{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0368567454798331, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03337969401947149, 'mean_word_length': 4.513409961685824, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Controlled clinical comparative evaluation of fluticasone powder inhalation versus flunisolide dose aerosol in patients with mild to moderate asthma].

A 6 week randomised, multicentre parallel group study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) dry powder inhaler 2 x 250 micrograms/d and flunisolide (FLUN) metered dose inhaler 2 x 500 micrograms/d. 169 patients with mild to moderate asthma (FEV1/VC > or = 60% predicted) participated. The final clinical judgement resulted from the change in FEV1 and symptom intensity (measured by the oxygen cost diagram = OCD). 79% of the patients in the FP group showed improvement or partial improvement, compared to 57% in the flunisolide group (p = 0.02). The results indicate a greater efficacy of FP concerning the intensity of dyspnea, cough and symptoms at night (p = 0.03). During the treatment period morning and evening PEF improved in both groups; in 81% of the FP patients and 71% of the FLUN patients. 50% of all patients had a FEV1 below 2.5 l/s. The greater efficacy of FP was especially found in patients with lower FEV1. In both treatment groups drug safety was judged good or excellent by most patients. The results of this 6 week study indicate a greater efficacy (FEV1 and symptoms) of FP 2 x 250 micrograms/d versus FLUN 2 x 500 micrograms/d. The study confirms that there is at least a 2:1 ratio in efficacy comparing FP with FLUN in asthma patients.