Roland Buhl

Mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma (DREAM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Some patients with severe asthma have recurrent asthma exacerbations associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation. Early studies suggest that inhibition of eosinophilic airway inflammation with mepolizumab-a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5-is associated with a reduced risk of exacerbations. We aimed to establish efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics associated with the response to mepolizumab. METHODS We undertook a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 81 centres in 13 countries between Nov 9, 2009, and Dec 5, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 12-74 years, had a history of recurrent severe asthma exacerbations, and had signs of eosinophilic inflammation. They were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1:1 ratio) to receive one of three doses of intravenous mepolizumab (75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg) or matched placebo (100 mL 0·9% NaCl) with a central telephone-based system and computer-generated randomly permuted block schedule stratified by whether treatment with oral corticosteroids was required. Patients received 13 infusions at 4-week intervals. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, which were defined as validated episodes of acute asthma requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, admission, or a visit to an emergency department. Patients, clinicians, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000506. FINDINGS 621 patients were randomised: 159 were assigned to placebo, 154 to 75 mg mepolizumab, 152 to 250 mg mepolizumab, and 156 to 750 mg mepolizumab. 776 exacerbations were deemed to be clinically significant. The rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 2·40 per patient per year in the placebo group, 1·24 in the 75 mg mepolizumab group (48% reduction, 95% CI 31-61%; p<0·0001), 1·46 in the 250 mg mepolizumab group (39% reduction, 19-54%; p=0·0005), and 1·15 in the 750 mg mepolizumab group (52% reduction, 36-64%; p<0·0001). Three patients died during the study, but the deaths were not deemed to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION Mepolizumab is an effective and well tolerated treatment that reduces the risk of asthma exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Systemic glutathione deficiency in symptom-free hiv-seropositive individuals

To find out whether systemic glutathione deficiency is associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, thus contributing to the immunodeficiency state, glutathione concentrations in venous plasma and lung epithelial lining fluid (ELF) of symptom-free HIV-seropositive and normal individuals were measured. Total and reduced glutathione concentrations in the plasma of the HIV-infected subjects were about 30% of those in the normal individuals. Concentrations of these substances in the ELF of HIV-infected subjects were about 60% of those in the controls. There was no correlation between ELF and plasma concentrations of total or reduced glutathione. Since glutathione enhances immune function, glutathione deficiency may contribute to the progressive immune dysfunction of HIV infection.

Efficacy of a new once-daily long-acting inhaled β2-agonist indacaterol versus twice-daily formoterol in COPD

Background Indacaterol is a long-acting inhaled β2-agonist (LABA) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In previous studies, indacaterol provided 24 h bronchodilation on once-daily dosing with a fast onset of action. This study compared the efficacy and safety of indacaterol with the twice-daily LABA formoterol and placebo over 1 year. Methods Patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to receive once-daily indacaterol 300 μg (n=437) or 600 μg (n=428), twice-daily formoterol 12 μg (n=435) or placebo (n=432) for 52 weeks in a double-blind double-dummy parallel group study. The primary efficacy variable was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) measured 24 h postdose after 12 weeks (indacaterol vs placebo). Other outcomes included dyspnoea (transition dyspnoea index, TDI), use of as-needed salbutamol, symptom-based measures recorded on diary cards, exacerbations, health status (St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire), BODE index (body mass index, obstruction, dyspnoea, exercise), safety and tolerability. Results Indacaterol increased 24 h postdose FEV1 after 12 weeks by 170 ml (both doses) versus placebo and by 100 ml versus formoterol (all p<0.001). These significant differences were maintained at 52 weeks. Symptomatic outcomes were improved compared with placebo with all active treatments, and indacaterol was more effective than formoterol in improving TDI score and reducing the need for as-needed salbutamol. Indacaterol was well tolerated and had a good overall safety profile, including minimal impact on QTc interval and systemic β2-mediated events. Conclusions Once-daily indacaterol is an effective 24 h bronchodilator that improves symptoms and health status and confers clinical improvements over a twice-daily 12 h LABA as a treatment for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Trial registration number NCT 00393458.

