Comparative effectiveness of different placebos and comparator groups for hand osteoarthritis exploring the impact of contextual factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the pain relief effects of comparators (placebos and untreated control groups) in hand osteoarthritis trials and the impact of contextual factors. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to December 26, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of people with hand osteoarthritis with a placebo or an untreated control group. We assessed the Risk of Bias with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool version 2. Each comparator was contrasted with a null-arm, imputed as having a zero change from baseline with the same standard deviation as the comparator. We combined the standardised mean differences with a random effects meta-analysis. The contextual factors' effect was explored in meta-regression and stratified models with pain as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 84 trials (7262 participants) were eligible for quantitative synthesis, of which 76 (6462 participants) were eligible for the stratified analyses. Placebos were superior to their matched null-arms in relieving pain with an effect size of -0.51 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.42), while untreated control groups were not. When analysing all comparators, blinded trial designs and low risk of bias were associated with higher pain relief compared to an open-label trial design and some concern or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The placebo response on pain for people with hand osteoarthritis was increased by appropriate blinding and a lower risk of bias assessment. Placebos were superior to a null-arm, while untreated control groups were not. Results emphasise the importance of using appropriate comparators in clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022298984.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 26 December 2021, for randomised trials of pharmacological interventions for people with hand OA. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the effect sizes for pain (standardised mean differences) using Bayesian random effects models for network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. Based on a pre-specified protocol, we prospectively registered the study at PROSPERO, CRD42021215393. RESULTS: We included 72 trials with 7609 participants. 65 trials (n=5957) were eligible for the quantitative synthesis, investigating 29 pharmacological interventions. Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral glucocorticoids' NMA effect sizes were -0.18 (95% credible interval -0.36 to 0.02) and -0.54 (-0.83 to -0.24), respectively, compared with placebo, and the result was consistent when limiting evidence to the pairwise meta-analysis of trials without high risk of bias. Intra-articular hyaluronate, intra-articular glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and topical NSAIDs' NMA effect sizes were 0.22 (-0.08 to 0.51), 0.25 (0.00 to 0.51), -0.01 (-0.19 to 0.18), and -0.14 (-0.33 to 0.08), respectively, compared with placebo. Oral NSAIDs were inferior to oral glucocorticoids with an NMA effect size of 0.36 (0.01 to 0.72). No intervention was superior to placebo when stratifying for thumb and finger OA. CONCLUSION: Oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoids are apparently effective pharmacological interventions in hand OA. Intra-articular therapies and topical NSAIDs were not superior to placebo.

Colchicine twice a day for hand osteoarthritis (COLOR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been suggested for osteoarthritis treatment, but evidence is contradictory. We aimed to investigate colchicine's efficacy and safety compared with placebo in people with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial we recruited adults with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and finger pain of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale from an outpatient clinic in Denmark. The hand with the most severe finger pain at inclusion was the target hand. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 0·5 mg colchicine or placebo taken orally twice a day for 12 weeks, stratified by BMI (≥30 kg/m2), sex, and age (≥75 years). Participants, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in target hand finger pain, assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with a pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 15 mm, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed at week 12 in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04601883, and with EudraCT, 2020-002803-20. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2021, and March 3, 2022, 186 people were screened for eligibility, and 100 were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (n=50) or placebo (n=50). Participants had a mean age of 70·9 (SD 7·5) years, 69 (69%) of 100 were women and 31 (31%) were men. All participants completed the study. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in finger pain were -13·9 mm (SE 2·8) in the colchicine group and -13·5 mm (2·8) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (colchicine vs placebo) of -0·4 mm (95% CI -7·6 to 6·7; p=0·90). In the colchicine group, there were 76 adverse events in 36 (72%) of 50 participants and one serious adverse advent (migraine attack leading to hospital admission). In the placebo group, there were 42 adverse events in 22 (44%) of 50 participants and two serious adverse events (cholecystitis and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations, in the same patient). INTERPRETATION: In people with painful hand osteoarthritis, treatment with 0·5 mg of colchicine twice day for 12 weeks did not effectively relieve pain, and treatment with colchicine was associated with more adverse events. FUNDING: The Oak Foundation, IMK Almene Fond, Minister Erna Hamilton's Scholarship for Science and Art, AP Moller and Wife Chastine McKinney Moller's Foundation for Medical Science Advancement, The Danish Medical Association, the Velux Foundation, Aase and Ejnar Danielsen's Foundation, and Director Emil C Hertz and Wife Inger Hertz's foundation.

Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Detection and Characterization of Monosodium Urate, Calcium Pyrophosphate, and Hydroxyapatite: A Phantom Study on Diagnostic Performance.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to detect and distinguish crystal deposits in a phantom. The primary objective was to determine the cutoff DECT ratio and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of a crystal deposit necessary to differentiate monosodium urate (MSU), calcium pyrophosphate (CPP), and calcium hydroxyapatite (HA) using DECT. Our secondary objective was to determine the concentration for limit of detection for MSU, CPP, and HA crystal deposits. Exploratory objectives included the comparison between 2 generations of DECT scanners from the same manufacturer as well as different scanner settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a cylindrical soft tissue phantom with synthetic MSU, CPP, and HA crystals suspended in resin. Crystal suspension concentration increased with similar attenuation between MSU, CPP, and HA in conventional CT. The phantom was scanned on 2 dual-source DECT scanners, at 2 dose levels and all available tube voltage combinations. Both scanners had a tin (Sn) filter at the high-energy spectra. Dual-energy CT ratios were calculated for a given tube voltage combination by dividing linear regression lines of CT numbers against concentration. Dual-energy CT ratios were compared using an analysis of covariance. Receiver operating characteristic curves and corresponding areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for individual crystal suspension comparisons (HA vs CPP, MSU vs CPP, and MSU vs HA). RESULTS: At standard clinical scan settings with 8 mGy and 80/Sn150 kV, the DECT ratios were as follows: CPP, 2.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98-2.07); HA, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.96-2.05); and MSU, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Ratios varied numerically depending on the scanner and tube voltage combination. Monosodium urate crystal DECT ratios were significantly different from HA and CPP (P < 0.001), whereas DECT ratios for HA and CPP crystals did not differ significantly (P = 0.99). The differentiation of MSU crystals from both calcium crystals (HA and CPP) was excellent with an AUC of 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) and an optimal cutoff DECT ratio of 1.43:1.40 depending on the scanner. In addition, differentiation of MSU and calcium-containing crystals (HA and CPP) required a CSA of minimum 4 pixels of crystal at standard clinical scan conditions. In contrast, differentiation between CPP and HA crystals was moderate with AUCs ranging from 0.66 (95% CI, 0.52-0.80) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.91) and an optimal cutoff DECT ratio of 2.02:2.06 depending on the scanner. Furthermore, differentiation between CPP and HA crystals required a CSA of minimum 87 pixels of crystal at standard clinical scan conditions, corresponding to a region of interest of 3.7 mm diameter. When scanning at highest possible spectral separation and maximum dose of 50 mGy, the limit of detection for crystals within a region of interest of 50 pixels was 14 mg/cm3 for MSU and 2 mg/cm3 for both CPP and HA. CONCLUSIONS: This phantom study shows that DECT can be used to detect MSU, CPP, and HA crystal deposits. Differentiation of CPP and HA was not possible in crystals deposits less than 3.7 mm in diameter, but MSU could accurately be differentiated from CPP and HA crystal deposits at standard clinical scan conditions.

[Elimination of hepatitis C virus in Denmark].

In Denmark, about 50% of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are undiagnosed. Since 2014, therapy containing direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has proven efficient and is available to all patients, who have a chronic HCV infection and a Danish personal identification number. The World Health Organization has a goal of elimination of viral hepatitis in 2030. Elimination of HCV in Denmark should focus on reducing HCV transmission, incidence and prevalence, combined with treatment with DAA of all infected patients. Micro-elimination strategies may play a major role, but a national strategy is lacking.

Added value of combining methotrexate with a biological agent compared to biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with an approved biological agent compared to biological monotherapy, in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and other sources were searched for randomised trials evaluating a biological agent plus MTX versus the same biological agent in monotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Random-effects models were applied for meta-analyses with risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals and the GRADE approach was used to assess confidence in the estimates. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 16 trials (4965 patients), including all biological agents approved for RA except anakinra and certolizumab. The overall likelihood of responding to therapy (i.e. ACR50) after 6 months was 32% better when MTX was given concomitantly with biological agents (1.32 [1.20-1.45]; P < 0.001) corresponding to 11 more out of 100 patients (7-16 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. Discontinuing due to AEs from concomitant use of MTX was potentially 20% increased (1.21 [0.97-1.50]; P = 0.09) compared to biological monotherapy corresponding to 1 more out of 100 patients (0-3 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised trials provide Moderate Quality Evidence for a favourable benefit-harm balance supporting concomitant use of MTX rather than monotherapy when prescribing a biological agent in patients with RA although in absolute terms only 7-16 more out of 100 patients will achieve an ACR50 response after 6 months of this combination therapy.

Infectious Aortitis: Could Early Radiology Improve Patient Outcome?

