An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement: Implementation Science in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Many advances in health care fail to reach patients. Implementation science is the study of novel approaches to mitigate this evidence-to-practice gap. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement on implementation science in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. The committee used an iterative consensus process to define implementation science and review the use of conceptual frameworks to guide implementation science for the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep community and to explore how professional medical societies such as the ATS can promote implementation science. RESULTS: The committee defined implementation science as the study of the mechanisms by which effective health care interventions are either adopted or not adopted in clinical and community settings. The committee also distinguished implementation science from the act of implementation. Ideally, implementation science should include early and continuous stakeholder involvement and the use of conceptual frameworks (i.e., models to systematize the conduct of studies and standardize the communication of findings). Multiple conceptual frameworks are available, and we suggest the selection of one or more frameworks on the basis of the specific research question and setting. Professional medical societies such as the ATS can have an important role in promoting implementation science. Recommendations for professional societies to consider include: unifying implementation science activities through a single organizational structure, linking front-line clinicians with implementation scientists, seeking collaborations to prioritize and conduct implementation science studies, supporting implementation science projects through funding opportunities, working with research funding bodies to set the research agenda in the field, collaborating with external bodies responsible for health care delivery, disseminating results of implementation science through scientific journals and conferences, and teaching the next generation about implementation science through courses and other media. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science plays an increasingly important role in health care. Through support of implementation science, the ATS and other professional medical societies can work with other stakeholders to lead this effort.

The asthma disease activity score: a discriminating, responsive measure predicts future asthma attacks.

BACKGROUND: Classifying asthma severity or activity has evolved, but there are no published weighted composite measures of asthma disease activity that account for the relative importance of the many individual clinical variables that are widely used. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a weighted and responsive measure of asthma disease activity. METHODS: Discriminant and multiple regression analyses based on 2 previously conducted clinical trials were used to develop the Asthma Disease Activity Score (ADAS-6). RESULTS: The ADAS-6 demonstrated content validity because its components assess different manifestations of asthma: FEV(1) (percent predicted), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire-Symptom domain, rescue ß-agonist use, nocturnal awakenings, peak expiratory flow diurnal variability, and rescue ß-agonist use diurnal variability. The ADAS-6 demonstrated cross-sectional and longitudinal validity. It was discriminating: it distinguished levels of disease activity and response to different treatment intensities (P < .0001). Similar results were obtained with an independent clinical trial. The ADAS-6 was highly responsive to treatment effects, with a standardized effect size exceeding that of other widely used outcome measures. Using ADAS-6 as the primary end point in the montelukast pivotal trials would have significantly reduced the sample size needed to detect a comparable change in outcome. Furthermore, increments in the ADAS-6 predicted the risk of future asthma attacks. A simplified Asthma Disease Activity Score 4-variable version (ADAS-4) demonstrated similar measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: The ADAS-6 and ADAS-4 are novel, weighted, and responsive measures of asthma disease activity. Use of these measures in clinical trials might better separate treatment effects, predict future asthma attacks, and substantially reduce sample size.

Study protocol: A comparison of mobile and clinic-based spirometry for capturing the treatment effect in moderate asthma.

Several inefficiencies in drug development trial implementation may be improved by moving data collection from the clinic to mobile, allowing for more frequent measurements and therefore increased statistical power while aligning to a patient-centric approach to trial design. Sensor-based digital health technologies such as mobile spirometry (mSpirometry) are comparable to clinic spirometry for capturing outcomes, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); however, the impact of remote spirometry measurements on the detection of treatment effect has not been investigated. A protocol for a multicenter, single-arm, open-label interventional trial of long-acting beta agonist (LABA) therapy among 60 participants with uncontrolled moderate asthma is described. Participants will complete twice-daily mSpirometry at home and clinic spirometry during weekly visits, alongside continuous use of a wrist-worn wearable and regular completion of several diaries capturing asthma symptoms as well as participant- and site-reported satisfaction and ease of use of mSpirometry. The co-primary objectives of this study are (A) to quantify the treatment effect of LABA therapy among participants with moderate asthma, using both clinical spirometry (FEV1c ) and mSpirometry (FEV1m ); and (B) to investigate whether FEV1m is as accurate as FEV1c in detecting the treatment effect using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Study results will help inform whether the deployment of mSpirometry and a wrist-worn wearable for remote data collection are feasible in a multicenter setting among participants with moderate asthma, which may then be generalizable to other populations with respiratory disease.

