Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus vilanterol alone on bone mineral density in patients with COPD: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids and bone mineral density (BMD) remains uncertain despite extensive research. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-year noninferiority study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (⩾40 years of age; smoking history ⩾10 pack years) and at least one native hip evaluable for BMD were enrolled and randomized 1:1, stratified by sex, to treatment with vilanterol (VI) 25 µg or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 µg/25 µg. BMD measurements were taken via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry every 6 months. The primary endpoint was assessment of the noninferiority of change from baseline in total hip BMD per year at the -1% noninferiority level. Change from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine and BMD measurements by sex were secondary endpoints. Incidences of COPD exacerbations and bone fractures throughout the study were also recorded. RESULTS: Of 283 randomized patients, 170 (60%) completed the study. Noninferiority was demonstrated for FF/VI versus VI with regards to change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, with changes of -0.27% and 0.18%, respectively, and a treatment difference of -0.46% per year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to 0.06]. The treatment difference for FF/VI versus VI regarding lumbar spine BMD was -0.51% per year (95% CI -1.11 to 0.10). COPD exacerbations and bone fracture rates were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: FF/VI showed noninferiority to VI for change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, when assessed at the -1% noninferiority margin in a combined sample of men and women with COPD.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone. METHODS: This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Dual Bronchodilation with Indacaterol Maleate/Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled, Cross-over Studies.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of two long-acting dual bronchodilator combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) versus umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). METHODS: Studies A2349 and A2350 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, cross-over studies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to sequential 12-week treatments of twice-daily IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg and once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, each separated by a 3-week washout. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of IND/GLY compared with UMEC/VI in terms of the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s profile at week 12 (FEV1 AUC0-24). Rescue medication use, symptom control, and safety were assessed throughout. RESULTS: Both treatments delivered substantial bronchodilation over 12 weeks, with improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24h at week 12 of 232 and 185 mL for IND/GLY, and 244 and 203 mL with UMEC/VI in Studies A2349 and A2350, respectively. The primary efficacy objective of non-inferiority of IND/GLY relative to UMEC/VI was not met as the lower bound of the confidence interval for the LS treatment comparison was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -20 mL in both studies: -26.9 and -34.2 mL, respectively (LS mean between-treatment differences: -11.5 and -18.2 mL). Both drugs were well tolerated, with AE profiles consistent with their respective prescribing information. CONCLUSIONS: IND/GLY and UMEC/VI provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of IND/GLY to UMEC/VI could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant. The data support the use of IND/GLY as an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option in patients with COPD. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487446 and NCT02487498).

A randomized trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or vilanterol versus placebo to determine effects on arterial stiffness in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated arterial stiffness, measured by aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), is a cardiovascular risk surrogate and is potentially modifiable by inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist combinations in patients with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg, VI 25 µg, versus placebo on arterial stiffness in patients with COPD and baseline aPWV ≥11.0 m/s were investigated in a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, stratified (by COPD exacerbation history), parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients were ≥40 years old, with ≥10 pack-year smoking history, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ≤0.70, and post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤70% of predicted. Patients with a major cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months/current severe heart failure/uncontrolled hypertension were excluded. Primary endpoint is change from baseline in aPWV after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety analyses included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 430 patients: FF/VI (n=135), VI (n=154), and placebo (n=141). Patients were predominantly male (79%) and Asian or White (each 48%), with a mean age of 68.5 years (standard deviation [SD] =7.9), percentage predicted post-bronchodilator FEV1 50.1% (SD =13.3), and aPWV 13.26 m/s (SD =2.22) at screening. At 24 weeks, mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline in aPWV were -1.75 m/s (SE =0.26, FF/VI), -1.95 m/s (SE =0.24, VI), and -1.97 m/s (SE =0.28, placebo). AEs occurred in 57% (FF/VI), 51% (VI), and 41% (placebo) of patients. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in aPWV-adjusted mean change from baseline for FF/VI 100/25 µg, compared with placebo.

