Molecular patterns in the isotype-specific antibody responses to the major cedar aeroallergen Jun a 1.

Most studies of the immune responses in allergic rhinitis have focused on IgE antibodies to mixtures of allergenic proteins. Based on our previous studies of the major mountain cedar allergen Jun a 1, we sought to describe a broader assessment of the humoral immune responses to a single, dominant allergen, in three groups of allergic subjects, all of whom had similarly exposures to the whole cedar pollen. The major outcomes of this study was that, with the onset of allergic rhinitis symptoms, and after treatment with immunotherapy, serum IgE and IgG (but not IgA) antibodies to Jun a 1 increased. Interestingly, both IgE and IgG4 antibodies to the Jun a 1 allergen were strongly focused on its conformation epitopes. These IgG antibodies to conformationalstructures may be a useful marker of the therapeutic response to immunotherapy.

A single mouse monoclonal antibody, E58 modulates multiple IgE epitopes on group 1 cedar pollen allergens.

We recently described a dominant role for conformational epitopes on the group 1 allergen of the mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei, Cupressaceae), Jun a 1, in pollen hypersensitivity in South Central U.S.A. Since these epitopes are surface exposed and are likely to be flexible, they may be susceptible to molecular or physical perturbations. This may make Jun a 1 a potential target for new forms of therapy for cedar pollinosis. Here, we describe a mouse monoclonal antibody, termed E58, which binds to the group 1 allergens of the cedar pollens from three highly populated regions of the world (central U.S.A., France and Japan). Upon binding to these allergens, E58 strongly reduces the binding of patient's IgE antibodies to these dominant allergens. This characteristic of E58, and potentially other similar antibodies, suggests an opportunity to develop preventative or therapeutic agents that may inhibit cedar pollen sensitization or prevent their allergic reactions.

Efficacy of daily intranasal fluticasone propionate on ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory condition of the nasal mucosa characterized by symptoms of nasal discharge, itching, sneezing, and congestion. Ocular symptoms are commonly associated with AR and include itching or burning, tearing or watering, and redness. Intranasal corticosteroids are a mainstay of treatment, and their effect on nasal symptoms is well described. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that a 14-day course of 200 µg/d of nasal fluticasone propionate is superior to placebo in relieving ocular symptoms associated with AR. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study comparing 200 µg/d of fluticasone propionate with placebo in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The primary end point was mean change from baseline in patient-rated reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS). Key secondary end points included mean change from baseline in the morning and evening rTOSS, end-of-treatment assessment of response, and effect on activities of daily living. The primary analysis was performed using analysis of covariance with a linear fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Fluticasone was statistically significantly more efficacious in reducing the ocular symptoms of AR than placebo. The least squares mean difference in the change from baseline of rTOSS was -0.36 (P = .002). A statistically significant difference in mean change from baseline was observed in favor of fluticasone for morning and evening rTOSS. Significantly more patients taking fluticasone achieved an overall response compared with placebo. Fluticasone had a significantly greater effect on daily living activities and was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study supports the efficacy of fluticasone in treating ocular symptoms associated with AR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01817790.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

An aerosol formulation may be preferred by some allergic rhinitis (AR) patients, to avoid the "wet feeling" and nasal runoff associated with aqueous nasal corticosteroid sprays. Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol is a recently developed, nonaqueous, nonchlorofluorocarbon formulation of BDP for the treatment of AR. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of BDP nasal aerosol in subjects with seasonal AR (SAR). Eligible subjects (≥12 years of age) enrolled in this 2-week study were randomized to either BDP nasal aerosol at 320 µg/day (n = 169) or placebo (n = 171). Efficacy assessments included reflective and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS and iTNSS, respectively), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score, reflective and instantaneous total ocular symptom scores (rTOSS and iTOSS, respectively), and physician-assessed total nasal symptom score (PNSS). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Subjects receiving BDP nasal aerosol showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline in average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS versus placebo (treatment difference, -0.91; 95% confidence interval, -1.3, -0.5; p < 0.001) over 2 weeks of treatment. Greater improvements in rTNSS with BDP nasal aerosol compared with placebo were evident by day 2 and were maintained throughout the treatment period. Similarly, significant improvements were seen with BDP nasal aerosol in iTNSS (p < 0.001) and RQLQ score (p = 0.005) compared with placebo. Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol also resulted in greater improvements in rTOSS (p = 0.002), iTOSS (p = 0.003), and PNSS (p < 0.001) relative to placebo. BDP nasal aerosol was well tolerated and the overall safety profile was similar to placebo. Results from this clinical study indicated that BDP nasal aerosol provided significant AR symptom relief and was well tolerated in patients with SAR with an overall safety profile similar to placebo. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01024608.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of azelastine and fluticasone in a single nasal spray delivery device.

