Long-term safety and efficacy studies of epinephrine HFA metered-dose inhaler (Primatene® Mist): a two-stage randomized controlled trial.

Objective: A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI.Method: The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline.Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

Forced Expiratory Flow (FEF25-75%) as a Clinical Endpoint in Children and Adolescents with Symptomatic Asthma Receiving Tiotropium: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In pediatric patients with asthma, measurements of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) may be normal or may not correlate with symptom severity. Forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of the vital capacity (FEF25-75%) is a potentially more sensitive parameter for assessing peripheral airway function. This post hoc analysis compared FEF25-75% with FEV1 as an endpoint to assess bronchodilator responsiveness in children with asthma. METHODS: Change from baseline in trough FEF25-75% and trough FEV1 following treatment with either tiotropium (5 µg or 2.5 µg) or placebo Respimat® was analyzed in four phase III trials in children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17 years) with symptomatic moderate (VivaTinA-asthma® and PensieTinA-asthma®) and mild (CanoTinA-asthma® and RubaTinA-asthma®) asthma. Data from all treatment arms were pooled and correlations between FEF25-75% and FEV1 were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1590 patients were included in the analysis. Tiotropium Respimat® consistently improved FEF25-75% and FEV1 versus placebo, although in adolescents with severe asthma, the observed improvements were not statistically significant. Improvements in FEF25-75% response with tiotropium versus placebo were largely more pronounced than improvements in FEV1. Statistical assessment of the correlation of FEV1 and FEF25-75% showed moderate-to-high correlations (Pearson's correlation coefficients 0.73-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients, FEF25-75% may be a more sensitive measure to detect treatment response, certainly to tiotropium, than FEV1 and should be evaluated as an additional lung function measurement.

A Dose-Ranging Study of Epinephrine Hydrofluroalkane Metered-Dose Inhaler (Primatene® MIST) in Subjects with Intermittent or Mild-to-Moderate Persistent Asthma.

Background: Two sequential single-dose crossover dose-ranging studies were performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety profile of epinephrine hydrofluroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation at various doses in subjects with asthma. Methods: In these multicenter, multiarm, double-blinded, or evaluator-blinded studies, subjects were randomized to receive the epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST HFA) MDI medication at doses ranging from 90 to 440 µg/dose, as well as to a placebo (PLA) control and an active control of epinephrine CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) MDI (Primatene® MIST CFC) at 220 µg/inhalation. Results: Spirometry testing for FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in one second) demonstrated statistically significant improvements over PLA for epinephrine HFA MDI at all doses above 125 µg, as the amount out of the actuator (i.e., mouthpiece). The efficacy results for epinephrine HFA MDI in the dose range of 125-250 µg were also comparable to epinephrine CFC MDI (220 µg/inh). Safety assessments demonstrated minimal safety concerns for all treatment groups. No notable safety differences were observed between the studied doses of epinephrine HFA MDI and the active control formulation of epinephrine CFC MDI. Conclusion: The findings indicate that epinephrine HFA MDI provided clinically significant bronchodilator efficacy with minimal safety concerns in a dose range of 125-250 µg. These findings confirmed the optimal treatment doses of 125-250 µg that were appropriate for use in longer term 12 and 26 week chronic dosing studies of epinephrine HFA MDI for patients with intermittent or mild to moderate persistent asthma. Clinical trials registration number: NCT01025648.