A randomised, phase III trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg versus once-daily vilanterol 25 µg to evaluate the contribution on lung function of fluticasone furoate in the combination in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of fluticasone furoate (FF) on lung function in the FF/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg combination has been demonstrated numerically, but not statistically. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial (GlaxoSmithKline study number 200820; clinicaltrials.gov NCT02105974) enrolled ≥40-year-old patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a ≥10-pack-year smoking history, a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 30-70% of the predicted value, a FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤0.70, ≥1 COPD exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring corticosteroids, antibiotics and/or hospitalisation, and current COPD symptoms. Participants received FF/VI 100/25 µg or VI 25 µg once daily. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 84. FINDINGS: 1620 patients were randomised and received at least one dose of FF/VI 100/25 µg (n = 806) or VI 25 µg (n = 814). At day 84, the FF/VI 100/25 µg group showed an adjusted mean treatment difference of 34 mL over VI 25 µg in change from baseline trough FEV1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-55; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the percentage of rescue medication-free 24-h periods. The FF/VI 100/25 µg group demonstrated a 42% risk reduction compared with the VI 25 µg group in time to first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (95% CI 22-57; nominal p < 0.001). The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: The contribution of FF in the FF/VI 100/25 µg combination on lung function in COPD was statistically significant. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: design, development, and potential place in therapy.

COPD is characterized by persistent airflow obstruction caused by exposure to irritants including cigarette smoke, dust, and fumes. According to the latest GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) guidelines, a combination of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2 agonists, and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists can be used for group D COPD patients who are at high risk for exacerbations. Umeclidinium/fluticasone furoate/vilanterol is one such triple-combination therapy currently under development with some completed and several ongoing clinical trials. This review paper summarizes the pharmacologic profiles of these medications and highlights findings from clinical trials, including safety and efficacy data, while speculating on the role of this therapy in current treatment for COPD.

A systematic review with meta-analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination for the treatment of stable COPD.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonists as first-line therapy for COPD patients at risk for acute exacerbations and/or severe airflow limitation. This systematic review assesses available evidence on the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination versus each alone, for the treatment of patients with severe to very severe stable COPD. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of >8 weeks of duration were included. Primary end points were pulmonary function, COPD exacerbations and serious adverse events. FF/VI was compared with its mono-components. RESULTS: Five reports with six trials (n = 15,515 patients) met the entry criteria. FF/VI was associated with significant increases in trough FEV1 compared with vilanterol (VI) and fluticasone furoate (FF) (45 mL and 90 mL respectively). FF/VI significantly reduced the number of subjects with at least one moderate to severe exacerbation compared with VI (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 21) and with FF (NNTB = 26). There were no statistical differences in the rates of serious adverse events, cardiac events and all-cause mortality. On the contrary, FF/VI showed a significant 52% increase in the rate of pneumonia compared with VI monotherapy (5.3% vs. 3.5%). However, there was no difference in the rate of pneumonia when FF/VI was compared with FF alone. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI combination was associated with a decrease of the rate of COPD exacerbations, without affecting mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD. Also, the use of FF was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: New treatments need to be evaluated in real-world clinical practice to account for co-morbidities, adherence and polypharmacy. METHODS: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ≥ 40 years old, with exacerbation in the previous 3 years are randomised 1:1 to once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg/vilanterol 25 µg in a novel dry-powder inhaler versus continuing their existing therapy. The primary endpoint is the mean annual rate of COPD exacerbations; an electronic medical record allows real-time collection and monitoring of endpoint and safety data. CONCLUSIONS: The Salford Lung Study is the world's first pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a pre-licensed medication in COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01551758.

D(-)-Salicin inhibits the LPS-induced inflammation in RAW264.7 cells and mouse models.

D(-)-Salicin is a traditional medicine which has been known to exhibit anti-inflammation and other therapeutic activities. The present study aimed to investigate whether D(-)-Salicin inhibited the LPS-induced inflammation in vivo and in vitro. We evaluated the effect of D(-)-Salicin on cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1ß, IL-6 and IL-10) in vivo and in vitro by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and signaling pathways (MAPKs and NF-κB) in vivo by Western blot. The results showed that D(-)-Salicin markedly decreased TNF-α, IL-1ß and IL-6 concentrations and increased IL-10 concentration. In addition, western blot analysis indicated that D(-)-Salicin suppressed the activation of MAPKs and NF-κB signaling pathways stimulated by LPS. To examine whether D(-)-Salicin ameliorated LPS-induced lung inflammation, inhibitors of MAPKs and NF-κB signaling pathways were administrated intraperitoneally to mice. Interference with specific inhibitors revealed that D(-)-Salicin-mediated cytokine suppression was through MAPKs and NF-κB pathways. In the mouse model of acute lung injury, histopathologic examination indicted that D(-)-Salicin suppressed edema induced by LPS. So it is suggest that D(-)-Salicin might be a potential therapeutic agent against inflammatory diseases.

