James M. Seltzer

Once daily fluticasone propionate is as effective for perennial allergic rhinitis as twice daily beclomethasone diproprionate

BACKGROUND Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, a new potent corticosteroid, is effective when given once or twice daily for seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS Fluticasone propionate was compared with beclomethasone dipropionate in a multicenter double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 466 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Adults and adolescents (aged 12 to 71 years) with moderate to severe symptoms, nasal eosinophilia, and a positive skin test reaction (> or = 2+) to a perennial allergen received fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 100 micrograms twice daily or 200 micrograms once daily, or beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray 168 micrograms twice daily, or placebo for 6 months. RESULTS Clinician- and patient-rated scores for nasal obstruction (including obstruction on awakening), rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching were reduced by the first visit at 7 days after initiation of active treatment and remained lower than those of patients receiving placebo throughout the 6-month treatment period. Nasal eosinophilia was reduced in significantly more patients receiving active treatment. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all four treatment groups except for blood in nasal mucus, which was reported by significantly more patients in the two twice-daily active treatment groups compared with the placebo group. There was no evidence of systemic effects of fluticasone propionate. There were no significant differences between fluticasone propionate given once or twice daily or beclomethasone dipropionate given twice daily for any efficacy or safety evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray given once daily in the morning is safe and effective therapy for perennial allergic rhinitis and is as effective as twice daily dosing with fluticasone propionate or beclomethasone dipropionate.

Pest and allergen exposure and abatement in inner-city asthma: A Work Group Report of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Indoor Allergy/Air Pollution Committee

Our work group report details the importance of pest allergen exposure in inner-city asthma. We will focus specifically on mouse and cockroach exposure. We will discuss how exposure to these pests is common in the inner city and what conditions exist in urban areas that might lead to increased exposure. We will discuss how exposure is associated with allergen sensitization and asthma morbidity. Finally, we will discuss different methods of intervention and the effectiveness of these tactics.

Environmental assessment and exposure control: a practice parameter—furry animals

