Standardized quality (SQ) house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet (ALK) reduces inhaled corticosteroid use while maintaining asthma control: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Investigations meeting current standards are limited for the effect of house dust mite (HDM) allergy immunotherapy in asthmatic patients. OBJECTIVE: This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a standardized quality (SQ; allergen standardization method proprietary to the trial sponsor) HDM SLIT-tablet (ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark) in adults and adolescents with HDM respiratory allergic disease. This publication reports the results of the endpoints related to asthma. METHODS: Six hundred four subjects 14 years or older with HDM allergic rhinitis and mild-to-moderate asthma were randomized 1:1:1:1 to double-blind daily treatment with one of 3 active doses (1, 3, or 6 SQ-HDM) or placebo. Their use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) was standardized and adjusted at baseline and the end of treatment to the lowest dose providing asthma control. The primary end point was a reduction in ICS dose from the individual subject's baseline dose after 1 year of treatment. RESULTS: The primary analysis revealed a mean difference between 6 SQ-HDM and placebo in the reduction in daily ICS dose of 81 µg (P = .004). Relative mean and median reductions were 42% and 50% for 6 SQ-HDM and 15% and 25% for placebo, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed for the other assessed asthma parameters, reflecting the intended controlled status of the trial subjects. The most common adverse events were local reactions in the mouth. The rate and severity of adverse events were higher for 3 and 6 SQ-HDM than for 1 SQ-HDM and placebo. CONCLUSION: Efficacy in mild-to-moderate asthma of 6 SQ-HDM relative to placebo was demonstrated by a moderate statistically significant reduction in the ICS dose required to maintain asthma control. All active doses were well tolerated.

Efficacy and Safety of Reslizumab in Patients with Severe Asthma with Inadequate Response to Omalizumab: A Multicenter, Open-Label Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma could qualify for different biologic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous reslizumab dosing in patients who have previously failed therapy with omalizumab. METHODS: We carried out a 24-week prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-group, self-controlled study in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who had previously failed to respond to omalizumab. The main objective was to determine whether treatment with reslizumab significantly improved asthma symptoms assessed by the Asthma Control Test (ACT) at week 24. Secondary objectives were to evaluate symptoms at weeks 4 and 12, change in FEV1 at week 24, and the incidence of severe exacerbations over the study period. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (62.1% women, median age, 50.8 years) were included in the study. The median ACT score significantly increased from 13.0 (interquartile range, 8.0-18.0) at baseline to 21.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-24.0) at 24 weeks (P = .002). Only 2 of 29 patients developed at least 1 severe exacerbation during follow-up and none of them required hospitalization. Overall, 15 of 25 patients (60%) were considered as being controlled (ACT score of ≥20 and no exacerbations) at week 24. The percentage of patients who were receiving daily systemic corticosteroids significantly decreased from 72.4% to 52.0% (P = .019). Adverse events were mostly moderate and within the range of previously reported side effects with reslizumab. CONCLUSION: Reslizumab is an effective and safe option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of omalizumab failure.