A randomised trial of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (50/25 µg; 100/25 µg) on lung function in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a novel once-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination therapy for COPD. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two strengths of FF/VI (100/25 µg; 50/25 µg) vs. individual components (FF 100 µg, VI 25 µg) and placebo over 24 weeks. METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study of patients (N = 1030) with moderate-to-severe COPD. All medication was administered once daily in the morning. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were: (1) weighted mean (wm) FEV1 (0-4 h post-dose on day 168) to assess acute lung function effects; and (2) trough FEV1 (23-24 h post-dose on day 169) to assess long-lasting effects. Symptom-related outcomes were analysed and adverse events (AEs) assessed. RESULTS: Main findings were: (1) the combination of FF/VI at a strength of 100/25 µg significantly (p < 0.001) improved wm FEV1 (173 ml) and trough FEV1 (115 ml) vs. placebo. Similar effects were observed with FF/VI 50/25 µg; (2) no significant difference was seen between FF/VI 100/25 µg and VI 25 µg for trough FEV1 (48 ml, p = 0.082), while an effect was observed between FF/VI 100/25 µg and FF 100 µg for wm FEV1 (120 ml, p < 0.001); (3) VI 25 µg over 24 weeks improved lung function vs. placebo significantly for wm FEV1 (103 ml, p < 0.001) and trough FEV1 (67 ml, p = 0.017); and (4) no safety signal was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD, FF/VI 100/25 µg provides rapid and significant sustained bronchodilation at 24 weeks. Lung function is improved to a similar extent with FF/VI 50/25 µg and to a somewhat lesser extent with VI 25 µg. All treatments were well tolerated. GSK study number: HZC112206. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01053988.

Once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate and vilanterol versus vilanterol only for prevention of exacerbations of COPD: two replicate double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Whether the combination of a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid with a once-daily longacting ß(2) agonist is more protective than a once-daily longacting ß(2) agonist alone against exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown. We hypothesised that fluticasone furoate and vilanterol would prevent more exacerbations than would vilanterol alone. METHODS: We did two replicate double-blind parallel-group 1 year trials. Both studies began on Sept 25, 2009. Study 1 ended on Oct 31, 2011, and study 2 on Oct 17, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 40 years or older, had a history of COPD, a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years, a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) to forced vital capacity of 0·70 or less after bronchodilators (and an FEV(1) of 70% or less of predicted), and a documented history of one or more moderate or severe disease exacerbations in the year before screening. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) on the basis of the Registration and Medication Ordering System to 25 µg vilanterol alone or 25 µg vilanterol combined with either 50 µg, 100 µg, or 200 µg fluticasone furoate once daily. Our primary endpoint was the yearly rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. The trials were analysed separately and a pooled analysis was also done. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01009463 and NCT01017952). FINDINGS: 1622 patients in study 1 and 1633 patients in study 2 were randomly assigned. In study 1, no significant difference in exacerbation rate was noted between the 200/25 µg fluticasone furoate/vilanterol group and the vilanterol only group (mean 0·90 events vs 1·05 events per year; ratio 0·9 [95% CI 0·7-1·0]). Because of the statistical hierarchy used, we could not infer significance for the 50 µg and 100 µg groups. In study 2, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (p=0·0398 for the 50 µg group, 0·0244 for the 100 µg group, and 0·0004 for the 200 µg group). In the pooled analysis, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (0·0141 for the 50 µg group, <0·0001 for the 100 µg group, and 0·0003 for the 200 µg group). Nasopharyngitis was the most frequently reported adverse event in both studies. Pneumonia and fractures were reported more frequently with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than with vilanterol alone. Eight deaths from pneumonia were noted in the fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups compared with none in the vilanterol only group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of fluticasone furoate to vilanterol was associated with a decreased rate of moderate and severe exacerbations of COPD in patients with a history of exacerbation, but was also associated with an increased pneumonia risk. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

28-Day safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in combination with vilanterol in COPD: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) currently in development in combination with vilanterol (VI), an inhaled, long-acting beta2 agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of repeat dosing of UMEC and VI in combination once daily for 28 days in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Patients aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted normal values and FEV1/FVC ratio ≤0.70, and a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years, were randomized 4:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI (500/25 mcg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 9). RESULTS: UMEC/VI was non-inferior to placebo in weighted mean pulse rate over 0-6 h at Day 28 (primary endpoint: difference of -0.5 bpm, 95% CI: -5.5 to 4.5). There was no evidence of a difference between UMEC/VI compared with placebo in blood pressure, minimum and maximum pulse rate, or QTcF assessments. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 11 (26%) patients in the UMEC/VI group and one (11%) patient in the placebo group. No serious AEs were reported. Both UMEC and VI showed rapid absorption (median t(max) ∼6 min for both drugs) with no evidence of accumulation for AUC or C(max) on Day 28 compared with Day 1 for UMEC or VI. There was no correlation between individual steady-state C(max) and pulse rate on Day 28. Change from baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 29 showed numerically greater improvements with UMEC/VI compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with UMEC in combination with VI in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was well tolerated over 28 days.