Adenovirus-Mediated Wild-Type p53 Gene Transfer in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Phase II Study

PURPOSE To study the additional benefit from adenoviral p53 gene therapy in patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-five patients with nonresectable NSCLC were enrolled in an open-label, multicenter phase II study of three cycles of regimen A, carboplatin (area under the curve, 6; day 1) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), day 1), or regimen B, cisplatin (100 mg/m(2), day 1) plus vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in combination with intratumoral injection of 7.5 x 10(12) particles of SCH 58500 (rAd/p53, day 1). Responses of individual tumor lesions were assessed after each cycle, and gene transfer was examined in posttreatment tumor biopsies using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS There was no difference between the response rate of lesions treated with p53 gene therapy in addition to chemotherapy (52% objective responses) and lesions treated with chemotherapy alone (48% objective responses). Subgroup analysis according to the chemotherapy regimens revealed evidence for increased mean local tumor regressions in response to additional p53 gene therapy in patients receiving regimen B, but not in patients receiving regimen A. There was no survival difference between the two chemotherapy regimens, and the median survival of the cohort was 10.5 months (1-year survival, 44%). Transgene expression was confirmed in tumor samples from 68% of patients, and toxicities attributable to gene therapy were mild to moderate. CONCLUSION Intratumoral adenoviral p53 gene therapy appears to provide no additional benefit in patients receiving an effective first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC.

Staging small cell lung cancer: Veterans Administration Lung Study Group versus International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer—what limits limited disease?

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is usually classified into a two-stage system, limited (LD) and extensive disease (ED). However, the criteria for these two categories remain controversial. The widely used Veterans Administration Lung Study Group (VALG) definition of LD includes patients with primary tumor and nodal involvement limited to one hemithorax. In contrast, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) recommends that LD should additionally include all patients without distant metastasis. As a consequence, since treatment modalities for LD and ED could be different, individual clinical outcome of SCLC patients may be influenced by the staging system chosen. Among 109 consecutive SCLC patients treated in our clinic between 1989 and 1999 (mean age 68+/-9.1 years, 81% male) 23 patients (21%) could be either classified as LD or ED (LD-ED), depending on the staging system used. The prognosis of this overlapping group (LD-ED: median survival 291 days) was not statistically different from patients with limited disease defined by VALG criteria (LD-VALG: 385 days, log-rank test P = 0.42). On the other hand the survival difference between LD-ED patients and the ED-IASLC population was relevant (ED-IASLC: 208 days, P = 0.05), indicating that LD-ED patients should rather be included in the LD category. This is further supported by the results of a multivariate Cox regression analysis with all clinically relevant data. Only stage as defined by IASLC criteria was an independent prognostic factor in the likelihood-ratio-forward (hazard ratio = 1.94, CI = 1.26-2.99; P = 0.005) and backward model (hazard ratio = 1.76, CI: 1.12-2.76; P = 0.012), confirming the higher discriminatory power of the IASLC definition. In conclusion, the IASLC staging criteria for SCLC patients have a higher prognostic impact and are therefore preferable in clinical practice and future therapeutic trials.

Effect of glutathione aerosol on oxidant-antioxidant imbalance in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is characterised by alveolar inflammation, exaggerated release of oxidants, and subnormal concentrations of the antioxidant glutathione in respiratory epithelial lining fluid (ELF). Glutathione (600 mg twice daily for 3 days) was given by aerosol to 10 patients with IPF. Total ELF glutathione rose transiently, ELF oxidised glutathione concentrations increased, and there was a decrease in spontaneous superoxide anion release by alveolar macrophages. Thus, glutathione by aerosol could be a means of reversing the oxidant-antioxidant imbalance in IPF.

