Albuterol/budesonide for the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma: The TYREE study.

BACKGROUND: PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist). FEV1 was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge. RESULTS: Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV1 post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04234464.

Efficacy and safety of as-needed albuterol/budesonide versus albuterol in adults and children aged ≥4 years with moderate-to-severe asthma: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled MANDALA study.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled asthma is associated with substantial morbidity. While fast-acting bronchodilators provide quick relief from asthma symptoms, their use as rescue fails to address the underlying inflammation. Combining a short-acting beta2-agonist, such as albuterol (salbutamol), with an inhaled corticosteroid, such as budesonide, in a single inhaler as rescue therapy could help control both bronchoconstriction and inflammation, and reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Phase 3 MANDALA study was designed to determine the efficacy of albuterol in combination with budesonide (albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg or 180/80 µg, two actuations of 90/80 µg or 90/40 µg, respectively) versus albuterol (180 µg, two actuations of 90 µg) as rescue therapy in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. This event-driven study enrolled symptomatic patients (3000 adults/adolescents and 100 children aged 4-11 years) who experienced ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation in the previous year and were receiving maintenance therapy for ≥3 months prior to study entry. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-to-first severe asthma exacerbation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, and that are consistent with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and Good Clinical Practice and the applicable regulatory requirements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03769090.

Bosutinib Versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Randomized BFORE Trial.

Purpose Bosutinib is a potent dual SRC/ABL kinase inhibitor approved for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant and /or intolerant to prior therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bosutinib versus imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic-phase CML. Methods In this ongoing, multinational, phase III study, 536 patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 400 mg of bosutinib once daily (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268). Per protocol, efficacy was assessed in patients who were Philadelphia chromosome-positive with typical (e13a2/e14a2) transcripts (bosutinib, n = 246; imatinib, n = 241). Patients with Philadelphia chromosome-negative-/ BCR-ABL1-positive status and those with unknown Philadelphia chromosome status and/or atypical BCR-ABL1 transcript type were excluded from this population. Results The major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months (primary end point) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (47.2% v 36.9%, respectively; P = .02), as was complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% v 66.4%, respectively; P = .0075). Cumulative incidence was favorable with bosutinib (MMR: hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .0173; CCyR: hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001), with earlier response times. Four patients (1.6%) receiving bosutinib and six patients (2.5%) receiving imatinib experienced disease progression to accelerated/blast phase. Among treated patients, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of patients receiving imatinib discontinued treatment, most commonly for drug-related toxicity (12.7% and 8.7%, respectively). Grade ≥ 3 diarrhea (7.8% v 0.8%) and increased ALT (19.0% v 1.5%) and AST (9.7% v 1.9%) levels were more common with bosutinib. Cardiac and vascular toxicities were uncommon. Conclusion Patients who received bosutinib had significantly higher rates of MMR and CCyR and achieved responses faster than those who received imatinib. Consistent with the known safety profile, GI events and transaminase elevations were more common with bosutinib. Results indicate bosutinib may be an effective first-line treatment for chronic-phase CML.

Combined 633-nm and 830-nm led treatment of photoaging skin.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and ultrastructural changes in photodamaged skin after combined 633-nm and 830-nm light-emitting diode (LED) treatments. METHODS: Thirty-six subjects received 9 LED treatments over the course of 5 weeks and were subsequently evaluated for final clinical improvement 12 weeks after treatment. Five subjects were also biopsied to determine the ultrastuctural posttreatment changes in collagen fibers. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement in wrinkles was seen after profilometric analysis. The majority of subjects reported improvements in softness, smoothness, and firmness at all time points. Electron microscopic analysis showed evidence of post-LED treatment of thicker collagen fibers. CONCLUSIONS: 633-nm and 830-nm LED treatments play a role in the treatment of photodamaged skin. LED treatments can be used as either a primary or adjunctive treatment modality.

The use of light-emitting diode therapy in the treatment of photoaged skin.

BACKGROUND: Light-emitting diode (LED) therapy is an increasingly popular methodology for the treatment of sun damage. Combination use of light wavelengths reported to stimulate collagen synthesis and accelerate fibroblast-myofibroblast transformation may display a composite rejuvenative effect. OBJECTIVE: To clinically assess reduction in sun damage signs following a 5-week course of LED therapy and to assess subject's perception of the treatment. METHODS: Thirteen subjects with wrinkles or fine lines in the periorbital and nasolabial region and those presenting Glogau scale photodamage grade II-III received nine 20-min duration light treatments using the Omnilux LED system. The treatments combined wavelengths of 633 and 830 nm at fluences of 126 and 66 J/cm(2), respectively. Sun-damage reduction was assessed at 6, 9, and 12 weeks by clinical photography and patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS: The majority of subjects displayed "moderate" (50%) or "slight" (25%) response to treatment at investigator assessment. Treatment of the periorbital region was reported more effective than the nasolabial region. At 12-week follow-up, 91% of subjects reported improved skin tone, and 82% reported enhanced smoothness of skin in the treatment area. CONCLUSION: Good response to LED therapy has been shown in this modest sample. Larger trials are needed to assess optimum frequency of light treatments and overall treatment time.