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 .).

Long-term safety and efficacy studies of epinephrine HFA metered-dose inhaler (Primatene® Mist): a two-stage randomized controlled trial.

Objective: A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI.Method: The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline.Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally have a high symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life, often requiring recurring systemic corticosteroid use and repeated sinus surgery. Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits signalling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation, and has been approved for use in atopic dermatitis and asthma. In these two studies, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with CRSwNP despite previous treatment with systemic corticosteroids, surgery, or both. METHODS: LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52 were two multinational, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies assessing dupilumab added to standard of care in adults with severe CRSwNP. SINUS-24 was done in 67 centres in 13 countries, and SINUS-52 was done in 117 centres in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with bilateral CRSwNP and symptoms despite intranasal corticosteroid use, receiving systemic corticosteroids in the preceding 2 years, or having had sinonasal surgery. Patients in SINUS-24 were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients in SINUS-52 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks for 52 weeks, dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and then every 4 weeks for the remaining 28 weeks, or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. All patients were randomly assigned centrally with a permuted block randomisation schedule. Randomisation was stratified by asthma or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease status at screening, previous surgery at screening, and country. Patients with or without comorbid asthma were included. Coprimary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 24 in nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion or obstruction, and sinus Lund-Mackay CT scores (a coprimary endpoint in Japan), done in an intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in a pooled population of both dupilumab groups in SINUS-52 up to week 24 and the dupilumab group in SINUS-24 and the placebo groups in both studies until week 24. The trials are complete and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02912468 and NCT02898454. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2016, and Aug 3, 2017, 276 patients were enrolled in SINUS-24, with 143 in the dupilumab group and 133 in the placebo group receiving at least one study drug dose. Between Nov 28, 2016, and Aug 28, 2017, 448 patients were enrolled in SINUS-52, with 150 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks, 145 receiving at least one dose of dupilumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks and every 4 weeks until week 52, and 153 receiving at least one dose of placebo. Dupilumab significantly improved the coprimary endpoints in both studies. At 24 weeks, least squares mean difference in NPS of dupilumab treatment versus placebo was -2·06 (95% CI -2·43 to -1·69; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -1·80 (-2·10 to -1·51; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; difference in nasal congestion or obstruction score was -0·89 (-1·07 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -0·87 (-1·03 to -0·71; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52; and difference in Lund-Mackay CT scores was -7·44 (-8·35 to -6·53; p<0·0001) in SINUS-24 and -5·13 (-5·80 to -4·46; p<0·0001) in SINUS-52. The most common adverse events (nasopharyngitis, worsening of nasal polyps and asthma, headache, epistaxis, and injection-site erythema) were more frequent with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adult patients with severe CRSwNP, dupilumab reduced polyp size, sinus opacification, and severity of symptoms and was well tolerated. These results support the benefits of adding dupilumab to daily standard of care for patients with severe CRSwNP who otherwise have few therapeutic options. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Linear growth and bone maturation are unaffected by 1 year of therapy with inhaled flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane in prepubescent children with mild persistent asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred long-term therapy for subjects with persistent asthma. However, concerns remain about potential effects of long-term ICS use on growth in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of 1 year of inhalation therapy with flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) on growth velocity and bone maturation in children with mild persistent asthma. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 218 prepubescent (Tanner Stage 1) children with mild persistent asthma ranging in age from 4 to 10 years were evaluated. After a 2-week run-in period, subjects were randomized (1:1) to 2 puffs flunisolide HFA twice daily (85 µg/puff) or placebo for 52 weeks. Height was assessed by stadiometry at each visit. Growth velocity (cm/52 weeks) was estimated by the slope of the linear regression of height over time. An independent assessor scored hand and wrist radiographs for bone development pretreatment and at week 52. Analysis of covariance was used for all efficacy endpoints. RESULTS: The 2 treatment groups were similar at baseline for sex, race, age, weight, and height. At the end of double-blind treatment, mean growth velocity was 6.01 ± 1.84 cm/52 weeks for flunisolide HFA (n = 106) and 6.19 ± 1.30 cm/52 weeks for placebo (n = 112) (P = .425). Mean advancement in bone age during the 1-year study was similar for the 2 groups: 0.93 ± 0.46 years for flunisolide HFA (n = 70) and 1.01 ± 0.41 years for placebo (n = 75) (P = .128). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, flunisolide HFA did not suppress growth or bone maturation at the highest approved dose for children with persistent asthma.

