Durable Tumor Regression and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Merkel Cell Carcinoma Receiving Pembrolizumab as First-Line Therapy.

PURPOSE: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive skin cancer often caused by the Merkel cell polyomavirus. Clinical trials of programmed cell death-1 pathway inhibitors for advanced MCC (aMCC) demonstrate increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared with historical chemotherapy data. However, response durability and overall survival (OS) data are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter phase II trial (Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network-09/Keynote-017), 50 adults naïve to systemic therapy for aMCC received pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 2 years. Radiographic responses were assessed centrally per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. RESULTS: Among 50 patients, the median age was 70.5 years, and 64% had Merkel cell polyomavirus-positive tumors. The objective response rate (ORR) to pembrolizumab was 56% (complete response [24%] plus partial response [32%]; 95% CI, 41.3% to 70.0%), with ORRs of 59% in virus-positive and 53% in virus-negative tumors. Median follow-up time was 14.9 months (range, 0.4 to 36.4+ months). Among 28 responders, median response duration was not reached (range, 5.9 to 34.5+ months). The 24-month PFS rate was 48.3%, and median PFS time was 16.8 months (95% CI, 4.6 months to not estimable). The 24-month OS rate was 68.7%, and median OS time was not reached. Although tumor viral status did not correlate with ORR, PFS, or OS, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS in patients with programmed death ligand-1-positive tumors. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (28%) of 50 patients and led to treatment discontinuation in seven (14%) of 50 patients, including one treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: Here, we present the longest observation to date of patients with aMCC receiving first-line anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy. Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable tumor control, a generally manageable safety profile, and favorable OS compared with historical data from patients treated with first-line chemotherapy.

Rofecoxib 50 mg and valdecoxib 20 or 40 mg in adults and adolescents with postoperative pain after third molar extraction: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies.

OBJECTIVE: These studies assessed the comparative efficacy of rofecoxib and valdecoxib in the treatment of acute postoperative dental pain. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies were conducted in patients undergoing extraction of > or =2 third molars, with > or =1 mandibular impaction, who experienced moderate or severe pain after extraction. In study 1, patients were randomized in a 4:4:1 ratio to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 20 mg, or placebo. In study 2, which was an exploratory study, patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive reofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 40 mg, or palcebo. The primary efficacy end point was total pain relief at 12 hours (TOPAR12) for rofecoxib compared with valdecoxib 20 mg (study 1) or valdecoxib 40 mg (study 2). Tolerability was assessed based on clinical adverse experiences (AEs) and vital signs. These studies were performed before both agents were withdrawn from the market. RESULTS: In study 1, 200 patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, 201 to valdecoxib 20 mg, and 49 to placebo. In study 2, 51 patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg, 50 to valdecoxib 40 mg, and 24 to placebo. The majority of patients in both studies were female (approximately 54%) and white ( approximately 66%), with a mean age of approximately 22 years and a mean weight of approximately 75 kg. Most (approximately 58%) patients reported experiencing moderate postoperative pain. In study 1, mean TOPAR12 scores were 30.7 for rofecoxib 50 mg, 28.9 for valdecoxib 20 mg, and 5.5 for placebo; in study 2, TOPAR12 scores were 27.0 for rofecoxib 50 mg, 28.6 for valdecoxib 40 mg, and 6.9 for placebo. In both studies, the active treatments were comparable in terms of the primary end point and were statistically superior to placebo (P<0.001). In study 1, rofecoxib was associated with a longer median time to use of rescue medication compared with valdecoxib 20 mg (>24 hours vs 23 hours 58 minutes; P=0.010) and a significantly smaller proportion of patients using rescue medication over 24 hours (35.0% vs 50.2%; P<0.001). In study 2, there were no significant differences in the median time to use of rescue medication or the proportion of patients using rescue medication between active treatments. There were no significant differences in total pain relief at 4 or 8 hours, patients' global assessment, onset of analgesia, or AEs between active treatments in either study. The incidence of clinical AEs in study 1 was similar for rofecoxib 50 mg, valdecoxib 20 mg, and placebo (39.5%, 36.8%, and 49.0%, respectively). In study 2, AEs occurred significantly less frequently with rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo (35.3% vs 70.8%, respectively; P<0.01); there was no significant difference between the rate of AEs with valdecoxib 40 mg (50.0%) and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 50 mg had comparable analgesic efficacy to valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg in these patients with pain after dental surgery. All active treatments were well tolerated.

