Reacción ictiosiforme en relación con ponatinib / Ichthyosiform Reaction Related to Ponatinib Therapy

No disponible

A Pilot Study of the Effect of an Educational Web Application on Asthma Control and Medication Adherence.

BACKGROUND: An Asthma Adherence Pathway (AAP) application, which is an Internet application that combines patient and clinician education strategies to promote adherence to asthma therapy, has been developed. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the AAP application with electronic adherence monitors on asthma control. Secondary objectives evaluated the effect of AAP and monitors on medication adherence, asthma symptoms, quality of life, psychosocial factors, and barriers to treatment. METHODS: Adult patients with asthma were randomly assigned either to intervention (n = 19) or control (n = 20) groups in this 3-month prospective study, and they completed the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). Intervention patients completed the AAP software and were given barrier-specific motivational interviewing adherence strategies and a SmartTrack device to monitor mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) use. Clinicians in the interventional group received adherence management training. Interventional patients were given feedback regarding adherence findings at each visit. Treatment adherence was determined by the mean of 4 measures of doses taken over 3 months. Control patients were not monitored for MF/F adherence. RESULTS: The mean MF/F adherence in the intervention group was 81%. The intervention and control groups did not differ on the mean baseline ACQ. Thirteen intervention patients achieved the minimal important difference (defined as an improvement ≥0.5 units on the ACQ) compared with 6 control patients (P = .016). The intervention group showed greater improvement in the ACQ (0.75) than the control group (0.19) representing a moderate-to-large effect size of d = 0.638. CONCLUSIONS: The AAP was effective in promoting adherence and helped to improve asthma control. These findings provide preliminary validation of the AAP model.

Serious asthma events with mometasone furoate plus formoterol compared with mometasone furoate.

BACKGROUND: The safety of long-acting ß-agonists added to inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of persistent asthma has been controversial. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether administering formoterol in combination with mometasone furoate increases the risk of serious asthma outcomes (SAOs) compared with mometasone furoate alone. This clinical trial is registered as NCT01471340. METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind trial in adolescent and adult patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma in 35 countries with the primary objective of evaluating whether mometasone furoate-formoterol increases the risk of SAOs (adjudicated hospitalization, intubation, or death) compared with mometasone furoate alone. The key efficacy end point was asthma exacerbation (composite of hospitalization of ≥24 hours, emergency department visits of <24 hours requiring systemic corticosteroids, or use of systemic corticosteroids for ≥3 consecutive days). RESULTS: Among 11,729 patients (mometasone furoate-formoterol, n = 5,868; mometasone furoate, n = 5,861), a total of 81 SAOs, all asthma-related hospitalizations, were observed in 71 patients: 45 events from 39 patients receiving mometasone furoate-formoterol and 36 events from 32 patients receiving mometasone furoate. The hazard ratio for the first SAO in the mometasone furoate-formoterol versus mometasone furoate group was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.76-1.94; P = .411). Asthma exacerbation occurred in 1,487 patients: 708 receiving mometasone furoate-formoterol and 779 receiving mometasone furoate. The hazard ratio for the first asthma exacerbation in the mometasone furoate-formoterol versus mometasone furoate group was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of formoterol to mometasone furoate maintenance therapy did not increase the risk of serious asthma-related events and reduced the risk of asthma exacerbation.