Members of the Joint Task Force onPractice Parameters:David Bernstein,MD, Joann Blessing-Moore,MD, Linda Cox,MD, David Khan,MD, David Lang,MD, RichardNicklas, MD, John Oppenheimer, MD, Jay Portnoy, MD, Christopher Randolph, MD, Diane Schuller, MD, Sheldon Spector, MD, Stephen A. Tilles, MD, Dana Wallace, MD Practice ParameterWork Group: James Sublett, MD, cochair, Kevin Kennedy, MPH, cochair, Charles Barnes, PhD, David Bernstein, MD, Jonathan Bernstein, MD, Carl Grimes, Elizabeth Matsui, MD, Jeffrey D. Miller, MD, J. David Miller, PhD, Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, James Seltzer, MD, P. Brock Williams, PhD Invited Reviewers: Jack Armstrong, Hans Gr×nlund, PhD, Kraig W. Jacobson, MD, Jill A. Poole, MD, Matthew A Rank, MD, Megan Taylor, MD This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthmaand Immunology, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthmaand Immunology. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing “Environmental Assessment and Remediation: A Practice Parameter.” This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changingenvironment, andnotall recommendationswillbeappropriate forallpatients.Because thisdocument incorporatedtheeffortsofmanyparticipants,nosingle individual, including thosewhoservedontheJointTaskForce, isauthorizedtoprovideanofficialAAAAIorACAAIinterpretationofthesepracticeparameters.Anyrequestforinformationaboutoraninterpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the executive offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use bypharmaceutical companies in drugpromotion. Reprints: Joint Council of Allergy, Asthmaand Immunology, 50NBrockway St, #3-3 Palatine, IL 60067. Disclosures: The following is a summaryof interests disclosedonWorkGroupmembers’ Conflict of InterestDisclosure Statements (not including information concerning familymember interests). Completed Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statements are available on request. Dr. Sublett is the owner of AllergyZone. Dr. Portnoy is a speaker and consultant for ThermoFisher (Phadia). Dr. Barnes is a consultant for and has received research funding from Clorox Corporation. Mr. Grimes is the owner of Healthy Habitats LLC. Dr. Matsui is speaker for Indoor BioTechnologies.Dr.Miller is theownerofMission:Allergy Inc.Dr. Seltzer is thePresident of JamesM. Seltzer, Assoc. TheotherWorkGroupmembershaveno conflicts todisclose. The Joint Task Force recognizes that experts in a field are likely to have interests that could come into conflictwith development of a completely unbiased and objective practice parameter. To take advantage of that expertise, a process has beendeveloped to prevent potential conflicts from influencing thefinal document in a negativeway. At theworkgroup level,memberswhohaveapotential conflictof interest eitherdonotparticipate indiscussions concerning topics related to thepotential conflictor, if theywrite a section onthattopic, theworkgroupcompletelyrewritesitwithouttheir involvementtoremovepotentialbias. Inaddition,theentiredocumentisreviewedbytheJointTaskForce,andanyapparent bias is removedat that level. Finally, thepracticeparameter is sent for reviewbothby invited reviewersandbyanyonewithan interest in the topicbyposting thedocumenton thewebsites of theACAAI and theAAAAI. In particular, the 2 owners of companies that produce products discussed in this practice parameter are Jeffrey D. Miller, MD, and James Sublett, MD. DrMiller wrote an initial section on mattress encasings. This section was then completely rewritten by other members of the work groupwithout his participation. Dr Sublett wrote a preliminary draft of the section on air filtration. That sectionwas also subsequently rewritten by othermembers of thework groupwithout his participation. Neither participant provided subsequent input into those sections. The Joint Task Force has made a concerted effort to acknowledge all contributors to this parameter. If any contributors have been excluded inadvertently, the Task Force will ensure that appropriate recognition of such contributions ismade subsequently. Work Group Cochairs: James Sublett,MD, FamilyAllergy andAsthma, Louisville, Kentucky; KevinKennedy,MPH, Center for EnvironmentalHealth, Children’sMercyHospitals C JointTaskForceLiaison:JayM.Portnoy,MD,SectionofAllergy,Asthma& Immunology, TheChildren’sMercyHospitalsC JointTaskForceMembers:David I. Bernstein,MD,DepartmentofClinical,MedicineandEnvironmentalHealth,Division ofAllergy/Immunology,UniversityofCincinnati,CollegeofMedicine,Cincinnati,Ohio; JoannBlessing-Moore,MD,Departmentof Immunology,StanfordUniversityMedicalCenter,PaloAlto, California; Linda Cox, MD, Department of Medicine, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida; David A. Khan, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; David M. Lang, MD, Allergy/Immunology Section, Division of Medicine, Allergy and Immunology Fellowship Training Program, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; Richard A. Nicklas, MD, Department of Medicine, George Washington Medical Center, Washington, DC; John Oppenheimer, MD, Departmentof InternalMedicine,NewJerseyMedicalSchool,PulmonaryandAllergyAssociates,Morristown,NewJersey; JayM.Portnoy,MD,SectionofAllergy,AsthmaI Christopher C. Randolph, Department of Pediatrics,YaleAffiliatedHospitals,Center forAllergy,Asthma,IDianeE.Schuller,MD,DepartmentofPediatrics,PennsylvaniaStateUniversityMilton S.HersheyMedical College,Hershey, Pennsylvania; SheldonL. Spector,MD,DepartmentofMedicine,UCLASchool ofMedicine, LosAngeles, California; StephenA. Tilles,MD,Departmentof Medicine,UniversityofWashington,SchoolofMedicine,Redmond,Washington;DanaWallaceMD,DepartmentofMedicine,NovaSoutheasternUniversityCollegeofOsteopathicMedicine, Davie, Florida;ParameterWorkGroupMembers:CharlesBarnes,PhD,AllergyResearch,TheChildren’sMercyHospitalsCDavid I.Bernstein,MD,Department of Clinical Medicine, Division of Immunology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio; Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Immunology/Allergy Section, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio; Carl Grimes, CIEC, Healthy Habitats LLC, Denver, Colorado; Elizabeth Matsui, MD, MHS, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins School ofMedicine, Baltimore,Maryland; Jeffrey D.Miller, MD, Department of Pediatrics, NewYorkMedical College, Valhalla, NewYork; J. David Miller,PhD,DepartmentofBiochemistry,CarltonUniversity,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada;WandaPhipatanakul,MD,MS,DepartmentofPediatrics,DivisionofAllergyandImmunology,Harvard Medical School, Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts; JamesM. Seltzer, MD, RelianceMedical Group, Department of Allergy and Immunology,Worcester, Massachusetts; P. BrockWilliams,PhD,DepartmentofAllergy/Immunology,UniversityofMissouri–KansasCitySchoolofMedicineandTheChildren’sMercyHospitalsC Invited Reviewers: Jack Armstrong, MD, Medical Arts Allergy, P.C., Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Hans Gr×nlund, PhD, Department of Immunology, Clinical Immunology and Allergy Unit Karolinska Institute,Stockholm,Sweden;KraigW.Jacobson,MD,CPI,OregonAllergyAssociates,AllergyandAsthmaResearchGroup,Eugene,Oregon;JillA.Poole,MD,DepartmentofMedicine,Division ofAllergy, Asthma& Immunology,University ofNebraskaMedical Center,Omaha,Nebraska;MatthewARank,MD,DivisionofAllergicDiseases,MayoClinic, Rochester,Minnesota;Megan Taylor,MD, Allergy&AsthmaCare, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