Nebulized bacteriostatic saline as a cause of bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether nebulized bacteriostatic saline, which contains the preservative benzyl alcohol, is an irritant to the tracheobronchial mucosa in healthy adults. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted with 10 healthy adults who inhaled 3 mL of either bacteriostatic saline or saline placebo by nebulizer four times a day for 2 weeks. Pulmonary function tests and bronchoscopy with biopsy were performed immediately before and after the 2-week nebulization period. RESULTS: Nine of 10 volunteers were compliant with the study protocol. Four of five volunteers who used nebulized bacteriostatic saline developed bronchitic symptoms and had bronchoscopic evidence of bronchitis. The fifth remained healthy. Four volunteers used nebulized saline (placebo). Two of these four became ill, one with a much more severe bronchitis than any of the bacteriostatic saline volunteers, and one with pharyngitis. Bronchoscopic biopsies showed a lymphocytic mucosal infiltrate in those who became ill while using nebulized bacteriostatic saline and a polymorphonuclear mucosal infiltrate in those who became ill while using nebulized saline placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulization of bacteriostatic saline, containing benzyl alcohol as its preservative, causes bronchitis in healthy adults. Even nebulization of sterile saline may be associated with bronchitis and pharyngitis. Physicians who prescribe nebulized medications must pay close attention to the bronchodilator diluent.

Severe hypersensitivity reaction to injectable Gallium 67 in a worker exposed to silica.

Gallium 67 scintigraphy is employed in the evaluation of workers with possible pneumoconiosis. To our knowledge, however, a severe hypersensitivity reaction following the intravenous injection of Gallium 67 has not been described. We report the case of a worker chronically exposed to silica who developed an allergic cutaneous and severe articular reaction following the injection of Gallium 67 while being investigated for possible silicosis. Hilar adenopathy was noted on the chest roentgenogram and, retrospectively, circulating immune complexes were found in the patient's serum. The presence of a positive prick skin test to benzyl alcohol suggests that this preservative caused the hypersensitivity reaction.

Non-specific histamine release activity of busereline, LH-releasing hormone.

Busereline acetate is an LH-RH agonist that was found to induce local reactions at the injection site or generalized minor skin reactions in some patients. Since these reactions may represent the first reaction of systemic anaphylaxis, we tested the non-specific histamine releasing activity of this drug by intradermal skin tests. It was found that all subjects tested had a positive wheal and flare reaction, the flare being significantly decreased by terfenadine. Benzyl alcohol, the preservative used in commercial preparation of busereline acetate, did not elicit a positive wheal and flare reaction in two patients who had experienced a clinically noticeable reaction. It is concluded that busereline is likely to be a non-specific histamine releasing compound.

Topical benzyl alcohol reduces cataract surgery need: two long-term double blind studies.

Substances derived from biotransformation of non-steroid antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) produced by patients responsive to the biological liquid oxidant activity (BLOA) test, have been shown to have anticataract activity. They are all aromatic alcohols with physico-chemical properties similar to benzyl alcohols (BA); they were very efficacious in preventing in vitro (cyanate, heat) cataracts and in vivo (uveitis, radiation, selenite) cataracts but had no effect on sugar cataracts. The mechanism underlying this effect seems to be mainly antioxidant together with a stabilizing effect on lens membrane integrity and a stimulating effect on Na-K ATPase and membrane sodium pump. The well balanced lipo- and hydro-solubility of these compounds makes them very suitable for topical application to the eye as lipid solubility is the major factor governing transcorneal penetration of drugs. In the two long-term double blind studies on humans described here, comparing BA, placebo and Catalin in the topical treatment of progressive cataract rapid (2-3 weeks treatment) reversal of incipient cataract was obtained accompanied by a marked improvement of vision and by a significantly lower percentage of eyes requiring surgery after 22 months treatment with BA than with placebo and Catalin. In conclusion, further studies on the effect on the eye of BA and similar compounds such as phenyl-ethanol are advisable especially because they are already used as preservatives in eye-drop formulations.