Remibrutinib demonstrates favorable safety profile and sustained efficacy in chronic spontaneous urticaria over 52 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Remibrutinib (LOU064), an oral, highly selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, offers fast disease control in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who remain symptomatic despite treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines. It is currently in phase 3 development for CSU. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of remibrutinib in patients with CSU inadequately controlled with H1 antihistamines. METHODS: In this phase 2b extension study, patients who completed the core study and had a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) ≥16 at the beginning of the extension study received remibrutinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to assess long-term safety and tolerability. Key efficacy end points included change from baseline in UAS7 and proportion of patients with complete response to treatment (UAS7 = 0) and well-controlled disease (UAS7 ≤6) at week 4 and over 52 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 84.3% (194/230) of patients entered the treatment period and received ≥1 doses of remibrutinib. The overall safety profile of remibrutinib was comparable between the extension and core studies. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to remibrutinib by investigators. The 3 most common treatment-emergent adverse events by system organ class were infections (30.9%), skin and subcutaneous tissue (26.8%), and gastrointestinal disorders (16.5%). At week 4 and 52, mean ± SD change from baseline in UAS7 was -17.6 ± 13.40 and -21.8 ± 10.70; UAS7 = 0 (as observed) was achieved in 28.2% and 55.8% and UAS7 ≤6 (as observed) was achieved in 52.7% and 68.0% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remibrutinib demonstrated a consistent favorable safety profile with fast and sustained efficacy for up to 52 weeks in patients with CSU.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 µg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response. METHODS: Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. RESULTS: Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to biologic therapies is crucial for clinical benefits. Previous assessments of US patient adherence to severe asthma (SA) biologic therapies have relied on health care insurance claims data that have limitations. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world, specialist-reported, biologic administration and adherence among US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045) is an ongoing real-world, noninterventional study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Sites report date and location for all biologic administrations. We evaluated biologic (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab) adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first 52 weeks and the mean number of days until patients received the expected number of doses for 13, 26, and 52 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 2117 patients received biologic administrations between February 2018 and February 2022. Most patients (84%) received biologic administrations at a subspecialist site. Over time, administrations at specialist sites decreased, whereas at-home administrations increased. The median PDC was 87%; the mean number of days to receive a 52-week (364-day) equivalent number of doses was 423 for all biologics (average delay of 58 days). Dupilumab had the lowest PDC and highest mean delays in dosing across all intervals; better adherence was observed among commercially insured patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with SA are mostly adherent to biologic therapies. Biologics with shorter dosing intervals and at-home administration had worse adherence, likely because of greater opportunities for delays. Specialist-reported administration data provide a unique perspective on biologic adherence, which may be overestimated for at-home administrations by insurance claims data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373045.

Number of patient-reported asthma triggers predicts uncontrolled disease among specialist-treated patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma (SA) experience a high disease burden, often precipitated by exposure to disease triggers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and effects of patient-reported triggers on asthma disease burden in a cohort of subspecialist-treated patients with SA in the United States. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an observational study of adults with SA receiving biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or whose disease is uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers. Data were analyzed for patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021. This analysis evaluated patient-reported triggers from a 17-category survey and associations with multiple measures of disease burden. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 1434 (51%) completed the trigger questionnaire. The median trigger number per patient was 8 (interquartile range, 5-10). The most frequent triggers were weather or air changes, viral infections, seasonal allergies, perennial allergies, and exercise. Patients reporting more triggers experienced more poorly controlled disease, worse quality of life, and reduced work productivity. The annualized rates of exacerbations and asthma hospitalizations increased by 7% and 17%, respectively, for each additional trigger (both P < .001). For all measures, trigger number was a stronger predictor of disease burden than blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSION: Among US specialist-treated patients with SA, asthma trigger number was positively and significantly associated with greater uncontrolled disease burden across multiple measures, which highlights the importance of understanding patient-reported triggers in SA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Biologic use and outcomes among adults with severe asthma treated by US subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are now available for severe asthma (SA) treatment and can improve outcomes for patients. However, few available data describe the real-world use and effectiveness of multiple approved biologics, including biologic switching, among subspecialists in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biologic use and associated exacerbation outcomes in a large cohort of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For enrolled patients, sites report asthma exacerbations and medication use starting 12 months before enrollment. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021, biologic use and exacerbation outcomes before and after biologic initiation are described. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 66% (n = 1832) were receiving biologics. The most used biologic (> 1 biologic use per patient allowed) was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), dupilumab (18%), and reslizumab (3%). Overall, 16% of patients had biologic switches, 13% had stops, and 89% had ongoing biologic use. Patients starting and switching biologics experienced a 58% (1.80 vs 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs 0.75 per patient-year) reduction in exacerbations, respectively (both P < .001), with a numerically greater reduction observed among those starting non-anti-immunoglobulin E biologics compared with anti-immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: Real-world starting and switching of biologic therapies for SA were associated with meaningful reductions in exacerbations. With increasing biologic options available, individualized approaches to therapy may improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045.