Dupilumab efficacy and safety in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma despite use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting ß2 agonist: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled pivotal phase 2b dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, inhibits interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signalling, key drivers of type-2-mediated inflammation. Adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma who are receiving medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting ß2 agonist require additional treatment options as add-on therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma on medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting ß2 agonist, irrespective of baseline eosinophil count. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, pivotal phase 2b clinical trial at 174 study sites across 16 countries or regions. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with an asthma diagnosis for 12 months or more based on the Global Initiative for Asthma 2009 Guidelines receiving treatment with medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting ß2 agonist were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 200 mg or 300 mg every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, or placebo, over a 24-week period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at week 12 in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 in L) in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 eosinophils per µL assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients that received at least one dose or part of a dose of study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01854047, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2013-000856-16. FINDINGS: 769 patients (158 in the placebo group and 611 in the dupilumab groups) received at least one dose of study drug. In the subgroup with at least 300 eosinophils per µL, the greatest increases (200 mg every 2 weeks, p=0·0008; 300 mg every 2 weeks, p=0·0063) in FEV1 compared with placebo were observed at week 12 with doses every 2 weeks in the 300 mg group (mean change 0·39 L [SE 0·05]; mean difference 0·21 [95% CI 0·06-0·36; p=0·0063]) and in the 200 mg group (mean change 0·43 L [SE 0·05]; mean difference 0·26 [0·11-0·40; p=0·0008]) compared with placebo (0·18 L [SE 0·05]). Similar significant increases were observed in the overall population and in the fewer than 300 eosinophils per µL subgroup (overall population: 200 mg every 2 weeks, p<0·0001; 300 mg every 2 weeks, p<0·0001; <300 eosinophils per µL: 200 mg every 2 weeks, p=0·0034; 300 mg every 2 weeks, p=0·0086), and were maintained to week 24. Likewise, dupilumab every 2 weeks produced the greatest reductions in annualised rates of exacerbation in the overall population (70-70·5%), the subgroup with at least 300 eosinophils per µL (71·2-80·7%), and the subgroup with fewer than 300 eosinophils per µL (59·9-67·6%). The most common adverse events with dupilumab compared with placebo were upper respiratory tract infections (33-41% vs 35%) and injection-site reactions (13-26% vs 13%). INTERPRETATION: Dupilumab increased lung function and reduced severe exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma irrespective of baseline eosinophil count and had a favourable safety profile, and hence in addition to inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonist therapy could improve the lives of patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma compared with standard therapy alone. FUNDING: Sanofi-Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Evaluation of a Therapeutic Interchange from Fluticasone/Salmeterol to Mometasone/Formoterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Combination treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist is among the many treatment options for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. While mometasone/formoterol does not currently have an FDA-approved indication for COPD, evidence from 2 phase 3 trials demonstrated that mometasone/formoterol can improve lung function and was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Based on these data, a therapeutic interchange was implemented in the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States region to convert patients with a COPD diagnosis from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a therapeutic interchange from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol on health outcomes in patients with COPD in a large ambulatory and managed care setting. METHODS: The investigators retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients with a COPD diagnosis who had a prescription for fluticasone/salmeterol converted to mometasone/formoterol between March 6, 2011, to March 6, 2013. Kaiser Permanente's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee provided recommended equivalent doses for conversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. Nonetheless, the final approval for the change in medication and selection of the dose was left to each physician's clinical judgment. Patients were excluded if they were (a) prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 100/50 mcg, which has no equivalent mometasone/formoterol dose; (b) less than aged 18 years; or (c) prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol for a duration of less than 6 months preconversion to mometasone/formoterol. In addition, patients who left the Kaiser Permanente network or became deceased during the study period of interest were excluded. After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 521 patients were included in the data analysis. The primary endpoint was the determination of the difference in the occurrence of COPD exacerbations 6 months pre- and postconversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. COPD exacerbations were defined by the diagnosis or documentation of a COPD exacerbation during any hospitalizations, urgent care (UC)/emergency department (ED) visits, or clinic encounters. Secondary outcomes included the determination of the difference in the occurrence of intensive care unit admissions, hospitalizations, UC/ED visits, and clinic encounters for COPD exacerbations 6 months pre- and postconversion; number of patients who required modification in therapy; and any reasons for mometasone/for-moterol discontinuation postconversion. Patients served as their own controls to compare any differences in outcomes while taking mometasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS: Within our patient population, 34.2% (n = 178) of patients experienced at least 1 COPD exacerbation while prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol compared with 28.6% (n = 149) of patients while prescribed mometasone/formoterol (P = 0.030). Mometasone/formoterol therapy did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes (P < 0.050). A later subgroup analysis of the primary outcome revealed that factors associated with a statistically significant decrease in the occurrence of COPD exacerbations were male sex (P = 0.023), comorbid asthma (P = 0.026), and conversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to a more potent dose of mometasone/formoterol (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of patients who experienced COPD exacerbations postconversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. This study is an example of a real-world therapeutic interchange that provides additional data to support the use of mometasone/formoterol for its unlabeled COPD indication. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no financial or other conflicts of interest related to the subject of this article. All authors contributed to study design and manuscript revision. Yip collected and analyzed data and prepared the manuscript.

