Safety of budesonide inhalation suspension in infants aged six to twelve months with mild to moderate persistent asthma or recurrent wheeze.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety of budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) with placebo in infants 6 to 12 months of age with mild to moderate persistent asthma or recurrent wheeze. STUDY DESIGN: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, 141 patients received 0.5 mg BIS (n = 48), 1.0 mg BIS (n = 44), or placebo (n = 49) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary variable was adrenal function, based on cosyntropin-stimulated plasma cortisol levels. Spontaneous adverse events and clinical laboratory findings also were monitored. RESULTS: Overall, the types and frequencies of adverse events reported during the study were comparable across treatment groups. The response to cosyntropin stimulation was similar across treatment groups, with no significant difference between BIS treatment and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of BIS was similar to that of placebo, with no suppressive effect on adrenal function in patients 6 to 12 months of age with mild to moderate persistent asthma or recurrent wheeze.

Comparative effects of desloratadine versus montelukast on asthma symptoms and use of beta 2-agonists in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) are recognized as manifestations of a single airway disease. Desloratadine has demonstrated efficacy in treating SAR symptoms, including nasal obstruction. METHODS: Safety and efficacy of desloratadine and montelukast each were assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with SAR and symptoms of asthma, who were assigned randomly to once-daily treatment with desloratadine 5 mg, montelukast 10 mg, or placebo for 4 weeks. Change from baseline of AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom severity scores (TASS), FEV(1), individual asthma symptom scores, and beta(2)-agonist usage were assessed. RESULTS: Desloratadine and montelukast each were associated with statistically significant reductions from baseline in the mean TASS averaged over the 4-week period (p < or =0.022 vs. placebo). Individual asthma symptom scores also improved significantly for both therapies (p < or = 0.05). Patients treated with desloratadine or montelukast demonstrated improvement from baseline in FEV(1) versus placebo; significant improvement was seen in a subset of patients with baseline FEV(1) <80% of predicted normal (both p < 0.05). Both active therapies significantly reduced beta(2)-agonist use (both p < 0.01). Improvements for both therapies were comparable for all efficacy parameters; they were tolerated well with adverse event profiles similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma symptoms and beta(2)-agonist were improved significantly in patients with concomitant SAR and asthma treated with desloratadine 5 mg as well as montelukast 10 mg once daily. Both therapies significantly improved FEV(1) in a subset of patients with FEV(1) <80% of predicted normal at entry. Improvements in asthma symptoms were comparable for both active treatment groups.

Evaluation of comfort using olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in contact lens wearers compared to placebo using the conjunctival allergen-challenge model.

PURPOSE: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution is a topical antiallergy agent indicated for treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comfort of olopatadine used for contact lens wearers in the conjunctival allergen-challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, parallel-controlled CAC study. Contact lens-wearing subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were randomized to receive olopatadine or placebo bilaterally. Fifteen minutes after study medication instillation, subjects inserted contact lenses. Allergen challenge was performed 10 minutes after contact lens insertion. Subjective evaluations of ocular comfort were obtained immediately and every minute after CAC, up to and including 10 minutes. Thereafter, comfort evaluations were made every 5 minutes up to and including 60 minutes. Subjects evaluated itching at 3, 7, and 10 minutes and redness was graded at 5, 10, and 20 minutes. All evaluations were graded on standardized scales. Subjects were given diaries in which to rate comfort at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13 hours and the time of contact lens removal. RESULTS: At post-study medication instillation, post-lens insertion, and at time points from 1 to 10 minutes post-allergen challenge, ocular comfort evaluations were statistically superior in subjects receiving olopatadine as compared with those receiving placebo (P < 0.05). The difference in time until contact lens removal was clinically significant, with subjects who were treated with olopatadine wearing lenses for an average of 2.1 hours longer than placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by significantly greater comfort and longer duration of lens wear, olopatadine provides superior comfort to contact lens wearers suffering from the signs and symptoms of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, as induced by the CAC model.