Conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13. It is approved in the U.S.A. for patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) uncontrolled by topical prescription medicines or who cannot use topical medicines, for patients in Japan whose AD is uncontrolled with existing therapies, for patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Europe who are candidates for systemic therapy and for patients aged ≥ 12 years for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma uncontrolled with their current medicines. AD trials have reported increased incidence of conjunctivitis for dupilumab vs. placebo. OBJECTIVES: To characterize further the occurrence and risk factors of conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated randomized placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in AD (n = 2629), asthma (n = 2876), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) (n = 60) and eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) (n = 47). RESULTS: In most AD trials, dupilumab-treated patients had higher conjunctivitis incidence than placebo controls. Higher baseline AD severity and previous history of conjunctivitis were associated with increased conjunctivitis incidence. Conjunctivitis was mostly mild to moderate. Most cases recovered or resolved during the treatment period; two patients permanently discontinued dupilumab due to conjunctivitis or keratitis. Common treatments included ophthalmic corticosteroids, antibiotics, and antihistamines or mast cell stabilizers. Most cases were diagnosed by the investigators. In asthma and CRSwNP trials, the incidence of conjunctivitis was lower for both dupilumab and placebo than in AD trials; dupilumab did not increase the incidence compared with placebo. In the EoE trial, no patients had conjunctivitis. CONCLUSIONS: Conjunctivitis was more frequent with dupilumab treatment in most AD trials. In dupilumab trials in other type 2 diseases, incidence of conjunctivitis was overall very low, and was similar for dupilumab and placebo. In AD, the incidence of conjunctivitis was associated with AD severity and prior history of conjunctivitis. The aetiology and treatment of conjunctivitis in dupilumab-treated patients require further study. What's already known about this topic? Ocular disorders, including allergic conjunctivitis, are common in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). In most dupilumab AD trials, dupilumab-treated patients had higher conjunctivitis incidence than those receiving placebo. Most cases were mild to moderate and recovered or were recovering during study treatment; study treatment discontinuation due to conjunctivitis was rare. Conjunctivitis incidence was very low and similar for dupilumab and placebo in clinical trials in asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and eosinophilic oesophagitis. What does this study add? This analysis confirms and extends the results of the individual clinical trials. Baseline disease-related factors, including AD severity, prior conjunctivitis history and certain biomarkers (thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, IgE, eosinophils), were associated with increased incidence of conjunctivitis. Patients who responded well to dupilumab had reduced incidence of conjunctivitis. Further study is needed to elucidate the aetiology and treatment of conjunctivitis in dupilumab-treated patients with AD.

Safety and tolerability of omalizumab.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab (Xolair) is a recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody with proven efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe and severe persistent allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma. OBJECTIVE: To review clinical study data to assess the safety profile of omalizumab. METHODS: We analysed the safety of omalizumab using data from completed clinical studies (up to 1 year) involving more than 7500 patients with asthma, rhinitis or related conditions and up to 4 years in one study of patients with severe allergic asthma, as well as post-marketing safety data. Analysis focuses on the risk of immune-system effects, hypersensitivity reactions, malignant neoplasia, parasitic infections and thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: Omalizumab exhibited a good safety and tolerability profile that was maintained up to 4 years in one study. The incidence of anaphylaxis was 0.14% in omalizumab-treated patients and 0.07% in control patients. No omalizumab-treated patient developed measurable anti-omalizumab antibodies. Post-marketing, based on estimated exposure of 57,300 patients (June 2003-December 2006), the frequency of anaphylaxis attributed to omalizumab use was estimated to be at least 0.2% of patients. Current clinical trial data do not support an increased risk of malignant neoplasia or thrombocytopenia with omalizumab. CONCLUSION: Data indicate that the proven efficacy of add-on omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe or severe allergic asthma is accompanied by a favourable safety and tolerability profile.

Optimum treatment of rhinitis in the elderly.