Differing perceptions of asthma control and treatment effectiveness by patients with severe asthma and treating subspecialists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with severe asthma (SA), overestimation of asthma control may lead to poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess concurrent patient and specialist assessments of asthma control and treatment effectiveness among a large US cohort of SA patients. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Asthma control was assessed using the patient-completed Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and specialist clinical assessment of control. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) completed by patients and specialists. RESULTS: 1109 patients who completed online surveys at enrollment were included. 14%, 28%, 25%, and 33% of patients had ACT™ scores of 5-9, 10-15, 16-19, and 20-25, respectively. Compared with 67% of patients with uncontrolled asthma by ACT™, 44% were uncontrolled by specialist assessment. 54% of patients who were uncontrolled according to the ACT™ were rated as controlled by specialists, demonstrating overestimation of asthma control. Based on ACT™ score, asthma control was more frequent among patients treated with biologics compared to other treatments. Using the GETE, 90% of patients reported treatment effectiveness compared with 71% of specialists. Patient and specialist treatment effectiveness categorizations agreed 73% of the time. CONCLUSION: Specialists commonly overestimated asthma control relative to ACT™ scores. Patients reported treatment effectiveness more frequently than specialists. These findings emphasize the importance of validated instruments to assess asthma control and reduce potential treatment gaps associated with patient-specialist discordance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

Severe asthma exacerbations in the United States:: Incidence, characteristics, predictors, and effects of biologic treatments.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma (SA) have a heightened risk of exacerbations including hospitalization. The real-world, specialist-verified incidence and characteristics of exacerbations among patients with SA in the United States have not been described. OBJECTIVE: To describe the real-world incidence, characteristics, and predictors of exacerbations among patients with SA in the United States. METHODS: The CHRONICLE study is an ongoing observational study of specialist-treated adults with SA in the United States receiving biologic treatment or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or uncontrolled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For patients enrolled from February 2018 to February 2020, annualized rates and characteristics of exacerbation-related events were summarized by treatment category for 12 months before enrollment and after enrollment through the latest data collection. Results were further analyzed for subgroups of interest. RESULTS: Among 1884 enrolled patients, 53.5% and 12.3% experienced an exacerbation and asthma hospitalization, respectively (0.81 and 0.14 per person-year). Of all exacerbations, 36%, 9%, and 15% required an unscheduled health care provider visit, emergency department visit without hospitalization, and hospitalization, respectively. Among patients not receiving biologics or systemic corticosteroids, higher blood eosinophil count, higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and lower total immunoglobulin E level were associated with higher exacerbation rates. Exacerbation rates decreased after starting or switching biologics (n = 1299). Multivariate analyses of enrolled patients revealed previous-year exacerbations or hospitalizations, lack of asthma control, and the geographic region also predicted event risk. CONCLUSION: In this real-world cohort of specialist-treated adults with SA in the United States, there was a substantial burden of exacerbations and associated health care resource utilization. Patients receiving biologics had a lower exacerbation burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Development and validation of a predictive model algorithm to identify anaphylaxis in adults with type 2 diabetes in U.S. administrative claims data.

