Pathways activated during human asthma exacerbation as revealed by gene expression patterns in blood.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations remain a major unmet clinical need. The difficulty in obtaining airway tissue and bronchoalveolar lavage samples during exacerbations has greatly hampered study of naturally occurring exacerbations. This study was conducted to determine if mRNA profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) could provide information on the systemic molecular pathways involved during asthma exacerbations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over the course of one year, gene expression levels during stable asthma, exacerbation, and two weeks after an exacerbation were compared using oligonucleotide arrays. For each of 118 subjects who experienced at least one asthma exacerbation, the gene expression patterns in a sample of peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected during an exacerbation episode were compared to patterns observed in multiple samples from the same subject collected during quiescent asthma. Analysis of covariance identified genes whose levels of expression changed during exacerbations and returned to quiescent levels by two weeks. Heterogeneity among visits in expression profiles was examined using K-means clustering. Three distinct exacerbation-associated gene expression signatures were identified. One signature indicated that, even among patients without symptoms of respiratory infection, genes of innate immunity were activated. Antigen-independent T cell activation mediated by IL15 was also indicated by this signature. A second signature revealed strong evidence of lymphocyte activation through antigen receptors and subsequent downstream events of adaptive immunity. The number of genes identified in the third signature was too few to draw conclusions on the mechanisms driving those exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study has shown that analysis of PBMCs reveals systemic changes accompanying asthma exacerbation and has laid the foundation for future comparative studies using PBMCs.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR. METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment. RESULTS: Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF. CONCLUSION: In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.