Thomas B Casale

University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States

Are you Thomas B Casale?

Claim your profile

Publications (226)1364.39 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are important regulators of cell functions in asthma. We recently reported that RGS2, a selective modulator of Gq-coupled GPCRs, is a key regulator of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), the pathophysiologic hallmark of asthma. Since RGS2 protein levels in airway cells were significantly lower in asthmatics compared to non-asthmatics, we further investigated the potential pathological importance of RGS2 repression in asthma. The human RGS2 gene maps to chromosome 1q31. We first screened asthma patients for RGS2 gene promoter single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and found significant differences in the distribution of two RGS2 SNPs (A638G, rs2746071 and C395G, rs2746072) between asthmatics and non-asthmatics. These two SNPs are always associated with each other and have the same higher prevalence in asthmatics (65%) as compared to non-asthmatics (35%). Point mutations corresponding to these SNPs decrease the RGS2 promoter activity by 44%. The importance of RGS2 down-regulation was then determined in an acute interleukin-13 (IL-13) mouse model of asthma. Intranasal administration of IL-13 in mice also decreased RGS2 expression in lungs by about 50% and caused AHR. Interestingly, although naïve RGS2 knockout (KO) mice exhibit spontaneous AHR, acute IL-13 exposure further increased AHR in RGS2 KO mice. Loss of RGS2 also significantly enhanced IL-13-induced mouse airway remodeling including peribronchial smooth muscle thickening and fibrosis without effects on goblet cell hyperplasia or airway inflammation in mice. Thus, both genetic variations and increased inflammatory cytokines can lead to RGS2 repression, which exacerbates AHR and airway remodeling in asthma.
    American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology 11/2014; · 4.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of asthma treatment is to control the disease according to guidelines issued by bodies such as the Global Initiative for Asthma. Effective control is dependent upon evaluation of symptoms, initiation of appropriate treatment and minimization of the progressive adverse effects of the disease and its therapies. Although individual outcome measures have been shown to correlate with asthma control, composite endpoints are preferred to enable more accurate and robust monitoring of the health of the individual patient. A number of validated instruments are utilized to capture these component endpoints; however, there is no consensus on the optimal instrument for use in clinical trials. The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) has been shown to be a valid, reliable instrument that allows accurate and reproducible assessment of asthma control that compares favourably with other commonly used instruments. This analysis provides a summary of the use of ACQ in phase II, III and IV asthma trials. Comparisons between the ACQ and other instruments are also presented. Our analysis suggests that the ACQ is a valid and robust measure for use as a primary or secondary endpoint in future clinical trials.
    Allergy 07/2014; · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • British Journal of Dermatology 07/2014; 171(1):15-6. · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European Respiratory Journal 06/2014; · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European Respiratory Journal 06/2014; · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Thomas B Casale, A Wesley Burks
    New England Journal of Medicine 04/2014; 370(15):1432-9. · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 02/2014; 133(2):AB5. · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • Thomas B Casale
    The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice. 01/2014; 2(1):118-9.
  • Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 01/2014; 31:A3. · 0.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Chronic urticaria is a frequent and debilitating skin disease. Its symptoms commonly fluctuate considerably from day to day. As of yet, the only reliable tool to assess disease activity is the Urticaria Activity Score, which prospectively documents the signs and symptoms of urticaria for several days. Objective We sought to develop and validate a novel patient-reported outcome instrument to retrospectively assess urticaria control, the Urticaria Control Test (UCT). Methods Potential UCT items were developed by using established methods (literature research and expert and patient involvement). Subsequently, item reduction was performed by using a combined approach, applying impact and regression analysis. The resulting UCT instrument was then tested for its validity, reliability, and screening accuracy. Results A 4-item UCT with a recall period of 4 weeks was developed based on 25 potential UCT items tested in 508 patients with chronic urticaria. A subsequent validation study with the 4-item UCT in 120 patients with chronic urticaria demonstrated that this new tool exhibits good convergent and known-groups validity, as well as excellent test-retest reliability. In addition, the screening accuracy to identify patients with urticaria with insufficiently controlled disease was found to be high. Conclusions The UCT is the first valid and reliable tool to assess disease control in patients with chronic urticaria (spontaneous and inducible). Its retrospective approach and simple scoring system make it an ideal instrument for the management of patients with chronic urticaria in clinical practice.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 01/2014; · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • Thomas B. Casale, Jeffrey R. Stokes
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergen immunotherapy has been used to treat allergic diseases, such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, and venom allergy, since first described over a century ago. The current standard of care in the United States involves subcutaneous administration of clinically relevant allergens for several months, building up to eventual monthly injections for typically 3 to 5 years. Recent advances have improved the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy. The addition of omalizumab or Toll-like receptor agonists to standard subcutaneous immunotherapy has proved beneficial. Altering the extract itself, either through chemical manipulation producing allergoids or directly producing recombinant proteins or significant peptides, has been evaluated with promising results. The use of different administration techniques, such as sublingual immunotherapy, is common in Europe and is on the immediate horizon in the United States. Other methods of administering allergen immunotherapy have been studied, including epicutaneous, intralymphatic, intranasal, and oral immunotherapy. In this review we focus on new types and routes of immunotherapy, exploring recent human clinical trial data. The promise of better immunotherapies appears closer than ever before, but much work is still needed to develop novel immunotherapies that induce immunologic tolerance and enhanced clinical efficacy and safety over that noted for subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 01/2014; 133(3):612–619. · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to meta-analyses and reviews, subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) induced by house dust mites (HDMs). However, the reported effect sizes have varied greatly from one study to another. We sought to perform an evidence-based medicine assessment of commercially available SCIT and SLIT formulations in patients with HDM-induced AA and HDM-induced AR. We searched for double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and analyzed study designs, doses, regimens, patient-reported outcomes, safety reporting, and compliance. Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Some studies tested both SLIT and SCIT or scored both AA and AR outcomes; therefore we reviewed 35 treatment arms in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 for SLIT). The treatment duration ranged from 6 weeks to 3 years. For SCIT, the dose of Der p 1 major allergen (when reported) ranged from 7 to 30 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 420 μg for cumulative doses. For SLIT, the doses of Der p 1 (when reported) were 0.8 to 70 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 23,695 μg for cumulative doses. Safety data were often absent or poorly reported. A statistically significant active versus placebo symptom score was observed more frequently for SCIT than for SLIT. There is no consensus on basic treatment parameters (eg, dose and duration) in HDM SCIT and SLIT. There is an urgent need for rigorous, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an efficacy criterion that reflects the particular features of HDM-induced allergic disease.