Aortitis is a rare condition and easily overlooked. It is defined as infectious or non-infectious inflammation of the aortic wall. This report describes two cases of aortitis, demonstrating the diagnostic difficulty and how diagnostic delay could have been reduced if early radiology had been performed. Due to the nature of aortitis, patient outcome can be improved considerably by timely diagnosis and treatment. LEARNING POINTS: Aortitis is rarely suspected due to its vague symptoms, but diagnosis is aided by computed tomography (CT) of the thorax and abdomen.A delay in aortitis diagnosis can be life threatening; however, early radiology can ensure timely diagnosis and considerably improve patient outcome.Aortitis should always be suspected in cases with immunosuppression and systemic Salmonella infection, and a CT of the thorax and abdomen should be performed.

Defining the optimal biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and compare the benefits and harms of biological agents used as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to inform decisions for patients who are intolerant to conventional DMARD therapy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other sources for randomised trials that compared biological monotherapy with methotrexate, placebo, or other biological monotherapies. Primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events. Our network meta-analysis was based on mixed-effects logistic regression, including both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects, while preserving the randomised comparisons within each trial. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42012002800. RESULTS: The analysis comprises 28 trials (8602 patients), including all nine biological agents approved for RA. Eight trials included "DMARD-naïve", and 20 "DMARD-Inadequate responder" (DMARD-IR) patients. All agents except anakinra and infliximab were superior (p < 0.05) to placebo (i.e., no DMARD treatment) with regard to ACR50. Etanercept and rituximab were superior to anakinra (p = 0.018 and p = 0.049, respectively). Tocilizumab was superior to adalimumab (p = 0.0082), anakinra (p = 0.0083), certolizumab (p = 0.037), and golimumab (p = 0.049). No differences among etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab were found (p > 0.52). However, because rituximab was evaluated in just 40 patients, our confidence in the estimates is limited. When including only DMARD-IR trials, the same statistical pattern emerged; in addition etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to abatacept. At recommended doses, both etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to adalimumab and certolizumab. No statistically significant differences among biological agents were found with respect to discontinuation due to adverse events (p > 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised trials suggests that most biological agents are effective as monotherapy. Although our confidence in the estimates is limited, etanercept or tocilizumab may be the optimal choice for most patients who need treatment with biological monotherapy. However, given our limited confidence in the estimates including possibility of bias, it is appropriate to strongly weight patients׳ preferences and values in the final treatment choice.

Knemometry is more sensitive to systemic effects of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma than 24-hour urine cortisol excretion.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacodynamic assessment of the systemic effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is often done by measuring 24-hour urine free cortisol (UFC) excretion. Knemometry assessing short-term lower-leg growth rate (LLGR) is a more rarely used alternative. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of LLGR and 24-hour UFC excretion for evaluating systemic exposure to ICSs in prepubertal children with asthma. The secondary aim was to evaluate factors influencing the precision of LLGR calculated by the traditional 1 leg nonparametric method versus a new 2 leg parametric method. METHODS: The study evaluated 60 children with mild asthma aged 5 to 12 years participating in a randomized controlled trial of ICSs with longitudinal concomitant assessments of LLGR and 24-hour UFC excretion. The sensitivity of the safety assessments was analyzed by comparing LLGR and 24-hour UFC in the placebo run-in period with values in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests. Factors with a potential influence on LLGR were analyzed by means of ANOVA and the Levene test of homogeneity. RESULTS: The mean LLGR was significantly reduced during the ICS versus placebo run-in periods: 0.18 mm/wk (SD, 0.55 mm/wk) versus 0.45 mm/wk (SD, 0.39 mm/wk), with a mean difference of 0.27 mm/wk (95% CI, 0.05-0.48 mm/wk; P = .02). In contrast, there was no difference in 24-hour UFC excretion: 6.91 nmol/mmol (SD, 4.67 nmol/mmol) versus 7.58 nmol/mmol (SD, 6.17 nmol/mmol), with a mean difference of 0.67 nmol/mmol (95% CI, -1.13 to 2.48 nmol/mmol; P = .46). We observed no significant difference in parametric determined LLGR caused by the child's age or sex, investigator, or season of measurement, whereas some differences were observed for the nonparametric LLGR. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that knemometry is a more sensitive pharmacodynamic measure of systemic effects of ICSs than 24-hour UFC excretion and that a parametric determination of LLGR increases the sensitivity of the method. These findings should be considered by legislative authorities in the future.

Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis.

Objectives: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42014014842.

Modified intention-to-treat analysis did not bias trial results.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether analysis of the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population with postrandomization exclusion of patients from analysis is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect compared to the conservative intention-to-treat (ITT) population. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Placebo-controlled, blinded randomized trials on biological or targeted interventions for rheumatoid arthritis were identified through a systematic search. Two authors independently extracted data. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios as an expression of treatment effect and stratify according to the different analysis populations. RESULTS: Seventy-two randomized trials were included and analyzed (23,842 patients). Thirty trials analyzed the ITT population, 37 analyzed an mITT population, and 5 trials had an unclear analysis population. The treatment effect of active intervention compared to control, when based on mITT, was comparable to ITT (odds ratio 3.76 [95% confidence interval 3.09, 4.57], and 3.47 [2.77, 4.34]; comparison P = 0.60). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the treatment effect between randomized trials using ITT and mITT analyses populations. This suggests that the mITT approach in rheumatoid arthritis trials investigating biological or targeted interventions does not introduce bias compared to ITT.

