Jonathan Corren

Allergic rhinitis and asthma: How important is the link?

Dysfunction of the upper and lower airways frequently coexist, and they appear to share key elements of pathogenesis. Data from epidemiologic studies indicate that nasal symptoms are experienced by as many as 78% of patients with asthma and that asthma is experienced by as many as 38% of patients with allergic rhinitis. Studies also have identified a temporal relation between the onset of rhinitis and asthma, with rhinitis frequently preceding the development of asthma. Patients with allergic rhinitis and no clinical evidence of asthma commonly exhibit nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The observation that management of allergic rhinitis also relieves symptoms of asthma has heightened interest in the link between these diseases. Intranasal corticosteroids can prevent increases in nonspecific bronchial reactivity and asthma symptoms associated with seasonal pollen exposure. Similarly, among patients with perennial rhinitis, daily asthma symptoms, exercise-induced bronchospasm, and bronchial responsiveness to methacholine are reduced after administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Antihistamines, with or without decongestants, reduce seasonal rhinitis symptoms, asthma symptoms, and objective measurements of pulmonary function among patients with rhinitis and asthma. The mechanisms that connect upper and lower airway dysfunction are under investigation. They include a nasal-bronchial reflex, mouth breathing caused by nasal obstruction, and pulmonary aspiration of nasal contents. Nasal allergen challenge results in increases in lower airway reactivity within 30 minutes, suggesting a neural reflex. Improvements in asthma associated with increased nasal breathing may be the result of superior humidification, warming of inspired air, and decreased inhalation of airborne allergens. Postnasal drainage of inflammatory cells during sleep also may affect lower airway responsiveness. A link between allergic rhinitis and asthma is evident from epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, and clinical studies. Future research, however, is needed to determine whether nasal therapy can alter the natural history of asthma.

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).

Lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe asthma: pooled data from two randomised placebo-controlled studies

Introduction In a subset of patients with asthma, standard-of-care treatment does not achieve disease control, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic approaches. Lebrikizumab is a humanised, monoclonal antibody that binds to and blocks interleukin-13 activity. Methods LUTE and VERSE were replicate, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, evaluating multiple doses of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and a second controller. Patients received lebrikizumab 37.5, 125, 250 mg or placebo subcutaneously every four weeks. The primary endpoint was the rate of asthma exacerbations during the placebo-controlled period. Analyses were performed on prespecified subgroups based on baseline serum periostin levels. Following the discovery of a host-cell impurity in the study drug material, protocols were amended to convert from phase III to phase IIb. Subsequently, dosing of study medication was discontinued early as a precautionary measure. The data collected for analysis were from a placebo-controlled period of variable duration and pooled across both studies. Results The median duration of treatment was approximately 24 weeks. Treatment with lebrikizumab reduced the rate of asthma exacerbations, which was more pronounced in the periostin-high patients (all doses: 60% reduction) than in the periostin-low patients (all doses: 5% reduction); no dose–response was evident. Lung function also improved following lebrikizumab treatment, with greatest increase in FEV1 in periostin-high patients (all doses: 9.1% placebo-adjusted improvement) compared with periostin-low patients (all doses: 2.6% placebo-adjusted improvement). Lebrikizumab was well tolerated and no clinically important safety signals were observed. Conclusions These data are consistent with, and extend, previously published results demonstrating the efficacy of lebrikizumab in improving rate of asthma exacerbations and lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remain uncontrolled despite current standard-of-care treatment. Trial registration numbers The LUTE study was registered under NCT01545440 and the VERSE study under NCT01545453 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov

Omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma

BACKGROUND Previous reports show that addition of omalizumab to standard therapy reduces asthma exacerbations and simultaneously decreases use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and rescue medication in patients with allergic asthma. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of omalizumab on long-term disease control in patients with severe allergic asthma. METHODS The present study concerns the 24-week, double-blind extension phase to a previous 28-week core study in which patients received subcutaneous omalizumab or matching placebo (at least 0.016 mg/kg/IgE [IU/mL] every 4 weeks) for 16 weeks in addition to their existing ICS therapy (beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]; steroid-stable phase), followed by a 12-week phase in which controlled attempts were made to gradually reduce ICS therapy (steroid-reduction phase). During the extension phase patients were maintained on randomized treatment (omalizumab or placebo) and the lowest sustainable dose of BDP. The use of other asthma medications was permitted during the extension phase. Investigators were also allowed to switch patients from BDP to other ICS medications if considered necessary. RESULTS A total of 460 patients (omalizumab, n = 245; placebo, n = 215) entered the extension phase. Overall, omalizumab-treated patients experienced significantly fewer exacerbations vs placebo during the extension phase (0.60 and 0.83 exacerbations per patient, respectively; P = 0.023), despite a sustained significant reduction in their use of ICS (mean BDP equivalent dose: omalizumab, 227 microg/d; placebo, 335 microg/d; P < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab was well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma.

The impact of allergic rhinitis on bronchial asthma.

During the past century, practicing clinicians have frequently observed that allergic rhinitis and asthma coexist in the same patients. Despite a wealth of data supporting an association between rhinitis and asthma, it has remained controversial whether the presence of rhinitis predisposes an individual to the development of asthma and whether nasal dysfunction causes asthma to worsen. Despite these uncertainties, there is a growing body of literature suggesting that appropriate treatment of allergic rhinitis results in improvements in asthma symptoms and lower airway function. In this review, data from a variety of clinical and laboratory studies will be highlighted to help clarify our understanding of this complex and important relation.