With aging, multiple physiological changes occur in the connective tissue and vasculature of the nose which may predispose or contribute to chronic rhinitis. Accurate differentiation of allergic from nonallergic causes of rhinitis requires skin testing or in vitro measures of specific IgE. Empiric treatment with over-the-counter first generation antihistamines and oral decongestants frequently results in CNS, anticholinergic and cardiovascular adverse effects. While newer second generation histamine antagonists do not cause these problems, selected drugs in this class may cause electrocardiographic QT prolongation and, in rare cases, ventricular arrhythmias. Topical therapies including sodium cromoglycate (cromolyn sodium), corticosteroids and ipratropium bromide are all well-tolerated with minimal adverse effects. Avoidance of allergens and/or irritants is an important adjunct in treating patients with allergic and vasomotor rhinitis. If all other therapies fail in patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis, immunotherapy can be safely instituted in most older patients.

Vocal cord dysfunction mimicking bronchial asthma.

Vocal cord dysfunction is a possible cause of wheezing and dyspnea in patients who do not respond to conventional asthma therapy. A carefully taken history, pulmonary function testing, and, most important, direct visualization with a flexible laryngoscope during an acute attack allow physicians to differentiate vocal cord dysfunction from asthma. Speech therapy, inhalation of helium and oxygen, and psychiatric counseling play a role in management.

Anaphylaxis. A preventable emergency.

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening reaction that may be caused by a variety of agents. Diagnosis depends on the presence of a constellation of symptoms (eg, laryngeal edema, bronchospasm, hypotension, urticaria). The goal of therapy is maintenance of an effective airway, respiratory function, and circulation. Subcutaneous epinephrine, H1 and H2 antihistamines, and a prolonged period of observation (at least 8 hours) should be used in all patients. After the acute attack has been managed, a thorough investigation of possible causes should be made and the patient referred to a specialist, if indicated. Desensitization therapy, premedication before high-risk exposures, and careful avoidance of known causative agents are effective preventive measures. Direction in self-administration of epinephrine is critical in these patients and may prove lifesaving.

Allergic rhinitis and asthma: how important is the link?

Dysfunction of the upper and lower airways frequently coexist, and they appear to share key elements of pathogenesis. Data from epidemiologic studies indicate that nasal symptoms are experienced by as many as 78% of patients with asthma and that asthma is experienced by as many as 38% of patients with allergic rhinitis. Studies also have identified a temporal relation between the onset of rhinitis and asthma, with rhinitis frequently preceding the development of asthma. Patients with allergic rhinitis and no clinical evidence of asthma commonly exhibit nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The observation that management of allergic rhinitis also relieves symptoms of asthma has heightened interest in the link between these diseases. Intranasal corticosteroids can prevent increases in nonspecific bronchial reactivity and asthma symptoms associated with seasonal pollen exposure. Similarly, among patients with perennial rhinitis, daily asthma symptoms, exercise-induced bronchospasm, and bronchial responsiveness to methacholine are reduced after administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Antihistamines, with or without decongestants, reduce seasonal rhinitis symptoms, asthma symptoms, and objective measurements of pulmonary function among patients with rhinitis and asthma. The mechanisms that connect upper and lower airway dysfunction are under investigation. They include a nasal-bronchial reflex, mouth breathing caused by nasal obstruction, and pulmonary aspiration of nasal contents. Nasal allergen challenge results in increases in lower airway reactivity within 30 minutes, suggesting a neural reflex. Improvements in asthma associated with increased nasal breathing may be the result of superior humidification, warming of inspired air, and decreased inhalation of airborne allergens. Postnasal drainage of inflammatory cells during sleep also may affect lower airway responsiveness. A link between allergic rhinitis and asthma is evident from epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, and clinical studies. Future research, however, is needed to determine whether nasal therapy can alter the natural history of asthma.

Allergic rhinitis: treating the adult.

Allergic rhinitis is now recognized as a chronic medical condition that markedly affects patient quality of life and is a cause of substantial medical care expenditures. Effective treatment of adults with allergic rhinitis usually requires an integrated regimen that combines allergen avoidance measures, pharmacotherapy, and possible specific-allergen immunotherapy. This approach can control bothersome symptoms with minimal adverse effects in most patients. New medications, such as anti-immunoglobulin E therapy and cytokine antagonists, may provide relief to patients who are refractory to or do not tolerate currently available treatments.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: how do different agents compare?

