Publications by authors named "Eli O Meltzer"

148 Publications

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020 10 22;146(4):721-767. Epub 2020 Jul 22.

Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, The Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.07.007DOI Listing
October 2020

ARIA digital anamorphosis: Digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice.

Authors:
Jean Bousquet Josep M Anto Claus Bachert Tari Haahtela Torsten Zuberbier Wienczyslawa Czarlewski Anna Bedbrook Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich G Walter Canonica Victoria Cardona Elisio Costa Alvaro A Cruz Marina Erhola Wytske J Fokkens Joao A Fonseca Maddalena Illario Juan-Carlos Ivancevich Marek Jutel Ludger Klimek Piotr Kuna Violeta Kvedariene Ltt Le Désirée E Larenas-Linnemann Daniel Laune Olga M Lourenço Erik Melén Joaquim Mullol Marek Niedoszytko Mikaëla Odemyr Yoshitaka Okamoto Nikos G Papadopoulos Vincenzo Patella Oliver Pfaar Nhân Pham-Thi Christine Rolland Boleslaw Samolinski Aziz Sheikh Mikhail Sofiev Charlotte Suppli Ulrik Ana Todo-Bom Peter-Valentin Tomazic Sanna Toppila-Salmi Ioanna Tsiligianni Arunas Valiulis Erkka Valovirta Maria-Teresa Ventura Samantha Walker Sian Williams Arzu Yorgancioglu Ioana Agache Cezmi A Akdis Rute Almeida Ignacio J Ansotegui Isabella Annesi-Maesano Sylvie Arnavielhe Xavier Basagaña Eric D Bateman Annabelle Bédard Martin Bedolla-Barajas Sven Becker Kazi S Bennoor Samuel Benveniste Karl C Bergmann Michael Bewick Slawomir Bialek Nils E Billo Carsten Bindslev-Jensen Leif Bjermer Hubert Blain Matteo Bonini Philippe Bonniaud Isabelle Bosse Jacques Bouchard Louis-Philippe Boulet Rodolphe Bourret Koen Boussery Fluvio Braido Vitalis Briedis Andrew Briggs Christopher E Brightling Jan Brozek Guy Brusselle Luisa Brussino Roland Buhl Roland Buonaiuto Moises A Calderon Paulo Camargos Thierry Camuzat Luis Caraballo Ana-Maria Carriazo Warner Carr Christine Cartier Thomas Casale Lorenzo Cecchi Alfonso M Cepeda Sarabia Niels H Chavannes Ekaterine Chkhartishvili Derek K Chu Cemal Cingi Jaime Correia de Sousa David J Costa Anne-Lise Courbis Adnan Custovic Biljana Cvetkosvki Gennaro D'Amato Jane da Silva Carina Dantas Dejan Dokic Yves Dauvilliers Giulia De Feo Govert De Vries Philippe Devillier Stefania Di Capua Gerard Dray Ruta Dubakiene Stephen R Durham Mark Dykewicz Motohiro Ebisawa Mina Gaga Yehia El-Gamal Enrico Heffler Regina Emuzyte John Farrell Jean-Luc Fauquert Alessandro Fiocchi Antje Fink-Wagner Jean-François Fontaine José M Fuentes Perez Bilun Gemicioğlu Amiran Gamkrelidze Judith Garcia-Aymerich Philippe Gevaert René Maximiliano Gomez Sandra González Diaz Maia Gotua Nick A Guldemond Maria-Antonieta Guzmán Jawad Hajjam Yunuen R Huerta Villalobos Marc Humbert Guido Iaccarino Despo Ierodiakonou Tomohisa Iinuma Ewa Jassem Guy Joos Ki-Suck Jung Igor Kaidashev Omer Kalayci Przemyslaw Kardas Thomas Keil Musa Khaitov Nikolai Khaltaev Jorg Kleine-Tebbe Rostislav Kouznetsov Marek L Kowalski Vicky Kritikos Inger Kull Stefania La Grutta Lisa Leonardini Henrik Ljungberg Philip Lieberman Brian Lipworth Karin C Lodrup Carlsen Catarina Lopes-Pereira Claudia C Loureiro Renaud Louis Alpana Mair Bassam Mahboub Michaël Makris Joao Malva Patrick Manning Gailen D Marshall Mohamed R Masjedi Jorge F Maspero Pedro Carreiro-Martins Mika Makela Eve Mathieu-Dupas Marcus Maurer Esteban De Manuel Keenoy Elisabete Melo-Gomes Eli O Meltzer Enrica Menditto Jacques Mercier Yann Micheli Neven Miculinic Florin Mihaltan Branislava Milenkovic Dimitirios I Mitsias Giuliana Moda Maria-Dolores Mogica-Martinez Yousser Mohammad Steve Montefort Ricardo Monti Mario Morais-Almeida Ralph Mösges Lars Münter Antonella Muraro Ruth Murray Robert Naclerio Luigi Napoli Leyla Namazova-Baranova Hugo Neffen Kristoff Nekam Angelo Neou Björn Nordlund Ettore Novellino Dieudonné Nyembue Robyn O'Hehir Ken Ohta Kimi Okubo Gabrielle L Onorato Valentina Orlando Solange Ouedraogo Julia Palamarchuk Isabella Pali-Schöll Peter Panzner Hae-Sim Park Gianni Passalacqua Jean-Louis Pépin Ema Paulino Ruby Pawankar Jim Phillips Robert Picard Hilary Pinnock Davor Plavec Todor A Popov Fabienne Portejoie David Price Emmanuel P Prokopakis Fotis Psarros Benoit Pugin Francesca Puggioni Pablo Quinones-Delgado Filip Raciborski Rojin Rajabian-Söderlund Frederico S Regateiro Sietze Reitsma Daniela Rivero-Yeverino Graham Roberts Nicolas Roche Erendira Rodriguez-Zagal Christine Rolland Regina E Roller-Wirnsberger Nelson Rosario Antonino Romano Menachem Rottem Dermot Ryan Johanna Salimäki Mario M Sanchez-Borges Joaquin Sastre Glenis K Scadding Sophie Scheire Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier Holger J Schünemann Faradiba Sarquis Serpa Mohamed Shamji Juan-Carlos Sisul Mikhail Sofiev Dirceu Solé David Somekh Talant Sooronbaev Milan Sova François Spertini Otto Spranger Cristiana Stellato Rafael Stelmach Michel Thibaudon Teresa To Mondher Toumi Omar Usmani Antonio A Valero Rudolph Valenta Marylin Valentin-Rostan Marilyn Urrutia Pereira Rianne van der Kleij Michiel Van Eerd Olivier Vandenplas Tuula Vasankari Antonio Vaz Carneiro Giorgio Vezzani Frédéric Viart Giovanni Viegi Dana Wallace Martin Wagenmann De Yun Wang Susan Waserman Magnus Wickman Dennis M Williams Gary Wong Piotr Wroczynski Panayiotis K Yiallouros Osman M Yusuf Heather J Zar Stéphane Zeng Mario E Zernotti Luo Zhang Nan Shan Zhong Mihaela Zidarn

Allergy 2021 01 23;76(1):168-190. Epub 2020 Oct 23.

