 42 (BAT/FF 300/100: 76.3?bpm [SD 11.38]; placebo: 84.8?bpm [SD 9.87]). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 38% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 35% (placebo) of patients. AEs in ?2 subjects with BAT/FF 300/100 were dysgeusia (10%), diarrhea (7%), nasopharyngitis (7%), and cough (5%). AEs leading to discontinuation occurred in two subjects who received BAT/FF 300/100: post-treatment severe pneumonia (serious AE) and non-serious AEs of moderate vomiting and severe gastroenteritis; both were not considered drug-related. No deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS:Six weeks of BAT/FF 300/100 treatment was non-inferior to placebo for change from baseline in HR, with no new clinically relevant general or cardiovascular safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02573870 (submitted October 12, 2015).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 ?g has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI?+?UMEC using two inhalers. METHODS:Eligible patients with COPD (aged ?40 years; ?1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 ?g and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 ?g?+?UMEC 62.5 ?g; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at -?50 mL. RESULTS:A total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n?=?527) or FF/VI?+?UMEC (n?=?528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI?+?UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI's was considered non-inferior to FF/VI?+?UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI?+?UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI?+?UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI?+?UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI?+?UMEC). CONCLUSIONS:Single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI?+?UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION:GSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).