Robert K. Zeldin

Treatment of chronic autoimmune urticaria with omalizumab

BACKGROUND Approximately 45% of patients with chronic urticaria have an IgG autoantibody directed to the alpha-subunit of the high-affinity IgE receptor (chronic autoimmune urticaria, CAU) leading to cutaneous mast cell and basophil activation. Treatment of allergic asthma with omalizumab produces rapid reduction in free IgE levels and subsequent decrease in Fc epsilon RI expression on mast cells and basophils. If this occurs in CAU, cross-linking of IgE receptors by autoantibody would be less likely, reducing cell activation and urticaria/angioedema. OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy of omalizumab in patients with CAU symptomatic despite antihistamine therapy. METHODS Twelve patients with CAU, identified by basophil histamine release assay and autologous skin test, with persistent symptoms for at least 6 weeks despite antihistamines, were treated with placebo for 4 weeks followed by omalizumab (>or=0.016 mg/kg/IU mL(-1) IgE per month) every 2 or 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Primary efficacy variable was change from baseline to the final 4 weeks of omalizumab treatment in mean Urticaria Activity Score (UAS, 0-9 scale). Changes in rescue medication use and quality of life were assessed. RESULTS Mean UAS declined significantly from baseline to the final 4 weeks of omalizumab treatment (7.50 +/- 1.78 to 2.66 +/- 3.31, -4.84 +/- 2.86, P = .0002). Seven patients achieved complete symptom resolution. In 4 patients, mean UAS decreased, but urticaria persisted. One patient did not respond. Rescue medication use was reduced significantly, and quality of life improved. No adverse effects were reported or observed. CONCLUSION This exploratory proof of concept study suggests omalizumab is an effective therapy for CAU resistant to antihistamines.

The effect of a losartan-based treatment regimen on isolated systolic hypertension.

This study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability, over 12 weeks, of a losartan‐based treatment regimen and placebo in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Three hundred eight patients ≥35 years of age with isolated systolic hypertension, defined as trough sitting blood pressure between 140 and 200 mm Hg systolic and between 70 and 89 mm Hg diastolic, were randomized to losartan 50 mg (n=157) or placebo (n=151) once daily, with titration as necessary to achieve a goal trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg. At baseline, mean trough sitting SBP was 140–159 mm Hg in 20.5% of patients, 160–179 mm Hg in 62.7%, and 180–200 mm Hg in 16.9%, and was similar in the two groups (losartan, 165.3 mm Hg; placebo, 166.1 mm Hg). At 12 weeks, mean trough sitting SBP decreased significantly (p<0.001) in both the losartan‐based treatment group (by 19.2 mm Hg) and in the placebo group (by 7.6 mm Hg). The reduction in sitting SBP was significantly greater for losartan than placebo (−11.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −14.8 to −8.4). In patients with isolated systolic hypertension, a once‐daily losartan‐based treatment regimen significantly lowered SBP. The losartan‐based regimen exhibited antihypertensive efficacy that was superior to that of placebo, with a similar tolerability profile.

Effect of pretreatment with omalizumab on the tolerability of specific immunotherapy in allergic asthma

BACKGROUND Although specific immunotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with allergic asthma, the potential for systemic allergic reactions has limited its use, especially for patients with symptomatic disease. OBJECTIVE To evaluate omalizumabs effect on the tolerability of specific immunotherapy in patients with symptomatic persistent asthma not adequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients to treatment with omalizumab or placebo, after which they received specific immunotherapy to at least 1 of 3 perennial aeroallergens (cat, dog, and house dust mite) according to a 4-week, 18-injection cluster regimen, followed by 7 weeks of maintenance therapy. The primary efficacy variable, a systemic allergic reaction after immunotherapy, was analyzed by using the Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS A total of 248 randomized patients (126 omalizumab, 122 placebo) received at least 1 dose of immunotherapy and were evaluated for efficacy. Patients receiving omalizumab experienced significantly fewer systemic allergic reactions to immunotherapy than those receiving placebo (17/126 [13.5%] vs 32/122 [26.2%]; P = .017; 95% CI, 2.91% to 22.56%) and had fewer respiratory-related (grade 3) systemic allergic reactions (6 vs 24, respectively). Grade 4 reactions were reported in 2 patients in each group. More omalizumab patients were able to reach the target maintenance immunotherapy dose (110 [87.3%] vs 88 [72.1%], respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSION Use of omalizumab in patients whose asthma was symptomatic despite use of inhaled corticosteroids was associated with fewer systemic allergic reactions to specific immunotherapy and enabled more patients to achieve the target immunotherapy maintenance dose.

