George Bensch

A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 2 Study of AMG 317, an IL-4Rα Antagonist, in Patients with Asthma

RATIONALE IL-4 and IL-13 share many biological functions important in the development of allergic airway inflammation and are implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma. AMG 317 is a fully human monoclonal antibody to IL-4Ralpha that blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 pathways. OBJECTIVES To evaluate efficacy and safety of AMG 317 in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo or AMG 317 (75-300 mg) for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week follow-up period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at Week 12 in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) symptom score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Mean ACQ change (SE) was -0.49 (0.09) in placebo (n = 74), and -0.43 (0.11), -0.58 (0.12), and -0.70 (0.09) in the AMG 317 75 mg (n = 73), 150 mg (n = 73), and 300 mg (n = 74) groups, respectively (treatment effect P = 0.25). No statistically significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints. Numerical decreases in number of and time to exacerbations were noted in patients receiving AMG 317 150 mg and 300 mg. Preplanned analyses by tertile of baseline ACQ revealed that patients with higher baseline ACQ scores (>or=2.86) were more likely to respond to AMG 317. Serious adverse events were reported in three patients, each noted as not related to study drug. CONCLUSIONS AMG 317 did not demonstrate clinical efficacy across the overall group of patients. Clinically significant improvements were observed in several outcome measures in patients with higher baseline ACQ scores. AMG 317 was safe and well tolerated in this study population. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00436670).

Pathways Activated during Human Asthma Exacerbation as Revealed by Gene Expression Patterns in Blood

Background Asthma exacerbations remain a major unmet clinical need. The difficulty in obtaining airway tissue and bronchoalveolar lavage samples during exacerbations has greatly hampered study of naturally occurring exacerbations. This study was conducted to determine if mRNA profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) could provide information on the systemic molecular pathways involved during asthma exacerbations. Methodology/Principal Findings Over the course of one year, gene expression levels during stable asthma, exacerbation, and two weeks after an exacerbation were compared using oligonucleotide arrays. For each of 118 subjects who experienced at least one asthma exacerbation, the gene expression patterns in a sample of peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected during an exacerbation episode were compared to patterns observed in multiple samples from the same subject collected during quiescent asthma. Analysis of covariance identified genes whose levels of expression changed during exacerbations and returned to quiescent levels by two weeks. Heterogeneity among visits in expression profiles was examined using K-means clustering. Three distinct exacerbation-associated gene expression signatures were identified. One signature indicated that, even among patients without symptoms of respiratory infection, genes of innate immunity were activated. Antigen-independent T cell activation mediated by IL15 was also indicated by this signature. A second signature revealed strong evidence of lymphocyte activation through antigen receptors and subsequent downstream events of adaptive immunity. The number of genes identified in the third signature was too few to draw conclusions on the mechanisms driving those exacerbations. Conclusions/Significance This study has shown that analysis of PBMCs reveals systemic changes accompanying asthma exacerbation and has laid the foundation for future comparative studies using PBMCs.

Comparison of once-daily to twice-daily treatment with mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler

BACKGROUND Once-daily dosing with an effective inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) would likely enhance compliance and, therefore, aid in the management of asthma. OBJECTIVE Several once-daily dosing regimens of mometasone furoate (MF) administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI) were compared with a twice-daily dosing regimen in 286 patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma who were previously being treated with ICS. METHODS During a 2-week open-label phase, patients received MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily. They were then randomized to continue MF-DPI, 200 microg twice-daily treatment or to receive MF-DPI, 200 microg once daily in the morning (AM), 200 microg once daily in the evening (PM), 400 microg once daily AM, or placebo as part of the 12-week, double-blind phase. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from the baseline to endpoint (last evaluable observation) for FEV1. RESULTS Once-daily MF-DPI, 400 microg, AM maintained FEV1, and morning peak expiratory flow rate, FVC, FEF25%-75%, and asthma symptom scores, at levels similar to those for MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily and significantly better than placebo. Once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, PM was effective in maintaining pulmonary function, but was less effective on other efficacy measures. In comparison to the other MF-DPI groups, once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, AM was not as effective overall. The incidence of local adverse events, including oral candidiasis, was low with all dosages. CONCLUSIONS Once-daily MF-DPI, 400 microg, AM was as effective as MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily, whereas once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, was more effective when administered in the evening compared with morning, for patients receiving ICS therapy. Once-daily dosing offers an effective and convenient treatment that could aid compliance in the treatment of asthma.