University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases, Golnik, Slovenia.

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/all.14422DOI Listing
January 2021

Deposition characteristics of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride plus fluticasone propionate in an anatomic model of the human nasal cavity.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2020 07 11;41(4):265-270. Epub 2020 May 11.

Research & Development, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, New Jersey.

Intranasal antihistamines and steroids should be delivered in a volume and with a technique that allow for optimal drug retention within the entire nasal cavity, maximize local absorption by the nasal mucosa, and, subsequently, increase the potential for the most desirable local availability and therapeutic effect. This in vitro evaluation simulated nasal medication deposition and evaluated the extent of runoff. MP-AzeFlu, a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) plus fluticasone propionate (FP), was compared with sequential sprays of available commercial products with the individual medication components. A model of a normal adult human nasal cavity was used to visualize deposition of nasal spray products. A single spray of MP-AzeFlu (0.137 mL [137 μg of AZE/50 μg of FP]) or single sequential sprays of AZE nasal spray (0.137 mL [137 μg]) followed by brand name or generic FP nasal spray (0.100 mL [50 μg]) were manually actuated into the model. The interior was coated with a water-sensitive dye that changes to magenta when exposed to aqueous-based formulations. A slight vacuum was applied during spray delivery to simulate sniffing. The results were photographed by using anterior and lateral views. Three replicates of MP-AzeFlu showed no dripping from the front of the nostril or backflow from the nasal cavity. However, three replicates of AZE nasal spray, followed by a brand name or generic FP nasal spray, showed significant dripping from the front of the nostril and backflow from the nasal cavity. A single spray of MP-AzeFlu resulted in no runoff compared with sequential dosing of the two other therapeutic products. Product runoff is likely due to the volume exceeding the capacity of the nasal cavity model. Furthermore, the common clinical dosing regimen of two sprays per nostril of each of the individual components would promote even greater increased undesirable flooding and leakage.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2020.41.200028DOI Listing
July 2020

Efficacy of once-daily tiotropium Respimat in adults with asthma at GINA Steps 2-5.

Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2020 02 23;60:101881. Epub 2019 Dec 23.

Genomics and Precision Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA. Electronic address:

Tiotropium Respimat is an efficacious add-on to maintenance treatment in patients with symptomatic asthma. Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy recommends tiotropium for patients at Steps 4-5. To assess the clinical benefits of tiotropium Respimat across asthma severities, GINA Steps 2-5, a post hoc analysis of five double-blind trials (12-48-weeks; patients aged 18-75 years) investigated the effect of tiotropium Respimat, 5 μg or 2.5 μg, versus placebo, on peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) within 3 h post-dose (FEV) response, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 (ACQ-7) responder rate. GINA step grouping was based on patients' background treatment regimen. Baseline characteristics of patients (N = 2926) were balanced between treatments. Tiotropium Respimat showed consistent improvements in lung function across GINA steps; placebo-corrected peak FEV improvements after tiotropium Respimat 5 μg and 2.5 μg were: Step 2 (Week 8), 135 mL (95% confidence interval: 84, 187) and 155 mL (103, 206); Step 3 (Week 24), 187 mL (139, 235) and 235 mL (187, 283); Step 4 (Week 24), 111 mL (63, 159) and 181 mL (35, 326); Step 5 (Week 24; 5 μg only), 164 mL (5, 323). Asthma control improved with tiotropium Respimat versus placebo, showing statistical significance (nominal P value) with tiotropium Respimat 5 μg at Step 4 (odds ratio 1.36 [1.03, 1.78]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. In conclusion, tiotropium Respimat add-on therapy improves lung function, and may improve asthma control, in adults across disease severities.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2019.101881DOI Listing
February 2020

Tiotropium Respimat® add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with symptomatic asthma improves clinical outcomes regardless of baseline characteristics.

Respir Med 2019 Oct - Nov;158:97-109. Epub 2019 Sep 30.

University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis and Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, Groningen, Netherlands.

Background: Despite currently available therapies and detailed treatment guidelines, many patients with asthma remain symptomatic. Tiotropium delivered by the soft mist inhaler Respimat®, as add-on therapy to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), has been shown to improve lung function and asthma control in patients with symptomatic moderate asthma.

Objective: To determine whether the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in asthma differs by patients' study baseline characteristics.

Methods: Two replicate Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies (MezzoTinA-asthma®; NCT01172808 and NCT01172821) of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 5 μg and 2.5 μg add-on to ICS were conducted in patients with symptomatic asthma despite treatment with medium-dose ICS with or without additional controllers. Subgroup analyses of peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), trough FEV, risk of severe asthma exacerbation and Asthma Control Questionnaire responder rate were performed to determine whether results were influenced by patients' baseline characteristics.

Results: In this analysis, 523 patients received placebo while 517 and 519 patients received the 5 μg and 2.5 μg dose of tiotropium Respimat, respectively. The magnitude of the improvements in lung function and asthma control, as well as the reduced risk of severe exacerbation with both doses of tiotropium Respimat versus placebo, was independent of a broad range of baseline characteristics.

Conclusions: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat as add-on to ICS is a beneficial treatment option for patients with asthma who remain symptomatic despite at least medium-dose ICS, regardless of baseline characteristics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2019.09.014DOI Listing
August 2020

Next-generation ARIA care pathways for rhinitis and asthma: a model for multimorbid chronic diseases.

