Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Objective: To investigate whether once-daily (OD) fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) provides greater long-term protection from postexercise fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) than twice-daily (BD) fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted in patients (aged 12-50 years) on low-/mid-dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroid. Following a 4-week run-in period (FP 250 µg BD), patients with a ≥ 20% decrease in postexercise FEV1 received FF/VI 100/25 µg OD or FP 250 µg BD for 2 weeks. Exercise challenges were carried out 23 h after the first dose of study medication, and 12 and 23 h after evening clinic dose at the end of the 2-week treatment period. After a 2-week washout period (FP 250 µg), patients crossed over treatments, with procedures and tests repeated. The primary endpoint was mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV1 following exercise challenge 12-h postevening dose on Day 14. Results: The mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV1 after the 12-h exercise challenge (Day 14) was 15.02% with FF/VI, and 16.71% with FP (difference, -1.69; 95% confidence interval, -3.76 to 0.39; p = 0.109). After the 23-h exercise challenge (Day 14), respective mean maximal decreases were 11.90% and 14.05% (difference, -2.15; 95% confidence interval, -4.31 to 0.01). Conclusion: The study failed to show a difference between FF/VI and FP at providing long-term protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction update-2016.

The first practice parameter on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was published in 2010. This updated practice parameter was prepared 5 years later. In the ensuing years, there has been increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EIB and improved diagnosis of this disorder by using objective testing. At the time of this publication, observations included the following: dry powder mannitol for inhalation as a bronchial provocation test is FDA approved however not currently available in the United States; if baseline pulmonary function test results are normal to near normal (before and after bronchodilator) in a person with suspected EIB, then further testing should be performed by using standardized exercise challenge or eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH); and the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (omega-3 fatty acids) has been challenged. The workgroup preparing this practice parameter updated contemporary practice guidelines based on a current systematic literature review. The group obtained supplementary literature and consensus expert opinions when the published literature was insufficient. A search of the medical literature on PubMed was conducted, and search terms included pathogenesis, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapy (both pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical) of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or exercise-induced asthma (which is no longer a preferred term); asthma; and exercise and asthma. References assessed as relevant to the topic were evaluated to search for additional relevant references. Published clinical studies were appraised by category of evidence and used to document the strength of the recommendation. The parameter was then evaluated by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent organizations, as well as the general membership. Based on this process, the parameter can be characterized as an evidence- and consensus-based document.

An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) describes acute airway narrowing that occurs as a result of exercise. EIB occurs in a substantial proportion of patients with asthma, but may also occur in individuals without known asthma. METHODS: To provide clinicians with practical guidance, a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders was convened to review the pathogenesis of EIB and to develop evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of EIB. The evidence was appraised and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Recommendations for the treatment of EIB were developed. The quality of evidence supporting the recommendations was variable, ranging from low to high. A strong recommendation was made for using a short-acting ß(2)-agonist before exercise in all patients with EIB. For patients who continue to have symptoms of EIB despite the administration of a short-acting ß(2)-agonist before exercise, strong recommendations were made for a daily inhaled corticosteroid, a daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, or a mast cell stabilizing agent before exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations in this Guideline reflect the currently available evidence. New clinical research data will necessitate a revision and update in the future.

Reproducibility of the airway response to an exercise protocol standardized for intensity, duration, and inspired air conditions, in subjects with symptoms suggestive of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exercise testing to aid diagnosis of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is commonly performed. Reproducibility of the airway response to a standardized exercise protocol has not been reported in subjects being evaluated with mild symptoms suggestive of asthma but without a definite diagnosis. This study examined reproducibility of % fall in FEV1 and area under the FEV1 time curve for 30 minutes in response to two exercise tests performed with the same intensity and duration of exercise, and inspired air conditions. METHODS: Subjects with mild symptoms of asthma exercised twice within approximately 4 days by running for 8 minutes on a motorized treadmill breathing dry air at an intensity to induce a heart rate between 80-90% predicted maximum; reproducibility of the airway response was expressed as the 95% probability interval. RESULTS: Of 373 subjects challenged twice 161 were positive (≥ 10% fall FEV1 on at least one challenge). The EIB was mild and 77% of subjects had <15% fall on both challenges. Agreement between results was 76.1% with 56.8% (212) negative (< 10% fall FEV1) and 19.3% (72) positive on both challenges. The remaining 23.9% of subjects had only one positive test. The 95% probability interval for reproducibility of the % fall in FEV1 and AUC0-30 min was ± 9.7% and ± 251% for all 278 adults and ± 13.4% and ± 279% for all 95 children. The 95% probability interval for reproducibility of % fall in FEV1 and AUC0-30 min for the 72 subjects with two tests ≥ 10% fall FEV1 was ± 14.6% and ± 373% and for the 34 subjects with two tests ≥ 15% fall FEV1 it was ± 12.2% and ± 411%. Heart rate and estimated ventilation achieved were not significantly different either on the two test days or when one test result was positive and one was negative. CONCLUSIONS: Under standardized, well controlled conditions for exercise challenge, the majority of subjects with mild symptoms of asthma demonstrated agreement in test results. Performing two tests may need to be considered when using exercise to exclude or diagnose EIB, when prescribing prophylactic treatment to prevent EIB and when designing protocols for clinical trials.