Continuous and Daily Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results from a 2-Year Open-Label Follow-On Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled PALISADE trial demonstrated the benefit of daily oral immunotherapy with Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH, formerly AR101) in peanut-allergic children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: ARC004, the open-label follow-on study to PALISADE, used 5 dosing cohorts to explore PTAH treatment beyond 1 year and alternative dosing regimens in peanut-allergic individuals. METHODS: Active arm (PTAH-continuing) PALISADE participants who tolerated 300-mg peanut protein at the exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and placebo arm (PTAH-naive) participants could enter ARC004. PTAH-continuing participants were assigned to receive daily (cohorts 1 and 3A) or non-daily (cohorts 2, 3B, and 3C) dosing regimens; PTAH-naive participants were built up to 300 mg/d PTAH, followed by maintenance dosing. At study completion, participants underwent an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with doses up to 2000 mg peanut protein. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 358 (87.5%) eligible participants (4-17 years) entered ARC004 (PTAH-continuing, n = 256; PTAH-naive, n = 102). Among PTAH-continuing participants, exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were 12.94 to 17.54/participant-year and 25.95 to 42.49/participant-year in daily and non-daily dosing cohorts, respectively; most participants (83%) experienced mild or moderate adverse events. Daily dosing cohorts appeared to have higher desensitization rates than non-daily dosing cohorts. Of all PTAH-continuing cohorts, cohort 3A had the longest daily dosing duration and the highest desensitization rates. Changes in immune markers with PTAH continuation demonstrated ongoing immunomodulation. Outcomes in PTAH-naive participants mirrored those of the PALISADE active arm. CONCLUSIONS: Continued daily PTAH treatment beyond 1 year showed sustained safety and efficacy. Ongoing immunomodulation was observed during the second year of treatment.

Second-generation antihistamines: actions and efficacy in the management of allergic disorders.

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of levalbuterol in 2-5-year-old patients with asthma.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-isomer (R)-albuterol (levalbuterol, LEV) in children aged 2-5 years. Children aged 2-5 years (n = 211) participated in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 21 days of t.i.d. LEV (0.31 mg or 0.63 mg without regard to weight), racemic albuterol (RAC, 1.25 mg for children <33 pounds (lb); 2.5 mg for children >/=33 lb), or placebo (PBO). Endpoints included adverse-event (AE) reporting, safety parameters, peak expiratory flow (PEF), the Pediatric Asthma Questionnaire(c) (PAQ), and the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ). Baseline disease severity was generally mild in all groups, as defined by PAQ scores that ranged from 6.3-7.3 on a scale of 0-27 and 1.5 days/week of uncontrolled asthma. After treatment, the PAQ decreased in all groups (P = NS). In the subset of subjects able to perform PEF (51.7%), all active treatments improved in-clinic PEF after the first dose (mean +/- SD: PBO, 1.4 +/- 20.8; LEV 0.31 mg, 12.4 +/- 12; LEV 0.63 mg, 16.7 +/- 15.4; RAC, 18.0 +/- 16.5 l/min; P < 0.01). PACQLQ measurements improved more than the minimally important difference only in the LEV-treated groups, and were significant in children <33 lb (P < 0.05). Asthma exacerbations occurred primarily in children >/=33 lb, and one serious asthma exacerbation occurred in the 2.5-mg RAC group. RAC and LEV 0.63 mg, but not LEV 0.31 mg or placebo, led to significant increases in ventricular heart rate. In this study of levalbuterol in children aged 2-5 years with asthma, LEV was generally well-tolerated, and in children able to perform PEF, led to significant bronchodilation compared with placebo.

