David S. Pearlman

Dupilumab in Persistent Asthma with Elevated Eosinophil Levels

BACKGROUND Moderate-to-severe asthma remains poorly treated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab (SAR231893/REGN668), a fully human monoclonal antibody to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor, in patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels. METHODS We enrolled patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per microliter or a sputum eosinophil level of at least 3% who used medium-dose to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). We administered dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once weekly. Patients were instructed to discontinue LABAs at week 4 and to taper and discontinue inhaled glucocorticoids during weeks 6 through 9. Patients received the study drug for 12 weeks or until a protocol-defined asthma exacerbation occurred. The primary end point was the occurrence of an asthma exacerbation; secondary end points included a range of measures of asthma control. Effects on various type 2 helper T-cell (Th2)-associated biomarkers and safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS A total of 52 patients were assigned to the dupilumab group, and 52 patients were assigned to the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Three patients had an asthma exacerbation with dupilumab (6%) versus 23 with placebo (44%), corresponding to an 87% reduction with dupilumab (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.28; P<0.001). Significant improvements were observed for most measures of lung function and asthma control. Dupilumab reduced biomarkers associated with Th2-driven inflammation. Injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache occurred more frequently with dupilumab than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS In patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels who used inhaled glucocorticoids and LABAs, dupilumab therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with fewer asthma exacerbations when LABAs and inhaled glucocorticoids were withdrawn, with improved lung function and reduced levels of Th2-associated inflammatory markers. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01312961.).

A Comparison of Salmeterol with Albuterol in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Asthma

BACKGROUND An effective, long-acting bronchodilator could benefit patients with asthma who have symptoms not controlled by antiinflammatory drugs. We compared a new long-acting, inhaled beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist, salmeterol, with a short-acting beta 2-agonist, albuterol, in the treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma. METHODS We randomly assigned 234 patients (150 male and 84 female patients 12 to 73 years old) to one of three treatment groups: one group received 42 micrograms of salmeterol twice daily, one received 180 micrograms of albuterol four times daily, and one received placebo. Treatment was assigned in a double-blind fashion, and all patients could use supplemental inhaled albuterol as needed during the 12-week treatment period. RESULTS Measurements of the forced expiratory volume in one second, performed hourly for 12 consecutive hours, showed that a single dose of salmeterol produced a greater mean area under the curve than two doses of albuterol taken 6 hours apart (6.3 vs. 4.9 liter.hr, P < 0.05). The difference was significant on day 1 and at week 4 of the study, but not at week 8 or 12. Salmeterol was also more effective than albuterol or placebo (with albuterol taken as needed) in increasing the morning peak expiratory flow rate: salmeterol induced a mean increase of 24 liters per minute over the pretreatment values, as compared with a decrease of 6 liters per minute with albuterol (P < 0.001) and an increase of 1 liter per minute with placebo (P = 0.002). The mean overall symptom score was improved most by salmeterol treatment (P < 0.05), with the number of days with symptoms and of nights with awakenings decreasing by 22 percent and 52 percent, respectively; there were no differences in results between albuterol treatment and placebo administration. We found no evidence of tolerance to the bronchodilating effects of salmeterol, and adverse reactions to all the treatments were infrequent and mild. CONCLUSIONS For the management of mild-to-moderate asthma, salmeterol given twice daily is superior to albuterol given either four times daily or as needed.