Special Considerations and Perspectives for Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction (EIB) in Olympic and Other Elite Athletes.

Diagnosing and treating elite and Olympic athletes with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction has been well established. However, a subset of elite and Olympic athletes with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction experience symptoms of breathlessness due to lack of adherence, improper medications, and/or generalized breathing dysfunction. A short review of traditional treatment plans for elite and Olympic athletes is presented along with the challenges of adherence, managing dysfunctional breathing, and measuring and treating mental skills deficits that may impact breathing. Elite and Olympic athletes may not respond to traditional treatment for exercise-induced bronchospasm, and we present some of the reasons why the athletes fail to respond. Furthermore, we present information on how to detect and treat elite and Olympic athletes with difficult-to-treat asthma. As part of this review we developed a flow diagram for medical providers to identify the reasons for lack of response to traditional treatment plans for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with options for other treatment modalities.

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: 509 people (6-50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV1 92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a > or = 10% fall in FEV1 on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC20 < or = 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV1 at < or = 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results. RESULTS: Mannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV1 in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD15 158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC20 2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6) mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive. CONCLUSION: In this group with normal FEV1, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover, Clinical-End-Point Pilot Study to Examine the Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide as a Bioassay for Dose Separation of Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate.

This was a randomized, double-blind, crossover, clinical-end-point pilot study examining the hypothesis that inhaled fluticasone propionate decreases exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) concentrations within a week of beginning treatment and shows evidence of dose separation across the marketed dose range. Subjects had a ≥6-month history of asthma and screening eNO ≥60 parts per billion. At the start of each treatment period, eNO was ≥55 parts per billion, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second was ≥50% predicted. Subjects attended a clinic visit daily on consecutive mornings during each of 3 1-week treatment periods to measure eNO and receive once-daily doses of 100/50, 250/50, or 500/50 fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product (Advair® Diskus). Daily eNO value recorded was the highest of 3 measurements; 1 inhalation of treatment was then administered. Procedures were repeated for 3 treatment cycles, separated by 14-day minimum washouts. A total of 105 subjects were screened; 22 were randomized; and 17 completed all treatments. Mean percentage eNO decrease (standard deviation) from day 1 baseline for each treatment period was 36.6 (±18.7), 45.3 (±16.5), and 54.6 (±12.5) with Advair® 100/50, 250/50, and 500/50, respectively. Mean percentage decrease in eNO across each treatment (dose) was modeled using a mixed-model ANOVA. Although the overall treatment was significant (P = .0015), because of the relatively small sample size and within-subject variability, only the 100/50 vs 500/50 (P = .0003) and 250/50 vs 500/50 (P = .047) treatments were significantly different.

Metabolic alteration of the N-glycan structure of a protein from patients with a heterozygous protein deficiency.

Glycosylation, an important post-translation modification, could alter biological activity or influence the clearance rates of glycoproteins. We report here the first example of a heterozygous protein deficiency leading to metabolic alteration of N-glycan structures in residual secreted protein. Analysis of C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) glycans from normal individuals and patients with hereditary deficiency of C1INH demonstrated identical O-glycan structures but the N-glycans of patients with a heterozygous genetic deficiency were small, highly charged and lacked sialidase releasable N-acetylneuraminic acid. Structural studies indicate that the charge character of these aberrant N-glycan structures may result from the presence of mannose-6-phosphate residues. These residues might facilitate secretion of C1INH through an alternate lysosomal pathway, possibly serving as a compensatory mechanism to enhance plasma levels of C1INH in these deficient patients.