BACKGROUND: A proof-of-concept study suggested that combination therapy with commercial azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray significantly improved nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with either agent alone. OBJECTIVE: To compare an azelastine-fluticasone combination nasal spray administered in a single-delivery device with a commercially available azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray. METHODS: This 14-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, (2) fluticasone nasal spray, (3) combination azelastine and fluticasone nasal spray, or (4) placebo nasal spray. All treatments were given as 1 spray per nostril twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing. RESULTS: All 3 active groups were statistically superior (P

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Aerosol-based corticosteroid nasal formulations may be preferred over current aqueous nasal sprays by some patients because they traditionally cause less pharyngeal and anterior nose runoff. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal dose, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: Patients 12 years or older with a history of SAR received ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol to a total dose of 75, 150, or 300 microg or placebo once daily (half dose per nostril) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy assessment was patient-reported average morning and evening reflective (24-hour) total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy assessments included patient-reported average morning and evening instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), patient-reported morning iTNSS, physician-assessed nasal signs and symptom severity, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire responses. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction from baseline in average morning and evening rTNSS (24-hour) vs placebo, with treatment differences as follows: 0.81 (P = .001; 300 microg), 0.90 (P < .001; 150 microg), and 0.66 (P = .01; 75 microg). Improvements in average morning and evening iTNSS and patient-reported morning iTNSS were also significantly improved regardless of dose (P < or = .003 for all ciclesonide groups vs placebo). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (< 1.6% for all) and similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated statistically significant improvements in SAR symptoms vs placebo. On the basis of comparable efficacy and safety profiles observed for all doses, these results suggest that the 75-microg and 150-microg doses of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane appear appropriate for further evaluation of efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine nasal spray is commercially available as a 0.1% w/v solution and is recommended for twice-daily dosing. Increasing the azelastine concentration to 0.15% may be effective with once-daily dosing without increasing the incidence of adverse events. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray at a dosage of 2 sprays/nostril once daily. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in subjects with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) during the 2007/2008 Texas Mountain Cedar season. In total, 536 subjects were randomized to 2 sprays/nostril once daily (A.M.) of azelastine 0.15% or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in a 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing. The key secondary variable was change from baseline in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS, which determines the duration of action and effective dosing interval. After 2 weeks, the mean improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS and percentage improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS were significant (p < 0.001) with azelastine 0.15% (19%) compared with placebo (10%). The improvement in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS also was significant (p < 0.001) for azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo, supporting efficacy with once-daily dosing. All individual TNSS symptoms were significantly (p < 0.01) improved with azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo. With the exception of bitter taste (4.5%) and nasal discomfort (4.5%), adverse events with azelastine 0.15% were reported with an incidence similar to placebo. Azelastine 0.15% nasal spray was effective and well tolerated in subjects with SAR with once-daily dosing.

Combination therapy with azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are no published studies that evaluated the efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid, although anecdotal reports of the use of these agents in combination are common. OBJECTIVE: To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently compared with the efficacy of each agent alone. METHODS: This randomized, 2-week, multicenter, double-blind trial was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in period, 151 patients with moderate to severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with the following: (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily; or (3) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion. RESULTS: All 3 groups had statistically significant (P < .001) improvements from their baseline TNSS after 2 weeks of treatment. The TNSS improved 27.1% with fluticasone nasal spray, 24.8% with azelastine nasal spray, and 37.9% with the 2 agents in combination (P < .05 vs either agent alone). All 3 treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in the TNSS with combination therapy relative to the individual agents alone is in contrast to previously published studies that found no advantage with an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid in combination. Azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with therapy with either agent alone.

