Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP). METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP. CONCLUSION: MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

IMPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE THRESHOLD ESTIMATION METHODS ON TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

OBJECTIVES: Various minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold estimation techniques have been applied to seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The objectives of this study are to (i) assess the difference in magnitude of alternative SAR MCID threshold estimates and (ii) evaluate the impact of alternative MCID estimates on health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: Data describing change from baseline of the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) for four intranasal SAR treatments were obtained from United States Food and Drug Administration-approved prescribing information. Treatment effects were then compared with anchor-based MCID thresholds derived by Barnes et al. and thresholds obtained from an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) panel. RESULTS: The change in rTNSS score from baseline, represented as the average of the twice-daily recorded scores of the rTNSS, was -2.1 (p < .001) for azelastine hydrochloride 0.10%, 1.35 (p = .014) for ciclesonide, and -1.47 (p < .001) for fluticasone furoate. The change in the rTNSS score from baseline, represented by sum of the AM and PM score, was -2.7 for MP-AzeFlu (p < .001). The rTNSS change from baseline for each product was compared with anchor-based MCID threshold and the AHRQ panel estimates. Comparison of the observed treatment effect to the anchor-based and AHRQ panel MCID thresholds results in different conclusions, with clinically important differences being inferred when anchor-based estimates serve as the reference point. CONCLUSION: The AHRQ panel MCID threshold for the rTNSS was twelve times larger than the anchor-based estimates resulting in conflicting recommendations on whether different SAR treatments provide clinically meaningful benefit.

Effectiveness of MP29-02 for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in real-life: results from a noninterventional study.

The efficacy of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) has been well established in controlled clinical trials. This study was designed to assess the use of MP29-02 and its effectiveness in routine clinical practice. This was a German multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study, including 1781 allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. Eligible patients (i.e., acute AR symptoms and visual analog scale [VAS] score >50 mm) were included, assigned MP29-02 at baseline, and reassessed after ∼14 days. Patients assessed symptom control using a VAS from 0 (not at all bothersome) to 100 mm (very bothersome) in the morning before MP29-02 use, on days 0, 1, 3, and 7 and after ∼ 14 days. Patients' perceived levels of disease control were assessed on day 3. The Youden index determined patient-reported VAS score cutoffs on day 3 for "well controlled" and "partly controlled." MP29-02 reduced the VAS score from 75.4 mm (SD = 17.2) at baseline to 21.3 mm (SD = 18.3) by the last visit, a shift of 54.1 mm (SD = 24.6). One in every two patients felt their symptoms were well controlled at day 3. This perception of well-controlled symptoms at day 3 corresponded to an optimal VAS cutoff of 36 mm. On average, patients treated with MP29-02 crossed this well-controlled VAS cutoff by last visit. Similar results were found in adolescents, adults, and older adults, in those with perennial AR (PAR), seasonal AR (SAR), or PAR + SAR and in those with more and less severe disease. MP29-02 provides effective and rapid symptom control across all age groups in a real-life setting with responder rates higher than those observed in controlled clinical trials, supporting MP29-02's position as the drug of choice for the treatment for AR.