Oral Montelukast Compared with Inhaled Salmeterol To Prevent Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction is common in patients with chronic asthma (1). Airway cooling or desiccation during exercise may trigger activation of mast cells and release of such mediators as histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes, resulting in bronchospasm (1, 2). Cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTC4, LTD4, and LTE4), synthesized from arachidonic acid through the 5-lipoxygenase pathway, are potent bronchoconstrictors, with an effect greater than 1000 times that of histamine (3-5). Several researchers have demonstrated an increase in urinary concentrations of LTE4 after exercise (6, 7). Prophylaxis against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction with inhaled mast cell-stabilizing agents and short-acting -agonists must be administered 15 to 30 minutes before exercise. The long-acting inhaled -agonist salmeterol protects against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction for up to 12 hours, thus providing more flexibility in the dosing schedule for active patients with asthma (8, 9). However, in some patients, tolerance to salmeterol develops with long-term use, and the level of bronchoprotection diminishes by 6 to 9 hours (10-12). Montelukast sodium, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, is a potent oral medication for the treatment of asthma. The leukotriene receptor antagonists have demonstrated a significant bronchoprotective effect with exercise after one or two doses (13, 14). In patients with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, short-term treatment with montelukast (Singulair, Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey) given once daily diminished the postexercise response, as described by the area under the FEV1 time curve (AUC0-60 min), by more than 50%, even at the end of the dosing interval (20 to 24 hours after administration) (15, 16). Furthermore, tolerance to the bronchoprotective effects of montelukast did not occur with long-term administration (17). We sought to test the hypothesis that the bronchoprotective effects of montelukast were greater than those of salmeterol in patients with chronic asthma who experienced exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Methods Design We conducted a randomized, parallel-group study consisting of a 2-week, single-blind placebo baseline period followed by an 8-week, double-blind treatment period with montelukast sodium (10-mg tablet taken orally once in the evening) or inhaled salmeterol (50-g aerosol formulation [2 puffs] taken twice daily). Seventeen clinical study sites participated in the trial. To mask formulation differences, a double-dummy treatment regimen was used. Each patient received one tablet daily (active agent or matching placebo) or one inhaler twice daily (active agent or matching placebo) for both the single-blind and double-blind treatment periods. A computer-generated allocation schedule with a blocking factor of 4 was produced by the statistician. Each center was given a block of allocation numbers that were assigned sequentially to consecutive randomly assigned patients. Spirometric measurements were obtained before and after standardized exercise challenges at the beginning and end of the baseline period, within the first 3 days of the double-blind treatment period, and at weeks 4 and 8 of the treatment period. Additional measurements were physical examination, vital signs, electrocardiography, chest radiography, and laboratory tests (hematology, chemistry profile, and urinalysis). At each visit, all spontaneously reported adverse events were recorded. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of each site, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Inclusion Criteria Male and female patients 15 to 45 years of age with a history of chronic asthma were enrolled. All patients had an FEV1 of at least 65% of the predicted value at rest and a decrease in FEV1 of at least 20% after a standardized exercise challenge on two occasions during the baseline period. All patients had been nonsmokers for at least 1 year and had a smoking history of less than 15 pack-years. Exclusion Criteria Persons who had upper respiratory infection or exacerbation of asthma requiring emergency care within the past month or were hospitalized for asthma in the past 3 months were excluded. Use of oral or inhaled corticosteroids, theophylline, cromolyn sodium, nedocromil, oral -agonist, and long-acting antihistamines was prohibited before and during the study. Use of inhaled albuterol for symptomatic relief of asthma and use of short-acting antihistamines were permitted. Evaluations A standard spirometer (Puritan-Bennett PB100/PB110, Puritan-Bennett, Wilmington, Massachusetts) was used to obtain all spirometric measurements according to American Thoracic Society standard criteria (18). Patients had to have discontinued use of inhaled short-acting -agonists for 6 hours before the visit. Exercise testing was done in the early afternoon near the trough of effect for both drugs according to a method described elsewhere (17). Measurements were obtained 20 and 5 minutes before exercise (prechallenge period). Exercise challenge was performed only if the average FEV1 in the prechallenge period was greater than 65% of predicted; otherwise, the test was rescheduled. Patients exercised on a treadmill while inhaling room temperature, compressed, dry air. During the first test, the speed and gradient of the treadmill were adjusted to achieve 80% to 90% of the patients age-predicted maximum heart rate. The settings were maintained for a total of 6 minutes; the same settings were used for future tests. This level of exercise has been used to quantify the level of bronchoconstriction associated with regular exercise (19). Serial spirometric measurements were obtained at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after exercise (postexercise period). Additional measurements were carried out at 15-minute intervals for up to 90 minutes if the patients FEV1 had not returned to within 5% of the prechallenge value by 60 minutes. If the patients FEV1 did not return to the prechallenge value by 90 minutes after exercise, a rescue dose of inhaled -agonist was administered at the discretion of the study investigator. Statistical Analysis An all-patients-treated analysis, which included patients with a baseline visit and at least one post-randomization visit, was performed. The change from baseline in the maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 after exercise at the end of 8 weeks of treatment was the primary end point. Analysis of variance was used to compare the two treatment groups. The analysis of variance model included terms for treatment, center, and the interaction of treatment and center. Ninety-five percent CIs for within-group means and the difference between groups were constructed to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. Analysis of variance on the ranked data was used to analyze percentage inhibition for all end points. In the event of early termination of the exercise challenge because of administration of rescue medication, the largest percentage decrease in FEV1 achieved before administration of rescue medication was used in the analysis. Secondary end points were change from baseline for maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 at days 1 to 3 and week 4, the time required after maximal decrease in FEV1 to return within 5% of prechallenge values (time to recovery), and the AUC0-60 min at all visits. The mean of the 20- and 5-minute prechallenge measurements was used as the pre-exercise FEV1 value. If a patient required rescue with inhaled -agonist during the postexercise period, the last recorded FEV1 value was used and carried forward for all subsequent readings and 100 minutes was entered for the end point of time to recovery. The AUC0-60 min was calculated by using the trapezoidal method. If a patients FEV1 did not decrease below 95% of the prechallenge value, the time to recovery was assigned a value of zero. The persistence of effect over time was assessed by using a repeated-measures fixed-effects model with terms for center, treatment group, time, and the interaction of treatment group and time to calculate the rate of change over the treatment period. Persistence of effect was defined as a slope of zero. The magnitude of the slopes for each treatment group was estimated, and 95% CIs were calculated. An overall test of equal slopes between the treatment groups was examined, and a 95% CI on the difference in slopes between treatment groups was provided. The number and percentage of patients requiring rescue medication during or at the end of the exercise test were summarized by treatment group at each time point. In addition, the number and percentage of patients whose decrease in FEV1 from pre-exercise levels was less than 10%, 10% to 20%, 20% to 40%, and greater than 40% were summarized by treatment group for each visit. The overall incidence of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities was assessed by using the Fisher exact test, and within-group changes in the number of laboratory abnormalities were assessed by using the McNemar test. Descriptive statistics were provided by treatment group for patient demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and baseline profile. The study was designed with a sample size of 160 patients (80 patients per treatment group) to have 95% power (two-sided test at =0.05) to detect a 7% difference in the mean change in maximal percentage decrease in FEV1 between treatments. All statistical analyses were performed by using SAS software, version 6 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Role of the Funding Source Funding for this trial was provided by Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. Personnel from Merck U.S. Human Health, Clinical Development department played a significant role in the design, conduct, and analysis of the trial. The trial was conducted in accordance with guidelines for clinical trials of investigational agents established by U.S. regulatory authorities. Results Pati