Safety and tolerability of fexofenadine hydrochloride, 15 and 30 mg, twice daily in children aged 6 months to 2 years with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Antihistamines are an established first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis and are widely prescribed in infants for allergic symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To establish the safety and tolerability of fexofenadine hydrochloride in children aged 6 months to 2 years in 2 studies (T/3001 and T/3002). METHODS: Both studies had a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled design. Mean treatment duration was 8 days. Subjects were randomized (T/3001, n = 174; and T/3002, n = 219) to twice-daily fexofenadine hydrochloride, 15 or 30 mg, or placebo mixed with a standard vehicle. RESULTS: In the combined population, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was comparable between groups (placebo, 48.2% [96/199]; fexofenadine hydrochloride, 15 mg, 40.0% [34/85]; and fexofenadine hydrochloride, 30 mg, 35.2% [38/108]). Vomiting was the most common TEAE (placebo, 13.6%; fexofenadine hydrochloride, 15 mg, 14.1%; and fexofenadine hydrochloride, 30 mg, 5.6%). Most TEAEs were unrelated to study medication, as evaluated by investigators; those possibly related to study medication were mild or moderate in intensity. No clinical differences were seen between fexofenadine and placebo for vital signs, electrocardiographic results, or physical examination results. CONCLUSION: Fexofenadine hydrochloride, 15 or 30 mg, given for a mean duration of 8 days is well tolerated, with a good safety profile, in children aged 6 months to 2 years.

Effectiveness of ciclesonide nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Ciclesonide is an investigational corticosteroid under development for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ciclesonide is converted to active metabolite, desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC), by upper and lower airway esterases. In vitro studies in human nasal epithelial cells and bronchial epithelial cells have demonstrated a long duration of anti-inflammatory activity of des-CIC. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dose-dependent efficacy and safety of a hypotonic intranasal formulation of ciclesonide in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: This was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults (n = approximately 145 per treatment group) with a minimum 2-year history of SAR received placebo or ciclesonide (25, 50, 100, or 200 microg/d) for 14 days. The primary end point was change in the sum of morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) over 2 weeks. Safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Ciclesonide, 100 microg/d (P = .04) and 200 microg/d (P = .003), significantly improved the sum of morning and evening reflective TNSS vs placebo at more than 2 weeks of treatment. Baseline values for morning and evening reflective TNSS ranged from 17.80 to 18.82 across treatment groups. The average change from baseline in reflective TNSS was -4.2 for placebo and -4.8, -4.8, -5.3, and -5.8 for ciclesonide, 25, 50, 100, and 200 microg/d, respectively. There were no dose-related differences in the incidence of adverse events among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study indicate that 100-microg and 200-microg daily doses of ciclesonide are effective in the treatment of SAR. Ciclesonide, 200 microg/d, appears to be the optimal dose studied for reducing the symptoms of SAR while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR), an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, affects approximately 25% of adults and 40% of children in the United States. Ciclesonide nasal spray is a corticosteroid being developed as a hypotonic formulation for AR. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide nasal spray in adult and adolescent patients with seasonal AR (SAR). METHODS: In this double-blind study patients (age, >or=12 years) were randomized to receive 200 microg of intranasal ciclesonide (n = 164) or placebo (n = 163) once daily for 28 days. The primary measure was morning and evening patient-assessed reflective total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Additionally, instantaneous TNSSs, physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity, and the results of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire were evaluated. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Ciclesonide significantly improved average morning and evening reflective and instantaneous TNSSs compared with placebo over days 1 to 14 (P < .001). Improvements were also noted over days 1 to 28 (P < .001) and over days 15 to 28 (P = .011). Ciclesonide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Intranasal ciclesonide was superior to placebo in relieving nasal symptoms in adult and adolescent patients with SAR. These results confirm the dose range-finding study in patients with SAR and support the efficacy of ciclesonide in AR. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In a clinical setting ciclesonide was shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of SAR in adolescent and adult patients.

Improved quality of life among seasonal allergic rhinitis patients treated with olopatadine HCl nasal spray 0.4% and olopatadine HCl nasal spray 0.6% compared with vehicle placebo.

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) exerts a significant adverse impact on health-related quality of life (QoL) and productivity of those who suffer from it. Unfortunately, some therapies for SAR also have a negative impact. Therefore, it is important to scrutinize the influence of new SAR therapies on patients' QoL and ability to function. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a new nasal antihistamine, olopatadine, on QoL in SAR patients. In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind SAR study comparing olopatadine 0.6 and 0.4% to placebo nasal spray, patients completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. The RQLQ is a validated questionnaire that addresses overall QoL and 7 domains of impairment associated with rhinoconjunctivitis (activities, sleep, non--nose/eye allergy symptoms, practical problems, nasal symptoms, eye symptoms, and emotional impairment). The overall RQLQ mean changes from baseline with olopatadine 0.6% (-1.1 +/- 1.4) and 0.4% (-1.1 +/- 1.3) nasal sprays were superior (p < 0.05) to placebo (-0.8 +/- 1.2). Olopatadine spray 0.6% was superior to placebo in six of the seven RQLQ domains and olopatadine 0.4% was superior to placebo in five RQLQ domains (p < 0.05). The correlation between the olopatadine 0.6% mean total symptom scores and mean RQLQ score was r = 0.66 (p < 0.0001), indicating that the enhancement in QoL derived from olopatadine therapy was significantly associated with symptom reduction. Olopatadine nasal spray is an effective antiallergy medication that significantly improves the QoL of patients suffering from SAR.