Authors:
J Jean Bousquet Holger J Schünemann Alkis Togias Marina Erhola Peter W Hellings Torsten Zuberbier Ioana Agache Ignacio J Ansotegui Josep M Anto Claus Bachert Sven Becker Martin Bedolla-Barajas Michael Bewick Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich Isabelle Bosse Louis P Boulet Jean Marc Bourrez Guy Brusselle Niels Chavannes Elisio Costa Alvaro A Cruz Wienczyslawa Czarlewski Wytske J Fokkens Joao A Fonseca Mina Gaga Tari Haahtela Maddalena Illario Ludger Klimek Piotr Kuna Violeta Kvedariene L T T Le Desiree Larenas-Linnemann Daniel Laune Olga M Lourenço Enrica Menditto Joaquin Mullol Yashitaka Okamoto Nikos Papadopoulos Nhân Pham-Thi Robert Picard Hilary Pinnock Nicolas Roche Regina E Roller-Wirnsberger Christine Rolland Boleslaw Samolinski Aziz Sheikh Sanna Toppila-Salmi Ioanna Tsiligianni Arunas Valiulis Erkka Valovirta Tuula Vasankari Maria-Teresa Ventura Samantha Walker Sian Williams Cezmi A Akdis Isabella Annesi-Maesano Sylvie Arnavielhe Xavier Basagana Eric Bateman Anna Bedbrook K S Bennoor Samuel Benveniste Karl C Bergmann Slawomir Bialek Nils Billo Carsten Bindslev-Jensen Leif Bjermer Hubert Blain Mateo Bonini Philippe Bonniaud Jacques Bouchard Vitalis Briedis Christofer E Brightling Jan Brozek Roland Buhl Roland Buonaiuto Giorgo W Canonica Victoria Cardona Ana M Carriazo Warner Carr Christine Cartier Thomas Casale Lorenzo Cecchi Alfonso M Cepeda Sarabia Eka Chkhartishvili Derek K Chu Cemal Cingi Elaine Colgan Jaime Correia de Sousa Anne Lise Courbis Adnan Custovic Biljana Cvetkosvki Gennaro D'Amato Jane da Silva Carina Dantas Dejand Dokic Yves Dauvilliers Antoni Dedeu Giulia De Feo Philippe Devillier Stefania Di Capua Marc Dykewickz Ruta Dubakiene Motohiro Ebisawa Yaya El-Gamal Esben Eller Regina Emuzyte John Farrell Antjie Fink-Wagner Alessandro Fiocchi Jean F Fontaine Bilun Gemicioğlu Peter Schmid-Grendelmeir Amiran Gamkrelidze Judith Garcia-Aymerich Maximiliano Gomez Sandra González Diaz Maia Gotua Nick A Guldemond Maria-Antonieta Guzmán Jawad Hajjam John O'B Hourihane Marc Humbert Guido Iaccarino Despo Ierodiakonou Maddalena Illario Juan C Ivancevich Guy Joos Ki-Suck Jung Marek Jutel Igor Kaidashev Omer Kalayci Przemyslaw Kardas Thomas Keil Mussa Khaitov Nikolai Khaltaev Jorg Kleine-Tebbe Marek L Kowalski Vicky Kritikos Inger Kull Lisa Leonardini Philip Lieberman Brian Lipworth Karin C Lodrup Carlsen Claudia C Loureiro Renaud Louis Alpana Mair Gert Marien Bassam Mahboub Joao Malva Patrick Manning Esteban De Manuel Keenoy Gailen D Marshall Mohamed R Masjedi Jorge F Maspero Eve Mathieu-Dupas Poalo M Matricardi Eric Melén Elisabete Melo-Gomes Eli O Meltzer Enrica Menditto Jacques Mercier Neven Miculinic Florin Mihaltan Branislava Milenkovic Giuliana Moda Maria-Dolores Mogica-Martinez Yousser Mohammad Steve Montefort Ricardo Monti Mario Morais-Almeida Ralf Mösges Lars Münter Antonella Muraro Ruth Murray Robert Naclerio Luigi Napoli Leila Namazova-Baranova Hugo Neffen Kristoff Nekam Angelo Neou Enrico Novellino Dieudonné Nyembue Robin O'Hehir Ken Ohta Kimi Okubo Gabrielle Onorato Solange Ouedraogo Isabella Pali-Schöll Susanna Palkonen Peter Panzner Hae-Sim Park Jean-Louis Pépin Ana-Maria Pereira Oliver Pfaar Ema Paulino Jim Phillips Robert Picard Davor Plavec Ted A Popov Fabienne Portejoie David Price Emmanuel P Prokopakis Benoit Pugin Filip Raciborski Rojin Rajabian-Söderlund Sietze Reitsma Xavier Rodo Antonino Romano Nelson Rosario Menahenm Rottem Dermot Ryan Johanna Salimäki Mario M Sanchez-Borges Juan-Carlos Sisul Dirceu Solé David Somekh Talant Sooronbaev Milan Sova Otto Spranger Cristina Stellato Rafael Stelmach Charlotte Suppli Ulrik Michel Thibaudon Teresa To Ana Todo-Bom Peter V Tomazic Antonio A Valero Rudolph Valenta Marylin Valentin-Rostan Rianne van der Kleij Olivier Vandenplas Giorgio Vezzani Frédéric Viart Giovanni Viegi Dana Wallace Martin Wagenmann De Y Wang Susan Waserman Magnus Wickman Dennis M Williams Gary Wong Piotr Wroczynski Panayiotis K Yiallouros Arzu Yorgancioglu Osman M Yusuf Heahter J Zar Stéphane Zeng Mario Zernotti Luo Zhang Nan S Zhong Mihaela Zidarn

Clin Transl Allergy 2019 9;9:44. Epub 2019 Sep 9.

260University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases, Golnik, Slovenia.

Background: In all societies, the burden and cost of allergic and chronic respiratory diseases are increasing rapidly. Most economies are struggling to deliver modern health care effectively. There is a need to support the transformation of the health care system into integrated care with organizational health literacy.