A randomized, 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing formoterol dry powder inhaler with albuterol metered-dose inhaler

BACKGROUND Formoterol is a beta2-adrenergic agent which, when inhaled, produces rapid and long-lasting bronchodilatation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of formoterol powder for inhalation delivered via the Aerolizer device with placebo and with albuterol delivered via metered-dose inhaler in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. METHODS In a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 541 patients were randomized at 26 trial sites to receive either formoterol, 12 microg twice daily; formoterol, 24 microg twice daily; albuterol, 180 microg four times daily; or a placebo for 12 weeks. The effects of each treatment on lung function, asthma symptoms, and frequency of rescue albuterol use were evaluated. Adverse effects and clinical laboratory parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS The bronchodilatory effects of formoterol were rapid in onset and persisted for 12 hours. Both formoterol doses were more effective than placebo and albuterol for objective measures of lung function. Morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were more improved with formoterol, and formoterol provided significantly greater improvements in asthma symptom scores compared with both albuterol and placebo. Overall, patients taking formoterol used significantly less rescue medication than did those taking albuterol or placebo. Nocturnal awakenings occurred less often with formoterol than with placebo or albuterol. The therapeutic effects of formoterol were maintained over the entire 12 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were similar for all treatment groups, and clinical laboratory data were unremarkable. CONCLUSIONS Rapid-onset, long-acting formoterol, administered via the Aerolizer inhaler, is an effective and safe treatment for patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

Effective control of asthma with hydrofluoroalkane flunisolide delivered as an extrafine aerosol in asthma patients

BACKGROUND Inhaled corticosteroids are established as maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. A new aerosol formulation of flunisolide delivers a small particle size by using a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant with a built-in spacer. OBJECTIVE To compare efficacy and safety of two different flunisolide formulations, HFA and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), with placebo treatment over a range of doses. METHODS The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial consisted of a 2-week, active run-in phase with CFC flunisolide 500 microg, twice daily, followed by 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo, HFA flunisolide (85, 170, or 340 microg, twice daily), or CFC flunisolide (250, 500, or 1,000 microg, twice daily). Patients (N = 669) were nonsmokers, at least 12 years of age, with mild to moderate asthma who were being treated with inhaled corticosteroids. Outcome measures were change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate, as needed albuterol use, nocturnal awakenings, and asthma symptoms. RESULTS After 12 weeks of treatment, patients receiving 170 microg, twice daily, and 340 microg, twice daily, of HFA flunisolide showed a significant (P < 0.01) improvement in percentage increase in FEV1 (12.22% at 170 microg, twice daily, and 14.69% at 340 microg, twice daily) compared with the placebo group (5.35%). At one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide, HFA flunisolide provided similar improvement in pulmonary function versus placebo. Both formulations demonstrated comparable linear dose dependency for the change from baseline in FEV1 without any evidence of cortisol suppression. Outcome values for all seven secondary efficacy measures were numerically superior in patients receiving HFA flunisolide compared with the CFC formulation. Both formulations seemed to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS HFA flunisolide provides comparable efficacy and safety at one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide.

Linear growth and bone maturation are unaffected by 1 year of therapy with inhaled flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane in prepubescent children with mild persistent asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred long-term therapy for subjects with persistent asthma. However, concerns remain about potential effects of long-term ICS use on growth in children. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of 1 year of inhalation therapy with flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) on growth velocity and bone maturation in children with mild persistent asthma. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 218 prepubescent (Tanner Stage 1) children with mild persistent asthma ranging in age from 4 to 10 years were evaluated. After a 2-week run-in period, subjects were randomized (1:1) to 2 puffs flunisolide HFA twice daily (85 μg/puff) or placebo for 52 weeks. Height was assessed by stadiometry at each visit. Growth velocity (cm/52 weeks) was estimated by the slope of the linear regression of height over time. An independent assessor scored hand and wrist radiographs for bone development pretreatment and at week 52. Analysis of covariance was used for all efficacy endpoints. RESULTS The 2 treatment groups were similar at baseline for sex, race, age, weight, and height. At the end of double-blind treatment, mean growth velocity was 6.01 ± 1.84 cm/52 weeks for flunisolide HFA (n = 106) and 6.19 ± 1.30 cm/52 weeks for placebo (n = 112) (P = .425). Mean advancement in bone age during the 1-year study was similar for the 2 groups: 0.93 ± 0.46 years for flunisolide HFA (n = 70) and 1.01 ± 0.41 years for placebo (n = 75) (P = .128). CONCLUSIONS In this study, flunisolide HFA did not suppress growth or bone maturation at the highest approved dose for children with persistent asthma.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of ciclesonide in subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma not currently using inhaled corticosteroids.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe asthma after use of budesonide and formoterol administered via 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important for evaluating asthma therapy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate PROs in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma receiving budesonide and formoterol administered via 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). METHODS 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. RESULTS 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). CONCLUSION Significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life and asthma control and greater treatment satisfaction were observed with budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs placebo.

Combination Therapy: Appropriate for Everyone?

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.