Intranasal steroids have proved to be an effective and safe form of therapy for allergic rhinitis. However, as the number of new glucocorticoid compounds has increased over the past decade, it has become important to consider whether significant differences exist between these agents. Pharmacologically, newer drugs such as mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate appear to have substantially higher topical potencies and lipid solubilities and lower systemic bioavailabilities than do older compounds. In clinical use, however, all the available drugs appear to be equally effective in controlling symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. With respect to adverse effects, emerging data suggest that mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate may have less potential for systemic effects during prolonged use, particularly in children. Newer intranasal steroids appear to have practical advantages over older agents that may favor their use in some groups of patients with allergic rhinitis.

The relationship between allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma.

Allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma frequently coexist in the same patients. Many patients with rhinitis alone demonstrate nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and prospective studies suggest that nasal allergy may be a predisposing risk factor for developing asthma. A growing body of literature has documented that the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis may result in improvement of asthma symptoms, airway caliber, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine and exercise. Finally, mechanistic studies of airway physiology have demonstrated that nasal disease may influence pulmonary function via both direct and indirect mechanisms. Nasal disease should be considered as a possible concomitant illness in all patients with asthma and treated appropriately when identified.

Treating asthma in the new millennium.

As the pathophysiologic process of asthma has become better defined, new molecular targets for treating asthma have emerged. Resident airway cells, circulating leukocytes, and various cell-derived mediators and cytokines contribute to the inflammatory events of asthma. New therapeutic approaches to moderate to severe asthma currently in clinical development include antibodies to IgE and interleukin-5, a soluble receptor that would sequester interleukin-4, cytokine and chemokine receptor antagonists, and phosphodiesterase type 4 inhibitors. Adhesion molecules, which are involved in the migration of inflammatory cells into lung tissue, are also important targets for new antiasthma therapies. Because of researchers' focus on specific pathologic processes and molecular targets, the adverse effects of new agents may be minimized. Also, the longer duration of action of some of the new agents allows weekly to monthly dosing, which may well enhance patient compliance.

Changes in bronchial responsiveness following nasal provocation with allergen.

The relationship between upper airway inflammation and asthma is controversial. In the current study, we sought to investigate the relationship between allergic rhinitis and lower airway dysfunction by performing double-blind, randomized nasal challenges with allergen or placebo. Subjects were selected for a prior history of asthma exacerbations after the onset of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms. After the induction of a marked nasal-allergic reaction (with a technique of nasal provocation that limited allergen delivery to the nose), there were no changes in FEV1, specific conductance, or lung volumes either 30 minutes or 4 1/2 hours after nasal allergen challenge, nor any changes in peak flow rates followed hourly until the next day. However, nasal provocation with allergen resulted in a relative increase in bronchial responsiveness to methacholine compared with that to placebo (p = 0.011 at 30 minutes and p = 0.0009 at 4 1/2 hours after challenge). Our study suggests that, although a nasal-allergic response does not induce airflow limitation of the lower airways, it can alter bronchial responsiveness.

Comparison of once-daily mometasone furoate versus once-daily budesonide in patients with moderate persistent asthma.

We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily mometasone furoate (MF) administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI) with once-daily budesonide (BUD)-DPI and placebo in patients with moderate persistent asthma previously using twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids. A total of 262 patients (> or = 12 years of age) with moderate persistent asthma were randomised to once-daily morning treatment with MF-DPI 440 microg (metered dose), BUD-DPI 400 microg (metered dose), or placebo in an eight-week, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. The primary efficacy variable was percent change in FEV1 from baseline to endpoint (last evaluable visit). At endpoint, the percent change in FEV1 was significantly greater (p < 0.01) following treatment with MF-DPI 440 microg (8.9%) than with both BUD-DPI 400 microg (2.1%) and placebo (-3.9%). Secondary efficacy variables, including morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates, albuterol use, percentage of asthma symptom-free days, and physician-evaluated response to therapy were also significantly improved at endpoint in the MF-DPI group compared with both the placebo and BUD-DPI groups (p < 0.05). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, once-daily treatment in the morning with MF-DPI 440 microg significantly improved pulmonary function and asthma control compared with morning administration of BUD-DPI 400 microg and placebo.