Effect of omalizumab on peripheral blood eosinophilia in allergic asthma

Eosinophilia is an established marker of asthma-related inflammation. We assessed the effect of omalizumab on peripheral blood eosinophil counts using a pooled analysis of data from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic asthma receiving moderate-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (omalizumab, n=1136; placebo, n=1100). Relationships between omalizumab, peripheral blood eosinophils, serum free IgE concentrations and clinical outcomes were explored. Baseline mean eosinophil counts were similar in each treatment group. Post-treatment eosinophil counts were significantly reduced from baseline in the omalizumab group (p<0.0001) but were not significantly different in the placebo group. Greater reductions in eosinophil counts were observed in patients who had post-treatment free IgE levels <50ng/mL. Three studies included steroid-stable and steroid-reduction phases. At the end of each phase in these studies, a significantly greater reduction in eosinophil counts was achieved in the omalizumab group compared with the placebo group (p<0.0001). A consistent pattern of improved clinical outcomes/decreased eosinophils and worsened clinical outcomes/increased eosinophils was observed for both omalizumab and placebo treatment groups. The findings from our analysis of a large patient population are consistent with earlier reports of the inhibitory effect of omalizumab on eosinophils.

Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial

BACKGROUND Losartan, the first of the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to be introduced, has been studied extensively in comparison with other classes of antihypertensive agents. Less research has been conducted on the efficacy and tolerability of losartan compared with that of other ARBs. OBJECTIVE This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily regimen of losartan with that of valsartan. METHODS Patients > or = 21 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as a trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized to receive once-daily losartan (50 mg) or valsartan (80 mg) for 12 weeks. At the end of the sixth treatment week, patients in both groups with trough SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg had their dose doubled for the remainder of the treatment period. Analysis of variance was used to compare treatment groups with respect to change in mean trough SiDBP from baseline to week 12. Within-treatment changes were analyzed using the paired t test. With at least 220 patients per treatment group, the study had 90% power to place a 90% CI on the difference between losartan and valsartan in SiDBP within the equivalence interval of +/- 2.5 mm Hg. RESULTS A total of 495 patients were randomized, 247 to the losartan group and 248 to the valsartan group: 456 patients completed the study. Adjusted mean change from baseline values for trough SiDBP atthe end of 12 weeks of treatment were significantly different (P < 0.001) from zero in both the losartan group (-9.9 mm Hg) and the valsartan group (-10.1 mm Hg). At week 12, losartan was as effective as valsartan in lowering SiDBP, with a between-group difference of 0.2 mm Hg (90% CI, -1.3 to 1.7; P = 0.827). At week 6, the difference in SiDBP between groups was -1.3 mm Hg (90% CI, -2.7 to 0.0; P = 0.106). A similar pattern of results was obtained at weeks 6 and 12 for sitting systolic blood pressure. The percentage of patients reaching the SiDBP goal at week 6 (46% [112/2411 losartan; 42% [103/245] valsartan) and week 12 (57% [139/243] losartan; 59% [145/245] valsartan) was not significantly different between the treatment groups. Both losartan and valsartan were similarly well tolerated. Over the 12 weeks, the laboratory profiles of the 2 drugs were similar except for serum uric acid levels, which decreased from 6.0 to 5.7 mg/dL in the losartan group and increased from 5.9 to 6.0 mg/dL in the valsartan group (P = 0.001 for between-treatment difference). CONCLUSIONS At starting and titrated doses, losartan and valsartan are similarly effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan, but not valsartan, was associated with a decrease in serum uric acid levels.

Efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity

Background Montelukast has proven efficacy in the treatment of chronic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis, but it has not been evaluated in the subpopulation of asthmatic patients with seasonal asthma symptoms. Objective To determine the effectiveness of montelukast treatment in improving the control of asthma symptoms during the allergy season in patients with active asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity. Methods Adults with a history of chronic asthma who are also symptomatic during the allergy season and with skin test sensitivity to seasonal aeroallergens were enrolled in a randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by 3 weeks of doubleblind treatment during the spring of 2004. After the run-in period, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral montelukast (10 mg) or placebo. Daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, β-agonist use, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were recorded daily using an electronic diary. The primary end point was mean change from baseline to week 3 in the daytime asthma symptom score. Results Of 455 randomized patients, 433 completed the study. Compared with placebo, treatment with montelukast resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in the daytime asthma symptom score (−0.54 vs −0.34; P = .002) and in β-agonist use, nighttime symptoms, and peak expiratory flow rates. Few patients in the montelukast and placebo groups discontinued study participation because of asthma (1.3% and 3.0%, respectively). Conclusion In patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity, montelukast treatment provided significant asthma control during the allergy season compared with placebo.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in the treatment of moderate-to-severe essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND Many patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension require multiple drug therapy to achieve blood-pressure goals. Fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan and hydrochlorothiazide may be useful in this population. OBJECTIVE This study was conducted to obtain additional data on the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of once-daily, fixed-dose combinations of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Patients > or = 21 years of age with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension, defined as a mean trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) of 105 to 115 mm Hg, were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (L100/25), losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (L50/12.5), or placebo (PBO) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measurement was the mean change from baseline in trough SiDBP in the L100/25 versus L50/12.5 treatment groups. Responders were defined as patients with mean trough SiDBP <90 mm Hg or a > or = 10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS A total of 446 patients were randomly assigned to receive L100/25 (n = 173), L50/12.5 (n = 184), or PBO (n = 89). At week 8, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower than at baseline in the L100/25 (-17.5 mm Hg), L50/12.5 (-15.2 mm Hg), and PBO groups (-8.5 mm Hg) (all P < 0.001). The difference between the active-treatment groups was statistically significant (-2.2 mm Hg; 95% Cl, range -3.8 to -0.6) (P = 0.006), as was the difference between the L100/25 and PBO groups (-9.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, range -I1.0 to -7.0) (P < 0.001) and the L50/12.5 and PBO groups (-6.7 mm Hg; 95% CI, range -8.7 to -4.8) (P < 0.001). At week 8, the percentages of responders were 86.7% (144 of 166), 78.9% (142 of 180), and 50.0% (42 of 84) in the L100/25, L50/12.5, and PBO groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse experiences (AEs) was 34.7% (60 of 173) in the L100/25 group, 23.9% (44 of 184) in the L50/12.5 group, and 32.6% (29 of 89) in the PBO group. The incidence of drug-related AEs was similar among the treatment groups (L100/25, 7.5% [13 of 173]; L50/12.5, 7.1% [13 of 184]; and PBO, 11.2% [10 of 89]). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the once-daily, fixed-dose combination L50/12.5 in patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. In this study, L100/25 provided additional anti-hypertensive efficacy beyond that of L50/12.5 (and both were more efficacious than PBO). Approximately 4 of 5 patients (78.9%) treated with L50/12.5 responded to therapy, as did nearly 9 of 10 patients (86.7%) treated with L100/25. The tolerability profiles of L50/12.5 and L100/25 were similar to that of PBO.

Open-label study of a twice-daily indinavir 800-mg/ritonavir 100-mg regimen in protease inhibitor-naive HIV-infected adults.