Asthma and athletes: therapy to compete.

Asthma presents special challenges to both the athletes who have it and to their health care providers. This article briefly reviews the problem of asthma--especially exercise-induced asthma--in the competitive athlete, and then describes treatments that are effective in controlling asthma. Drug-doping regulations are explained, as is the worldwide impact of drug doping on competitive athletes who have asthma. This review concludes with recommendations for competitive athletes and their health care providers regarding how to deal with asthma in this patient population.

A World Allergy Organization international survey on physical activity as a treatment option for asthma and allergies.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise has been shown to improve asthma symptoms, QoL, exercise capacity, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and lung function and is recommended as a supplementary treatment to pharmacotherapy for asthma. Clinicians are well placed to promote physically active lifestyles, but their role and practice towards promoting physically active lifestyles among patients has not been fully investigated. This study was designed to investigate the knowledge, propensity, attitude and practices of clinicians towards the promotion of physical activity among patients with asthma and allergies. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty clinicians (mean age; 46 ± 13 years; with a clinical experience of practice for 15 ± 7 years) participated in a global survey. The survey comprised a 29-item questionnaire, which gathered information on attitudes of the clinicians towards promoting physical activity, their knowledge and their beliefs regarding evidence for benefits of physical activity as a supplementary treatment in patients with asthma and allergies. RESULTS: Almost all respondents were aware of the strong evidence in favor of physical activity for the psychological well-being, weight control, decreased risk of diabetes, ischemic heart disease and arterial hypertension. Evidence for reduction in the risk for developing asthma and for better asthma control were reported by 60.0% and 85.4% of participants, respectively. The majority (85.0%) of clinicians strongly agreed that promoting physical activity is important to health care, although 95.5% considered they required more educational training. Although two thirds of them usually recommended exercise to their asthmatic/allergic patients, only 24.0% reported having previous training on the subject of such counseling. Almost all believed that effective counseling about a healthy diet, exercise and weight management would be easier if the clinician himself/herself was physically fit and healthy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this global survey indicate that clinicians working in the field of allergy and respiratory diseases are well aware of the evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity for asthma and allergic diseases although they need more training in such counseling. Therefore, concerted efforts are needed towards educating clinicians towards promoting physical activity and weight management, as a supplementary treatment for asthma and allergies.

Improving screening and diagnosis of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: a call to action.

This article summarizes the findings of an expert panel of nationally recognized allergists and pulmonologists who met to discuss how to improve detection and diagnosis of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), a transient airway narrowing that occurs during and most often after exercise in people with and without underlying asthma. EIB is both commonly underdiagnosed and overdiagnosed. EIB underdiagnosis may result in habitual avoidance of sports and physical activity, chronic deconditioning, weight gain, poor asthma control, low self-esteem, and reduced quality of life. Routine use of a reliable and valid self-administered EIB screening questionnaire by professionals best positioned to screen large numbers of people could substantially improve the detection of EIB. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature that evaluated the accuracy of EIB screening questionnaires that might be adopted for widespread EIB screening in the general population. Results of this review indicated that no existing EIB screening questionnaire had adequate sensitivity and specificity for this purpose. The authors present a call to action to develop a new EIB screening questionnaire, and discuss the rigorous qualitative and quantitative research necessary to develop and validate such an instrument, including key methodological pitfalls that must be avoided.

Safety of binodenoson, a selective adenosine A2A receptor agonist vasodilator pharmacological stress agent, in healthy subjects with mild intermittent asthma.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological stress agents adenosine and dipyridamole are contraindicated in asthma patients because of the risk of adenosine receptor-mediated bronchospasm. Binodenoson, a selective adenosine A(2A) receptor agonist, produces maximal coronary hyperemia during pharmacological stress testing yet has a low affinity for the adenosine A(1), A(2B), and A(3) receptors that are probably responsible for bronchospasm. This study was conducted to assess the safety of binodenoson in 87 healthy young adult volunteers with documented mild, intermittent asthma. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study consisted of a dose-escalating, single-blinded phase and a placebo-controlled, double-blinded phase conducted in healthy, young adults with documented mild, intermittent, asthma. In the single-blinded phase, 3 sequential cohorts of 8 subjects received intravenous binodenoson (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 microg/kg). In the double-blinded phase, commenced after medical review of results from the single-blinded phase, subjects were randomly assigned 2:1 to either binodenoson 1.5 microg/kg (n=41) or placebo (n=22). The primary end point was clinically significant bronchoconstriction, defined as a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of >/=20% from the preinjection measure. Secondary safety end points were changes from preinjection measure in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory flow during the middle 50% of the forced vital capacity; vital signs; pulse oximetry; and adverse events. Binodenoson caused no clinically significant bronchoconstriction or alterations in pulmonary function parameters and transiently increased heart rate and systolic blood pressure. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were tachycardia, dizziness, and flushing. CONCLUSIONS: Binodenoson was safe, well tolerated, and caused no clinically significant bronchoconstriction or pulmonary responses in a small population of healthy subjects with mild, intermittent asthma.