Long-term, randomized safety study of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) in subjects with chronic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: MP29-02 is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of MP29-02 in subjects with chronic allergic (perennial) or nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis. METHODS: This was a 1-year, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study in subjects with chronic allergic or nonallergic rhinitis. A total of 612 subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to (1) MP29-02, one spray per nostril twice daily (total daily doses of azelastine hydrochloride and FP were 548 mcg and 200 mcg, respectively); or (2) FP, 2 sprays per nostril once daily (total daily dose 200 mcg). Safety and tolerability assessments were made at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. RESULTS: The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low with both MP29-02 (9.4%) and FP (11.1%), with no evidence of late-occurring adverse events. Nasal examinations showed no evidence of nasal mucosal ulcerations or septal perforations with MP29-02, and the overall incidence of adverse findings was reduced as the study progressed. There were no unusual or unexpected ocular examination findings and no clinically important laboratory findings or clinically important differences between groups in fasting AM serum cortisol levels after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: MP29-02 was well tolerated. There were no safety findings that would preclude the long-term use of MP29-02 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Clinically relevant effect of a new intranasal therapy (MP29-02) in allergic rhinitis assessed by responder analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what constitutes a clinically meaningful response for allergic rhinitis (AR) outcomes. The objectives of these post hoc analyses were (1) to define a clinically meaningful response using novel efficacy analyses (including a responder analysis), and (2) to compare the efficacy of MP29-02 [a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP)] with commercially available FP, AZE and placebo in seasonal AR (SAR) patients, using these novel analyses. METHODS: 610 moderate-to-severe SAR patients (≥12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Change from baseline in the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) over 14 days was the primary outcome. Post hoc endpoints included the sum of nasal and ocular symptoms (rT7SS), efficacy by disease severity and by predominant nasal symptom, and a set of responder analyses. RESULTS: MP29-02 most effectively reduced rT7SS (relative greater improvement: 52% to FP; 56% to AZE) and both nasal and ocular symptoms irrespective of severity. More MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥30, ≥50, ≥60, ≥75 and ≥90% rTNSS reduction, which occurred days faster than with either active comparator; MP29-02 alone was superior to placebo at the ≥60% (or higher) threshold. One in 2 MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥50% rTNSS reduction and 1 in 6 achieved complete/near-to-complete response. Only MP29-02 was consistently superior to placebo for all patients, whatever their predominant symptom. CONCLUSIONS: MP29-02 provided faster and more complete symptom control than first-line therapies. It was consistently superior irrespective of severity, response criteria or patient-type, and may be considered the drug of choice for moderate-to-severe AR. These measures define a new standard for assessing relevance in AR.

Comparison of intranasal azelastine to intranasal fluticasone propionate for symptom control in moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective therapy for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and recommended first line in guidelines. It is uncertain whether intranasal antihistamines have comparable efficacy. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of azelastine (AZE; 137 µg/spray) and fluticasone propionate (FP; 50 µg/spray), both given as 1 spray/nostril bid (i.e., approved dosing regimen in the United States), in SAR via a post hoc analysis of data from a previously published direct-comparison study. Six hundred ten moderate-to-severe SAR patients (≥12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS (morning and evening), over 14 days. Reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) was a key secondary variable. Reflective total of seven symptom scores (rT7SS [nasal plus ocular symptoms]) and time to ≥50% reduction from baseline in these key parameters were also analyzed. AZE and FP reduced rTNSS from baseline by a similar degree (-3.25 versus -3.84; p = 0.2014). Patients experienced comparable improvement in rTOSS (-2.62 versus -2.17; p = 0.2371) and rT7SS (-5.83 versus -6.05; p = 0.7820). FP was superior to AZE in alleviating rhinorrhea (-1.15 versus -0.87; p = 0.0433), but AZE showed comparable efficacy for all other nasal and ocular symptoms. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference between AZE (-1.17) and FP (-1.43) for reduction in the overall rhinitis quality of life questionnaire score (although FP, but not AZE, significantly differed from placebo). A similar proportion of patients in the AZE and FP groups achieved a 50% reduction in rTNSS. However, more AZE patients (53.0%) exhibited a 50% reduction in rTOSS by day 14 versus FP (39.6%), and ≤3 days faster (p = 0.028). Intranasal AZE (137 micrograms/spray) and intranasal FP (50 micrograms/spray), both 1 spray/nostril b.i.d., had comparable efficacy in symptom control in moderate-to-severe SAR.