CC-90001, a c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) inhibitor, in patients with pulmonary fibrosis: design of a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and often fatal interstitial lung disease (ILD); other ILDs have a progressive, fibrotic phenotype (PF-ILD). Antifibrotic agents can slow but not stop disease progression in patients with IPF or PF-ILD. c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNKs) are stress-activated protein kinases implicated in the underlying mechanisms of fibrosis, including epithelial cell death, inflammation and polarisation of profibrotic macrophages, fibroblast activation and collagen production. CC-90001, an orally administered (PO), one time per day, JNK inhibitor, is being evaluated in IPF and PF-ILD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating efficacy and safety of CC-90001 in patients with IPF (main study) and patients with PF-ILD (substudy). Both include an 8-week screening period, a 24-week treatment period, up to an 80-week active-treatment extension and a 4-week post-treatment follow-up. Patients with IPF (n=165) will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive 200 mg or 400 mg CC-90001 or placebo administered PO one time per day; up to 25 patients/arm will be permitted concomitant pirfenidone use. Forty-five patients in the PF-ILD substudy will be randomised 2:1 to receive 400 mg CC-90001 or placebo. The primary endpoint is change in per cent predicted forced vital capacity from baseline to Week 24 in patients with IPF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki principles and local ethical and legal requirements. Results will be reported in a peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03142191.

Intermittent or daily montelukast versus placebo for episodic asthma in children.

BACKGROUND: No standard, optimal treatment exists for severe intermittent (ie, episodic) asthma in children. However, evidence suggests that both daily and episode-driven montelukast are effective for this phenotype. OBJECTIVE: To assess the regimen-related efficacy of montelukast in treating pediatric episodic asthma. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 52-week study was performed in children 6 months to 5 years of age comparing placebo with two regimens of montelukast 4 mg: (1) daily; or (2) episode-driven for 12 days beginning with signs/symptoms consistent with imminent cold or breathing problem. The main outcome measure was the number of asthma episodes (symptoms requiring treatment) culminating in an asthma attack (symptoms requiring physician visit, emergency room visit, corticosteroids, or hospitalization). RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized to daily montelukast, 591 to intermittent montelukast, and 591 to placebo. Compared with placebo, no significant difference was seen between daily montelukast (P = .510) or intermittent montelukast (P = .884) in the number of asthma episodes culminating in an asthma attack over 1 year. Daily montelukast reduced symptoms over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes compared with placebo (P = .045). Beta-agonist use was reduced with both daily (P = .048) and intermittent montelukast (P = .028) compared with placebo. However, because of prespecified rules for multiplicity adjustments (requiring a positive primary endpoint), statistical significance for secondary endpoints cannot be concluded. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast did not reduce the number of asthma episodes culminating in an asthma attack over 1 year in children 6 months to 5 years of age, although numerical improvements occurred in some endpoints.