Low-dose ritonavir can boost plasma levels of indinavir, thereby enhancing its antiretroviral activity despite less frequent dosing. In this open-label, noncomparative, 24-week trial with a 24-week extension phase, HIV-infected protease inhibitor (PI)- and lamivudine-naive adults received indinavir/ritonavir 800 mg/100 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine every 12 hours. The proportions of patients achieving plasma HIV RNA (vRNA) <400 and <50 copies/mL were analyzed with data as observed (DAO) and intention-to-treat models using generalized estimating equations (GEE) or counting noncompleters as failures (NC = F). Eighty-nine patients (80% men) with a median age of 36 years and mean baseline vRNA levels and CD4 counts of 5.01 log(10) copies/mL and 269 cells/mm(3) were enrolled. The proportions (95% confidence interval [CI]) of patients achieving vRNA <400 copies/mL were 93% (84%, 98%), 78% (67%, 86%), and 68% (57%, 78%) at week 24 for DAO, GEE, and NC = F analyses, respectively; the corresponding results at week 48 were 95% (84%, 99%), 65% (53%, 76%), and 45% (35%, 57%). Most patients with vRNA <400 had <50 copies/mL. At week 48, baseline vRNA decreased by >2 log(10) copies/mL and CD4 counts increased by approximately 200 cells/mm(3). Five patients (6%) experienced serious drug-related adverse experiences. Twenty patients (23%) discontinued therapy due to adverse experiences. In this study, twice-daily indinavir 800 mg/ritonavir 100 mg with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors provided potent viral suppression and immunologic reconstitution in many PI-naive patients.

Automated telecommunication to obtain longitudinal follow-up in a multicenter cross-sectional COPD study.

Abstract Background. It can be challenging to maintain longitudinal follow-up of subjects in clinical studies. COPDGene is a multicenter, observational study designed to identify genetic factors associated with COPD and to characterize COPD-related phenotypes. To obtain follow-up data on patients vital status and outcomes, the COPDGene Longitudinal Follow-up (LFU) Program was developed to supplement its parent study. Methods/Results. We used a telecommunication system that employed automated telephone contact or web-based questions to obtain longitudinal follow-up data in our subjects. A branching questionnaire asked about exacerbations, new therapies, smoking status, development of co-morbid conditions, and general health status. Study coordinators contacted subjects who did not respond to one of the automated methods. We enrolled 10,383 subjects in the COPDGene study. As of August 29, 2011, 7,959 subjects completed 19,955 surveys. On the first survey, 68.8% of subjects who completed their survey did so by electronic means, while 31.3% required coordinator phone follow-up. On each subsequent survey the number of subjects who completed their survey by electronic means increased, while the number of subjects who required coordinator follow-up decreased. Despite many of the patients in the cohort being chronically ill and elderly, there was broad acceptance of the system with over half the cohort using electronic response methods. Conclusions. The COPDGene LFU Study demonstrated that telecommunications was an effective way to obtain longitudinal follow-up of subjects in a large multicenter study. Web-based and automated phone contacts are accepted by research subjects and could serve as a model for LFU in future studies.

Adding Omalizumab to the Therapy of Adolescents With Persistent Uncontrolled Moderate—Severe Allergic Asthma

Objective. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of omalizumab among adolescents with moderate—severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Patients and methods. Data from patients 12 to 17 years of age were pooled from 5 placebo-controlled registration trials of omalizumab. Impact on asthma control was assessed by need for rescue bursts of oral corticosteroids, lung function, symptom scores, and unscheduled office visits. Results. In adolescents (n = 146), addition of omalizumab decreased mean number of rescue bursts (0.3 vs 0.9) versus placebo; relative risk 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.99; P = .047). At study conclusion, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second increased 268 mL (13.8%) in omalizumab-treated subjects versus 98 mL (5.5%) for placebo (least squares mean treatment difference 146 mL [95% CI, 19.4-272.6; P = .024]). Omalizumab significantly improved asthma symptom scores and reduced unscheduled office visits. Conclusion. Omalizumab added to baseline therapy improves measures of asthma control in adolescents with persistent moderate—severe allergic asthma.