The effect of adding inhaled salmeterol to inhaled corticosteroids was studied in patients with poorly controlled nocturnal asthma. In a double-blind, cross-over study, 20 patients were randomized to receive either salmeterol 50 micrograms twice daily or placebo via a Diskhaler after a 1-week run-in period. After 4 weeks of treatment, patients were subsequently crossed over to receive the other treatment for a further 4 weeks with a 2-week wash-out period in between. The response to treatment was assessed by peak expiratory flow rates (PEF) measured in the morning and evening, symptom scores of asthma, number of bronchodilators used, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) at regular intervals. Patients' preference for the Diskhaler or metered-dose inhaler was assessed at the last visit. The results showed that morning PEF was significantly higher while on salmeterol than on placebo (296.9 +/- 70.2 vs 274.6 +/- 77.4 L/min). Evening PEF showed a trend towards a higher value while on salmeterol than on placebo (321.1 +/- 73.4 vs 288.7 +/- 79.4 L/min), but the difference was not significant. There was no statistically significant improvement in symptom scores, number of rescue bronchodilators used and FEV1 or FVC between the two treatment groups. The occurrence of side effects in terms of tremors and palpitations between treatment and placebo were similar. There were more patients who preferred Diskhaler to metered-dose inhaler (70% vs 30%). We conclude that salmeterol 50 micrograms twice daily produces significant improvement in morning PEF and is well tolerated in patients with nocturnal asthma. Diskhaler is a device which is easy to use and preferred to a metered-dose inhaler.
Study site: Respiratory Clinic, Pusat Perubatan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (PPUKM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
This trial was carried out in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Fifty-two patients who were scheduled to receive their first or subsequent courses of cancer chemotherapy with single dose cisplatinum containing chemotherapy regimens were evaluated. Thirty-four patients were given ondansetron in one group while 18 in the other group received metoclopramide with dexamethasone. The response to treatment was categorised as complete (0 emetic episode), major (1 or 2 emetic episodes), minor (3 to 5 emetic episodes) or failure (> 5 emetic episodes or rescue medication). Among the 52 patients, a complete or major control (0 to 2 emetic episodes) was achieved in 23/34 patients (68%) from the ondansetron group and in 3/18 patients (17%) from the metoclopramide with dexamethasone group (p < 0.002) on day 1. Similarly, the control of nausea was greater in the ondansetron group compared with the metoclopramide with dexamethasone group (p < 0.0009) on day 1. Two patients were excluded (dropped out) after day one from each of the two study groups due to excessive vomiting subsequent to cisplatinum therapy. From days 2 to 6, there was a trend in favour of ondansetron. Both treatments were well tolerated. The results of this trial show that in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatinum containing chemotherapy, the efficacy of ondansetron is superior to that of a standard anti-emetic combination, metoclopramide with dexamethasone.