National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement: management of asthma in athletes.

OBJECTIVE: To present guidelines for the recognition, prophylaxis, and management of asthma that lead to improvement in the quality of care certified athletic trainers and other heath care providers can offer to athletes with asthma, especially exercise-induced asthma. BACKGROUND: Many athletes have difficulty breathing during or after athletic events and practices. Although a wide variety of conditions can predispose an athlete to breathing difficulties, the most common cause is undiagnosed or uncontrolled asthma. At least 15% to 25% of athletes may have signs and symptoms suggestive of asthma, including exercise-induced asthma. Athletic trainers are in a unique position to recognize breathing difficulties caused by undiagnosed or uncontrolled asthma, particularly when asthma follows exercise. Once the diagnosis of asthma is made, the athletic trainer should play a pivotal role in supervising therapies to prevent and control asthma symptoms. It is also important for the athletic trainer to recognize when asthma is not the underlying cause for respiratory difficulties, so that the athlete can be evaluated and treated properly. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations contained in this position statement describe a structured approach for the diagnosis and management of asthma in an exercising population. Athletic trainers should be educated to recognize asthma symptoms in order to identify patients who might benefit from better management and should understand the management of asthma, especially exercise-induced asthma, to participate as active members of the asthma care team.

Effect of fluticasone/salmeterol administered via a single device on exercise-induced bronchospasm in patients with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is a common trigger of asthma symptoms in patients with persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the protective effect of fluticasone/salmeterol against exercise-induced bronchospasm. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 192 asthma patients who used moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients (aged 12-50 years; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], 78% of predicted at baseline) were randomized to receive fluticasone/salmeterol (250/50 microg twice daily) or fluticasone alone (250 microg twice daily) via Diskus for 4 weeks. Exercise challenge tests were performed 1 and 8.5 hours after administration of the first (day 1) and last (week 4) doses of blinded study medication. RESULTS: On day 1 and at week 4, mean +/- SEM values for the maximal percentage decline in FEV1 1 hour after drug administration were 11.4% +/- 1.5% and 10.9% +/- 1.5% for fluticasone/salmeterol compared with 20.0% +/- 1.7% and 18.4% +/- 1.8% for fluticasone (P < .001). At 8.5 hours, mean +/- SEM values on day 1 and at week 4 were 11.6% +/- 1.4% and 8.9% +/1.1%, respectively, for fluticasone/salmeterol and 12.6% +/- 1.6% and 12.9% +/- 1.4%, respectively, for fluticasone (P = .01 at week 4). More fluticasone-treated patients did not complete the 8.5-hour exercise challenges (36% on day 1 and 33% at week 4) compared with the fluticasone/salmeterol group (18% each) (P < or = .01). Improvements in peak expiratory flow rate and albuterol rescue-free days were significantly greater with fluticasone/salmeterol vs fluticasone over weeks 1 to 4 (P < or = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the improvements in other measures of asthma control, long-term fluticasone/salmeterol therapy also provided protection against exercise-induced bronchospasm in patients with persistent asthma.

Sedation, cognition, and antihistamines.

First-generation antihistamines are well-known to cause subjective drowsiness. A myriad of studies has also been published that suggest a clear relationship between the use of these drugs and objective performance impairment. Although not all of the tests used in these studies have been validated, the data are fairly consistent, and suggest a difference between earlier (first-generation) sedating antihistamines and the newer (second-generation) nonsedating antihistamines.

Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: is electronic data capture really better?