The efficacy and tolerability of inhaled montelukast plus inhaled mometasone compared with mometasone alone in patients with chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of oral montelukast in chronic asthma is well established. Montelukast is also an effective adjunctive therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma uncontrolled on ICS alone. Inhaled montelukast was recently shown to provide significant bronchodilation compared with placebo in patients with chronic asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of inhaled montelukast added to inhaled mometasone. METHODS: This was an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing once-daily inhaled montelukast 1 mg plus inhaled mometasone 220 µg (delivered by separate dry powder inhalers) with placebo plus inhaled mometasone 220 µg. Men and women aged 15-85 years with chronic asthma, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) 50-80% of the predicted value, and ß-agonist reversibility ≥12% were eligible. Patients were required to meet a minimum symptom threshold while receiving open-label inhaled mometasone during a 3-week prestudy/run-in period. Patients received blinded (montelukast vs. placebo) treatment for 2 weeks, entered a 1-week washout period, then crossed over to the other treatment for 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average change from baseline in FEV(1) over the 2-week treatment period. Secondary endpoints included daytime and nighttime symptom scores. Other endpoints included short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use, asthma exacerbations, asthma control, peak expiratory flow (PEF), and blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were randomized. For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in FEV(1), inhaled montelukast plus inhaled mometasone was significantly more effective than placebo plus inhaled mometasone (least squares mean 0.22 L vs. 0.17 L; p = .033 [two-sided at α = 0.05]). Inhaled montelukast plus inhaled mometasone was also significantly more effective than placebo plus inhaled mometasone in improving daytime asthma symptom scores (p = .005) and nighttime asthma symptom scores (p = .015), increasing the percentage of days with asthma control (p = .004), decreasing the percentage of days with asthma exacerbations (p ≤ .001), and decreasing the blood eosinophil count (p = .013). Differences were not significant on AM or PM PEF or SABA use, although the latter approached significance (p = .073). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Inhaled montelukast plus inhaled mometasone was significantly more effective than placebo plus inhaled mometasone in improving FEV(1), symptoms, asthma control, and blood eosinophil count.

A randomized placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast for the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for acute asthma provide inadequate benefit for some patients. Intravenous montelukast may complement existent therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of intravenous montelukast as adjunctive therapy for acute asthma. METHODS: A total of 583 adults with acute asthma were treated with standard care during a < or = 60-minute screening period. Patients with FEV(1) < or =50% predicted were randomly allocated to intravenous montelukast 7 mg (n = 291) or placebo (n = 292) in addition to standard care. This double-blind treatment period lasted until a decision for discharge, hospital admission, or discontinuation from the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) during 60 minutes after drug administration. Secondary endpoints included the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) at various intervals (10-120 minutes) and percentage of patients with treatment failure (defined as hospitalization or lack of decision to discharge by 3 hours postadministration). RESULTS: Montelukast significantly increased FEV(1) at 60 minutes postdose; the difference between change from baseline for placebo (least-squares mean of 0.22 L; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.27) and montelukast (0.32 L; 95% CI, 0.27, 0.37) was 0.10 L (95% CI, 0.04, 0.16). Similar improvements in FEV(1)-related variables were seen at all time points (all P <.05). Although treatment failure did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63, 1.34), a prespecified subgroup analysis suggests likely benefit for intravenous montelukast at US sites. CONCLUSION: Intravenous montelukast added to standard care in adults with acute asthma produced significant relief of airway obstruction throughout the 2 hours after administration, with an onset of action as early as 10 minutes.

Pilot Study of Peak Plasma Concentration After High-Dose Oral Montelukast in Children With Acute Asthma Exacerbations.

Acute asthma exacerbations are primarily due to airway inflammation and remain one of the most frequent reasons for childhood hospitalizations. Although systemic corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy because of their anti-inflammatory properties, not all inflammatory pathways are responsive to systemic corticosteroids, necessitating hospital admission for further management. Cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTs) are proinflammatory mediators that play an important role in systemic corticosteroids non-responsiveness. Montelukast is a potent LT-receptor antagonist, and an intravenous preparation caused rapid, sustained improvement of acute asthma exacerbations in adults. We hypothesized that a 30-mg dose of oral montelukast achieves peak plasma concentrations (Cmax ), comparable to the intravenous preparation (1700 ng/mL) and would be well tolerated in 15 children aged 5 to 12 years with acute asthma exacerbations. After administration of montelukast chewable tablets, blood samples were collected at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 120, 180, and 240 minutes. Plasma was separated and frozen at -80°C until analysis for montelukast concentration using liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry. Median time to Cmax (tmax ) was 3.0 hours. Six participants (40%) achieved Cmax of 1700 ng/mL or higher. However, there was high interindividual variability in peak plasma concentration (median Cmax of 1378 ng/mL; range, 16-4895 ng/mL). No participant had side effects or adverse events. Plasma concentrations from this pilot study support the design of a weight-based dose-finding study aimed at selecting an optimal dose for future clinical trials to assess the efficacy of high-dose oral montelukast in children with moderate to severe asthma exacerbations.