Most Trial Eligibility Criteria and Patient Baseline Characteristics Do Not Modify Treatment Effect in Trials Using Targeted Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if variations in trial eligibility criteria and patient baseline characteristics could be considered effect modifiers of the treatment response when testing targeted therapies (biological agents and targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study of all trials evaluating a targeted therapy approved by regulatory authorities for treating RA. The database search was completed on December 11th 2013. Eligible trials reported ACR20 data at months 3-6 and used an add-on design. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated from the response rates and compared among the trial eligibility criteria/patient baseline characteristics of interest. Comparisons are presented as the Ratio of Odds Ratios (ROR). RESULTS: Sixty-two trials (19,923 RA patients) were included in the primary analyses using ACR20 response. Overall, targeted therapies constituted an effective treatment (OR 3.96 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.41 to 4.60). The majority of the trial eligibility criteria and patient baseline characteristics did not modify treatment effect. The added benefit of targeted therapies was lower in trials including "DMARD-naïve" patients compared with trials including "DMARD inadequate responders" (ROR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.66) and trials including "targeted therapy inadequate responders" (0.50, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.87), test for interaction: p = 0.0002. Longer mean disease duration was associated with a higher likelihood of responding to treatment (ß = 1.05, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.11 OR's per year; p = 0.03). Analyses conducted using DAS28-remission as the outcome supported the above-mentioned findings. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a highly selective inclusion is not associated with greater treatment effect, as might otherwise be expected. The added benefit of a targeted therapy was lower in trials including patients who were DMARD-naïve and trials including patients with shorter disease durations.

Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: When participants drop out of randomised clinical trials, as frequently happens, the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle does not apply, potentially leading to attrition bias. Data lost from patient dropout/lack of follow-up are statistically addressed by imputing, a procedure prone to bias. Deviations from the original definition of ITT are referred to as modified intention-to-treat (mITT). As yet, the impact of the potential bias associated with mITT has not been assessed. Our objective is to investigate potential bias and disadvantages of performing mITT and evaluate possible concerns when executing different mITT approaches in meta-analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using meta-epidemiology on randomised trials considered less prone to bias (ie, good internal validity) and assessing biological or targeted agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, we will meta-analyse data from 10 biological and targeted drugs based on collections of trials that would correspond to 10 individual meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will enhance transparency for evaluating mITT treatment effects described in meta-analyses. The intended audience will include healthcare researchers, policymakers and clinicians. Results of the study will be disseminated by peer-review publication. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: In PROSPERO CRD42013006702, 11. December 2013.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of inhaled fixed combination vs. the free combination of beclomethasone and formoterol pMDIs in asthmatic children.

AIM: The fixed combination of beclomethasone (BDP) and formoterol pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) (Foster®, Chiesi Farmaceutici) is being developed in the lower strength (BDP/formoterol: 50/6 µg) to provide an appropriate dosage for children with asthma. The aim of this work was to investigate the systemic bioavailability of beclomethasone-17-monoproprionate (B17MP, the active metabolite of BDP) and formoterol after single inhalation of Foster® pMDI 50/6 µg vs. the free combination of BDP and formoterol pMDIs in asthmatic children. METHODS: Children aged 5-11 years old inhaled BDP 200 µg and formoterol 24 µg as fixed vs. free combination in an open label, randomized, two way crossover single dose study. Blood was collected pre-dose up to 8 h post-dose for pharmacokinetic evaluation (AUC(0,t), AUC(0,∞), AUC(0,0.5 h, Cmax , tmax , t1/2 ). Pharmacodynamics included heart rate, plasma potassium, urinary glucose and cortisol excretion. Peak expiratory flow and adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Twenty subjects were evaluable. The systemic exposure of B17MP and formoterol administered as fixed combination did not exceed the free combination: B17MP AUC(0,t) (pg ml(-1) h) ratio test : reference (90% CI), 0.81 (0.697, 0.948) and formoterol AUC(0,t) (pg ml(-1) h) ratio test : reference 0.97 (0.85, 1.10). All pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic end points showed non-superiority in favour of the test drug. One adverse event (vertigo) occurred but was not considered treatment-related. CONCLUSION: BDP and formoterol pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects are non-superior after administration of the two actives as fixed vs. the free combination in 5-11-year-old asthmatic children.