Skip to main content
Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group logoLink to Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group
. 2007 Jun 5;16(3):155–161. doi: 10.3132/pcrj.2007.00043

Improvement in asthma endpoints when aiming for total control: salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone

Ashley A Woodcock 1,*, Alfredas Bagdonas 2, Watchara Boonsawat 3, Michael R Gibbs 4, Jean Bousquet 5, Eric D Bateman 6, on behalf of the GOAL Steering Committee & Investigators
PMCID: PMC6634212  PMID: 17551661

Abstract

Aims:

To investigate the magnitude of change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptoms, and rescue β2-agonist use, when the aim of treatment is to achieve guideline-defined control.

Methods:

This was a protocol-defined analysis of data from the previously-reported one-year, stratified, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group GOAL study comparing the use of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with fluticasone propionate alone in achieving guideline-defined control; this analysis assessed the magnitude of change in single specific endpoints which were amalgamated into the composite measure of control used in the primary GOAL analysis.

Results:

Across all strata, improvements were seen for each outcome at 52 weeks as compared to baseline: mean morning PEF, 58.2 l/min (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate) versus 33.9 l/min (fluticasone propionate alone); symptom scores, −1.0 versus −0.8; symptom-free days, 72.5% versus 54.5%; mean of zero night awakenings, 31% versus 22%; rescue-free days, 87.3 versus 74.7; annualised rate of severe exacerbations, 0.02 versus 0.03; p<0.001 for all treatment differences.

Conclusions:

Aiming for guideline-defined control resulted in sustained, clinically relevant improvements in a range of individual asthma outcomes. Improvements were greatest with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone.

Keywords: asthma, control, salmeterol, fluticasone propionate, outcomes

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (347.8 KB).

Footnotes

AAW has received education, research and travel grants, and remuneration for lectures, consultancy and advisory boards, from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). He has also received remuneration for these activities from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Oriel Therapeutics, and Schering-Plough.

AB — no conflicts of interest declared

WB — no conflicts of interest declared

MRG is an employee of GSK. He co-ordinated the study and assisted with the reporting of the study results

JB received honoraria for his involvement in the GOAL study

EDB has received remuneration from GSK for lectures, membership of advisory boards and consultancy.

He has also received remuneration for these activities from AstraZeneca, Hoffman-la-Roche, ALTANA, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer


Articles from Primary Care Respiratory Journal: Journal of the General Practice Airways Group are provided here courtesy of Primary Care Respiratory Society UK/Macmillan Publishers Limited

RESOURCES