A phase I randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-exploration study of single-dose inhaled montelukast in patients with chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of oral montelukast has been well established in asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dose-related bronchodilation and tolerability of inhaled montelukast. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, crossover, adaptive-design study comparing single-dose administration of inhaled montelukast versus placebo in patients age 15-65 years with chronic asthma (n = 68). Montelukast was delivered as a witnessed dose through dry powder inhaler at doses of 25, 250, or 1000 µg, and doses of 50, 100, and 500 µg could be used if needed based on a prespecified dose-response algorithm. Each administration was followed by a 4- to 7-day washout period before crossing over to the next treatment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over the first 4 hours after administration, calculated as a time-weighted average (ΔFEV1 [0-4 hours]). Other endpoints included the onset and duration of bronchodilation and the effect of albuterol when added to inhaled montelukast. RESULTS: Over 4 hours postdose, and compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean 0.03 L), inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.13 L; p ≤ .001), 250 µg (0.10 L; p < .01), and 1000 µg (0.12 L; p ≤ .001) had significantly greater ΔFEV1 (0-4 hours). At 24 hours postdose, inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.10 L) and 1000 µg (0.09 L) had significantly greater bronchodilation compared with placebo (0.02 L; p < .05 vs. montelukast). Montelukast 1000 µg provided significant bronchodilation versus placebo within 20 minutes of administration (0.03 L vs. -0.05 L), whereas montelukast 100 µg provided significant bronchodilation relative to placebo within 2 hours of dosing (0.09 L vs. 0.01 L). Montelukast (pooled doses) plus albuterol was significantly more effective than montelukast plus placebo for ΔFEV1 (0-90 minutes) (0.34 L vs. 0.15 L; p = .015). The tolerability of inhaled montelukast was similar to that of placebo. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled montelukast provided significant bronchodilation compared with placebo as early as 20 minutes after the administration that persisted for 24 hours and provided additive bronchodilation to albuterol.

Clinical studies of the DP1 antagonist laropiprant in asthma and allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin D(2) is a proinflammatory mediator believed to be important in asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). Allelic variants in the prostaglandin D(2) receptor type 1 (DP1) gene (PTGDR) have been suggested to be associated with asthma susceptibility. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the efficacy of the DP1 antagonist laropiprant (alone or with montelukast) in asthma and seasonal AR and explore whether sequence variations in PTGDR are associated with asthma severity. METHODS: For asthma, in a double-blind crossover study, 100 patients with persistent asthma were randomized to placebo or laropiprant, 300 mg/d for 3 weeks, followed by addition of montelukast, 10 mg/d for 2 weeks. PTGDR promoter haplotypes were categorized as high, medium, or low transcriptional efficiency. The primary efficacy end point was FEV(1). For AR, in a double-blind parallel-group study, 767 patients sensitized to a regionally prevalent fall allergen with symptomatic fall rhinitis were allocated to laropiprant, 25 mg/d or 100 mg/d; cetirizine, 10mg/d; or placebo for 2 weeks. The primary end point was the Daytime Nasal Symptoms Score. RESULTS: For asthma, no significant differences in FEV(1) or asthma symptoms were noted for laropiprant versus placebo or laropiprant plus montelukast vs montelukast (differences between montelukast and placebo: P