Cetirizine in patients with seasonal rhinitis and concomitant asthma: prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial☆☆☆★★★

OBJECTIVE This study explored the safety and efficacy of cetirizine for treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. METHODS Daily treatment for 6 weeks with cetirizine 10 mg (93 patients) was compared with placebo treatment (93 patients) in a randomized, double-blind parallel study of patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma. This multicenter study was started just before onset of the fall pollen season. Rhinitis and asthma symptoms were assessed twice daily; spirometry was performed weekly. RESULTS Placebo-treated patients experienced a worsening of rhinitis symptoms from baseline throughout the study, whereas cetirizine-treated patients had a significant improvement in rhinitis symptoms at week 1, which was maintained after onset of the pollen season. Asthma symptoms in the cetirizine group improved from baseline at week 1; symptoms were significantly better than in the placebo group for 5 of 6 weeks of the study. Pulmonary function did not worsen in patients taking cetirizine or placebo; there were no differences between treatments as determined by spirometry. Albuterol use was less frequent in the cetirizine-treated patients for every week of the study, but differences did not reach significance. Pseudoephedrine use was similar in both groups. More cetirizine-treated patients (90%) completed the trial than did placebo-treated patients (74%). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION Cetirizine 10 mg daily is safe and effective in relieving both upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and concomitant asthma.

Pathogenesis, prevalence, diagnosis, and management of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: a practice parameter

Chief Editors: John M. Weiler, MD, MBA, President, CompleWare Corporation, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Sandra D. Anderson, PhD, DSc, Clinical Professor, Sydney Medical School, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Camperdown NSW 2050, Australia; Christopher Randolph, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, Yale Affiliated Programs, Waterbury Hospital, Center for Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Waterbury, Connecticut

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma

BackgroundAsthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma.Methods509 people (6–50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV1 92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a ≥ 10% fall in FEV1 on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC20 ≤ 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV1 at ≤ 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results.ResultsMannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV1 in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD15 158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC20 2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6)mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive.ConclusionIn this group with normal FEV1, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations.Trial registrationThis was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America. (NCT0025229).

Pathophysiology of the inflammatory response

Airway allergic reactions enlist diverse cells and a multitude of chemical mediators that are responsible for the clinical symptoms of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Experiments in vitro and in animal models, as well as increasingly numerous studies in atopic human subjects, are revealing that an orchestrated continuum of cellular activities leading to airway allergic inflammation is set in motion in genetically predisposed individuals at the first exposure to a novel antigen. This sensitization step likely depends on differentiation of and cytokine release by T(H)2 lymphocytes. Among T(H)2-derived cytokines, IL-4 potently enhances B-lymphocyte generation of immunoglobulin E antibodies. The attachment of these antibodies to specific receptors on airway mast cells sets the stage for an acute inflammatory response on subsequent antigen exposure because IgE cross-linking by a bound antigen activates mast cells to release numerous inflammatory mediators. These mast cell-derived mediators collectively produce acute-phase clinical symptoms by enhancing vascular leak, bronchospasm, and activation of nociceptive neurons linked to parasympathetic reflexes. Simultaneously, some mast cell mediators up-regulate expression on endothelial cells of adhesion molecules for leukocytes (eosinophils, but also basophils and lymphocytes), which are key elements in the late-phase allergic response. Chemoattractant molecules released during the acute phase draw these leukocytes to airways during a relatively symptom-free recruitment phase, where they later release a plethora of cytokines and tissue-damaging proteases that herald a second wave of airway inflammatory trauma (late-phase response). The repetition of these processes, with the possible establishment in airway mucosa of memory T lymphocytes and eosinophils that are maintained by paracrine and autocrine cytokine stimulation, may account for airway hypersensitivity and chronic airway symptoms.