A Regional Comparison of Mold Spore Concentrations Outdoors and Inside “Clean” and “Mold Contaminated” Southern California Buildings

A total of 625 buildings and outdoor locations in the San Diego, California, area were monitored using the Allergenco Sampl-Air MK-3 impaction sampler or the Zefon Air-O-Cell slit bioaerosol cassette. Locations were classified by rigid criteria as clean commercial, commercial with mold growth, clean residential, residential with water staining, and residential with mold growth. In addition, coastal and inland outdoor locations were measured. Seven categories (total spores, Ascospores/Basidiospores, Cladosporium, Smut/Myxomyceteslike, Aspergillus/Penicillium (AS/PE), Alternaria, and Unidentified/Other) were detected frequently enough that maximum likelihood estimate techniques could be used to determine distribution parameters and, thus, treat these as continuous variables. For total counts (no nondetectables) an analysis of variance was used to examine differences in location means. For the other categories Lands confidence limits were generated and visually compared for differences among locations. For 12 other categories (Curvularia, Dreschlera, Epicoccum, Fusa-rium, Mildew-like, Pithomyces, Rusts, Stachybotrys, Stemphyllium, Torula, Ulocladium, and Zygomycetes-like), detection generally occurred in less than 10% of samples. These genera were treated as dichotomous (detect/nondetect) data, and Chi-square analyses differentiated between locations. For total counts, values were significantly different on the order of clean < outdoor < moldy. There was a large difference between the moldy and other location classes. For AS/PE, moldy location means were clearly higher than those for clean buildings and outdoors, although the clean and outdoor means could not be differentiated. For all other genera the results tend to indicate little or no ability to discriminate location. For example, there were no differences in the probabilities of detecting Stachybotrys among the various locations. In our study only total counts, usually driven by AS/PE concentrations, had value in determining whether a building is mold contaminated employing our set of rigorous location classification criteria.

Comparison of parallel line skin test assay plst and elisa inhibition ei methods for determination of relative potency of polymerized grass and ragweed antigenic extracts

Relative potency estimates were performed by parallel line skin test assay (PLST) and ELISA inhibition methods for three polymerized allergen extracts (Bermuda grass, orchard grass, and a copolymer of short and giant ragweed) versus four unmodified RAST standardized reference extracts (Bermuda grass, orchard grass, and giant and short ragweed) in nine subjects. One subject experienced a systemic reaction, requiring treatment at the end of the PLST assay. Another subject had a systemic reaction during limited skin testing performed approximately 72 hours after completion of PLST. Relative potency values for the polymerized extracts obtained by PLST were much lower than those obtained by ELISA inhibition, but results were significantly (r = 0.95; p less than 0.01) correlated. Because polymerized allergen extracts are designed to be hypoallergenic, a skin test assay may underestimate their potency relative to an unmodified reference extract.