Abstract
The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for paediatric asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Department of Pediatrics, Fenghua District People’s Hospital of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China
- Department of Pediatrics, Ningbo Yinzhou Second Hospital, Zhejiang, China
- Department of Respiration, Fenghua District People’s Hospital of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China
Introduction
The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) for paediatric asthma remains controversial. Aim: We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma.
Material and methods
We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.
Results
Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for paediatric asthma, FP/FORM and FP/SAL demonstrate a comparable influence on FEV1 (Std. MD = –0.01; 95% CI: –0.04 to 0.03; p = 0.62), FVC (Std. MD = 0; 95% CI: –0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.87), FEF25 (Std. MD = –1.69; 95% CI: –6.69 to 3.31; p = 0.51), FEF50 (Std. MD = 0.10; 95% CI: –0.12 to 0.33; p = 0.37), FEF75 (Std. MD = 0.01; 95% CI: –0.21 to 0.24; p = 0.91), asthma symptom scores (Std. MD = –0.03; 95% CI: –0.11 to 0.04; p = 0.43), sleep disturbance scores (Std. MD = 0.03; 95% CI: –0.19 to 0.24; p = 0.81) and adverse events (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.38; p = 0.61).
Conclusions
FP/FORM and FP/SAL show a comparable efficacy for paediatric asthma.
Keywords
fluticasone propionate/formoterol, propionate/salmeterol, paediatric asthma, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis
Indexed in
Integrated with