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 10/2013; · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • Allergy 07/2013; 68(7):825-8. · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used worldwide. Despite its safety being well ascertained, there is no universally accepted system to grade and classify its adverse events (AEs). According to the literature, it seems reasonable to classify and grade systemic side effects by using the previously published World Allergy Organization recommendations. On the other hand, local side effects are the most frequent with SLIT, sometimes leading to its discontinuation. Therefore grading of the severity of local side effects was perceived as necessary for the purpose of uniform reporting, classification, and quantification of this aspect. A World Allergy Organization Taskforce, after examining the available literature and the postmarketing surveillance data, proposed a clinically based grading of the severity of local AEs caused by SLIT. The use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities nomenclature for AEs was also included in this context. The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and harmonize surveillance and reporting of the safety of SLIT.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 05/2013; · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In North America and Europe, millions of patients experience symptoms of allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) on exposure to ragweed pollen. The disease burden can be significant, with most patients relying on symptomatic medications without disease-modifying potential. However, novel sublingual immunomodulatory treatment options may potentially play an important role if efficacy and side effect profiles allow the convenience of self-administration. This study evaluated an allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT; SCH 39641/MK-3641) for treatment of ragweed-induced AR/C in the first large randomized, double-blind multinational trial of this therapeutic modality for ragweed allergy. Adults (n = 784) with short ragweed-induced AR/C were randomly assigned to approximately 52 weeks of daily self-administered ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, or 12 units of Ambrosia artemisiifolia major allergen 1 (Amb a 1-U) or placebo. Subjects could use as-needed allergy rescue medication. Symptoms and medications were recorded daily. The primary efficacy end point was total combined daily symptom/medication score (TCS) during peak ragweed season. Safety was monitored through adverse event diaries maintained through study duration. During peak ragweed season, ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, and 12 Amb a 1-U reduced TCS by 9% (-0.76; P = .22), 19% (-1.58; P = .01), and 24% (-2.04; P = .002) compared with placebo. During the entire season, ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, and 12 Amb a 1-U reduced TCS by 12% (-0.88; P = .09), 18% (-1.28; P = .01), and 27% (-1.92; P < .001) compared with placebo. Treatment was well tolerated; no systemic allergic reactions occurred. In this trial, ragweed AIT of 12 Amb a 1-U was effective and tolerable with a safety profile that permitted daily self-administration of ragweed allergen immunotherapy.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 05/2013; 131(5):1342-1349.e6. · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice. 05/2013; 1(3):295-6.
  • Priyanka Vashisht, Thomas Casale
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is a key pathogenic factor of allergic rhinitis, a prevalent disease adversely affecting quality of life and productivity. Areas covered: Binding of inhaled allergens to IgE on the surface of basophils and mast cells, with subsequent cross-linkage of IgE and aggregation of high-affinity receptors for IgE (FcϵRI), triggers the release of inflammatory mediators, followed by the onset of allergic rhinitis symptoms. Current therapeutic strategies include corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, leukotriene receptor antagonists, anticholinergics, antihistamines and allergen immunotherapy. Removal of circulating free IgE by the recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab (Xolair), represents a novel therapeutic approach. Omalizumab selectively binds to the Cϵ3 domain of IgE at the site of FcϵR1 binding, thus blocking binding of IgE to effector cells. We review omalizumab's clinical efficacy, administration, use with immunotherapy and safety in allergic rhinitis. Expert opinion: Omalizumab may provide a new treatment strategy for allergic rhinitis. The high cost of omalizumab precludes its chronic use for allergic rhinitis and it is not FDA approved for this indication; however, its periodic use may be justified in treatment resistant patients, especially those with seasonal disease.
    Expert opinion on biological therapy 04/2013; · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic asthma and rhinitis, as well as venom-induced anaphylaxis. In addition to reducing symptoms, AIT can change the course of allergic disease and induce allergen-specific immune tolerance. In current clinical practice immunotherapy is delivered either subcutaneously or sublingually; some allergens, such as grass pollen, can be delivered through either route, whereas others, such as venoms, are only delivered subcutaneously. Both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy appear to have a duration of efficacy of up to 12 years, and both can prevent the development of asthma and new allergen sensitivities. In spite of the advances with AIT, safer and more effective AIT strategies are needed, especially for patients with asthma, atopic dermatitis, or food allergy. Novel approaches to improve AIT include use of adjuvants or recombinant allergens and alternate routes of administration. As part of the PRACTALL initiatives, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology nominated an expert team to develop a comprehensive consensus report on the mechanisms of AIT and its use in clinical practice, as well as unmet needs and ongoing developments in AIT. This resulting report is endorsed by both academies.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 03/2013; · 12.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (also called chronic spontaneous urticaria) do not have a response to therapy with H-antihistamines, even at high doses. In phase 2 trials, omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody that targets IgE and affects mast-cell and basophil function, has shown efficacy in such patients. In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic idiopathic urticaria who remained symptomatic despite H-antihistamine therapy (licensed doses). We randomly assigned 323 patients to receive three subcutaneous injections, spaced 4 weeks apart, of omalizumab at doses of 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in a weekly itch-severity score (ranging from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating more severe itching). The baseline weekly itch-severity score was approximately 14 in all four study groups. At week 12, the mean (±SD) change from baseline in the weekly itch-severity score was -5.1±5.6 in the placebo group, -5.9±6.5 in the 75-mg group (P=0.46), -8.1±6.4 in the 150-mg group (P=0.001), and -9.8±6.0 in the 300-mg group (P<0.001). Most prespecified secondary outcomes at week 12 showed similar dose-dependent effects. The frequency of adverse events was similar across groups. The frequency of serious adverse events was low, although the rate was higher in the 300-mg group (6%) than in the placebo group (3%) or in either the 75-mg or 150-mg group (1% for each). Omalizumab diminished clinical symptoms and signs of chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients who had remained symptomatic despite the use of approved doses of H-antihistamines. (Funded by Genentech and Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01292473.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 03/2013; 368(10):924-35. · 54.42 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