Main Body: As an example for chronic disease care, MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK), a new project of the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative, and POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health), in collaboration with professional and patient organizations in the field of allergy and airway diseases, are proposing real-life ICPs centred around the patient with rhinitis, and using mHealth to monitor environmental exposure. Three aspects of care pathways are being developed: (i) Patient participation, health literacy and self-care through technology-assisted "patient activation", (ii) Implementation of care pathways by pharmacists and (iii) Next-generation guidelines assessing the recommendations of GRADE guidelines in rhinitis and asthma using real-world evidence (RWE) obtained through mobile technology. The EU and global political agendas are of great importance in supporting the digital transformation of health and care, and MASK has been recognized by DG Santé as a Good Practice in the field of digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care.

Conclusion: In 20 years, ARIA has considerably evolved from the first multimorbidity guideline in respiratory diseases to the digital transformation of health and care with a strong political involvement.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13601-019-0279-2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6734297PMC
September 2019

Peak expiratory flow as an endpoint for clinical trials in asthma: a comparison with FEV.

Respir Res 2019 Jul 18;20(1):159. Epub 2019 Jul 18.

Centre for Heart and Lung Health, Vancouver, Canada.

Background: The primary lung function endpoint in clinical trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma is usually forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV). The objective of our analysis was to assess whether peak expiratory flow (PEF) is a suitable alternative primary lung function endpoint.

Methods: For this assessment, we calculated post hoc the correlation between pre-dose FEV and pre-dose PEF measured under supervision in the clinic and, for both lung function parameters, the correlations between supervised clinic and unsupervised home measurements, using the results from the 8 Phase III parallel-group trials of the global clinical development programme with tiotropium Respimat® in patients with asthma aged 12 to 75 years.

Results: Across all 8 trials included in this analysis, changes in lung function from baseline correlated well between pre-dose FEV and pre-dose PEF when both were measured under supervision in the clinic. Correlation between supervised in-clinic and unsupervised home measurements was stronger for pre-dose PEF than for pre-dose FEV.

Conclusions: Pre-dose PEF measured at home could be an alternative primary lung function endpoint for trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma. Using home-measured PEF could facilitate trial conduct and improve the convenience for patients by relocating scheduled assessments from the clinic to the patient's home.

Trial Registration: Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years: RubaTinA-asthma® ( NCT01257230 ), PensieTinA-asthma® ( NCT01277523 ). Adults aged 18 to 75 years: GraziaTinA-asthma® ( NCT01316380 ), MezzoTinA-asthma® ( NCT01172808 / NCT01172821 ), CadenTinA-asthma® ( NCT01340209 ), PrimoTinA-asthma® ( NCT00772538 / NCT00776984 ). All from Clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1119-6DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637596PMC
July 2019

Shared decision making for the allergist.

Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2019 05 7;122(5):463-470. Epub 2018 Sep 7.

Allergy & Asthma Network, Vienna, Virginia.

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources.

Data Sources: PubMed and online patient decision aid resources.

Study Selections: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion.

Results: There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis.

Conclusion: Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2018.08.019DOI Listing
May 2019

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2018 Sep - Oct;6(5):1726-1732.e6. Epub 2018 Feb 7.

Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; Academic Centre of Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Background: A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation.

Objective: To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP).

Methods: In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS).

Results: The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP.

Conclusion: MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.01.031DOI Listing
November 2019

A review of the efficacy and safety of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms in adults and adolescents with asthma.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2018 Jan;39(1):14-26

Background: Despite current guidelines, many patients with asthma remain symptomatic, particularly those intolerant of, unresponsive to, or uncontrolled by long-acting beta 2-agonists (LABAs). Tiotropium bromide, delivered through the Respimat soft-mist inhaler in 2 puffs of 1.25 micrograms each, is approved for the long-term, maintenance treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥6 years.

Objective: An overview of the use of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms in adults and adolescents with varying degrees of asthma severity. The role of the parasympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of asthma, the development of tiotropium for respiratory disease, and the value of the Respimat inhaler are also discussed.

Methods: A literature search of all phase II and phase III trials of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms.

Results: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms was studied in five phase III studies: three studies in adults and two in adolescents aged 12-17 years. Tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms demonstrated efficacy in adults and adolescents with mild, moderate, or severe asthma, showing significant improvements in lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS plus LABA use. The adverse event profile of tiotropium was very acceptable, with safety similar to placebo.

Conclusion: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms has positive attributes that include efficacy, a safety profile similar to placebo, once-daily dosing, administration by inhalation, and delivery in the easy-to-use and consistent-dosing Respimat device. However, more data are needed on the effects of tiotropium on clinical outcomes, patients' day-to-day lives, and real-world effectiveness.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2018.39.4103DOI Listing
January 2018

Hot Topics in Primary Care: Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Guide for Primary Care.

Authors:
Eli O Meltzer

J Fam Pract 2017 Apr;66(4 Suppl):S58-S63

Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the only potential disease-modifying treatment for allergic disease, has been used for more than a century. Hankin et al showed significant reduction in pharmacy, outpatient, and inpatient resources in the 6 months following vs the 6 months preceding AIT in Medicaid-enrolled children with allergic rhinitis (AR). A 2013 analysis showed sustained cost reduction over 18 months in patients with AR treated with AIT compared with matched control subjects not treated with AIT.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
April 2017

IMPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE THRESHOLD ESTIMATION METHODS ON TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2016 Jan 6;32(6):371-375. Epub 2016 Dec 6.

Institute of Health and Wellness,University of Glasgow.

Objectives: Various minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold estimation techniques have been applied to seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The objectives of this study are to (i) assess the difference in magnitude of alternative SAR MCID threshold estimates and (ii) evaluate the impact of alternative MCID estimates on health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: Data describing change from baseline of the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) for four intranasal SAR treatments were obtained from United States Food and Drug Administration-approved prescribing information. Treatment effects were then compared with anchor-based MCID thresholds derived by Barnes et al. and thresholds obtained from an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) panel.

Results: The change in rTNSS score from baseline, represented as the average of the twice-daily recorded scores of the rTNSS, was -2.1 (p < .001) for azelastine hydrochloride 0.10%, 1.35 (p = .014) for ciclesonide, and -1.47 (p < .001) for fluticasone furoate. The change in the rTNSS score from baseline, represented by sum of the AM and PM score, was -2.7 for MP-AzeFlu (p < .001). The rTNSS change from baseline for each product was compared with anchor-based MCID threshold and the AHRQ panel estimates. Comparison of the observed treatment effect to the anchor-based and AHRQ panel MCID thresholds results in different conclusions, with clinically important differences being inferred when anchor-based estimates serve as the reference point.