Comparison of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and oral montelukast for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids with that of leukotriene receptor antagonists for the treatment of daytime and nighttime symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, 200 microg daily, with oral montelukast, 10 mg daily, for the relief of SAR symptoms. METHODS: Patients with SAR 15 years or older were randomized to receive either fluticasone propionate (n = 367) or montelukast (n = 369) in this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) (the sum of 4 daytime individual nasal symptom scores [INSSs] assessing nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), averaged across weeks 1 and 2. Secondary efficacy measures included the 4 daytime INSSs, nighttime TNSSs (the sum of 3 nighttime INSSs assessing congestion on awakening, difficulty going to sleep, and nighttime awakenings), and the 3 nighttime INSSs averaged across weeks 1 and 2. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in daytime TNSSs (P < .001), all daytime INSSs (P < .001), nighttime TNSSs (P < .001), and all nighttime INSSs (P < or = .02) showed significant differences favoring fluticasone propionate over montelukast across 2 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: Compared with montelukast, fluticasone propionate provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime SAR symptoms.

Safety and efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis to mountain cedar.

BACKGROUND: A nasal spray containing the antiallergy agent olopatadine hydrochloride is being developed for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) to mountain cedar. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 concentrations of olopatadine nasal spray vs placebo nasal spray in patients with SAR to mountain cedar. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 3- to 21-day placebo run-in, 677 patients aged 12 to 81 years were randomized to receive 0.4% or 0.6% olopatadine or placebo, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. Patients evaluated morning and evening reflective and instantaneous nasal symptoms (sneezing, stuffy nose, runny nose, and itchy nose, which compose the total nasal symptom score [TNSS]) and ocular symptoms. RESULTS: Olopatadine spray (0.4% and 0.6%) was statistically significantly superior to placebo for percentage change from baseline in overall reflective and instantaneous TNSSs. Also, 0.6% olopatadine was statistically significantly superior to placebo for reducing the reflective and instantaneous assessments of sneezing, runny nose, itchy nose, stuffy nose, itchy eyes, and watery eyes. Olopatadine spray exhibited a safety profile comparable with that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine nasal spray (0.4% and 0.6%) provided statistically significant improvements in allergic rhinitis symptoms compared with placebo regarding TNSSs and individual symptoms, including congestion, itchy and runny nose, sneezing, and itchy and watery eyes, in patients with SAR to mountain cedar. Olopatadine nasal spray administered twice daily was safe and well tolerated in adolescents and adults.

Omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with severe allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that omalizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, reduces asthma exacerbations and decreases inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) requirement in patients with severe allergic asthma who were symptomatic despite moderate-to-high doses of ICSs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of omalizumab on asthma-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: These analyses were part of a multicenter, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous omalizumab (> or =0.016 mg/kg of IgE [in international unit per milliliter] per 4 weeks) in 525 adults with severe allergic asthma. A 16-week steroid-stable phase was followed by a 12-week steroid-reduction phase and a 24-week double-blind extension phase. The effect of treatment on asthma-related QOL was evaluated by using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) administered at baseline and at weeks 16, 28, and 52. RESULTS: The 2 treatment groups were comparable in terms of baseline AQLQ scores. At weeks 16, 28, and 52, omalizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements across all AQLQ domains, as well as in overall score. Moreover, a greater proportion of patients receiving omalizumab achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in asthma-related QOL during each phase of the study. Greater than 50% of both patients and investigators rated treatment similarly with omalizumab as excellent or good compared with less than 40% of placebo recipients. CONCLUSION: In patients requiring moderate-to-high doses of ICSs for severe allergic asthma, the measurably improved disease control afforded by add-on omalizumab therapy is paralleled by clinically meaningful improvements in asthma-related QOL.

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.