Evaluation of NACA and diNACA in human cystinosis fibroblast cell cultures as potential treatments for cystinosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystinosis is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disease, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Mutations in the CTNS gene disable a membrane protein responsible for the transport of cystine out of the lysosome. Loss of transporter function leads to intralysosomal cystine accumulation and long-term damage to various tissues and organs, including the kidneys, eyes, liver, muscles, pancreas, and brain. The only cystine-depletion therapy for treatment of cystinosis is cysteamine which requires frequent administration of high doses and often causes gastrointestinal pain as well as pungent sulfurous odor in patients. The current in vitro study evaluated antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA; NPI-001) and (2R,2R')-3,3'-disulfanediyl bis(2-acetamidopropanamide) (diNACA; NPI-002), as potential treatments for cystinosis. METHODS: Cytotoxicity of cysteamine, NACA and diNACA was evaluated in cultured human cystinotic fibroblasts (HCFs). HCFs were cultured in 96 well plates incubated for 0-72 h in the presence of 25, 50 or 75 µM each of either cysteamine, NACA or diNACA along with an untreated control. Media was removed and cell viability assessed. Next, cystine-depleting activities of cysteamine, NACA and diNACA were screened in HCFs cell culture utilizing an inexpensive, proven colorimetric assay. HCFs were seeded and allowed to reach approximately 80% confluence before the addition of the test articles: 50 µM of either cysteamine, NACA or diNACA in media along with an untreated control. HCFs were incubated, harvested, and cystine was reduced to cysteine, the concentration of which was then determined per quantity of protein compared to a cysteine standard. Statistically significant cystine depletion was determined by paired t-test versus untreated control (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Neither cysteamine, NACA nor diNACA at 25, 50 or 75 µM caused cytotoxicity in HCFs. Treatment with all tested concentrations (25, 50 or 75 µM) of either NACA or diNACA at 48 or 72 h resulted in statistically significant increases in cell viability, relative to untreated control, whereas the higher concentrations (50 or 75 µM) of cysteamine achieved statistical significance at both timepoints but not the lowest concentration (25 µM). All test articles depleted cystine from HCFs compared to control. NACA depletion of cystine was statistically superior to cysteamine at 6, 24 and 48 h and numerically greater at 72 h. DiNACA depletion of cystine was statistically superior to cysteamine at 6 and 48 h, slightly numerically greater at 24 h and slightly less at 72 h. CONCLUSIONS: NACA and diNACA were non cytotoxic to HCFs and significantly increased cell viability. Cystine reduction was determined as percent of control after incubation with 50 µM of NACA, diNACA or cysteamine in HCFs cell culture for 6, 24, 48 and 72 h. Of the three test articles, NACA exhibited most rapid and greatest potency in cystine reduction. Rank order potency for cystine reduction over time was observed, NACA > diNACA ≥ cysteamine. Therefore, further study of NACA and diNACA as potential treatments for cystinosis is warranted.

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR. METHODS: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters. RESULTS: A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.

A cost threshold analysis of ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone versus ofloxacin for acute otitis media in pediatric patients with tympanostomy tubes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness hreshold of a ciprofloxacin 0.3% and dexamethasone 0.1% (CD) otic suspension relative to olfloxacin otic solution (OFX) for the treatment of acute otitis media in pediatric patients with tympanostomy tubes (AOMT). METHODS: This study used a decision-analytic model to simulate the costs and consequences of the ototopical treatment of AOMT. The AOMT model consisted of 3 tiers of antimicrobial therapy. Each successive tier represented the repeat treatment of clinical failures from the preceding tier. Patients were modeled for treatment until cured or until third-tier therapy was complete, at which time patients were considered cured. First-tier therapy modeled a comparison of CD and OFX using efficacy rates taken from a randomized clinical trial with a population of 599 patients. Second-tier therapy modeled the use of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid using an efficacy rate taken from the medical literature. Third-tier therapy was modeled as being pathogen specific and could follow 1 of 3 possible clinical pathways: (1) PO fluconazole, (2) IM ceftriaxone, or (3) IV antibiotics administered in a hospital setting. Third-tier therapeutic pathway probabilities were based on the microbiologic spectrum of the treatment failures from the clinical trial. Cost information (in year-2003 US dollars) was taken from accepted cost reference sources and presented from the perspective of a third-party payer. The economic outcome of interest was the cost-effectiveness threshold of CD relative to OFX. RESULTS: Given the model parameters, CD had a cost-effectiveness threshold value of 4.5 times the wholesale acquisition cost of OFX. Based on actual cost, first-tier CD therapy was more cost-effective than OFX up to a threshold price of US 152.64 dollars. CONCLUSION: In this decision-analytic model, CD was more cost-effective than OFX for AOMT therapy in pediatric patients up to a threshold price of 4.5 times the price of OFX.