Clinical evaluation of the peak inspiratory flow generated by asthmatic children through the Novolizer.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess whether asthmatic children may generate sufficient peak inspiratory flow through the Novolizer, a novel multiple dose dry powder inhaler with acoustic and optical feedback mechanisms for correct inhalation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 137 children (median age 7 years, range 4-2) with mild to moderate persistent asthma (FEV1 < 90% predicted or pre-treated with low-dose steroids) participated in this open, multi-centre study. After assessment of FEV1 and peak inspiratory flow (without inhalator device, PIF), the children were instructed to inhale with the Novolizer (PIF through inhaler, PIF-N). All assessments were done in triplicate and the mean out of three attempts analysed. RESULTS: Mean PIF was 128 +/- 61 l/min and mean PIF-N was 69 +/- 18 l/min. This is distinctly above the rate necessary to overcome the Novolizer's trigger threshold. PIF performance through the Novolizer was linear in the age interval of 4-8 years, no further increase was observed beyond 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: The medium to low intrinsic resistance of the Novolizer permits a relatively high PIF through this device. Together with the feedback mechanisms, this makes the Novolizer particularly valuable for inhalation therapy in asthmatic children with drugs such as salbutamol, formoterol, or budesonide.

Efficacy of flupirtine on cognitive function in patients with CJD: A double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: In cell culture experiments, flupirtine maleate (FLU), a triaminopyridine compound, was able to protect neuronal cells from apoptotic cell death induced by prion protein fragments and beta-amyloid peptides. As FLU is a clinically safe drug, the authors started a double-blind placebo-controlled study in patients with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with CJD were randomized to an oral treatment with either FLU (n = 13) or matching placebo (PLA; n = 15). For inclusion and continuing the study, the patients had to achieve at least 50% in two of the subscales of the dementia tests employed. A battery of standardized questionnaires was employed to monitor the progression of the disease. The main outcome variable was the cognitive part of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog); the difference between baseline and the best score under treatment was defined as the primary efficacy variable for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: CJD types were homogeneously distributed among the treatment groups. Patients treated with FLU showed significantly less deterioration in the dementia tests than patients treated with PLA. The mean change in ADAS-Cog (baseline to best) was +8.4 (+/-15.3) in the FLU group and +20.6 (+/-15.1) in the PLA group (p = 0.02, one-sided t-test). CONCLUSIONS: FLU has beneficial effects on cognitive function in patients with CJD. These positive results also may suggest a treatment potential of FLU in other neurodegenerative disorders. However, further studies are necessary.

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of topically administered azelastine, sodium cromoglycate and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhino-conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING: Azelastine (AZE) in a novel, eye drop, formulation, was compared with topically applied sodium cromoglycate (SCG) and placebo (PLA) in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis in a multicentre, parallel group study. RESEARCH DESIGN: 144 subjects ranging in age from 16 to 65 years participated. All had at least a 2-year history of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and were symptomatic at the time of inclusion. Medications were administered topically either twice daily (AZE/PLA) or four times daily (SCG) over a 2-week treatment period. Method and outcome measures: Azelastine and placebo were compared double-blind; the comparison versus SCG was carried out in an open manner. Itching, redness, flow of tears, eyelid swelling, foreign-body sensation, photophobia, soreness and discharge were scored on a 4-point severity scale. RESULTS: Results for the decrease of main conjunctivitis symptoms (itching, tearing and conjunctival redness) showed a marked effect for both active treatments on day 3 with a sustained improvement on days 7 and 14. A clear response to treatment (an improvement of sum scores for day 3 of >/=3 points compared to baseline) occurred in 85.4% of azelastine-treated patients, 83.0% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 56.3% of placebo patients. Response rates for both active treatments were statistically superior to those for placebo (azelastine p = 0.005; sodium cromoglycate p = 0.007). Global assessment of efficacy was at least 'satisfactory' for 90.0% of azelastine patients, 81.3% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 66.3% of placebo-treated patients. The most frequent adverse effects were transient application site reactions which tended to disappear with increasing duration of treatment, and, less frequently, taste perversion. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the therapeutic use of azelastine eye drops in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis can be recommended.

Topical azelastine in perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE: Azelastine is a selective H(1)-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of several other mediators of allergic inflammation. Together with demonstrated efficacy in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, azelastine indicated a therapeutic potential for perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC). The present study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops in patients with PAC compared to placebo. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multinational trial in 22 centres randomised 139 patients to twice-daily treatment for 6 weeks with masked 0.05% azelastine eye drops, matching masked placebo, or open-label levocabastine. Randomisation required a sum itching and conjunctival redness score of at least 3 (0-6 scale) after 1 week of placebo. The change in sum score was evaluated during treatment. RESULTS: Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness compared to placebo (p < 0.001) with global tolerability that was not substantially different from placebo. On day 7, the mean symptoms sum score improved with azelastine by 1.9 +/- 1.1 and with levocabastine by 1.5 +/- 1.2 compared to placebo (0.6 +/- 1.1) from baseline values of 3.7-3.8. The sum scores continued to improve up to day 42. Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Most frequent adverse events following azelastine were bitter taste and application site reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in PAC patients compared to placebo and was at least as effective as levocabastine. Rapid relief is consistent with H(1)-receptor antagonist action, while continued improvement up to 6 weeks may be consistent with mechanisms involving other mediators of allergic inflammation.

Comparison of azelastine eye drops with levocabastine eye drops in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

A randomised, multicentre parallel group study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of 0.05% azelastine eye drops (101 patients) in an open manner with 0.05% levocabastine eye drops (103 patients) and in a double-blind manner with placebo (103 patients) during a 14-day treatment period involving patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. The three main eye symptoms, scored on a four-point scale, were itching, lacrimation and conjunctival redness; the primary efficacy variable was the responder rate on day 3. Responders were patients whose sum score of the three main eye symptoms decreased by at least three points from a baseline score of at least six points. In addition to these main symptoms, five other symptoms were recorded on days 0, 3, 7 and 14, and patients kept daily diaries of the three main eye symptoms and swollen eyelids. The responder rate after 3 days of treatment was 69% in patients treated with azelastine, 59% in patients treated with levocabastine and 51% in the placebo group. Only the difference in responder rates between azelastine and placebo eye drops was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The improvements in other ocular symptoms and entries in the patients' diaries closely reflected the changes reported by the investigators. No serious adverse events occurred throughout the study. Nine patients (three in the azelastine, five in the levocabastine and one in the placebo group) terminated the study prematurely due to poor tolerability. Adverse drug reactions, mainly a mild, transient irritation and a bitter or unpleasant taste, were reported in 37% of patients receiving azelastine eye drops, 31% of patients receiving levocabastine and 9% of placebo patients. Overall tolerability was assessed as very good or good in 86% of azelastine- and levocabastine-treated patients, and in 95% of the patients receiving placebo. The results of this study indicate that azelastine possesses a tolerability profile at least comparable to that of levocabastine eye drops, but additionally appears to have a slightly quicker onset of effect, and confirm the therapeutic potential of azelastine eye drops in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.