PURPOSE: To use medical record adjudication and predictive modeling methods to develop and validate an algorithm to identify anaphylaxis among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in administrative claims. METHODS: A conventional screening algorithm that prioritized sensitivity to identify potential anaphylaxis cases was developed and consisted of diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis or relevant signs and symptoms. This algorithm was applied to adults with T2D in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD) from 2016 to 2018. Clinical experts adjudicated anaphylaxis case status from redacted medical records. We used confirmed case status as an outcome for predictive models developed using lasso regression with 10-fold cross-validation to identify predictors and estimate the probability of confirmed anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Clinical adjudicators reviewed medical records with sufficient information from 272 adults identified by the anaphylaxis screening algorithm, which had an estimated Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%-71%). The predictive model algorithm had a c-statistic of 0.95. The model's probability threshold of 0.60 excluded 89% (84/94) of false positives identified by the screening algorithm, with a PPV of 94% (95% CI: 91%-98%). The model excluded very few true positives (15 of 178), and identified 92% (95% CI: 87%-96%) of the cases selected by the screening algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling techniques yielded an accurate algorithm with high PPV and sensitivity for identifying anaphylaxis in administrative claims. This algorithm could be considered in future safety studies using similar claims data to reduce potential outcome misclassification.

Biologic and maintenance systemic corticosteroid therapy among US subspecialist-treated patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma (SA) often requires subspecialist management and treatment with biologic therapies or maintenance systemic corticosteroids (mSCS). OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary, real-world biologic and mSCS use among US subspecialist-treated patients with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of US adults with SA treated by allergists/immunologists or pulmonologists. Eligible patients are receiving biologics or mSCS or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Biologic and mSCS use patterns and patient characteristics were summarized for patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2019. RESULTS: Among protocol-eligible patients, 58% and 12% were receiving biologics and mSCS, respectively, with 7% receiving both. Among 796 enrolled, most were women (67%), non-Hispanic white (71%), of suburban residence (50%), and had elevated body mass index (median: 31). Respiratory and nonrespiratory comorbidities were highly prevalent. With biologics (n = 557), 51% were anti-immunoglobulin E and 48% were anti-interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5Rα; from May 2018, 76% of initiations were anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα. In patients receiving mSCS, median prednisone-equivalent daily dose was 10 mg. Multivariate logistic regression found that patients of hospital clinics, sites with fewer nonphysician staff, and with a recorded concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis were less likely to receive biologics and more likely to receive mSCS. CONCLUSION: In this real-world sample of US subspecialist-treated patients with SA not controlled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers, mSCS use was infrequent and biologic use was common, with similar prevalence of anti-immunoglobulin E and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics. Treatment differences associated with patient and site characteristics should be investigated to ensure equitable access to biologics and minimize mSCS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

ARIA pharmacy 2018 "Allergic rhinitis care pathways for community pharmacy": AIRWAYS ICPs initiative (European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG CONNECT and DG Santé) POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis) GARD Demonstration project.

Pharmacists are trusted health care professionals. Many patients use over-the-counter (OTC) medications and are seen by pharmacists who are the initial point of contact for allergic rhinitis management in most countries. The role of pharmacists in integrated care pathways (ICPs) for allergic diseases is important. This paper builds on existing studies and provides tools intended to help pharmacists provide optimal advice/interventions/strategies to patients with rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)-pharmacy ICP includes a diagnostic questionnaire specifically focusing attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease, a systematic Diagnosis Guide (including differential diagnoses), and a simple flowchart with proposed treatment for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. Key prompts for referral within the ICP are included. The use of technology is critical to enhance the management of allergic rhinitis. However, the ARIA-pharmacy ICP should be adapted to local healthcare environments/situations as regional (national) differences exist in pharmacy care.

Effect of intravenously administered reslizumab on spirometric lung age in patients with moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma.

