-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important for evaluating asthma therapy.
To evaluate PROs in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma receiving budesonide and formoterol administered via 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI).
This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter study randomized 596 patients 12 years or older to budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x 2 inhalations (320 microg) + formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x 2 inhalations (320 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg); or placebo, each twice daily, after 2 weeks of budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg) twice daily. PROs were assessed in 553 patients 18 years or older using the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]), Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) Sleep Scale, Patient Satisfaction With Asthma Medication (PSAM) questionnaire, diary data, and global assessments.
Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol reported significantly greater improvements from baseline on the AQLQ(S) and asthma control variables (based on symptoms and rescue medication use; all P < .001) vs placebo. Clinically important improvements (increase of > or = 0.5 points) from baseline to end of treatment in AQLQ(S) overall scores were achieved by 43.6% of patients receiving budesonide/formoterol vs 22.6% of patients receiving placebo (P = .001). The MOS Sleep Scale scores generally showed no differences among treatment groups. Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol had significantly greater PSAM questionnaire scores and better outcomes on physician-patient global assessments at end of treatment vs placebo (all P < or = .001).
Significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life and asthma control and greater treatment satisfaction were observed with budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs placebo.
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 12/2008; 101(5):463-73. · 2.83 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and epinastine 0.05% (Elestat, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) are topical ocular anti-allergic agents. Both are H(1) antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis.
To compare the efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% with epinastine 0.05%, in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis following conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC).
This was a 7 week, four visit, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled CAC study. Visit 1 screened subjects for positive ocular allergic responses and Visit 2 confirmed those responses. At Visit 3, 92 subjects were randomized into one of four treatment groups to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine 0.2%/placebo, (2) epinastine 0.05%/placebo, (3) olopatadine 0.2%/epinastine 0.05%, (4) placebo/placebo. Subjects were challenged 12 h after drop instillation to evaluate duration of action. At Visit 4, subjects were challenged 5 min after drop instillation to evaluate onset of action. Drop comfort was assessed at Visit 4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES;
This article focuses on the results of the onset-of-action challenge (Visit 4). At Visit 4, ocular itching was assessed at 3, 5, and 7 min and redness was assessed at 7, 15, and 20 min post-challenge. Drop comfort was assessed upon instillation, at 30s, and at 1, 2, and 5 min post-instillation. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean ocular itching scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at 5 (p = 0.024) and 7 min (p = 0.003) post-challenge. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean redness scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at all time points post-challenge (ciliary: p < or = 0.013, conjunctival: p < or = 0.015, episcleral: p < or = 0.006). Olopatadine 0.2% was rated as significantly more comfortable than epinastine 0.05% at 1 min post-drop instillation (p = 0.003). All adverse events were non-serious and unrelated to study medication. Although the CAC model reproduces allergic responses that are not environmentally-induced, patients experience varying severities of responses as are seen in real-world situations.
Olopatadine 0.2% was superior to epinastine 0.05% in preventing ocular itching and redness at onset when induced by the CAC model.
Current Medical Research and Opinion 06/2007; 23(6):1445-52. · 2.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The severity of asthma often varies throughout the course of the disease. At times the symptoms and underlying inflammation that are characteristic of asthma can worsen. Thus during an episode of viral-induced asthma or during a seasonal increase in asthma severity, a patient may be directed to increase his or her dosage of asthma controllers (i.e., inhaled corticosteroid) or add a long-acting bronchodilator (or other controller medications such as antileukotrienes) to manage symptoms, as recommended in guidelines published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Similarly, when symptoms are stable, decreasing dosages or discontinuing certain medications may be appropriate. The recent introduction of a combination product, of a long-acting bronchodilator formulated in the same dry powder device with an inhaled corticosteroid raises new challenges for the step care approach to asthma management recommended by the NIH in 1997. Although unquestionably more convenient for the patient, a combination formulation has the potential to decrease the flexibility required to successfully manage asthma over long periods. In addition, controversy exists regarding long-acting beta-agonists alone because their regular use may mask inflammation in the lung and decrease responsiveness to the bronchodilating effects of rescue medications (i.e., short-acting beta-agonists). The purpose of this article is to help physicians make informed therapeutic decisions for their patients with asthma. It focuses on the advantages and potential disadvantages of using combination products, which contain both an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-agonist in the context of the NIH step care approach. Recent publications outlining the use of other add-on controller medications are also discussed.
Journal of Asthma 07/2003; 40(4):431-44. · 1.52 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The long-term efficacy and safety of formoterol dry powder capsules for inhalation in pediatric asthma have not previously been evaluated.
We examined the effectiveness of inhaled formoterol over a period of 12 months in asthmatic children who were still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory treatment.
After a run-in period, 518 patients (5 to 12 years old) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive 12 or 24 microg formoterol dry powder (Foradil, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) or placebo twice daily for 12 months. The drug was administered by inhaler (Aerolizer, Novartis Pharma AG) and was given in addition to their anti-inflammatory treatment. The primary variable was the area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured over 12 hours after the morning dose of study medication.