Reports of suicidality in clinical trials of montelukast.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of drugs and drug classes have come under scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding suicidality (including suicidal behavior and ideation). OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform 2 reviews (requested by the US Food and Drug Administration) of the number of events possibly related to suicidality reported in Merck clinical trials of montelukast. METHODS: Method 1 was a descriptive review of clinical adverse experiences (AEs) from 116 studies (double-blind and open-label, adult and pediatric, and single- and multiple-dose studies) completed as of March 2008. Summaries were constructed from investigator-reported AE terms possibly related to suicidality (completed suicide, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation) or self-injurious behavior. Method 2 used a retrospective adjudication of investigator-reported AEs and other events listed in the study database described as possibly suicidality-related adverse events (PSRAEs) in a prespecified set of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials completed as of April 2008. RESULTS: No completed suicides were reported in any study. For the descriptive review, 20,131 adults and children received montelukast, 9,287 received placebo, and 8,346 received active control; AEs possibly related to suicidality were rare and were similar between the montelukast and placebo or active-control groups. For the adjudicated review across 22,433 patients, there were 730 adjudicated events. In 9,929 patients taking montelukast, 1 PSRAE was identified (classified as suicidal ideation); none were identified in 7,780 and 4,724 patients taking placebo and active control, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Assessed by using 2 complementary methods, there were no reports of completed suicide, and reports of PSRAEs were rare in patients receiving montelukast and similar to those seen in control subjects.

Analysis of behavior-related adverse experiences in clinical trials of montelukast.

BACKGROUND: Frequencies of behavior-related adverse experiences (BRAEs) in controlled clinical studies of leukotriene modifier drugs have not been summarized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the frequency of BRAEs in patients receiving montelukast or placebo in a retrospective analysis of Merck clinical trial data. METHODS: An adverse experience database was constructed to include all double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of montelukast meeting prespecified criteria. BRAEs (described using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities controlled vocabulary dictionary) were prespecified to include any term in the Psychiatric Disorders System Organ Class, selected terms related to general disorders, and terms related to akathisia. Frequencies of BRAEs (overall, leading to study discontinuation, and/or serious) were summarized. Analyses estimated the odds ratios (ORs) for montelukast versus placebo based on the frequency of patients with BRAEs in each study. RESULTS: In total 35 adult and 11 pediatric placebo-controlled trials were included; 11,673 patients received montelukast, 8,827 received placebo, and 4,724 received active control. The frequency of patients with 1 or more BRAEs was 2.73% and 2.27% in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively; the OR for montelukast versus placebo was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.93-1.36). The frequency of patients with a BRAE leading to study discontinuation was 0.07% and 0.11% in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.17-1.51). The frequency of patients with a BRAE considered serious was 0.03% in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Reports of BRAEs were infrequent in clinical trials of montelukast. Those leading to study discontinuation or considered serious were rare. Frequencies were similar regardless of treatment group.

A randomized study comparing the effect of loratadine added to montelukast with montelukast, loratadine, and beclomethasone monotherapies in patients with chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Loratadine added to montelukast has been suggested to improve endpoints of asthma. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the additive effects of concomitant montelukast and loratadine when compared with montelukast, loratadine, and inhaled beclomethasone monotherapies in asthma. Methods. Patients (N = 406) were 15 to 65 years of age with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1))-predicted of 50% to 85%, FEV(1) reversibility > or = 15%, and a minimal level of daytime symptoms and beta -agonist use. This three-part 2X2 crossover-study consisted of two double-blind 6-week treatment periods where patients were administered once daily oral montelukast 10 mg, loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg + loratadine 10 mg, or twice daily inhaled beclomethasone 200 mu g. A subsequent 48-week extension study compared montelukast + loratadine with beclomethasone. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in FEV(1). RESULTS: Over 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, significant improvements (p < 0.05) in the primary endpoint of FEV(1) were seen for montelukast + loratadine versus loratadine (least-square mean percentage-point difference of 5.8%), beclomethasone versus montelukast + loratadine (2.35%), montelukast versus loratadine (5.94%), and beclomethasone versus montelukast (4.65%); a numerical improvement (p = 0.054) was seen for montelukast + loratadine versus montelukast (1.60%). Significant improvements for montelukast + loratadine versus montelukast were seen in some secondary endpoints (evening peak expiratory flow, nocturnal asthma symptom score, nocturnal awakenings, and asthma-specific quality of life) but not others. Significant improvements in most endpoints except daytime asthma symptoms score were seen for montelukast + loratadine versus loratadine. In the extension study, both montelukast + loratadine and beclomethasone improved several endpoints. All treatments were generally comparable in the percentage of patients with clinical and laboratory adverse experiences. CONCLUSION: In this study, the addition of loratadine to montelukast produced a small numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in FEV(1) and, in general, no consistent improvement in other asthma endpoints. No improvement of montelukast + loratadine versus beclomethasone was seen in any endpoint.

