Publications (10)46.27 Total impact
-
Article: Current standards and future directions in immunotherapy: perspectives on challenges and opportunities for the allergist.
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 11/2011; 107(5):422-5. · 2.83 Impact Factor -
Article: Reply.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 11/2010; · 9.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses. We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR. Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated. This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 06/2010; 125(6):1247-1253.e5. · 9.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article. Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients. Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 07/2007; 136(6 Suppl):S107-24. · 1.72 Impact Factor -
Article: Clinical efficacy of olopatadine vs epinastine ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Patanol) and epinastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution (Elestat) are two topical antiallergic agents. Olopatadine is indicated for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis that include itching, redness, tearing, lid swelling, and chemosis. Epinastine is indicated for the prevention of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. This study compared the clinical efficacy of olopatadine and epinastine in the prevention of itching and conjunctival redness in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally-controlled, single center allergen challenge study. Ninety-six subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis were screened, and the 66 who responded to conjunctival allergen challenge at visits 1 and 2 were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups at visit 3 to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine in one eye and epinastine in the fellow eye, (2) olopatadine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye, and (3) epinastine in one eye and placebo in the fellow eye. Five minutes after study drop instillation, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at Visits 1 and 2. Subjective itching assessments were given at 3 min, 5 min, and 7 min post challenge. Objective redness and chemosis assessments were made at 10 min, 15 min, and 20 min post challenge. Paired sample two-tailed t-tests were performed on the mean scores at each time point to assess statistical significance in the differences between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES; Fifty-three subjects were randomized into the olopatadine/epinastine treatment group, the primary analysis group. Olopatadine treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean itching and conjunctival redness scores than the contralateral epinastine treated eyes, -0.19 (p = 0.003) and -0.52 (p < 0.001), respectively. Olopatadine treated eyes also exhibited significantly less chemosis -0.24 (p < 0.001), ciliary redness -0.55 (p < 0.001), and episcleral redness -0.58 (p < 0.001) than epinastine treated eyes. Olopatadine is significantly more effective than epinastine in controlling itching, redness and chemosis associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.Current Medical Research and Opinion 08/2004; 20(8):1227-33. · 2.38 Impact Factor -
Article: Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The nomenclature proposed in the October 2003 report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization is an update of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology Revised Nomenclature for Allergy Position Statement published in 2001. The nomenclature can be used independently of target organ or patient age group and is based on the mechanisms that initiate and mediate allergic reactions. It is assumed that as knowledge about basic causes and mechanisms improves, the nomenclature will need further review.Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 06/2004; 113(5):832-6. · 11.00 Impact Factor -
Article: Newer aspects in the treatment of pediatric and adult asthma: monoclonal anti-IgE.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review the results of the first anti-IgE agent to undergo clinical evaluation in the treatment of allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis. Treatment protocols conducted in Europe and the United States in moderate to severe allergic asthmatic patients who continued to show symptoms despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids with the addition of monoclonal humanized anti-IgE treatment. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, published and in press, are reviewed. Treatment with anti-IgE allowed a decrease in inhaled corticosteroid and rescue medication use and significantly reduced the incidence and frequency of asthma exacerbations among these patients over a 28-week time period and a 6-month extension period. Anti-IgE shows great promise as an adjunctive therapy in moderate to severe asthmatic patients.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 07/2003; 90(6 Suppl 3):13-5. · 2.83 Impact Factor -
Article: Anti-IgE in the real world.
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 09/2002; 89(2):118. · 2.83 Impact Factor -
Article: Comparison of diphenhydramine and nonsedating antihistamines for the treatment of acute allergic reactions.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 29(1):97; author reply 97-8. · 2.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 30(3):255-62. · 2.17 Impact Factor
Top co-authors
Top Journals
Institutions
-
2003
-
University of North Texas HSC at Fort Worth
Fort Worth, TX, USA
-