Overall asthma control: The relationship between current control and future risk

BACKGROUND Asthma guidelines emphasize both maintaining current control and reducing future risk, but the relationship between these 2 targets is not well understood. OBJECTIVE This retrospective analysis of 5 budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART Turbuhaler(*)) studies assessed the relationship between asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) and Global Initiative for Asthma-defined clinical asthma control and future risk of instability and exacerbations. METHODS The percentage of patients with Global Initiative for Asthma-defined controlled asthma over time was assessed for budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies; higher dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), same dose ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA), and higher dose ICS/LABA plus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. The relationship between baseline ACQ-5 and exacerbations was investigated. A Markov analysis examined the transitional probability of change in control status throughout the studies. RESULTS The percentage of patients achieving asthma control increased with time, irrespective of treatment; the percentage Controlled/Partly Controlled at study end was at least similar to budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies: higher dose ICS (56% vs 45%), same dose ICS/LABA (56% vs 53%), and higher dose ICS/LABA (54% vs 54%). Baseline ACQ-5 score correlated positively with exacerbation rates. A Controlled or Partly Controlled week predicted at least Partly Controlled asthma the following week (>or=80% probability). The better the control, the lower the risk of an Uncontrolled week. The probability of an exacerbation was related to current state and was lower with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. CONCLUSIONS Current control predicts future risk of instability and exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces exacerbations versus comparators and achieves at least similar control.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases

SummaryThe present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF).AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue.Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets.The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results.According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted.Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance.Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products.Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen.The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults.Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults.Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered.SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table “Approved/potentially completed studies” via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications.SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see “Treatment information sheet”; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer‘s product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials.Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy.Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but – providing all safety measures are adhered to – these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well.Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT.The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025).AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials.Cite this as Pfaar O, Bacher

Allergen-induced asthmatic responses modified by a GATA3-specific DNAzyme.

BACKGROUND The most prevalent phenotype of asthma is characterized by eosinophil-dominated inflammation that is driven by a type 2 helper T cell (Th2). Therapeutic targeting of GATA3, an important transcription factor of the Th2 pathway, may be beneficial. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SB010, a novel DNA enzyme (DNAzyme) that is able to cleave and inactivate GATA3 messenger RNA (mRNA). METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial of SB010 involving patients who had allergic asthma with sputum eosinophilia and who also had biphasic early and late asthmatic responses after laboratory-based allergen provocation. A total of 40 patients could be evaluated; 21 were assigned to receive 10 mg of SB010, and 19 were assigned to receive placebo, with each study drug administered by means of inhalation once daily for 28 days. An allergen challenge was performed before and after the 28-day period. The primary end point was the late asthmatic response as quantified by the change in the area under the curve (AUC) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS After 28 days, SB010 attenuated the mean late asthmatic response by 34%, as compared with the baseline response, according to the AUC for FEV1, whereas placebo was associated with a 1% increase in the AUC for FEV1 (P=0.02). The early asthmatic response with SB010 was attenuated by 11% as measured by the AUC for FEV1, whereas the early response with placebo was increased by 10% (P=0.03). Inhibition of the late asthmatic response by SB010 was associated with attenuation of allergen-induced sputum eosinophilia and with lower levels of tryptase in sputum and lower plasma levels of interleukin-5. Allergen-induced levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide and airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine were not affected by either SB010 or placebo. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with SB010 significantly attenuated both late and early asthmatic responses after allergen provocation in patients with allergic asthma. Biomarker analysis showed an attenuation of Th2-regulated inflammatory responses. (Funded by Sterna Biologicals and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01743768.).

Tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus mono-components in COPD (GOLD 2-4).

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium+olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC) compared with the mono-components was evaluated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in two replicate, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III trials. Patients received tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 μg or 5/5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or 5 μg, or olodaterol 5 μg delivered once-daily via Respimat inhaler over 52 weeks. Primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 h (AUC0–3) response, trough FEV1 response and St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at 24 weeks. In total, 5162 patients (2624 in Study 1237.5 and 2538 in Study 1237.6) received treatment. Both FDCs significantly improved FEV1 AUC0–3 and trough FEV1 response versus the mono-components in both studies. Statistically significant improvements in SGRQ total score versus the mono-components were only seen for tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 5/5 μg. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between the FDCs and the mono-components. These studies demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and health-related quality of life with once-daily tiotropium+olodaterol FDC versus mono-components over 1 year in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Lung function/symptomatic benefits of daily tiotropium+olodaterol fixed-dose combination in moderate-very severe COPD http://ow.ly/DIKiY