Background: Spirometric lung age expresses lung function relative to chronological age. It has been effective in encouraging smoking cessation and has been used in the assessment of asthma. Reslizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, is approved as add-on therapy for adults with severe asthma and elevated blood eosinophils. Objective: To assess the effect of reslizumab versus placebo on the change in lung age over 52 weeks and the correlation between change in lung age and quality of life in moderate-to-severe asthma. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Patients ages 12-75 years with moderate-to-severe, inadequately controlled asthma and elevated blood eosinophils received intravenous reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. Spirometry was performed every 4 weeks, and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score was assessed at baseline and weeks 16, 32, and 52. Results: Mean improvement in lung-age deficit at week 52 was -8.73 years for reslizumab versus -3.80 years for placebo, a treatment difference of 5 years (p < 0.0001). A statistically significant effect was seen as early as 4 weeks. In AQLQ responders (a ≥ 0.5 increase in AQLQ score), a statistically significant inverse relationship between the change from baseline in lung age and AQLQ score at weeks 16, 32, and 52 was observed among patients treated with reslizumab only. Among lung-age responders (≥5 years' reduction), a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients on reslizumab achieved ≥0.5 increase in the AQLQ score versus placebo at all time points. Conclusion: Reslizumab reduced lung-age deficit by 5 years in patients with moderate-to-severe inadequately controlled eosinophilic asthma. Improvement in lung age correlated with improved quality of life. Lung age is a simple indication of pulmonary function and could be a valuable tool in asthma education.Clinical trials NCT01287039 and NCT01285323, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for allergic rhinitis management: MASK e-CDSS.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) management has changed in recent years following the switch from the concept of disease severity to the concept of disease control, publication of the AR clinical decision support system (CDSS) and development of mobile health (m-health) tools for patients (eg Allergy Diary). The Allergy Diary Companion app for healthcare providers is currently being developed and will be launched in 2018. It incorporates the AR CDSS to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations, linking all key stakeholders in AR management. OBJECTIVE: To produce an electronic version of the AR CDSS (e-CDSS) for incorporation into the Allergy Diary Companion, to describe the app interfaces used to collect information necessary to inform the e-CDSS and to summarize some key features of the Allergy Diary Companion. METHODS: The steps involved in producing the e-CDSS and incorporating it into the Allergy Diary Companion were (a) generation of treatment management scenarios; (b) expert consensus on treatment recommendations; (c) generation of electronic decisional algorithms to describe all AR CDSS scenarios; (d) digitization of these algorithms to form the e-CDSS; and (e) embedding the e-CDSS into the app to permit easy user e-CDSS interfacing. RESULTS: Key experts in the AR field agreed on the AR CDSS approach to AR management and on specific treatment recommendations provided by Allergy Diary Companion. Based on this consensus, decision processes were developed and programmed into the Allergy Diary Companion using Titanium Appcelerator (JavaScript) for IOS tablets. To our knowledge, this is the first time the development of any m-health tool has been described in this transparent and detailed way, providing confidence, not only in the app, but also in the provided management recommendations. CONCLUSION: The Allergy Diary Companion for providers provides guideline and expert-endorsed AR management recommendations. [MASK paper No 32].

