Omalizumab in severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with standard therapy: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended in patients with asthma that is not well-controlled; however, many patients continue to have inadequately controlled asthma despite this therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with inadequately controlled severe asthma who are receiving high-dose ICS and LABAs, with or without additional controller therapy. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00314575). SETTING: 193 investigational sites in the United States and 4 sites in Canada. PATIENTS: 850 patients aged 12 to 75 years who had inadequately controlled asthma despite treatment with high-dose ICS plus LABAs, with or without other controllers. INTERVENTION: Omalizumab (n = 427) or placebo (n = 423) was added to existing medication regimens for 48 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the rate of protocol-defined exacerbations over the study period. Secondary efficacy end points included the change from baseline to week 48 in mean daily number of puffs of albuterol, mean total asthma symptom score, and mean overall score on the standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]). Safety end points included the frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: During 48 weeks, the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations was significantly reduced for omalizumab compared with placebo (0.66 vs. 0.88 per patient; P = 0.006), representing a 25% relative reduction (incidence rate ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Omalizumab improved mean AQLQ(S) scores (0.29 point [CI, 0.15 to 0.43]), reduced mean daily albuterol puffs (-0.27 puff/d [CI, -0.49 to -0.04 puff/d]), and decreased mean asthma symptom score (-0.26 [CI, -0.42 to -0.10]) compared with placebo during the 48-week study period. The incidence of adverse events (80.4% vs. 79.5%) and serious adverse events (9.3% vs. 10.5%) were similar in the omalizumab and placebo groups, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The results are limited by early patient discontinuation (20.8%). The study was not powered to detect rare safety events or the treatment effect in the oral corticosteroid subgroup. CONCLUSION: In this study, omalizumab provided additional clinical benefit for patients with severe allergic asthma that is inadequately controlled with high-dose ICS and LABA therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Genentech and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

The health-related quality of life effects of once-daily cetirizine HCl syrup in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) can adversely impact children's physical, psychological, and social functioning and well-being, that is, their health-related quality of life (HRQL). This study assessed HRQL in children 6 to 11 years treated with cetirizine HCl syrup, while concurrently assessing symptomatic relief and safety. In an open-label, non-comparative study, 544 children from 124 centers in the United States were instructed to take cetirizine HCl syrup (10 cc of 1 mg/mL) each evening for 4 weeks. Children experienced statistically significant improvements in HRQL with significant reductions in mean symptom score (p < 0.001) during the treatment period. Results were consistent across age groups (6-7, 8-9, 10-11 years). These results suggest that the symptomatic relief and tolerability profile of cetirizine HC1 syrup daily translates into improvements in the HRQL of children with SAR. This 4-week open label study is among the first to evaluate the effect of antihistamine treatment on HRQL outcomes in children.

Allergic reactions to natural rubber latex at home, to rubber products, and to cross-reacting foods.

The prevalence of clinical sensitivity to natural rubber latex (NRL) has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. In the health care setting this has been associated with the increased use of latex gloves. It does not, however, explain the observation that IgE antibodies to NRL are detected in equal rates in both health care workers and the general population, with the numerous reactions occurring in homes and in health care settings in non-health care workers. This increase in NRL sensitivity has occurred at the same time as our observation of an increase in atopy. In addition, atopy is a definite risk factor that has been associated with NRL sensitivity in all studies. Exposure to NRL products outside the health care environment is significant and ubiquitous. Exposure to NRL epitopes also occurs by ingestion of foods, food additives, and pollen. This exposure is sufficient to induce IgE antibodies to both the food and NRL proteins. It is therefore difficult in an individual patient to implicate any single product as the cause of NRL sensitization leading to the development of symptoms. Outside of the health care environment there does not appear to be an increase in exposure to NRL products or to cross-reacting materials. This would suggest that there is an increase in the susceptible population, which clearly appears to be the atopic individual. A great deal of attention is devoted to reducing exposure to latex gloves in the health care setting, which may be only the visible portion of the iceberg. More attention should be devoted to reducing the antigens present in all NRL products and consideration given to developing vaccines for the food-sensitive individuals.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of cevimeline in Sjögren's syndrome patients with xerostomia and keratoconjunctivitis sicca.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 dosages of cevimeline for the treatment of xerostomia and keratoconjunctivitis sicca in patients with Sjögren's syndrome. METHODS: A 12-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo, 15 mg of cevimeline 3 times daily, or 30 mg of cevimeline 3 times daily. Patients were evaluated at baseline and throughout the study for their global assessment of dryness (mouth, eyes, overall) as well as their subjective assessment of the specific symptoms of dry mouth and dry eyes. Total saliva and tear flow also were measured. RESULTS: Patients taking 30 mg of cevimeline 3 times daily had statistically significant improvements in their subjective global assessment of dry eyes (P = 0.0453), dry mouth (P = 0.0004), and increased salivary flow (P = 0.007). Patients receiving the 30-mg dosage also showed greater objective improvement (increased salivary and lacrimal flow rates, as measured by Schirmer's test) than did patients receiving placebo. Frequently reported adverse events included headache, increased sweating, abdominal pain, and nausea. CONCLUSION: Treatment with cevimeline at a dosage of 30 mg 3 times daily resulted in substantive improvement by increasing the rate of saliva and tear flow in patients with Sjögren's syndrome, as well as improving subjective symptoms of dry mouth, dry eyes, and overall dryness. The 15-mg dosage relieved some symptoms, and both dosages were well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol HFA 134A MDI in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) (44 microg)/salmeterol (21 microg) delivered as two inhalations twice daily via a single hydrofluoroalkane (HFA 134a) metered dose inhaler (MDI) (FSC) with that of placebo HFA 134a (PLA), fluticasone propionate 44 microg chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) alone and salmeterol 21 microg CFC alone (S) in patients (n=360) with persistent asthma previously treated with beta2-agonists (short- or long-acting) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). After 12 weeks of treatment, patients treated with FSC had a significantly greater increase (p < or = 0.006) in mean FEV1 AUC(bl) compared with PLA, FP, or S. At end point, mean change from baseline in morning predose FEV1 for FSC (0.58 L) was significantly (p < or = 0.004) greater than PLA (0.14 L), FP (0.36 L), and S (0.25 L). Patients treated with FSC also had a significantly higher probability of remaining in the study without being withdrawn due to worsening asthma (2%) compared with those in the PLA (29%) and S (25%) groups (p < 0.001). Finally, treatment with FSC resulted in significantly (p < or = 0.007) greater improvements in morning and evening peak expiratory flow, need for rescue albuterol, and asthma symptom scores compared with FP, S, and PLA. The safety profile of FSC was also similar to FP or S alone. Initial maintenance treatment of the two main components of asthma, inflammation, and smooth muscle dysfunction (e.g., bronchoconstriction), with FSC results in greater overall improvements in asthma control compared with treatment of either individual component alone.