β2-Receptor Polymorphisms in Patients Receiving Salmeterol with or without Fluticasone Propionate

RATIONALE Retrospective pharmacogenetic studies have questioned whether patients with asthma who are arginine homozygous at the beta(2-)adrenergic receptor (position 16) should use long-acting beta-agonists. OBJECTIVES To examine whether the response to salmeterol alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid is influenced by beta- receptor polymorphisms. METHODS Subjects using only as-needed albuterol were screened and completed two sequential open-label run-in periods (8 wk on as-needed albuterol; 8 wk on as-needed ipratropium). Five hundred forty-four subjects were randomized by Arg16Gly genotype to salmeterol alone or with fluticasone propionate for 16 weeks. Change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow was the primary endpoint. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Lung function responses were sustained over treatment and no statistically significant changes from baseline between genotypes within treatments were observed. Overall mean changes in morning peak flow for salmeterol with fluticasone propionate were 32.6 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Gly/Gly, 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3, 22.1), 25.9 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Arg/Gly, 95% CI, -7.1, 21.3), and 24.9 L/min (Arg/Gly vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -13.0, 14.6), and for salmeterol alone were 19.4 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -1.7, 21.4), 24.6 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Arg/Gly, 95% CI, -13.0, 10.6), and 12.4 L/min (Arg/Gly vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -0.2, 22.3) for Arg/Arg, Arg/Gly, and Gly/Gly genotypes, respectively. Other measures of asthma control showed similar responses. CONCLUSIONS The results showed no evidence of a pharmacogenetic effect of beta-receptor variation on salmeterol response. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00102882).

Once-daily mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler in the treatment of patients with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND Although inhaled glucocorticoids are recommended for all stages of persistent asthma, compliance with long-term therapy is often poor, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. A simplified, once-daily dosing regimen may foster improved compliance. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (AM) administration of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler (MF DPI) 200 microg and 400 microg with placebo in patients with asthma previously maintained only on short-acting inhaled beta-adrenergic receptor agonists. METHODS This was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. The mean change from baseline to endpoint (last treatment visit) for FEV1 was the primary efficacy variable. RESULTS At endpoint, both doses of MF DPI were significantly more effective than placebo (P < or = .05) in improving FEV1. Based on morning peak expiratory flow rate, once-daily MF DPI 400 microg was more effective than placebo (P < or = .001) at endpoint. Both active treatments also demonstrated improvement at endpoint in asthma symptom scores, physician-evaluated response to therapy and use of rescue medication. Although both MF DPI dosages were efficacious, MF DPI 400 microg provided additional improvement in some measures of pulmonary function (eg, morning PEFR) when these agents were administered once daily in the morning. Both doses of MF DPI were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events occurred at a similar incidence among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that once-daily (AM) MF DPI provides a convenient and effective treatment option for patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma.

Comparison of the bronchodilatory effects of cetirizine, albuterol, and both together versus placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma

BACKGROUND Many potential users of the H1 antihistamine cetirizine are asthmatic and may be using inhaled albuterol. This study was conducted to assess the possible bronchodilatory effect of cetirizine in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and to determine whether cetirizine interacts with albuterol. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, the effects on pulmonary function of 5, 10, and 20 mg oral doses of cetirizine with and without inhaled albuterol (180 micrograms) were determined in 12 patients at 11 time points over 8 hours. The primary measure of efficacy was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS Cetirizine with or without albuterol significantly increased FEV1, peak expiratory flow rate, and forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% of vital capacity relative to baseline and placebo but did not have a significant effect on forced vital capacity. The effect of 20 mg of cetirizine on FEV1 was generally greater than that of 10 or 5 mg, but the difference was statistically significant only at the 30-minute time point (p < 0.05). All three cetirizine doses produced significantly greater increases than placebo in FEV1 and forced expiratory flow rate between 25% and 75% of vital capacity for 8 hours and in peak expiratory flow rate for 7 hours (p < 0.02). Albuterol alone had a significant effect on the four pulmonary function variables from 1 to 5 hours after baseline (p < 0.05), which is consistent with albuterols recommended dosing frequency of every 4 to 6 hours. Albuterol alone increased FEV1 significantly more than 5 mg of cetirizine alone but not 10 mg or 20 mg of cetirizine alone at 60, 90, and 120 minutes after baseline, but all three doses of cetirizine increased FEV1 significantly more than albuterol 7 and 8 hours after baseline (p < 0.05), indicating that the bronchodilatory action of cetirizine lasts longer than that of albuterol. Cetirizine neither potentiated nor inhibited the bronchodilatory action of albuterol, but the two drugs appeared to have an additive bronchodilatory effect. None of the cetirizine treatments caused a worsening of pulmonary function, and all were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Cetirizine has a significant bronchodilatory effect in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and can be used to treat concomitant conditions (e.g., allergic rhinitis) without concern that it will interfere with the bronchodilatory effect of albuterol or cause worsening of asthma by itself.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine

BACKGROUND Currently available oral second-generation antihistamines do not provide adequate symptom relief for many allergy patients. OBJECTIVE To determine the ability of azelastine nasal spray to improve rhinitis symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-week study in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study began with a 1-week, open-label lead-in period, during which patients received fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily. Patients who improved less than 25% to 33% with fexofenadine were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily; or (3) placebo (saline) nasal spray and placebo capsules twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion symptom scores. RESULTS A total of 334 patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine were included in the efficacy analysis. After 2 weeks of treatment, azelastine nasal spray (P = .007) and azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine (P = .003) significantly improved the TNSS compared with placebo. Azelastine nasal spray monotherapy was as effective as the combination of azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine as measured by the TNSS and individual symptoms of the TNSS. CONCLUSIONS Azelastine nasal spray is effective monotherapy for patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine and should be considered in the initial management of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND The addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo. METHODS This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call. RESULTS A total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups. CONCLUSIONS In this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.