A novel intranasal therapy of azelastine with fluticasone for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) is a challenge to treat, with many patients using multiple therapies and achieving limited symptom control. More effective therapies must be developed and tested in well-controlled, randomized, prospective studies with a direct comparison to current standards. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these studies was to investigate the efficacy of MP29-02 (a novel formulation of azelastine and fluticasone propionate [FP]) in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and to compare its efficacy with 2 first-line therapies (ie, intranasal azelastine and intranasal FP) in this population. METHODS: Three thousand three hundred ninety-eight patients (≥12 years old) with moderate-to-severe SAR were enrolled into 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trials (MP4002 [NCT00651118], MP4004 [NCT00740792], and MP4006 [NCT00883168]). Each trial was conducted for 14 days during different allergy seasons. The primary efficacy variable was the sum of the morning and evening change from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (range, 0-24) over the treatment period. Outcomes for the meta-analysis included efficacy according to disease severity and time to response in relevant responder criteria. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis MP29-02 reduced the mean reflective total nasal symptom score from baseline (-5.7 [SD, 5.3]) more than FP (-5.1 [SD, 4.9], P < .001), azelastine (-4.4 [SD, 4.8], P < .001), or placebo (-3.0 [SD, 4.2], P < .001). This benefit was observed from the first day of assessment, with improvement in each individual nasal symptom, even in the patients with the most severe disease. MP29-02 achieved response consistently days earlier and showed greater efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis than FP and azelastine. CONCLUSIONS: MP29-02 represents a novel therapy that demonstrated superiority to 2 first-line therapies for AR. Patients with moderate-to-severe SAR achieved better control, and their symptoms were controlled earlier with MP29-02 than with recommended medications according to guidelines.

A retrospective database analysis on persistence with inhaled corticosteroid therapy: comparison of two dry powder inhalers during asthma treatment in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide. Patient persistence with treatment is essential to achieve sufficient outcomes, in particular to avoid exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy with two different inhalers (Novolizer® and Turbuhaler®) by comparing persistence, concomitant use of additional asthma medication and occurrence of exacerbations in real life. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of prescription data from outpatient treatment was performed using the IMS Disease Analyzer. It provides longitudinal anonymized patient data from ~ 3,000 office-based physicians in Germany. Treatment persistence of asthma patients (ICD 10 code: J45) using 200 µg budesonide either via Novopulmon®/Budecort® (Novolizer group = NOV) or Pulmicort® (Turbuhaler group = TUR) was compared. Eligible patients hadthe first prescription of ICS medication (index day) between June 2001 and September 2007 and a data history available for at least twelve months before and after the index day. RESULTS: Analysis of 1,780 NOV and 664 TUR patients revealed that 1 year after index day, 89% NOV patients remained on their ICS compared to 85% TUR patients. NOV patients changed significantly less often and later to another ICS (p = 0.0108; log-rank test). Significantly fewer NOV patients switched temporarily or permanently to another ICS during the observation time (NOV group: 14.7%; TUR group: 20.8%; p = 0.0002, log-rank test). On average, NOV and TUR patients received comparable prescriptions of short acting medication (NOV more SABA, TUR more formoterol). There was a trend towards fewer prescriptions of systemic corticosteroids in NOV patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest better therapy persistence with NOV compared to TUR during asthma treatment in Germany. This can be a marker of better compliance and may contribute to prevent exacerbations. However, the number of exacerbations per patient year in the NOV group (0.12) compared to the TUR group (0.18) was not statically significantly lower (p = 0.4096).