Dose-related efficacy of budesonide administered via a dry powder inhaler in the treatment of children with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy and safety of budesonide delivered by an inhalation-driven dry powder inhaler (Turbuhaler) in children with moderate to severe persistent asthma. STUDY DESIGN In our randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study, a total of 404 children with asthma, who were aged 6 to 18 years and who had been receiving inhaled glucocorticosteroid therapy, were randomly assigned to receive either 100, 200, or 400 micrograms of budesonide or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. At baseline, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 74.6% (range, 30.7% to 123.3%) of the predicted normal value. RESULTS Patients in each of the three budesonide treatment groups showed significant dose-related improvements in lung function (morning peak expiratory flow and FEV1), in asthma symptoms, and with a significant decrease in inhaled beta 2-agonist use in comparison with placebo. Improvements were evident within 2 weeks and were maintained throughout the 12 weeks. Budesonide treatment had no significant effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, and the incidence of reported adverse events was similar in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION Budesonide administered via a dry powder inhaler provided dose-related improvements in lung function and clinical status and was well tolerated by children (6 to 18 years of age) with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

A dose-ranging study of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis assessed by symptoms, rhinomanometry, and nasal cytology

Fluticasone propionate is a new glucocorticosteroid with potent topical activity. In a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 423 adult patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis received placebo or fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray at doses of 25, 100, or 400 micrograms twice daily (b.i.d.) for 2 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by nasal symptom scores, nasal airflow, nasal cytology, and global evaluation. All doses of fluticasone propionate were significantly better than placebo in reducing symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Patients receiving the largest dose of fluticasone propionate (400 micrograms b.i.d.) had a slightly greater reduction (not significant) in symptom scores than patients receiving the smallest dose (25 micrograms b.i.d.). Symptom improvement was evident within 3 days of treatment. Nasal airflow improved in the groups treated with fluticasone propionate, 100 and 400 micrograms b.i.d. Examination of nasal cytograms revealed a striking decrease in both eosinophils and basophils in all three groups receiving active treatment compared with placebo. There were few adverse events and no treatment-related abnormalities in laboratory assays or evaluations of hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenocortical axis function. Comparison of treatment groups indicated that fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray was as safe as placebo at the doses studied.

Safety profile and clinical activity of multiple subcutaneous doses of MEDI-528, a humanized anti-interleukin-9 monoclonal antibody, in two randomized phase 2a studies in subjects with asthma

BackgroundInterleukin-9 (IL-9)-targeted therapies may offer a novel approach for treating asthmatics. Two randomized placebo-controlled studies were conducted to assess the safety profile and potential efficacy of multiple subcutaneous doses of MEDI-528, a humanized anti-IL-9 monoclonal antibody, in asthmatics.MethodsStudy 1: adults (18-65 years) with mild asthma received MEDI-528 (0.3, 1, 3 mg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously twice weekly for 4 weeks. Study 2: adults (18-50 years) with stable, mild to moderate asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction received 50 mg MEDI-528 or placebo subcutaneously twice weekly for 4 weeks. Adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, asthma control (including asthma exacerbations), and exercise challenge test were evaluated in study 1, study 2, or both.ResultsIn study 1 (N = 36), MEDI-528 showed linear serum PK; no anti-MEDI-528 antibodies were detected. Asthma control: 1/27 MEDI-528-treated subjects had 1 asthma exacerbation, and 2/9 placebo-treated subjects had a total of 4 asthma exacerbations (one considered a serious AE). In study 2, MEDI-528 (n = 7) elicited a trend in the reduction in mean maximum decrease in FEV1 post-exercise compared to placebo (n = 2) (-6.49% MEDI-528 vs -12.60% placebo; -1.40% vs -20.10%; -5.04% vs -15.20% at study days 28, 56, and 150, respectively). Study 2 was halted prematurely due to a serious AE in an asymptomatic MEDI-528-treated subject who had an abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging that was found to be an artifact on further evaluation.ConclusionsIn these studies, MEDI-528 showed an acceptable safety profile and findings suggestive of clinical activity that support continued study in subjects with mild to moderate asthma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT00507130 and ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT00590720