Conclusion: The AHRQ panel MCID threshold for the rTNSS was twelve times larger than the anchor-based estimates resulting in conflicting recommendations on whether different SAR treatments provide clinically meaningful benefit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462316000593DOI Listing
January 2016

Findings from an Online Survey Assessing the Burden and Management of Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in US Patients.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2017 May - Jun;5(3):779-789.e6. Epub 2016 Nov 30.

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Landover, Md.

Background: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) affects ≥16% of the US population annually. Telephone and in-office surveys have demonstrated negative effects of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms on sleep, daily activities, productivity, concentration, and emotions.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the patient-perceived burden of SARC in relation to newer treatments, increased access to treatments, and changing management protocols.

Methods: An online survey of symptom experience, impact on daily life, and management was conducted in US respondents who suffer (or whose child suffers) from SARC symptoms.

Results: A total of 1001 surveys were completed: 500 adults (≥18 years old) and 501 children (12-17 years old, documented by their parents). Similar to earlier AR surveys, SARC symptoms negatively affected the patient's (and family's) quality of life, and were most severe in the spring. Before being treated, >50% of respondents reported daily symptoms during their season; 75% to 80% considered their symptoms moderate to severe. Patients saw a variety of health care professionals (including pharmacists) and used over-the-counter and prescription medications for symptoms. Those using prescription medications were generally more satisfied with treatment and less likely to switch or discontinue treatment. Nasal and/or ocular symptoms drove adherence, seeing a health care professional, and reviewing and/or changing treatment.

Conclusions: The majority of patients with SARC report moderate-to-severe symptoms that significantly impair their quality of life. However, patients appear to be taking more responsibility for their (child's) condition, and patient expectations for therapy are increasingly being met. Continued efforts will be needed to examine the contribution of better information and/or increased access to and availability of medications to control the disease.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2016.10.010DOI Listing
February 2018

Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses.

J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016 10 15;138(4):1081-1088.e4. Epub 2016 Jul 15.

Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ. Electronic address:

Background: Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking.

Objective: We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

Methods: Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 μg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs.

Results: In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials.

Conclusions: Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2016.04.061DOI Listing
October 2016

MACVIA clinical decision algorithm in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis.

J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016 08 23;138(2):367-374.e2. Epub 2016 Apr 23.

Allergy-Centre-Charité at the Department of Dermatology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and Secretary General of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), Berlin, Germany.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on several factors, including age, prominent symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost. Allergen exposure and the resulting symptoms vary, and treatment adjustment is required. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might be beneficial for the assessment of disease control. CDSSs should be based on the best evidence and algorithms to aid patients and health care professionals to jointly determine treatment and its step-up or step-down strategy depending on AR control. Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif en Languedoc-Roussillon (MACVIA-LR [fighting chronic diseases for active and healthy ageing]), one of the reference sites of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, has initiated an allergy sentinel network (the MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network). A CDSS is currently being developed to optimize AR control. An algorithm developed by consensus is presented in this article. This algorithm should be confirmed by appropriate trials.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2016.03.025DOI Listing
August 2016

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016 Jul-Aug;4(4):682-688.e6. Epub 2016 Apr 12.

Shneyer Statistics LLC, Denville, NJ.

Background: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls.

Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds.

Methods: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold.

Results: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria.

Conclusions: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2016.02.006DOI Listing
October 2017

Allergic Rhinitis: Burden of Illness, Quality of Life, Comorbidities, and Control.

Authors:
Eli O Meltzer

Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2016 May 4;36(2):235-48. Epub 2016 Mar 4.

Allergy & Asthma Medical Group and Research Center, 5776 Ruffin Road, San Diego, CA 92123, USA. Electronic address:

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent and costly condition. The disease burden suffered by patients includes the morbidity of the nasal symptoms, the impairment of multiple domains of quality of life, and numerous comorbidities. The goal of therapy is long-term good control.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iac.2015.12.002DOI Listing
May 2016

Efficacy of MP-AzeFlu in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Importance of paediatric symptom assessment.

Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2016 Mar;27(2):126-33

University Hospital, Montpellier, France.

Background: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single spray) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and explore the importance of child symptom severity assessment in paediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) trials.

Methods: A total of 348 children (4-11 years) with moderate/severe SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Efficacy was assessed by changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual symptom scores over 14 days (children 6-11 years; n = 304), recorded by either children or caregivers. To determine whether a by-proxy effect existed, efficacy outcomes were assessed according to degree of child/caregiver rating. Moreover, total Paediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score was compared between the groups.

Results: A statistically superior, clinically relevant efficacy signal of MP-AzeFlu versus placebo was apparent for PRQLQ overall score (diff: -0.29, 95% CI -0.55, -0.03; p = 0.027), but not for rTNSS (diff: -0.80; 95% CI: -1.75; 0.15; p = 0.099). However, as the extent of children's self-rating increased, so too did the treatment difference between MP-AzeFlu and placebo; MP-AzeFlu provided significantly better relief than placebo for rTNSS (p = 0.002), rTOSS (p = 0.009) and each individual nasal and ocular symptom assessed (except rhinorrhoea; p = 0.064) when children mostly rated their own symptoms.

Conclusions: MP-AzeFlu is an effective treatment for AR in childhood. Caregivers are less able than children to accurately assess response to treatment with available tools. A simple paediatric-specific tool to assess efficacy in AR trials in children is needed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pai.12540DOI Listing
March 2016

Phenylephrine hydrochloride modified-release tablets for nasal congestion: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in allergic rhinitis patients.

Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016 Jan 7;116(1):66-71. Epub 2015 Nov 7.

Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey. Electronic address:

Background: Over-the-counter phenylephrine hydrochloride (PEH) is used for relief of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis; however, data to support its efficacy are lacking. The US Food and Drug Administration recommended clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH in patients with this condition.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH 30-mg modified-release (MR) tablets in patients with nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group study.

Methods: Eligible adults at least 18 years old with documented hypersensitivity to fall pollen allergens were randomized to PEH-MR or placebo every 12 hours for 7 days from August 30 to October 12, 2011. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Secondary end points included changes in other symptom score assessments, time to maximal effect, duration of effect, and quality of life. Safety assessments included adverse events, serious adverse events, vital signs, physical examination, and electrocardiograms.