Nasal beclomethasone prevents the seasonal increase in bronchial responsiveness in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Experimental studies have demonstrated that induction of a nasal allergic reaction can lead to an increase in bronchial responsiveness (BR). To assess the clinical relevance of these experimental changes to chronic asthma, we sought to determine the effect of nasal beclomethasone dipropionate (Bdp) on BR in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma. Eighteen subjects with histories of seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma during the fall pollen season with positive skin tests to short ragweed and bronchial hyperresponsiveness to inhaled methacholine were assigned to receive either nasal Bdp (336 micrograms/day) or placebo for the entire ragweed season. Patients recorded daily nasal and chest symptoms, nasal blockage index, oral peak expiratory flow rates, and supplemental medication use. BR to methacholine was measured during the baseline period and 6 weeks into the ragweed season. Although the Bdp group did have a significant improvement in nasal blockage index, there was no improvement in daily asthma symptom scores, oral peak expiratory flow, or asthma medication use. However, subjects treated with Bdp were protected from the increase in BR seen in the placebo group (geometric mean PC20 placebo group: baseline = 0.70, week 6 = 0.29; Bdp group: baseline = 0.80, week 6 = 0.93; intergroup difference, p = 0.022). We conclude that nasal corticosteroid therapy can prevent the increase in BR associated with seasonal pollen exposure in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Effects of zafirlukast upon clinical, physiologic, and inflammatory responses to natural cat allergen exposure.

BACKGROUND: Leukotriene receptor antagonists have been shown to attenuate physiologic changes in the upper and lower airways induced by allergen challenge. However, it is unknown whether these drugs modulate airway inflammation after exposure to allergen in a natural setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of the oral leukotriene receptor antagonist zafirlukast upon symptoms, changes in pulmonary function, and indices of inflammation in the upper and lower airways induced by natural exposure to cats. METHODS: Zafirlukast, 20 mg twice daily, or placebo was administered to 18 cat-allergic asthmatic patients in this randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Cat room challenges were performed after a 1-week period of each treatment. Upper and lower airway symptoms were measured and spirometry performed before and at regular intervals during each challenge. Nasal lavage and sputum induction were performed 24 hours before and after each challenge. RESULTS: Zafirlukast significantly improved the prechallenge baseline FEV1 (P = 0.001) and attenuated the decrease in FEV1 induced by cat challenge (P = 0.019). Zafirlukast also significantly reduced lower airway symptoms associated with cat challenge (P = 0.005) but had no effects on nasal symptoms. Although zafirlukast did not significantly differ from placebo in its effects on sputum inflammatory cells or eosinophil cationic protein, it significantly reduced the absolute counts of total white cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and basophils in nasal lavage fluid. CONCLUSIONS: Zafirlukast, 20 mg twice daily for 1 week, demonstrated a significant protective effect on symptoms of asthma and alterations in pulmonary function induced by natural cat exposure, whereas nasal symptoms and markers of sputum inflammation were not affected by the medication.

Ureaplasma urealyticum chronic osteomyelitis in a patient with hypogammaglobulinemia.

Mycoplasma species are recognized as important pathogens in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia. In this article we describe, for the first time, a patient with hypogammaglobulinemia who developed osteomyelitis of the hip caused by Ureaplasma urealyticum. This article emphasizes the need for considering infection with Mycoplasma species in patients with antibody deficiency.

Onset and duration of action of levocabastine nasal spray in atopic patients under nasal challenge conditions.

BACKGROUND: Although prior studies have documented the rapid onset of action of topical intranasal levocabastine (LEV), little is known about its duration of action under nasal challenge conditions. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the onset and duration of action of escalating doses of LEV nasal spray by using a nasal allergen challenge (NAC) model. METHODS: Eighteen asymptomatic subjects with histories of seasonal allergic rhinitis were enrolled into a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging crossover study. Each patient was randomly assigned to receive single doses of placebo and intranasal LEV 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg during 2 parts of the study. In part 1 (onset of action), NAC consisted of a single dose of allergen administered 5 minutes after study drug treatment. In part 2 (duration of action), NAC consisted of increasing doses of allergen administered 0.5, 6, 12, and 24 hours on separate days after study drug treatment. Nasal symptom scores (NSSs) and nasal peak expiratory flow rates were measured after NAC in both phases of the study. Blood samples for plasma LEV concentrations were drawn after each NAC. RESULTS: In part 1, NSSs were significantly lower after the administration of LEV 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg compared with placebo (P <.05). In part 2, NSSs were significantly lower after LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg compared with placebo at 0.5, 6, 12, and 24 hours after treatment (P <.05). The mean provocative dose of allergen required to elicit a positive nasal reaction was increased after LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg at 0.5, 6, and 12 hours after treatment. Nasal peak expiratory flow rates demonstrated no significant differences between LEV and placebo for any doses at any time points. Mean plasma LEV concentrations were low (range, 0 to 3. 7 ng/mL) after all doses and did not correlate with drug efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Single intranasal LEV doses of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg significantly reduced the severity of the immediate nasal response to allergen when administered 5 minutes before NAC. This protective effect against NAC continued to be present 24 hours after administration of LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg. Efficacy in blocking the reaction to NAC did not correlate with plasma LEV levels, suggesting that the inhibitory effect was due largely to topical rather than systemic effects.