Evaluation of beclomethasone dipropionate (80 and 160 micrograms/day) delivered via a breath-actuated inhaler for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Breath-actuated inhalers (BAI) may simplify the delivery of inhaled medications compared with other devices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate BAI versus matching placebo in adolescent and adult patients with persistent asthma. METHODS: This phase III, 12-week, double-blind study enrolled patients with asthma aged ≥12 years who were previously treated with a stable dose of inhaled corticosteroid or noncorticosteroid therapy. After a run-in period of 14 to 21 days, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 80 or 160 micrograms/day (40 or 80 micrograms twice daily) or placebo BAI. The primary end point was the standardized baseline-adjusted trough morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the effect curve from time 0 to 12 weeks (AUEC[0-12 weeks]). Secondary end points included peak expiratory flow, rescue medication use, asthma symptoms, and the time to withdrawal due to meeting predefined criteria for worsening asthma. Additional end points evaluated quality of life, instructions for use, and safety. RESULTS: The full analysis and the safety sets included 270 and 273 patients, respectively. Patients who received beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 80 or 160 micrograms/day had significant improvements in FEV1 AUEC(0-12 weeks) versus placebo (p ≤ 0.001). Improvements in secondary end points were also apparent in patients who received beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 80 or 160 micrograms/day compared with placebo. Patients who received beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 80 or 160 micrograms/day had greater increases in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores versus placebo patients at week 12. Of 98 patients who participated in the instructions-for-use substudy, 87 (88.8%) used the inhaler successfully on their first attempt. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 80 and 160 micrograms/day were effective and well-accepted treatments in patients with asthma, with safety comparable to beclomethasone dipropionate delivered via a metered-dose inhaler.Clinical trial NCT02040779, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Inhaled corticosteroids: Ocular safety and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) effectively deliver corticosteroids to target sites in the lungs and reduce systemic effects compared with oral corticosteroids, but long-term systemic exposure from inhaled corticosteroids remains a concern. OBJECTIVE: To discuss ICS systemic effects on the eye and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. METHODS: Relevant publications were used to augment discussion. RESULTS: The most common adverse effects of exogenous corticosteroids on the eye are secondary open-angle glaucoma and posterior subcapsular cataracts. Study findings conflict about whether ICS use is associated with increased risk of glaucoma or elevated intraocular pressure, but studies might not have addressed the question in the right population. Increased risk of glaucoma may be limited to a few susceptible individuals, such as individuals with a family history of glaucoma. Large population-based studies reveal that high daily doses or high lifetime exposure of ICSs is associated with a higher risk of posterior subcapsular cataracts. More research is needed to determine the risk from low to moderate doses during long periods. For the HPA axis, there are several measures for detecting systemic effects. Short-term measures are more sensitive for detecting the systemic effects of ICSs but have less predictive value in identifying clinically important adverse effects. Several studies have found that ICSs have a dose-dependent effects on cortisol suppression that can be used to estimate equivalent dosages among ICSs. CONCLUSION: Because of systemic effects on the HPA axis, high doses of ICS should be avoided where possible. Adult patients undergoing high-dose or long-term ICS therapy should be monitored for cataracts.

Pimecrolimus in atopic dermatitis: consensus on safety and the need to allow use in infants.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a distressing dermatological disease, which is highly prevalent during infancy, can persist into later life and requires long-term management with anti-inflammatory compounds. The introduction of the topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, more than 10 yr ago was a major breakthrough for the topical anti-inflammatory treatment of AD. Pimecrolimus 1% is approved for second-line use in children (≥2 yr old) and adults with mild-to-moderate AD. The age restriction was emphasized in a boxed warning added by the FDA in January 2006, which also highlights the lack of long-term safety data and the theoretical risk of skin malignancy and lymphoma. Since then, pimecrolimus has been extensively investigated in short- and long-term studies including over 4000 infants (<2 yr old). These studies showed that pimecrolimus effectively treats AD in infants, with sustained improvement with long-term intermittent use. Unlike topical corticosteroids, long-term TCI use does not carry the risks of skin atrophy, impaired epidermal barrier function or enhanced percutaneous absorption, and so is suitable for AD treatment especially in sensitive skin areas. Most importantly, the studies of pimecrolimus in infants provided no evidence for systemic immunosuppression, and a comprehensive body of evidence from clinical studies, post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological investigations does not support potential safety concerns. In conclusion, the authors consider that the labelling restrictions regarding the use of pimecrolimus in infants are no longer justified and recommend that the validity of the boxed warning for TCIs should be reconsidered.

Quality of Life Improvements with Biologic Initiation Among Subspecialist-Treated US Patients with Severe Asthma.