Bioavailability and disposition of azelastine and fluticasone propionate when delivered by MP29-02, a novel aqueous nasal spray.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: • The topical second generation anti-histamine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and the potent corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) are well established first-line treatments in allergic rhinitis (AR). • MP29-02, a novel intranasal AZE and FP formulation, has been shown to control AR symptoms faster and better than standard intranasal AZE or FP. • The systemic bioavailabilities of marketed AZE and FP nasal spray products have been established at about 40% and 1% only, respectively. • For new combination medicinal products such as MP29-02, the determination of possible pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions between both active components and formulation-based bioavailability alterations is essential. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: • This paper provides for the first time information on potential drug-drug interactions, AZE and FP bioavailability and disposition characteristics of each component administered by the novel nasal spray formulation MP29-02. • The studies employed highly sensitive FP and AZE LC-MS/MS assays and could therefore be conducted with recommended therapeutic doses, thereby circumventing previously recognized draw-backs that required nasal bioavailability studies to be conducted using supra-therapeutic doses. • No significant PK drug-drug interaction between the active components AZE and FP was noted for MP29-02. • AZE bioavailabilty was equivalent when MP29-02 data were compared with MP29-02-AZE-mono and Astelin®. • Increased FP exposure was observed with MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP serum concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products suggesting no clinically meaningful pharmacodynamic differences in terms of systemic safety. AIM(S): To determine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) bioavailabilities of the novel nasal spray combination product MP 29-02, compared with MP29-02-based products containing only AZE (MP29-02-AZE-mono), FP (MP29-02-FP-mono), marketed AZE and FP single entity products (Astelin® and FP Boehringer-Ingelheim; FP-BI). METHODS: Two randomized, three period, six sequence, three treatment crossover studies were conducted in healthy subjects. Study 1 administered 200 µg FP as MP29-02, MP29-02-FP-mono or FP-BI. Study 2 administered 548 µg AZE as MP29-02, MP29-02-AZE-mono or Astelin®. Each dose consisted of two sprays/nostril. Serum FP and plasma AZE were followed over 24 (FP) and 120 h (AZE) and quantified by LC-MS/MS. Peak (C(max) ) and total exposures AUC(0,t(last) ) were compared between the treatments by anova. RESULTS: Study 1: Average FP C(max) was very low with all products (≤ 10 pg ml(-1) ). FP AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-FP-mono and MP29-02 : FP-BI ratios (%) were 93.6 (83.6, 104.7) and 161.1 (137.1, 189.3). Corresponding ratios for C(max) were 91.0 (82.5, 100.4) and 157.4 (132.5, 187.1). Study 2: AZE AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-AZE-mono and MP29-02 : Astelin® ratios (%) were 98.8 (91.0, 107.4) and 105.5 (95.6, 116.4). Corresponding outcomes for C(max) were 102.7 (92.1, 114.4) and 107.3 (92.6, 124.3). CONCLUSIONS: No interactions of AZE and FP were found with the MP29-02 formulation. Azelastine bioavailability was similar for MP29-02 and Astelin®. Maximum and total FP exposure was higher for MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products and did not suggest clinically meaningful differences concerning systemic safety.

Efficacy and safety of antioxidant treatment with α-lipoic acid over 4 years in diabetic polyneuropathy: the NATHAN 1 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of α-lipoic acid (ALA) over 4 years in mild-to-moderate diabetic distal symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a multicenter randomized double-blind parallel-group trial, 460 diabetic patients with mild-to-moderate DSPN were randomly assigned to oral treatment with 600 mg ALA once daily (n = 233) or placebo (n = 227) for 4 years. Primary end point was a composite score (Neuropathy Impairment Score [NIS]-Lower Limbs [NIS-LL] and seven neurophysiologic tests). Secondary outcome measures included NIS, NIS-LL, nerve conduction, and quantitative sensory tests (QSTs). RESULTS: Change in primary end point from baseline to 4 years showed no significant difference between treatment groups (P = 0.105). Change from baseline was significantly better with ALA than placebo for NIS (P = 0.028), NIS-LL (P = 0.05), and NIS-LL muscular weakness subscore (P = 0.045). More patients showed a clinically meaningful improvement and fewer showed progression of NIS (P = 0.013) and NIS-LL (P = 0.025) with ALA than with placebo. Nerve conduction and QST results did not significantly worsen with placebo. Global assessment of treatment tolerability and discontinuations due to lack of tolerability did not differ between the groups. The rates of serious adverse events were higher on ALA (38.1%) than on placebo (28.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Four-year treatment with ALA in mild-to-moderate DSPN did not influence the primary composite end point but resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement and prevention of progression of neuropathic impairments and was well tolerated. Because the primary composite end point did not deteriorate significantly in placebo-treated subjects, secondary prevention of its progression by ALA according to the trial design was not feasible.