Evaluation of potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate after oral inhalation from a fixed-dose combination metered-dose inhaler device.

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) in a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) is approved for asthma and is being developed for COPD. This randomized, open-label, 4-period crossover study compared single-dose pharmacokinetics of MF 800 µg; F 20 µg; MF 800 µg + F 20 µg coadministered (MF + F); and MF 800 µg/F 20 µg (MF/F) FDC in healthy subjects. MF, F, and MF + F were administered from single-ingredient MDI devices. MF and formoterol plasma samples were obtained predose and up to 48 hours post dose for estimation of AUC0-tf (primary endpoint) and Cmax . Treatments were deemed comparable if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) fell within 70-143%. MF AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus MF (GMR 98%; 90% CI 85-113%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 95%; 90% CI 82-109%). Similarly, formoterol AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus F (GMR 98%; 90% CI 77-124%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 108%; 90% CI 85-136%). The 90% CIs for MF and formoterol Cmax fell within the prespecified comparability bounds for all comparisons. Systemic exposures to MF and formoterol were similar following treatment with the FDC MDI device versus individual or concomitant use of single-ingredient MDI devices.

An evaluation of the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate (MF) after oral inhalation from a MF/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler versus an MF dry-powder inhaler in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: This randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-period, crossover study compared the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate (MF) administered from a metered-dose inhaler containing MF and formoterol fumarate (F) (MF/F-MDI) versus MF administered from a single-ingredient dry-powder inhaler (MF-DPI). METHODS: Healthy, non-smoking adults, 18-65 years with body mass index 18-29 kg/m(2) (N = 12) received MF 800 µg/F 20 µg via MF/F-MDI or MF 800 µg via MF-DPI twice daily for 5 days separated by a 7-day period. MF pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-12 hour) , Cmax , and Tmax ) were measured at Day 1 and 5 after each treatment. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Systemic exposure to MF based on AUC(0-12 hour) was ∼25% lower following MDI versus DPI administration. The Day 5 geometric mean ratio (MDI/DPI) estimates (90% confidence intervals [CI]) for AUC(0-12 hour) and Cmax were 0.747 (0.61, 0.91) and 0.606 (0.49, 0.75), respectively. The accumulation index (R) value for MF was higher following MDI (3.81-fold) versus DPI administration (2.34-fold) indicative of prolonged absorption. The most common adverse events were tremor, headache, and catheter site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic exposure to MF was lower following multiple-dose MF/F-MDI administration versus MF-DPI administration. The magnitude of this difference is not considered to be clinically important. MF/F-MDI was safe and generally well tolerated.

Patient satisfaction with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler with an integrated dose counter containing a fixed-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol combination.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled delivery devices that are easy to use and facilitate dose tracking may lead to improved patient satisfaction and adherence. Patient satisfaction with a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with an integrated dose counter containing a fixed-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol combination (MF/F MDI dose counter) was evaluated in subjects with persistent asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: In this multicenter study (N = 272, age range: 12-92 years), subject experience and satisfaction with MDI devices was evaluated using baseline and poststudy surveys. Subjects responded to the baseline survey based on their previous MDI experience, then received MF/F MDI 100/10 µg with the integrated dose counter for 4 weeks before completing the poststudy survey. This evaluation was part of a broader study objective to assess performance of the MF/F MDI dose counter. RESULTS: At baseline, 52% of subjects reported being extremely satisfied with their previous MDI. After using the MF/F MDI dose counter, a relative increase of 43% in overall satisfaction was observed. Approximately 90% of subjects agreed the MF/F dose counter helped them track doses and was easy to use; >80% agreed the inhaler was of good quality and well designed. Subjects agreed the dose counter relieved anxiety about running out of medication (68%) or taking a subtherapeutic dose (65%). Nearly 80% of subjects had no reservations about the MF/F MDI dose counter, and most subjects stated they would request it from their physician (66%) and recommend it to a friend (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The MF/F MDI dose counter was found to be easy to use and have overall high patient satisfaction.