Purpose: Patients living with severe asthma (SA) experience multiple health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairments. This study examined HRQoL changes after biologic treatment initiation among a large, real-world cohort of patients with SA. Patients and methods: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of subspecialist-treated adults with SA who receive biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Patients enrolled February 2018-February 2023 were asked to complete the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) every 6 months (total score range of 0-100 [0=best possible health], meaningful change threshold is a 4-unit reduction in the total score). Changes in SGRQ responses from 6 months before initiation to 12 to 18 months after initiation were summarized. Results: A total of 76 patients completed the SGRQ 0 to 6 months before and 12 to 18 months after biologic initiation. The mean (SD) SGRQ total score decreased from 52.2 (20.6) to 41.9 (23.8), with improvement across the symptoms (-14.5), activity (-11.0), and impacts (-8.3) components. For specific impairments reported by ≥50% of patients before biologic initiation, fewer reported each impairment after biologic initiation; the largest reductions were for "Questions about what activities usually make you feel short of breath these days [Walking outside on level ground]" (67% to 43%), "Questions about other effects that your respiratory problems may have on you these days [I feel that I am not in control of my respiratory problems]" (55% to 34%), and "Questions about your cough and shortness of breath these days [My coughing or breathing disturbs my sleep]" (63% to 45%). Conclusion: In this real-world cohort of adults with SA, biologic initiation was associated with meaningful improvements in asthma-related HRQoL. These data provide further insight into the burden SA places on patients and the benefits of biologic treatment.

Clinically relevant effect of a new intranasal therapy (MP29-02) in allergic rhinitis assessed by responder analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what constitutes a clinically meaningful response for allergic rhinitis (AR) outcomes. The objectives of these post hoc analyses were (1) to define a clinically meaningful response using novel efficacy analyses (including a responder analysis), and (2) to compare the efficacy of MP29-02 [a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP)] with commercially available FP, AZE and placebo in seasonal AR (SAR) patients, using these novel analyses. METHODS: 610 moderate-to-severe SAR patients (≥12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Change from baseline in the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) over 14 days was the primary outcome. Post hoc endpoints included the sum of nasal and ocular symptoms (rT7SS), efficacy by disease severity and by predominant nasal symptom, and a set of responder analyses. RESULTS: MP29-02 most effectively reduced rT7SS (relative greater improvement: 52% to FP; 56% to AZE) and both nasal and ocular symptoms irrespective of severity. More MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥30, ≥50, ≥60, ≥75 and ≥90% rTNSS reduction, which occurred days faster than with either active comparator; MP29-02 alone was superior to placebo at the ≥60% (or higher) threshold. One in 2 MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥50% rTNSS reduction and 1 in 6 achieved complete/near-to-complete response. Only MP29-02 was consistently superior to placebo for all patients, whatever their predominant symptom. CONCLUSIONS: MP29-02 provided faster and more complete symptom control than first-line therapies. It was consistently superior irrespective of severity, response criteria or patient-type, and may be considered the drug of choice for moderate-to-severe AR. These measures define a new standard for assessing relevance in AR.

Efficacy of bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5% for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, natural exposure, clinical trial.

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) affects an estimated 20% of the population in the Western world, with a large fraction suffering due to seasonal or perennial allergen exposures. Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution (BBOS) 1.5%, a dual-acting histamine (H(1)) receptor antagonist and mast cell stabilizer, is indicated for itching associated with AC. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BBOS 1.5% for reducing ocular itching associated with AC in subjects enrolled in a natural exposure trial. Eligible subjects in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, natural exposure clinical trial were randomly assigned to either BBOS 1.5% or placebo eyedrops on a 1:1 basis and instilled 1 drop of the test agent into both eyes twice daily for 2 weeks. The mean change from baseline in instantaneous and reflective ocular itching scores at the end of 2 weeks of treatment were evaluated based on subject-assessed severity of instantaneous and reflective itching. Subject-reported adverse events (AEs) were also recorded for safety. Treatment with BBOS 1.5% significantly reduced instantaneous and reflective ocular itching scores from baseline compared with placebo over the 2-week study period(p = 0.007 and p = 0.005, respectively). BBOS 1.5% was well tolerated, and AEs were generally transient and mild. This clinical study indicates BBOS 1.5% effectively and safely treated ocular itching in a natural exposure allergy study and is a useful treatment option for the management of ocular itching associated with AC. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT01174823.)