Nonparametric non-inferiority analyses in the three-arm design with active control and placebo.

The three-arm design with test treatment, reference treatment and placebo offers internal assay sensitivity for a proof of non-inferiority. In this design the relative effects known from nonparametric theory are robust tools allowing the assessment of non-inferiority in a range of situations. An asymptotic nonparametric theory is established in the three-arm design based on the asymptotic distribution of rank means under alternative. A rank test for non-inferiority is derived. Fieller's formula is used to calculate a respective confidence interval. The approach is expanded to multicentre studies. The simulation studies are conducted demonstrating the accuracy of the methods and an example is discussed.

Recurrence rate of superficial basal cell carcinoma following treatment with imiquimod 5% cream: conclusion of a 5-year long-term follow-up study in Europe.

Imiquimod 5% cream is an immune response modifier approved for the treatment of superficial basal cell carcinoma (sBCC) once daily, 5 x per week for 6 weeks. This report reveals the final results of a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate the recurrence rate of sBCCs treated with imiquimod. As previously reported, 182 patients were enrolled in the study and 163 (89.6%) had no clinical evidence of their target sBCC at the 12-week post-treatment assessment; these 163 were followed for up to 5 years. During the follow-up period, 18 clinical recurrences occurred at the target tumour site, 8 and 10 of which occurred during the first 6 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier and life-table estimates for sustained clinical clearance of those patients initially cleared were 84.5% and 86.9%, respectively, and 90.3% considering histology. The estimate of overall treatment success for all treated patients at the end of follow-up was 77.9% (80.9% considering histology). The data support clinical assessment of initial response as predictive of long-term outcome. Most of the recurrences occurred early, indicating that careful follow-up is important during the first year after treatment.

Prevention of exercise-induced asthma by a fixed combination of disodium cromoglycate plus reproterol compared with montelukast in young patients.

BACKGROUND: The leukotriene inhibitor montelukast has been recommended against exercise-induced asthma (EIA), however, single-dose agents might be favourable in several aspects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the protective effects against EIA of a single inhalation of the combination disodium cromoglycate (DSCG, CAS 16110-51-3) and reproterol (REP, CAS 54063-54-6) with 3 days oral treatment of montelukast (MON, CAS 158966-92-8). METHODS: Open-label, cross-over, single-centre trial. Twenty-four 6 to 18-year-old children and adolescents, with reversible and stable airway obstruction, baseline FEV1 > or = 70%, predicted and proven EIA (i.e. a maximum decrease of FEV1 by > or = 20% compared with baseline) were treated with MON, orally for 3 days in the evening, or one single inhalation of DSCG/REP 20 min before the exercise challenge. The treatment sequence was randomised. The exercise test on a treadmill was performed under standardised conditions. RESULTS: 24 patients completed both periods. Both treatments clearly provided protection against EIA; however, protection of DSCG/REP was more pronounced than that of MON. This difference was statistically significant even if the data were adjusted for the increase in FEV1 between inhalation of DSCG/REP and challenge (DSCG/REP(adjusted). The nadir FEV1 level after exercise following prophylaxis with DSCG/REP was even higher than the pre-inhalation FEV1 value. From these data, protection indices of 66%, 81%, and 113% for MON, DSCG/REP(adjusted), and DSCG/REP(unadjusted), respectively, were estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalation of DSCG/REP before exercise provides significantly better protection against EIA than three days treatment with MON.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety pharmacodynamics of formoterol delivered by two different dry powder inhalers.