Short-term and long-term asthma control in patients with mild persistent asthma receiving montelukast or fluticasone: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether montelukast is as effective as fluticasone in controlling mild persistent asthma as determined by rescue-free days. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants aged 15 to 85 years with mild persistent asthma (n = 400) were randomized to oral montelukast (10 mg once nightly) or inhaled fluticasone (88 mug twice daily) in a year-long, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 12-week, double-blind period, followed by a 36-week, open-label period. RESULTS: The mean percentage of rescue-free days was similar between treatments after 12 weeks (fluticasone: 74.9%, montelukast: 73.1%; difference = 1.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.2% to 6.8%) but not during the open-label period (fluticasone: 77.3%, montelukast: 71.1%; difference = 6.2%, 95% CI: 0.8% to 11.7%). Although both fluticasone and montelukast significantly improved symptoms, quality of life, and symptom-free days during both treatment periods, greater improvements occurred with fluticasone in lung function during both periods and in asthma control during open-label treatment. Post hoc analyses revealed a difference in rescue-free days favoring fluticasone in participants in the quartiles for lowest lung function and greatest albuterol use at baseline. CONCLUSION: In patients with mild persistent asthma, rescue-free days and most asthma control measures improved similarly with fluticasone or montelukast over the short term, but with prolonged open-label treatment, asthma control improved more with fluticasone. Improved asthma control with fluticasone appeared to occur in those with decreased lung function and greater albuterol use at baseline. In the remaining patients, the two treatments appeared to be comparable. These results suggest that classification criteria for mild persistent asthma may need to be re-evaluated.

A randomized controlled study comparing rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo in post-bunionectomy pain.

OBJECTIVE: The relative efficacy of rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo were compared in the treatment of acute pain after bunionectomy surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, two-part study of 252 patients with moderate-to-severe pain the day after first metatarsal bunionectomy. Patients were treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 85), enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 100 mg (N = 85), or placebo (N = 82) on study Day 1 (Part I), and subsequently with daily rofecoxib 50 mg or placebo (diclofenac patients switched to placebo) over study Days 2-5 (Part II). Patients rated their pain at 16 time points over the first 24 h. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 8 h (TOPAR8). Pre-specified secondary endpoints on Day 1 included onset of analgesia, peak pain relief, and duration of response. For Part II, supplemental analgesia use with rofecoxib compared to placebo was pre-specified for analysis over Days 2-5, with the focus on Days 2-3. Adverse experiences were recorded over Days 1-5. RESULTS: For TOPAR8 scores, rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo (9.5 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001) and diclofenac (9.5 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001). Onset of analgesia was more rapid with rofecoxib than placebo (p = 0.003) and diclofenac (p = 0.019); proportion of patients achieving onset within 4 h with rofecoxib, diclofenac, and placebo was 46%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Peak pain relief was greater with rofecoxib (1.8) than diclofenac (1.2, p = 0.004) and placebo (1.0, p < 0.001). Diclofenac and placebo patients required supplemental analgesia sooner than rofecoxib patients (2:03 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001 and 1:41 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001). Rofecoxib patients used significantly less (p < 0.001) supplemental analgesia than placebo patients over Days 2-3 (1.1 tablets/day vs. 2.1 tablets/day) and Days 2-5 (0.9 tablets/day vs. 1.8 tablets/day). No significant differences in adverse experiences between treatments were seen. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all measures of treatment of post-bunionectomy pain. Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than diclofenac sodium 100 mg based on Day 1 endpoints of total pain relief, onset time, and duration of response. All study medications were generally well tolerated.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/ acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of >or= 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (singledose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded. RESULTS: 271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophentreated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [-0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [-1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/ acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.01), and dizziness (p < 0.001).

Influence of age, gender, and race on the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs. atorvastatin up-titration in patients at moderately high or high risk for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Age, gender, and race are factors that influence atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and may conceivably affect the efficacy of lipid-altering drugs. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of two multicenter, 6-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trials assessed age (<65 and ≥ 65 years), gender, and race (white, black, and other) effects on atorvastatin plus ezetimibe versus up-titration of atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with CHD risk. High CHD risk subjects with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels ≥ 70 mg/dL (~1.81 mmol/L) during stable atorvastatin 40 mg therapy were randomized to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10mg, or up-titrated to atorvastatin 80 mg. Moderately high CHD risk subjects with LDL cholesterol levels ≥ 100 mg/dL (~2.59 mmol/L) with atorvastatin 20mg were randomized to atorvastatin 20mg plus ezetimibe 10mg, or atorvastatin 40 mg. RESULTS: Although some variability existed, age, gender, and race subgroups did not substantially differ from the entire patient population with regard to lipid-altering findings. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin produced greater percent reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B than up-titration of atorvastatin for all subgroups. HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein AI changes were small and variable. CONCLUSION: Treatment efficacy in age, gender, and race subgroups did not substantially differ from the entire study population. Ezetimibe combined with atorvastatin generally produced greater incremental reductions in LDL cholesterol and several other key lipid parameters compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose in hypercholesterolemic patients with high or moderately high CHD risk. These results suggest that co-administration of ezetimibe with statins is a useful therapeutic option for treatment of dyslipidemia in differing patient populations.