The area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second after the first dose of treatment and after 3 and 12 months of treatment was significantly greater for patients receiving formoterol 12 microg and 24 microg than for patients receiving placebo (all P < or = 0.0062). Compared with placebo, both doses of formoterol significantly improved morning and evening premedication peak expiratory flow rate (all P < 0.001). In the group treated with formoterol 24 microg, median symptom score and median dose of rescue medication at night were lower than during the run-in period, whereas the opposite occurred in the placebo group. The incidence of hospitalizations for asthma was higher in the formoterol groups than in the placebo group.
Our results indicate that, in asthmatic children who are still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory therapy, the addition of formoterol consistently improves airflow obstruction and nocturnal symptoms and reduces the use of rescue medication. However, this treatment requires close disease monitoring to detect early signs of acute exacerbation.
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 08/2002; 89(2):180-90. · 2.83 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents available in the United States and other countries. Emedastine is indicated for the temporary relief of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Ketotifen is indicated for the temporary relief of ocular itching caused by allergic conjunctivitis.
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these agents in the temporary relief of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. The 2 agents were compared with each other and with placebo (artificial tears) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model.
This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. At visit 1, CAC was performed on eligible subjects to identify the dose required to elicit a positive allergic reaction. Subjects returned after 7 days for visit 2 to confirm the allergen dose. On day 14 (+/-3) of the study, enrolled subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: emedastine in I eye and placebo in the other, ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other, or emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other. In 25 subjects, bilateral CAC was performed 5 minutes after study medication instillation. In a second group of 20 subjects, CAC was performed 15 minutes after medication instillation. Itching was graded according to a standardized 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe itching) at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Differences in efficacy scores between treatments and versus placebo were compared using 2-sample t tests of equal variance.
A total of 45 patients (mean age, 41.2 years) received treatment: 16 received emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other; 14 received emedastine in 1 eye and placebo in the other; and 15 received ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other. Both emedastine and ketotifen significantly inhibited itching (P < 0.05) compared with placebo at all time points after the 5- and 15-minute CAC. Mean raw scores for the active treatments were not statistically different. The mean itching efficacy scores were also not statistically different between active treatments. No adverse events were reported in this study.
The results of this study suggest that emedastine and ketotifen are not significantly different with respect to anti-itching efficacy in the CAC model of acute allergic conjunctivitis.
Clinical Therapeutics 03/2002; 24(3):409-16. · 2.32 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Influenza infections can cause severe respiratory disease in high risk persons such as those with asthma, but immunization rates for high risk groups remain suboptimal. An investigational influenza virus vaccine, trivalent, types A and B, live, cold-adapted (CAIV-T) administered by intranasal spray was shown previously to be effective in healthy adults and healthy children.
To assess the safety and tolerability of CAIV-T in subjects 9 years of age and older with moderate to severe asthma.
In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study, spirometry was performed twice before vaccination to establish a baseline forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) and once 2 to 5 days thereafter. The primary outcome index was the percent change in percent predicted FEV1 before and after vaccination. Peak flows, clinical asthma symptom scores and nighttime awakening scores were measured daily from 7 days pre- to 28 days postvaccination.
The primary outcome index (percentage change in percent predicted FEV1) was not different between the two groups (0.2% vs. 0.4% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively; P = 0.78). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups; these included the number of subjects with a decrease in FEV1 > or =15% from baseline, reductions in peak flows > or =15%, > or =30% or > or =2 sd below baseline, use of beta-adrenergic rescue medications, asthma exacerbations and clinical asthma symptom scores before and after vaccination. The same proportion of subjects in each group experienced postvaccination symptoms within 10 days (92% and 91%, respectively; P = 1.0). No serious adverse event occurred.
CAIV-T was generally safe and well-tolerated in children and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 01/2002; 21(1):44-8. · 3.58 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a first-line treatment for persistent asthma. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide (CIC) in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS. This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 16-week study in subjects who were > or =12 years old, had a > or =6-month history of persistent asthma, a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60 to < or =85% predicted, and who were not using an ICS < or =30 days before study entry. Subjects were randomized to CIC, 80 microg twice daily (CIC80 b.i.d.; n = 170); CIC, 160 microg once daily in the morning (CIC160 q.d. in the A.M.; n = 173); CIC80 b.i.d. for 4 weeks followed by CIC160 q.d. for 12 weeks (CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d.; n = 171); or placebo (n = 177). Change in FEV(1) from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 (primary end point) and to week 16, A.M. peak expiratory flow, rescue albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, asthma symptom scores, and safety were evaluated. FEV(1) improved from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 for CIC80 b.i.d. (+0.30L; p < 0.0001), CIC160q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), and placebo (+0.06L; p = 0.0251); improvement was greatest for CIC80 b.i.d. (p < 0.01). At week 16, all CIC treatments significantly improved FEV(1) and A.M. PEF from baseline (p < 0.0001) and compared with placebo (p < or = 0.015). All treatments reduced albuterol use and nighttime awakenings and improved asthma symptom scores (p < or = 0.05 versus baseline); these improvements were greater for CIC80 b.i.d. than for placebo (p < 0.01). The incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment groups (range, 53-58%). In this study, CIC80 b.i.d. improved disease control in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS and provided greater improvements than CIC160 q.d.
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 30(3):304-14. · 2.17 Impact Factor