The present study aimed at assessing the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety pharmacodynamics (PD) of 24 microg formoterol delivered via a Novolizer and via an Aerolizer in healthy subjects. This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Beside PK, serum potassium, and glucose profiles, vital signs, and ECG were recorded. Twenty-nine subjects (15 males) were enrolled. The inhalation maneuver had to be repeated by 19 subjects using the Aerolizer and 1 subject using a Novolizer. While eight (28%) subjects completely failed to inhale correctly via the Aerolizer (four were identified by the investigators immediately after inhalation, another four by bioanalytics later), all did it correctly via the Novolizer. The bioanalytical evaluation indicated two distinct serum peaks. The shapes of serum concentration-time profiles were more homogeneous after inhaling via the Novolizer than via the Aerolizer. After adjusting for the delivered dose the Cmax of formoterol predicting pulmonary absorption was higher after the Novolizer than after the Aerolizer, while the average AUC0-infinity levels indicating total systemic exposure were equivalent. There was no evidence for different pharmacodynamic behavior with respect to serum potassium and glucose profiles, vital signs, and ECG. The Novolizer yields higher pulmonary absorption of formoterol than the Aerolizer and equivalent safety profiles. Considering the lower variability of PK profiles and the higher proportion of correct inhalations, formoterol is more reliably inhaled via Novolizer.

Improvement of asthma therapy by a novel formoterol multidose dry powder inhaler.

The objective of this post-marketing surveillance (PMS) was the evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and acceptance of the advanced formoterol (CAS 73573-87-2) multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) Formatris 6 microg/12 microg Novolizer (FN) in asthmatic patients (n = 5219) in a real-life setting. A total of 2727 patients (52%) received concomitant anti-inflammatory treatment exclusively via a budesonide Novolizer (BN). Efficacy of the FN was assessed by measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) before and after 4 weeks of therapy. The severity of cough, wheezing, diurnal dyspnea, nocturnal dyspnea and dyspnea on physical effort were assessed on a four-point scale, and a severity sum score was calculated. The patients' satisfaction with the multiple feedback mechanisms, handling and safety of the FN was also assessed. The physicians judged the patient compliance and any improved inhalation reassurance due to FN control mechanisms in comparison with other inhalation systems. FN use (n = 2727) was associated with improved lung function. After 4 weeks, PEF increased by 26% (from 270 L/min to 340 L/min) and the median FEV1 increased by 24% (from 2.1 L to 2.6 L). The median severity sum score decreased from 8.0 before therapy to 3.0 after therapy. Most patients assessed the control mechanisms and safety functions of the FN as 'very good' or 'good'. 96% of patients were satisfied with the optical control mechanism, 92% with the acoustic mechanism, 70% with the taste feedback, 89% with the dose counter and 76% with the overdose prevention. The majority of patients (95%) confirmed that the multiple feedback mechanisms reassured correct drug intake, with 83% rating the FN as 'much better' or 'better' than previously used inhalers. The physicians confirmed that in contrast to previously used inhalers the FN ensured correct inhalation in 87% of all patients. The physicians were satisfied with the patients' compliance in 95% of cases. Finally, the majority of patients (98%) were highly satisfied with the correct inhalation feedback mechanism. 94% of patients intended to continue FN therapy beyond the study. Overall, FN reduced the patients' asthma symptoms and improved lung function, possibly due to improved compliance with therapy. The correct inhalation feedback mechanisms and safety functions of the device were assessed very positively by patients and were considered by the physicians to be important in improving inhalation reassurance and patient compliance.