BACKGROUND: Accuracy and reliability of diary data collected in allergic rhinitis trials depends on how and when the information is recorded by the subjects. OBJECTIVE: To compare diary data collected by using paper (optical mark readable) and electronic [telephone, interactive voice response system (IVRS)] tools. METHODS: There was a randomized, 3-week, 3-way, crossover trial, in 87 adults with allergic rhinitis recording diary data at home. Outcome measures were (1) comparison of symptom data during weeks when both or only 1 instrument was used; (2) missing data: and (3) ease of use and participant preference. RESULTS: More than 40,000 symptom data elements were recorded by 72 protocol-correct subjects. Symptoms recorded during the week that both instruments were used and when the 2 instruments were used alone were indistinguishable. Overall, 0.45% of paper and 4.12% of IVRS symptom data were missing. Of 10,080 paired data collected on paper and IVRS diaries during the week in which subjects used both, 94.44% were identical. Using IVRS, 63.2% of protocol-correct data were entered within the designated time and 87.6% within 1 half-day of the time specified; 85% of subjects preferred the paper instrument, 4% preferred IVRS, and 11% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: A paper-based instrument can capture data indistinguishable from data captured from an electronic product. Processes to collect diary data should be evaluated for each study rather than simply to use the "latest" technology. Another interpretation is that frequency of recording diary data does not have a significant impact on outcomes.

Does heparin prophylaxis prevent exacerbations of hereditary angioedema?

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder characterized by episodes of angioedema of the skin, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract resulting from a defect in the gene that produces C1 esterase inhibitor. Although in vitro laboratory data and past reports suggested that heparin might be efficacious in preventing HAE attacks, no controlled study has been reported to examine heparin's efficacy in this regard. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of inhaled and subcutaneous heparin versus that of placebo in the prevention of HAE attacks. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, double-dummy, saline placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-way crossover study with 11 visits. RESULTS: The study was designed to enroll 24 patients. Twenty-two patients were randomized and received the study drug. Patients did not have a significant decrease in average flare intensity after they received injected or inhaled heparin compared with that seen after placebo, the primary endpoint. However, when patients received injected heparin, they had a statistically significant decrease in average flare intensity compared with that seen with inhaled heparin after a normalizing transformation was applied. When the means are back transformed, this translates into median flare intensities of 9.2, 8.0, and 5.1 in the patients treated with inhaled heparin, placebo, and injected heparin, respectively. There were no significant differences when individual symptoms were examined, when total numbers of flares over a 6-week observation period were examined, or when global evaluations by the patients and investigators were evaluated. Adverse event severity was fairly uniform across treatments, with the majority of events classified as moderate and the remainder split between mild and severe. Injected heparin treatment was associated with higher rates of relatedness than other treatments, which was partially explained by 17 adverse events specifically related to the injection process itself (tenderness, bruising, redness, pain, and itching at the injection site). The injection treatment was also associated with a larger overall number of reported adverse events (70 vs 48 in the placebo treatment). Tenderness and bruising at the injection site were entirely confined to the injected heparin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Injected and inhaled heparin failed to attenuate average flare intensity, the primary endpoint, compared with placebo. Interestingly, after patients injected heparin, they had a significant decrease in average flare intensity compared with that seen after inhalation of heparin. There were no differences among groups in other efficacy parameters. Taken together, these data indicate that commercial heparin was ineffective in preventing exacerbations of HAE.

Efficacy and safety of clemastine-pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen versus pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in a 1-day, placebo-controlled park study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis afflicts more than 40 million people in the United States and is a leading cause of reduced productivity at work and in school. Patients with allergic rhinitis have a wide range of symptoms that are often treated with oral combination products that contain antihistamines, decongestants, and analgesics. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the onset of action and the extent of efficacy and safety of a combination (CPA) of clemastine (0.68 mg), pseudoephedrine (60 mg), and acetaminophen (1,000 mg) versus a combination (PA) of pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen versus placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The primary goal was to evaluate the benefit of adding clemastine to the PA combination product to treat the symptoms of SAR. METHOD: A 1-day, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group park study was organized, and medication was given at 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM. RESULTS: A total of 298 subjects participated at two outdoor facilities. The primary efficacy outcome was the major symptom complex score averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours after each dose. Mean absolute and percentage reduction in major symptom complex averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours in the CPA group was significantly superior to those of either the PA (P < 0.01) or placebo (P < 0.03) groups. Somnolence, fatigue, and nausea were the most common volunteered adverse events; only somnolence was significantly greater after CPA than after either PA or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with CPA was safe and highly effective in reducing symptoms associated with SAR. It was more effective than either PA or placebo over most of the postdose observation period.