Correlation of measures of pain, function, and overall response: results pooled from two identical studies of etoricoxib in chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Assessment of correlation of measures of low back pain (LBP) using data pooled from 2 identical studies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative responsiveness of and correlation between various measures of LBP, including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the LBP intensity (LBPI) visual analog scale (VAS), and patient's global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several tools are available to measure pain, functional limitation, and response to therapy for LBP. Studies have shown varying degrees of responsiveness and correlation. METHODS: This was a pooled subgroup analysis of patients with chronic LBP from 2 identical studies comparing etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, and placebo. LBP was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks as measured by RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART. Correlation was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The correlation (r) between LBPI and RMDQ changes ranged from 0.657 and 0.703; correlations between LBPI and PGART changes ranged from 0.677 and 0.738. Cutpoints separating responders from nonresponders for all 3 measures fell near the 66.7th percentile of response and were consistent with minimal clinically significant changes identified in the literature. CONCLUSION: In this study, the RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART showed a high degree of correlation in measuring response to therapy in LBP, suggesting clinicians may be able to simplify assessments.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (20 mg) versus uptitration of atorvastatin (to 40 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg added to atorvastatin 20 mg compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease who did not reach low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg. In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 196 patients treated with atorvastatin 20 mg received atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol than increasing atorvastatin to 40 mg (-31% vs -11%, p <0.001). Significantly greater reductions were also seen in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001). Significantly more patients reached LDL cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe compared with atorvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 49%, p <0.001). The 2 treatment groups had comparable results for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg was generally well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater lipid-lowering efficacy compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

Efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast has proven efficacy in the treatment of chronic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis, but it has not been evaluated in the subpopulation of asthmatic patients with seasonal asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of montelukast treatment in improving the control of asthma symptoms during the allergy season in patients with active asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity. METHODS: Adults with a history of chronic asthma who are also symptomatic during the allergy season and with skin test sensitivity to seasonal aeroallergens were enrolled in a randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by 3 weeks of double-blind treatment during the spring of 2004. After the run-in period, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral montelukast (10 mg) or placebo. Daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, beta-agonist use, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were recorded daily using an electronic diary. The primary end point was mean change from baseline to week 3 in the daytime asthma symptom score. RESULTS: Of 455 randomized patients, 433 completed the study. Compared with placebo, treatment with montelukast resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in the daytime asthma symptom score (-0.54 vs -0.34; P = .002) and in beta-agonist use, nighttime symptoms, and peak expiratory flow rates. Few patients in the montelukast and placebo groups discontinued study participation because of asthma (1.3% and 3.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity, montelukast treatment provided significant asthma control during the allergy season compared with placebo.

Analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib compared with codeine/acetaminophen using a model of acute dental pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, parallel-group study. STUDY DESIGN: Patients (N = 390) experiencing moderate or severe pain postextraction of 2 or more third molars, with at least 1 mandibular impaction, were randomized to placebo (n = 30), rofecoxib (n = 180), or codeine/acetaminophen 60/600 mg (n = 180). Time to confirmed perceptible pain relief, and patient evaluations of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments were recorded. RESULTS: For total pain relief over 6 hours (primary end point), rofecoxib was superior to codeine/acetaminophen (15.5 vs 10.7; P < .001). Rofecoxib was statistically significantly superior to codeine/acetaminophen with respect to TOPAR4, patient global assessment, peak pain relief, and duration of analgesic effect. Median onset of analgesia was similar for both drugs. The codeine/acetaminophen group had more patients with 1 or more adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib provided superior analgesic efficacy compared with codeine/acetaminophen with fewer gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events.

Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to fluticasone for protection against asthma attacks: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: For patients whose asthma is uncontrolled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids, addition of alternative therapy instead of increasing the steroid dose is recommended by current treatment guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To compare montelukast, a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, and salmeterol, a twice-daily, long-acting beta-agonist, concomitantly administered with inhaled fluticasone, according to the percentage of patients without an asthma attack for 1 year. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted. Adult patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma (ages 14-73 years) receiving inhaled fluticasone (220 microg/d) who remained symptomatic during a 4-week run-in period were randomized to the addition of salmeterol (84 microg/d) or montelukast (10 mg/d) for 48 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 1,473 randomized patients, 743 were randomized to montelukast and 730 to salmeterol; 1,059 patients completed the study. Eighty percent of patients in the montelukast group and 83.3% of patients in the salmeterol group remained attack free during the 48 weeks of treatment (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.49). Montelukast significantly reduced blood eosinophil counts compared with salmeterol, whereas salmeterol significantly increased prealbuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma-specific quality of life, morning peak expiratory flow rate, and decreased nocturnal awakenings compared with montelukast. Differences between treatments were small, and both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid similarly protected most patients from experiencing an asthma attack during a 1-year period, but, based on noninferiority limits, the study was inconclusive with regard to a difference between treatment groups.

Effects of montelukast and beclomethasone on airway function and asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining asthma control is a major objective of therapy. Traditionally, the effectiveness of asthma therapy has been judged primarily by its effect on airway function rather than on multiaspect asthma control. OBJECTIVE: An inhaled corticosteroid and a leukotriene receptor antagonist were compared to determine whether they provided equivalent effects, as judged by days of asthma control. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, asthmatic patients (n = 782) with FEV(1) percent predicted values of between 50% and 85% and a weekly average beta-agonist use of more than 2 puffs per day were randomized to receive montelukast (10 mg daily), beclomethasone (200 microg twice daily), or placebo treatment for 6 weeks in a double-dummy fashion. We examined the distribution of the primary end point: percentage of days of asthma control. Secondary end points included FEV(1), albuterol use, occurrence of an asthma attack, asthma flare-up, rescue corticosteroid use, sustained asthma control, and adverse experiences. RESULTS: The percentage of days of asthma control was almost identical between the montelukast and beclomethasone groups (98% overlap in the distribution). Montelukast was at least equal to beclomethasone, and both were greater than placebo on the basis of frequency of asthma attacks, asthma flare-ups, and rescue corticosteroid use. Beclomethasone had a greater effect than montelukast and both treatments were better than placebo at improving FEV(1). CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast was as effective as beclomethasone, as judged by indices of clinical control other than FEV(1). When evaluating the outcome of montelukast therapy, FEV(1) might underestimate clinical effectiveness.

Evaluation of parental preference for the treatment of asthmatic children aged 6 to 11 years with oral montelukast or inhaled cromolyn: a randomized, open-label, crossover study.

The objective of this study was to evaluate parental preference for the treatment of asthmatic children with oral montelukast sodium or inhaled cromolyn sodium. Additionally, we wanted to compare the two drugs in terms of patient preference for treatment, patient and parent satisfaction with treatment, frequency of inhaled albuterol use, adherence to treatment, and safety. This was a 12-week randomized, open-label, crossover study conducted in 42 primary care and asthma/allergy specialty centers in the United States. Three hundred thirty-three asthmatic patients, ages 6 to 11 years, who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 60%-85% (inclusive) of predicted value with > or = 12% reversibility after administration of an inhaled beta-agonist and who used albuterol on at least 7 of the last 14 days of the run-in period. After a 2- to 3-week run-in period, patients were randomized either to 4 weeks of montelukast (5-mg chewable tablet once daily) followed by a 2-week washout period, then 4 weeks of cromolyn (two puffs 4 times daily from a metered-dose inhaler) or to the reverse sequence. More parents preferred montelukast (87%) than cromolyn (12%; p < 0.001). More patients preferred montelukast (82%) than cromolyn (17%; p < 0.001). Daily albuterol use (puffs/day) was reduced by 38% during montelukast therapy vs. 23% during cromolyn therapy. Seventy-eight percent of patients reported being highly adherent to montelukast therapy compared with 42% to cromolyn therapy (p < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving montelukast discontinued because of asthma exacerbation (1.0% vs. 5.0%, respectively), and fewer patients reported worsening asthma while receiving montelukast (3.5% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.036). Parents' and patients' preference, parents' and patients' satisfaction, and patients' adherence to therapy were all significantly better with oral montelukast compared with inhaled cromolyn. Beta-agonist use was decreased when taking montelukast, which was safe and well-tolerated.