Clinical studies of combination montelukast and loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant use of montelukast and loratadine may improve symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) more than treatment with either drug alone. OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of this combination versus placebo, nasal beclomethasone, montelukast, and loratadine in study 1 and versus placebo, montelukast, and loratadine in study 2. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with intranasal beclomethasone 200 mu g/twice daily (study 1 only), placebo, montelukast 10 mg+loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg, or loratadine 10 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the Composite Symptom Score (CSS): average of daily diary scores for Daytime Nasal Symptoms and Nighttime Symptoms. RESULTS: In study 1, improvements in the change from baseline in CSS were seen for montelukast+loratadine (least-squares means [95% CI] = -0.43 [-0.51, -0.35]), beclomethasone (-0.57 [-0.64, -0.49]), montelukast, and loratadine. All treatments were significantly better than placebo; montelukast+loratadine had a significantly greater effect on CSS than montelukast alone but no difference compared to loratadine was detected. Beclomethasone provided significantly greater improvement versus montelukast+loratadine on the primary and secondary endpoints except for the rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life score. In study 2, the combination treatment was similar to montelukast, loratadine, and placebo for the primary and secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: In study 1, montelukast+loratadine had a significantly greater effect on CSS than placebo and montelukast alone; however, in all comparisons, nasal beclomethasone had a greater effect on daily symptoms. In contrast, the combination of montelukast+loratadine in study 2 did not provide greater improvement compared with placebo, montelukast, or loratadine monotherapy, perhaps due to a large placebo effect.

Study of montelukast for the treatment of respiratory symptoms of post-respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis in children.

RATIONALE: A pilot study (Bisgaard H; Study Group on Montelukast and Respiratory Syncytial Virus. A randomized trial of montelukast in respiratory syncytial virus postbronchiolitis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:379-383) reported the efficacy of montelukast in post-respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitic respiratory symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of montelukast, 4 and 8 mg, in treating recurrent respiratory symptoms of post-RSV bronchiolitis in children in a large, multicenter study. METHODS: This was a double-blind study of 3- to 24-month-old children who had been hospitalized for a first or second episode of physician-diagnosed RSV bronchiolitis and who tested positive for RSV. Patients (n = 979) were randomized to placebo or to montelukast at 4 or 8 mg/day for 4 weeks (period I) and 20 weeks (period II). The primary end point was percentage symptom-free days (%SFD; day with no daytime cough, wheeze, and shortness of breath, and no nighttime cough). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between montelukast and placebo in %SFD over period I: mean +/- SD for placebo and for montelukast at 4 and 8 mg were 37.0 +/- 30.7, 38.6 +/- 30.4, and 38.5 +/- 29.9, respectively. Least-squares mean differences (95% confidence interval) between montelukast (4 mg) and placebo and between montelukast (8 mg) and placebo were 1.9% (-2.9, 6.7) and 1.6% (-3.2, 6.5), respectively. Secondary end points were similar across treatments. Both doses were generally well tolerated. During the first two treatment weeks, average %SFD was approximately 29%. In post hoc analyses of patients (n = 523) with persistent symptoms (%SFD < or = 30% over Weeks 1-2), differences in %SFD were seen between montelukast and placebo over Weeks 3-24: difference were 5.7 (0.0, 11.3) for montelukast (4 mg) minus placebo and 5.9 (0.1, 11.7) for montelukast (8 mg) minus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, montelukast did not improve respiratory symptoms of post-RSV bronchiolitis in children.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of montelukast oral granules in children 1 to 3 months of age with bronchiolitis.