Results: Of 575 patients, 288 received PEH-MR and 287 received placebo. No significant beneficial difference was detected between PEH-MR and placebo for the primary end point (PEH-MR, mean -0.394, SD 0.4880; placebo, mean -0.412, SD 0.5383; P = .2655). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for most secondary end points or quality of life. Overall, 89 of 575 patients (15.5%), equally distributed between the PEH-MR and placebo groups, experienced at least 1 treatment-emergency adverse event.

Conclusion: PEH-MR 30-mg tablets taken orally every 12 hours for 7 days is not more efficacious than placebo in relieving nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01413958, protocol CL2011-06.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2015.10.022DOI Listing
January 2016

Objective and subjective responses to a mechanical external nasal dilator in healthy children and children with nasal congestion.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2015 Nov-Dec;36(6):481-6

Asthma and Allergy Medical Group and Research Center, San Diego, California, USA.

Background: Nasal congestion is a frequent symptom of allergic rhinitis. Mechanical external nasal dilators (MEND) can be applied to the outside of the nose to provide temporary relief from nasal stuffiness.

Objective: To assess the objective and subjective benefits and tolerability of MEND in healthy children and in children with nasal congestion due to allergic rhinitis.

Methods: Two studies were performed, one in healthy children and one in children with nasal congestion. The study of healthy children was a single-center, randomized, crossover study of two pediatric MEND variants, "tan" and "stars." The study of children with nasal congestion was a single-center assessment of the stars MEND. In both studies, nasal patency was measured via peak nasal inspiratory flow in the seated position and in the supine position at baseline and after the pediatric MEND was affixed to the nose. Assessment questions were administered at baseline and after MEND application, while seated and while supine, to evaluate subjective reduction in nasal blockage and tolerability.

Results: Thirty healthy and 26 children with nasal congestion were assessed. Pediatric MENDs showed a statistically significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow for both healthy children and children with nasal congestion while seated and for healthy children while recumbent. Pediatric MENDs were perceived as decreasing nasal obstruction in both healthy children and children with nasal congestion in both positions, and there were statistically significant improvements in most subjective measures. Pediatric MENDs were well tolerated.

Conclusions: Pediatric MENDs provided significant objective increases in nasal patency in healthy children and children with nasal congestion in the seated position and also subjective reduction in nasal airway stuffiness in both seated and supine positions; they were also well tolerated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2015.36.3904DOI Listing
August 2016

Efficacy and safety of budesonide administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma.

Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2015 Dec 13;115(6):516-22. Epub 2015 Oct 13.

T-STAT, LLC Statistical Consulting and Contracting, Downingtown, Pennsylvania.

Background: Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined.

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 μg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

Methods: A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 μg (80 μg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations.

Results: Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion: Budesonide at 160 μg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2015.09.007DOI Listing
December 2015

Oral Phenylephrine HCl for Nasal Congestion in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Open-label, Placebo-controlled Study.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2015 Sep-Oct;3(5):702-8. Epub 2015 Jul 2.

Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ. Electronic address:

Background: Phenylephrine hydrochloride (PE HCl) is widely used for the treatment of nasal congestion, but efficacy at the 10-mg dose is not known for certain. The Food and Drug Administration has requested that sufficiently powered, multicenter, dose-ranging studies be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of PE HCl.

Objective: To evaluate subjective nasal congestion symptom relief and safety of 4 different doses of PE HCl immediate-release 10-mg tablets and placebo in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

Methods: This multicenter, phase 2, parallel, open-label trial randomized 539 adults with SAR (but otherwise healthy) to 7 days of treatment with either PE HCl 10-mg tablets at fixed doses of 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated.

Results: None of the PE HCl treatment groups had a statistically significant change from baseline in instantaneous or reflective nasal congestion scores compared with the placebo group. PE HCl was well tolerated at doses of up to 30 mg. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 18.4% of the participants, the most common being headache (3.0%).

Conclusions: PE HCl, at doses of up to 40 mg every 4 hours, is not significantly better than placebo at relieving nasal congestion in adults with SAR. The phenylephrine section of the Food and Drug Administration monograph on over-the-counter cold, cough, allergy, bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic products should be revised accordingly.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2015.05.007DOI Listing
July 2016

Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis.

Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015 Jul-Aug;29(4):273-82. Epub 2015 Jun 29.

Division of Basic Clinical Immunology, University of California Irvine, School of Medicine, and Allergy and Asthma Associates, Mission Viejo, California, USA.

Background: Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) by providing direct delivery of medication to the nasal mucosa, reducing the potential for systemic adverse effects, decreasing burden of disease, and improving quality of life.

Objective: To review currently available intranasal sprays indicated for maintenance therapy of AR in the United States: intranasal antihistamines (INAH); intranasal corticosteroids (INCS); and MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of the INAH, azelastine hydrochloride, and the INCS, fluticasone propionate.

Methods: MEDLINE searches were conducted to identify placebo-controlled studies of commercially available prescription nasal sprays at U.S.-approved doses and indications, and published after an earlier systematic review of AR treatment. Inclusion criteria were ≥20 subjects; duration of ≥2 weeks for seasonal (or episodic) AR, ≥4 weeks for perennial (or persistent) AR, and reporting a total nasal symptom score as a primary or secondary outcome.

Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 pediatric, 16 adult/adolescent. There were 4 perennial AR studies (381 children, 1607 adults) and 16 seasonal AR trials (3081 children, 6548 adults). In these studies, 2451 subjects (481 children, 1970 adults) received an INCS, 3001 (1116 children, 1885 adults) received an INAH, and 346 adult subjects received MP-AzeFlu. All active treatments were well tolerated and effective as measured by the reduction in nasal symptoms. Head-to-head comparisons were only available for MP-AzeFlu versus the individual active agent components. MP-AzeFlu provided significantly greater symptom relief than either azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone and with an onset starting at 30 minutes after the dose.

Conclusion: The most recent addition to intranasal sprays for the maintenance therapy of AR is MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system. Analysis of clinical data showed this to be the first new intranasal medication that provides greater clinical benefit than an INCS in treating AR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4215DOI Listing
May 2016

Tiotropium or salmeterol as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for patients with moderate symptomatic asthma: two replicate, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, active-comparator, randomised trials.