Effective control of asthma with hydrofluoroalkane flunisolide delivered as an extrafine aerosol in asthma patients.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are established as maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. A new aerosol formulation of flunisolide delivers a small particle size by using a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant with a built-in spacer. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of two different flunisolide formulations, HFA and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), with placebo treatment over a range of doses. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial consisted of a 2-week, active run-in phase with CFC flunisolide 500 microg, twice daily, followed by 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo, HFA flunisolide (85, 170, or 340 microg, twice daily), or CFC flunisolide (250, 500, or 1,000 microg, twice daily). Patients (N = 669) were nonsmokers, at least 12 years of age, with mild to moderate asthma who were being treated with inhaled corticosteroids. Outcome measures were change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate, as needed albuterol use, nocturnal awakenings, and asthma symptoms. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, patients receiving 170 microg, twice daily, and 340 microg, twice daily, of HFA flunisolide showed a significant (P < 0.01) improvement in percentage increase in FEV1 (12.22% at 170 microg, twice daily, and 14.69% at 340 microg, twice daily) compared with the placebo group (5.35%). At one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide, HFA flunisolide provided similar improvement in pulmonary function versus placebo. Both formulations demonstrated comparable linear dose dependency for the change from baseline in FEV1 without any evidence of cortisol suppression. Outcome values for all seven secondary efficacy measures were numerically superior in patients receiving HFA flunisolide compared with the CFC formulation. Both formulations seemed to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: HFA flunisolide provides comparable efficacy and safety at one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide.

Comparison of the bronchodilatory effects of cetirizine, albuterol, and both together versus placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

BACKGROUND: Many potential users of the H1 antihistamine cetirizine are asthmatic and may be using inhaled albuterol. This study was conducted to assess the possible bronchodilatory effect of cetirizine in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and to determine whether cetirizine interacts with albuterol. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, the effects on pulmonary function of 5, 10, and 20 mg oral doses of cetirizine with and without inhaled albuterol (180 micrograms) were determined in 12 patients at 11 time points over 8 hours. The primary measure of efficacy was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS: Cetirizine with or without albuterol significantly increased FEV1, peak expiratory flow rate, and forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% of vital capacity relative to baseline and placebo but did not have a significant effect on forced vital capacity. The effect of 20 mg of cetirizine on FEV1 was generally greater than that of 10 or 5 mg, but the difference was statistically significant only at the 30-minute time point (p < 0.05). All three cetirizine doses produced significantly greater increases than placebo in FEV1 and forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% of vital capacity for 8 hours and in peak expiratory flow rate for 7 hours (p < 0.02). Albuterol alone had a significant effect on the four pulmonary function variables from 1 to 5 hours after baseline (p < 0.05), which is consistent with albuterol's recommended dosing frequency of every 4 to 6 hours. Albuterol alone increased FEV1 significantly more than 5 mg of cetirizine alone but not 10 mg or 20 mg of cetirizine alone at 60, 90, and 120 minutes after baseline, but all three doses of cetirizine increased FEV1 significantly more than albuterol 7 and 8 hours after baseline (p < 0.05), indicating that the bronchodilatory action of cetirizine lasts longer than that of albuterol. Cetirizine neither potentiated nor inhibited the bronchodilatory action of albuterol, but the two drugs appeared to have an additive bronchodilatory effect. None of the cetirizine treatments caused a worsening of pulmonary function, and all were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cetirizine has a significant bronchodilatory effect in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and can be used to treat concomitant conditions (e.g., allergic rhinitis) without concern that it will interfere with the bronchodilatory effect of albuterol or cause worsening of asthma by itself.