The single-dose pharmacokinetics of montelukast 4-mg oral granules and tolerability of daily administration of 2 different doses of montelukast (4 mg and 8 mg given once daily for 7 days) versus placebo were evaluated in 12 infants 1 to 3 months of age with bronchiolitis or a history of bronchiolitis and asthma-like symptoms. The population area under the concentration-time curve estimate after a single 4-mg dose of montelukast was 13 195.7 +/- 2309.8 (standard error) ng.hr/mL, 3.6 times higher than historical values in infants 3 to 24 months of age. Six patients had 10 total clinical adverse experiences; none was considered serious or drug related. Three patients had transient drug-related increases in aspartate aminotransferase (montelukast 8 mg [n = 2]; placebo [n = 1]). Despite increased systemic exposure after administration of a single dose of montelukast 4-mg oral granules in infants 1 to 3 months of age compared with that in pediatric patients 3 to 24 months of age, administration of montelukast at 4 and 8 mg once daily for 7 days in 1- to 3-month-old infants was generally well tolerated.

Adverse events are rare after single-dose montelukast exposures in children.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Montelukast sodium is a leukotriene-receptor antagonist approved as a controller medication for chronic asthma and allergic rhinitis in children and adults. We sought to characterize adverse events associated with single montelukast exposures in children ages 5-17 years and to determine whether adverse events were dose related for all-dose and for ultra-high-dose (≥50 mg) exposures. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of data from the National Poison Data System for exposures that included montelukast in individuals aged 5-17 years for calendar years 2000-2016. Filters were applied to identify exposure events in which montelukast was the primary exposure and for which the exact or lowest-possible ingested dose was recorded. Characteristics of adverse events were examined using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic models were used to examine whether associations of montelukast and adverse events were dose related. RESULTS: During the 17-year study period, there were 17,069 montelukast exposures available for analyses. Patients were median [interquartile range] age 7 (5, 9) years, and 10,907 (64%) male gender. Abdominal pain was the most common adverse event (0.23%). There were 618 ultra-high-dose exposures (≥50 mg). These patients had median age 6 (5, 8) years, and 347 (56%) male gender. Abdominal pain was the most common adverse event (1.46%). Increasing ingested dose was associated with abdominal pain (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01, 1.02) after adjustment for age and gender. No serious or life-threatening events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose exposures of montelukast up to 445 mg are rarely associated with any adverse events and are not associated with serious or life-threatening adverse events in children aged 5-17 years.

Single-dose montelukast or salmeterol as protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It has been previously established that montelukast provides protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) after a single dose. The present objective was to assess the onset and duration of this protective action in a trial that included both positive and negative controls. METHODS: A randomized, active-controlled and placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, three-way crossover study was conducted in 47 patients (age range, 15 to 44 years) in whom there was a 20 to 40% fall in FEV(1) following exercise (DeltaFEV(1)). In randomized sequence, patients received oral montelukast (10 mg), placebo, or inhaled salmeterol (50 microg) as a positive control. Dosing was followed by exercise challenges at 2, 8.5, and 24 h. The primary end point was maximum DeltaFEV(1) at 2 h postdose. Secondary end points included maximum DeltaFEV(1) at the two later time points, and other measures (including recovery time and need for beta-agonist rescue) at all time points. RESULTS: The maximum DeltaFEV(1) magnitudes at 2, 8.5, and 24 h were significantly smaller after montelukast administration than after placebo administration (least squares mean [+/- SE], 13.2 +/- 1.2%, 11.7 +/- 1.2%, and 10.0 +/- 1.1% vs 21.8 +/- 1.2%, 16.8 +/- 1.3%, and 14.0 +/- 1.1%, respectively; p