Lancet Respir Med 2015 May 12;3(5):367-76. Epub 2015 Feb 12.

Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Background: In patients with severe asthma, tiotropium improves lung function and exacerbation risk when added to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2 agonists. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of tiotropium in patients with moderate asthma who were symptomatic despite treatment with medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids.

Methods: We did two 24-week, replicate, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, active-comparator trials at 233 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with symptomatic asthma and a pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 60-90% predicted despite use of medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids, and had never smoked or were ex-smokers for 1 year or more with 10 pack-years or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with computer-generated pseudorandom numbers, to receive once-daily tiotropium 5 μg or 2·5 μg, twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg, or placebo, while maintaining inhaled corticosteroids. Patients and study investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Prespecified co-primary endpoints, assessed at week 24 in the full analysis set, were peak FEV1 response, measured within the first 3 h after evening dosing; trough FEV1 response; and responder rate assessed according to the seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7). These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01172808 and NCT01172821.

Findings: Between Aug 24, 2010, and Nov 13, 2012, we randomly assigned 2103 patients to the tiotropium 5 μg group (n=519), the tiotropium 2·5 μg group (n=520), the salmeterol group (n=541), or the placebo group (n=523); 1972 (94%) patients completed the study. Peak and trough FEV1 responses were significantly greater with tiotropium and salmeterol than with placebo and were similar in both studies. With pooled data, difference versus placebo in peak FEV1 was 185 mL (95% CI 146-223) in the tiotropium 5 μg group, 223 mL (185-262) in the tiotropium 2·5 μg group, and 196 mL (158-234) in the salmeterol group (all p<0·0001); difference in trough FEV1 was 146 mL (95% CI 105-188), 180 mL (138-221), and 114 mL (73-155; all p<0·0001), respectively. There were more ACQ-7 responders in the tiotropium 5 μg (OR 1·32, 95% CI 1·02-1·71; p=0·035) and 2·5 μg (1·33, 1·03-1·72; p=0·031) groups, and the salmeterol group (1·46, 1·13-1·89; p=0·0039), than in the placebo group. 48 (2%) of 2100 patients had serious adverse events (tiotropium 5 μg n=11, tiotropium 2·5 μg n=12, salmeterol n=11, placebo n=14).

Interpretation: Once-daily tiotropium add-on to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids reduces airflow obstruction and improves asthma control in patients with moderate symptomatic asthma. Patterns of response with both tiotropium doses were similar to those of salmeterol, and all active compounds had good safety and tolerability. Tiotropium is a safe and effective bronchodilator, and an alternative to salmeterol in this patient population.

Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00031-4DOI Listing
May 2015

Recommendations for the pharmacologic management of allergic rhinitis.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2014 May-Jun;35 Suppl 1:S20-7

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects at least 60 million people in the United States each year, resulting in a major impact on patient quality of life, productivity, and direct and indirect costs. As new therapies, data, and literature emerge in the management of AR, there is a need to communicate and disseminate important information to health care professionals to advance the practice of medicine and lessen the disease burden from AR. Treatment recommendations for AR have not been updated since the 2012 Food and Drug Administration approval of nonaqueous intranasal aerosol agents using hydrofluoroalkane propellants and the first aqueous intranasal combination product. Here, we present an updated algorithm for the pharmacologic treatment of AR that includes these new treatment options. Treatment recommendations are categorized by disease severity (mild versus moderate/severe) and duration of symptoms (episodic versus nonepisodic, with episodic defined as <3 days/wk or for <3 weeks). Preferred treatments are suggested, as well as alternative options for consideration by clinicians in the context of individual patient needs. This recommendation article also outlines the importance of treatment monitoring, which can be conducted using the recently developed Rhinitis Control Assessment Test. Successful therapeutic outcomes depend on multiple factors, including use of the most effective pharmacologic agents as well as patient adherence to therapy. Therefore, it is imperative that rhinitis patients not only receive the most effective therapeutic options, but that they also understand and are able to adhere to the comprehensive treatment regimen. Successful treatment, with all of these considerations in mind, results in better disease outcomes, improved quality of life for patients, and greater economic productivity in the home and workplace.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2014.35.3761DOI Listing
September 2015

New intranasal formulations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2014 May-Jun;35 Suppl 1:S11-9

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) have been effectively used for >40 years for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR). Following the Montreal Protocol, the initial aerosol formulations using chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants were phased out. For the past 20 years, aqueous solutions have been the only available option for INS treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved two new nonaqueous aerosol AR treatments that use a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. In 2012, the first intranasal aqueous combination product was also approved. This article reviews the clinical profiles of HFA beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and HFA ciclesonide (CIC) and the aqueous combination intranasal antihistamine (INA)/INS formulation of azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (AZE/FP). The medical literature was searched for clinical trials investigating the use of BDP, CIC, and AZE/FP in SAR and PAR. Clinical trials involving aqueous solutions and CFC propellant or HFA propellant delivery were included. Data from prescribing information and published efficacy and safety data were presented as part of the clinical profile for the reviewed agents. AZE/FP has shown efficacy and safety comparable or greater with the current AR treatment options. Although efficacy comparisons of new HFA formulations have not been investigated in head-to-head clinical trials with aqueous formulations, HFA formulations have shown similar efficacy rates. Furthermore, HFA formulations may have some additional benefits, including a preferable sensory profile for some patients. These new formulations will provide additional options for clinicians and patients to better individualize therapy for control of AR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2014.35.3756DOI Listing
September 2015

ICON: chronic rhinosinusitis.

World Allergy Organ J 2014 27;7(1):25. Epub 2014 Oct 27.