Safety and tolerability of inhaled loxapine in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--two randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic, delivered with a novel inhalation delivery device developed for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was evaluated in subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Separate randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trials compared two administrations of inhaled loxapine (10 mg) 10 hr apart with placebo in 52 subjects with asthma and in 53 subjects with COPD. A thermally-generated drug aerosol of loxapine was delivered to the deep lung for rapid systemic absorption. Controller medications were continued throughout the study, but quick-relief bronchodilators were withheld from 6-8 hr before through 34 hr after dose 1, unless indicated as rescue. RESULTS: All airway adverse events (AEs) were of mild or moderate severity. Symptomatic bronchospasm occurred in 53.8% of subjects with asthma after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and in 19.2% of COPD subjects after inhaled loxapine and 11.1% after placebo. Subjects required inhaled albuterol as follows: asthma: 53.8% after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and COPD: 23.1% after inhaled loxapine and 14.8% after placebo. Respiratory signs/symptoms requiring treatment responded to rescue bronchodilator [forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) return to within 10% of baseline] within 1 hr in 11 of 15 events in asthma subjects and four of seven events in COPD subjects, the remainder by the last spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with either asthma or COPD, FEV(1) decline and bronchospasm can occur following inhaled loxapine, but more frequently in asthmatic subjects. Most subjects with bronchospasm responded to rescue bronchodilator within 1 hr. No treatment-related serious AE occurred. Although inhaled loxapine is contraindicated in patients with active airways disease per the current approved US labeling, these studies demonstrated that rescue bronchodilator mitigated the symptomatic bronchospasms that may occur in case of inadvertent use.

Bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol, a novel once-daily beta2-agonist, in patients with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol is a novel once-daily inhaled beta2-agonist in development for the treatment of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol in patients with persistent asthma. METHODS: Patients received a randomized sequence of single doses of indacaterol, 400 microg, via single-dose dry powder inhaler (SDDPI); indacaterol, 200 microg, via multidose dry powder inhaler (MDDPI); and placebo. At each visit, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was recorded at a series of time points during a 24-hour period. RESULTS: Of 33 patients screened, 25 were randomized to treatment. Adjusted mean FEV1 was significantly higher (P < or = .005) for both indacaterol doses vs placebo at most time points. The first time points at which statistically significant treatment differences were observed for indacaterol and placebo in FEV1 were 0.17 L at 5 minutes after dosing for 400 microg of indacaterol (SDDPI) and 0.21 L at 10 minutes for 200 microg of indacaterol (MDDPI) (both P < .001 vs placebo). Differences relative to placebo at the final time point, 24 hours after dosing, were 0.29 L and 0.15 L for indacaterol, 400 microg and 200 microg, respectively (both P < or = .003 vs placebo). Overall, FEV1 was significantly higher for the 400-microg dose compared with the 200-microg dose from 15 minutes to 2 hours after dosing (P < or = .013) and from 5 hours onward (P < or = .022). Indacaterol was associated with good tolerability and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Indacaterol demonstrates sustained bronchodilator efficacy throughout the full 24-hour period, with a rapid onset of action and a good overall safety profile.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 44 microg/salmeterol 21 microg administered in a hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler as an initial asthma maintenance treatment.

BACKGROUND: We wanted to evaluate whether treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist is more effective than an inhaled corticosteroid alone for patients using as-needed albuterol who are initiating maintenance treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) 88 microg and salmeterol 42 microg combined in a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free (hydrofluoroalkane 134a) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with the individual agents alone, each delivered through an MDI containing CFC propellants, in patient with persistent asthma previously uncontrolled with as-needed short-acting beta2-agonists alone. METHODS: Patients with asthma (n = 283) were randomized to twice-daily treatment for 12 weeks with FP 88 microg combined with salmeterol 42 microg (FSC) in a CFC-free MDI or the individual components alone from CFC-containing MDIs. RESULTS: At endpoint, mean change from baseline in morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second was significantly (P < or = 0.016) greater with FSC (0.69 L) compared with FP (0.51 L) or salmeterol (0.47 L). Fewer patients treated with FSC withdrew due to worsening asthma (1%) compared with FP (3%) or salmeterol (8%; P = 0.024). FSC significantly increased (P < or = 0.002) morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate at endpoint (66.5 and 51.5 L/min, respectively) compared with FP (43.0 and 29.9 L/min, respectively) and salmeterol (29.2 and 21.6 L/min, respectively). In addition, asthma symptom scores were reduced, and percentages of days with no asthma symptoms increased in all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FSC in a CFC-free MDI is more effective than FP or salmeterol alone in asthma patients who are symptomatic taking short-acting beta2-agonists alone.