Objective: Fluticasone and formoterol are effective in the treatment of asthma. When a corticosteroid alone fails to control asthma, combination therapy is the treatment of choice. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of formulations containing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR), fluticasone alone (FLU), and the single-capsule combination of fluticasone/formoterol (FLU/FOR) on lung function in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Methods: This was a randomized, multicenter, open phase III trial conducted in Brazil. The primary efficacy analysis was the assessment of non-inferiority between FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR combinations regarding FEV1 (in L) at the final visit. The secondary analyses were PEF, level of asthma control, serum cortisol levels, frequency of adverse events, adherence to treatment, and appropriate inhaler use. Results: We randomized 243 patients to three groups: FLU/FOR (n = 79), BUD/FOR (n = 83), and FLU (n = 81). In terms of the mean FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment, the difference between the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups was 0.22 L (95% CI: −0.06 to 0.49), whereas the difference between the FLU/FOR and FLU groups was 0.26 L (95% CI: −0.002 to 0.52). Non-inferiority was demonstrated by the difference between the lower limits of the two 95% CIs (−0.06 vs. −0.002). The level of asthma control and PEF were significantly greater in the FLU/FOR and BUD/FOR groups than in the FLU group. There were no significant differences among the groups regarding patient adherence, patient inhaler use, or safety profile of the formulations. Conclusions: The single-capsule combination of FLU/FOR showed non-inferiority to the BUD/FOR and FLU formulations regarding efficacy and safety, making it a new treatment option for persistent asthma. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01202084 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/])

Keywords: Asthma; Steroids; Bronchodilator agents; Administration, inhalation.

Objective: To determine whether nebulizers are a source of microbial contamination in patients with cystic fibrosis, as well as whether the technique and frequency of disinfection of these devices is appropriate. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, uncontrolled observational study. Samples were collected from 28 patients with cystic fibrosis. Samples were collected at the homes of the patients, who were not previously informed of the purpose of the visit. Three samples were collected from each patient: one from the nebulizer chamber, one from the mask/mouthpiece, and one from the patient (oropharyngeal swab/sputum). The samples were properly stored and taken for analyses. The patients, their parents, or their legal guardians completed a questionnaire regarding nebulizer cleaning and disinfecting methods. Results: We collected 84 samples from the 28 patients. Of those 28 patients, 15 (53.5%) were male. The median age of the patients was 11 years (range, 1-27 years). Of the 28 patients, 15 presented with positive oropharyngeal swab/sputum sample cultures. The most common bacterial isolates were Staphylococcus aureus (in 8 patients) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (in 4 patients). Although the samples obtained from the nebulizers presented with various pathogens in culture, no specific species predominated. In 27 cases (96.7%), there were no associations between the samples obtained from the nebulizers and those obtained from the patients in terms of the results of the cultures. Cleaning and disinfection of nebulizers were inappropriate in 22 cases (78.6%). Conclusions: In this sample of patients, despite the inappropriate disinfection techniques, nebulizers were not found to be a source of microbial contamination.

Keywords: Cystic fibrosis; Nebulizers and vaporizers; Disinfection.