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a public health problem that has a significant socio-economic impact. Moreover, the complexity of this disease due to its heterogeneous nature based on the underlying pathophysiology - leading to different disease variants - further complicates our understanding and directions for the most appropriate targeted treatment strategies. Several International/national guidelines/position papers and/or consensus documents are available that present the current knowledge and treatment strategies for CRS. Yet there are many challenges to the management of CRS especially in the case of the more severe and refractory forms of disease. Therefore, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), a collaboration between EAACI, AAAAI, ACAAI, and WAO, has decided to propose an International Consensus (ICON) on Chronic Rhinosinusitis. The purpose of this ICON on CRS is to highlight the key common messages from the existing guidelines, the differences in recommendations as well as the gaps in our current knowledge of CRS, thus providing a concise reference. In this document we discuss the definition of the disease, its relevance, pharmacoeconomics, pathophysiology, phenotypes and endotypes, genetics and risk factors, natural history and co-morbidities as well as clinical manifestations and treatment options in both adults and children comprising pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions and more recent biological approaches. Finally, we have also highlighted the unmet needs that wait to be addressed through future research.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1939-4551-7-25DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213581PMC
November 2014

Safety and tolerability of inhaled loxapine in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--two randomized controlled trials.

J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2014 Dec;27(6):478-87

1 St. Francis Hospital, Hartford CT, and University Medical Research , Farmington, CT.

Background: Loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic, delivered with a novel inhalation delivery device developed for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was evaluated in subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods: Separate randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trials compared two administrations of inhaled loxapine (10 mg) 10 hr apart with placebo in 52 subjects with asthma and in 53 subjects with COPD. A thermally-generated drug aerosol of loxapine was delivered to the deep lung for rapid systemic absorption. Controller medications were continued throughout the study, but quick-relief bronchodilators were withheld from 6-8 hr before through 34 hr after dose 1, unless indicated as rescue.

Results: All airway adverse events (AEs) were of mild or moderate severity. Symptomatic bronchospasm occurred in 53.8% of subjects with asthma after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and in 19.2% of COPD subjects after inhaled loxapine and 11.1% after placebo. Subjects required inhaled albuterol as follows: asthma: 53.8% after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and COPD: 23.1% after inhaled loxapine and 14.8% after placebo. Respiratory signs/symptoms requiring treatment responded to rescue bronchodilator [forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) return to within 10% of baseline] within 1 hr in 11 of 15 events in asthma subjects and four of seven events in COPD subjects, the remainder by the last spirometry.

Conclusions: In subjects with either asthma or COPD, FEV(1) decline and bronchospasm can occur following inhaled loxapine, but more frequently in asthmatic subjects. Most subjects with bronchospasm responded to rescue bronchodilator within 1 hr. No treatment-related serious AE occurred. Although inhaled loxapine is contraindicated in patients with active airways disease per the current approved US labeling, these studies demonstrated that rescue bronchodilator mitigated the symptomatic bronchospasms that may occur in case of inadvertent use.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jamp.2013.1114DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4273199PMC
December 2014

Nasal deposition of ciclesonide nasal aerosol and mometasone aqueous nasal spray in allergic rhinitis patients.

Am J Rhinol Allergy 2014 Mar-Apr;28(2):117-21. Epub 2014 Feb 14.

San Francisco Ear, Nose, Throat & Allergy, San Francisco, California, USA.

Background: Sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids, such as rundown to the back of the throat, may influence patient treatment preferences. This study compares the nasal deposition and nasal retention of a radiolabeled solution of ciclesonide nasal aerosol (CIC-hydrofluoroalkane [HFA]) with a radiolabeled suspension of mometasone furoate monohydrate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS) in subjects with either perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) or seasonal AR.

Methods: In this open-label, single-dose, randomized, crossover scintigraphy study, 14 subjects with symptomatic AR received a single dose of radiolabeled 74-μg CIC-HFA (37 μg/spray, 1 spray/each nostril) via a nasal metered-dose inhaler or a single dose of radiolabeled 200-μg MFNS (50 μg/spray, 2 sprays/each nostril), with a minimum 5-day washout period between treatments. Initial deposition (2 minutes postdose) of radiolabeled CIC-HFA and MFNS in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and on nasal wipes, and retention of radioactivity in the nasal cavity and nasal run-out on nasal wipes at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose were quantified with scintigraphy.

Results: At 2 and 10 minutes postdose, deposition of radiolabeled CIC-HFA was significantly higher in the nasal cavity versus radiolabeled MFNS (99.42% versus 86.50% at 2 minutes, p = 0.0046; and 81.10% versus 54.31% at 10 minutes, p < 0.0001, respectively; p values unadjusted for multiplicity). Deposition of radioactivity on nasal wipes was significantly higher with MFNS versus CIC-HFA at all five time points, and posterior losses of radiolabeled formulation were significantly higher with MFNS at 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose.

Conclusion: In this scintigraphic study, significantly higher nasal deposition and retention of radiolabeled aerosol CIC-HFA were observed versus radiolabeled aqueous MFNS in subjects with AR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4026DOI Listing
April 2015

A patient preference and satisfaction study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol and mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Allergy Asthma Proc 2013 Nov-Dec;34(6):542-50

Allergy and Asthma Associates of Southern California, Mission Viejo, California, USA.

Patients' preference and satisfaction with their nasal allergy medications may be influenced by their sensory attributes. This study evaluates patient preference and satisfaction with ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol (CIC-HFA) compared with mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS). Symptomatic subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) were randomized to CIC-HFA at 74 micrograms or MFNS at 200 micrograms q.d. in an open-label, two-period, crossover study. Subject preference was recorded as total preference score (TPS; average of 17 individual preference items) at the end of treatment period 2, and satisfaction was assessed with a 76-item, self-administered instrument at baseline and at the end of each 2-week treatment period. The primary assessments were TPS and regimen attributes composite satisfaction score composed of two of nine satisfaction subscales: sensory impact (including medication running out of the nose, medication running down the throat, and impact on smell and taste) and regimen management (comprised of issues relating to dosing and ability to remember to take medication). Two hundred ninety-four subjects completed the study. A total of 68.1% of subjects preferred CIC-HFA (p < 0.0001 versus MFNS), with a mean TPS of 68.3 versus 31.7 for the MFNS group. The regimen attributes composite satisfaction score significantly (p < 0.0001 for each treatment period) favored CIC-HFA versus MFNS at the end of treatment period 1 (85.5 vs 77.6) and treatment period 2 (83.0 versus 73.5), respectively. In this study, subjects reported higher preference for and satisfaction with CIC-HFA compared with MFNS, suggesting significant differences in patient perception of attributes in favor of CIC-HFA. Clinical trial registration URL and registration number: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01401465.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/aap.2013.34.3705DOI Listing
July 2014