4k Citations
1,364.39 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2014
    • University of South Florida
      • Division of Allergy and Immunology
      Tampa, Florida, United States
  • 2001–2014
    • Creighton University
      • • Division of Allergy & Immunology
      • • Department of Pharmacology
      • • Department of Medicine
      Omaha, Nebraska, United States
  • 2013
    • University of Nebraska at Omaha
      Omaha, Nebraska, United States
    • Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
      • Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology
      Berlin, Land Berlin, Germany
  • 2012
    • American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology
      American Fork, Utah, United States
    • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier
      Montpelhièr, Languedoc-Roussillon, France
    • Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria Policlinico - Vittorio Emanuele
      Catania, Sicily, Italy
  • 2009–2011
    • French Institute of Health and Medical Research
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2010
    • Imperial College London
      • Section of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
      London, ENG, United Kingdom
  • 2006
    • The Immune Tolerance Network
      Seattle, Washington, United States
    • New York Presbyterian Hospital
      New York City, New York, United States
  • 2004
    • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
      Maryland, United States
  • 2002
    • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
      Newark, New Jersey, United States
  • 2000
    • Northwest Asthma and Allergy Center
      Seattle, Washington, United States
  • 1996–1998
    • University of Iowa
      • Department of Internal Medicine
      Iowa City, IA, United States