Oral treatment with alpha-lipoic acid improves symptomatic diabetic polyneuropathy: the SYDNEY 2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effects of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) on positive sensory symptoms and neuropathic deficits in diabetic patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 181 diabetic patients in Russia and Israel received once-daily oral doses of 600 mg (n = 45) (ALA600), 1,200 mg (n = 47) (ALA1200), and 1,800 mg (ALA1800) of ALA (n = 46) or placebo (n = 43) for 5 weeks after a 1-week placebo run-in period. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline of the Total Symptom Score (TSS), including stabbing pain, burning pain, paresthesia, and asleep numbness of the feet. Secondary end points included individual symptoms of TSS, Neuropathy Symptoms and Change (NSC) score, Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS), and patients' global assessment of efficacy. RESULTS: Mean TSS did not differ significantly at baseline among the treatment groups and on average decreased by 4.9 points (51%) in ALA600, 4.5 (48%) in ALA1200, and 4.7 (52%) in ALA1800 compared with 2.9 points (32%) in the placebo group (all P < 0.05 vs. placebo). The corresponding response rates (>/=50% reduction in TSS) were 62, 50, 56, and 26%, respectively. Significant improvements favoring all three ALA groups were also noted for stabbing and burning pain, the NSC score, and the patients' global assessment of efficacy. The NIS was numerically reduced. Safety analysis showed a dose-dependent increase in nausea, vomiting, and vertigo. CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with ALA for 5 weeks improved neuropathic symptoms and deficits in patients with DSP. An oral dose of 600 mg once daily appears to provide the optimum risk-to-benefit ratio.

Azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis: a pharmacodynamic study of onset of action and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and onset of action of azelastine nasal spray and desloratadine tablets in patients with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 46 adult patients with a history of SAR were exposed to a controlled grass pollen concentration for 6 h in the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) in each treatment period according to a randomised, double-blind (double-dummy), three-period, three-sequence crossover design (wash-out period of 12 days). Single doses of study medication (one puff nasal spray into each nostril of azelastine, 0.2 mg, or placebo before swallowing one encapsulated tablet of desloratadine, 5 mg) were administered 2 h after the start of the allergen challenge. Results of subjective and objective assessments were recorded throughout the challenge. RESULTS: Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray was significantly superior compared to desloratadine tablets (p = 0.005) and placebo (p < 0.001). Desloratadine was significantly better than placebo (p < 0.001). Decrease both in Major Nasal Symptom Score (MNSS) and in Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was fastest after azelastine treatment. Improvement of nasal symptom severity was most pronounced after azelastine treatment for all nasal symptoms including nasal congestion. Onset of action was 15 min for azelastine compared to 150 min for desloratadine. Both active preparations were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the usefulness of azelastine nasal spray for the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Concerning onset of action in particular, the results favour the topical treatment over systemic therapy.

Cytokines, osteoprotegerin, and RANKL in vitro and histomorphometric indices of bone turnover in patients with different bone diseases.

Cytokines are supposed to play an essential role in the regulation of the bone metabolic unit. However, information on cytokine production of primary human osteoblasts from patients with metabolic bone disease is scarce, and few attempts have been made to correlate such data to histomorphometric parameters of individual patients. We investigated 11 patients with metabolic bone disease referred to our outpatient department for bone biopsy and analyzed interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and TNF-alpha protein release and gene expression in primary osteoblast cultures. Compared with four controls, five patients showed normal cytokine protein release, whereas six patients showed much higher levels of interleukin-6 (26-fold) and TNF-alpha (84-fold). All three cytokines were strongly correlated concerning gene expression and/or protein levels (r = 0.72-0.96). Histomorphometric analysis of the bone samples showed that eroded surface (ES/BS) as a parameter of bone resorption was significantly associated with TNF-a. In addition, RANKL gene expression was positively associated with ES/BS and osteoclast surface (Oc.S/BS). Finally, the formation parameters osteoid volume and osteoid surface were negatively associated with TNF-alpha. In conclusion, in an in vitro-ex vivo model of bone cells obtained from a group of 11 patients with different forms of metabolic bone disease, cytokine release in conditioned medium was significantly associated with bone resorption and bone formation, as quantified by histomorphometry. TNF-alpha seemed to be the more important cytokine; its effect on bone resorption could be mediated by RANKL.