Bronchodilation with mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate administered by metered-dose inhaler with and without a spacer in children with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: The bronchodilatory effect of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) administered by metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with or without a spacer has not been evaluated previously in children aged 5-11 years. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, single-dose, four-period crossover study. Children with persistent asthma aged 5-11 years participated in this study. Subjects used inhaled corticosteroids with/without long-acting beta-2 agonists for 12 weeks before enrollment and at screening had forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1 ) ≥70% predicted. Subjects received MF/F MDI 100/10 µg with/without spacer (AeroChamber Plus® with Flow-Vu® Anti-Static Valved Holding Chamber), F-Dry Powder Inhaler (F-DPI) 10 µg, and placebo MDI with/without spacer in separate treatment periods. The primary endpoint was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 12 hr (AUC0-12hr ) for the comparison of MF/F with spacer versus placebo. Secondary measurements included MF/F without spacer versus placebo, as well as MF/F with spacer versus MF/F without spacer, and F-DPI versus placebo. Analysis was performed with an analysis of covariance model for a crossover study. RESULTS: Data from 87 subjects were analyzed. MF/F with spacer demonstrated a larger change in mean FEV1 AUC0-12hr versus placebo (115 vs. -9 mL), with a treatment difference of 124 mL (95% CI 94-154, P < 0.001). Similarly, MF/F without spacer versus placebo resulted in a 102 mL difference in mean-adjusted FEV1 AUC0-12hr (95% CI 73-131, P < 0.001), whereas the difference between MF/F with spacer versus MF/F without spacer was 22 mL (95% CI -8 to 52, P = 0.144). The difference between F-DPI versus placebo was 106 mL (95% CI 77-135, P < 0.001). No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, MF/F MDI 100/10 µg demonstrated significant bronchodilation in children aged 5-11 years regardless of the use of a spacer. No difference in bronchodilation was observed between MF/F MDI and F-DPI.

Linear growth and bone maturation are unaffected by 1 year of therapy with inhaled flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane in prepubescent children with mild persistent asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred long-term therapy for subjects with persistent asthma. However, concerns remain about potential effects of long-term ICS use on growth in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of 1 year of inhalation therapy with flunisolide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) on growth velocity and bone maturation in children with mild persistent asthma. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 218 prepubescent (Tanner Stage 1) children with mild persistent asthma ranging in age from 4 to 10 years were evaluated. After a 2-week run-in period, subjects were randomized (1:1) to 2 puffs flunisolide HFA twice daily (85 µg/puff) or placebo for 52 weeks. Height was assessed by stadiometry at each visit. Growth velocity (cm/52 weeks) was estimated by the slope of the linear regression of height over time. An independent assessor scored hand and wrist radiographs for bone development pretreatment and at week 52. Analysis of covariance was used for all efficacy endpoints. RESULTS: The 2 treatment groups were similar at baseline for sex, race, age, weight, and height. At the end of double-blind treatment, mean growth velocity was 6.01 ± 1.84 cm/52 weeks for flunisolide HFA (n = 106) and 6.19 ± 1.30 cm/52 weeks for placebo (n = 112) (P = .425). Mean advancement in bone age during the 1-year study was similar for the 2 groups: 0.93 ± 0.46 years for flunisolide HFA (n = 70) and 1.01 ± 0.41 years for placebo (n = 75) (P = .128). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, flunisolide HFA did not suppress growth or bone maturation at the highest approved dose for children with persistent asthma.

Pathways activated during human asthma exacerbation as revealed by gene expression patterns in blood.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations remain a major unmet clinical need. The difficulty in obtaining airway tissue and bronchoalveolar lavage samples during exacerbations has greatly hampered study of naturally occurring exacerbations. This study was conducted to determine if mRNA profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) could provide information on the systemic molecular pathways involved during asthma exacerbations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over the course of one year, gene expression levels during stable asthma, exacerbation, and two weeks after an exacerbation were compared using oligonucleotide arrays. For each of 118 subjects who experienced at least one asthma exacerbation, the gene expression patterns in a sample of peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected during an exacerbation episode were compared to patterns observed in multiple samples from the same subject collected during quiescent asthma. Analysis of covariance identified genes whose levels of expression changed during exacerbations and returned to quiescent levels by two weeks. Heterogeneity among visits in expression profiles was examined using K-means clustering. Three distinct exacerbation-associated gene expression signatures were identified. One signature indicated that, even among patients without symptoms of respiratory infection, genes of innate immunity were activated. Antigen-independent T cell activation mediated by IL15 was also indicated by this signature. A second signature revealed strong evidence of lymphocyte activation through antigen receptors and subsequent downstream events of adaptive immunity. The number of genes identified in the third signature was too few to draw conclusions on the mechanisms driving those exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study has shown that analysis of PBMCs reveals systemic changes accompanying asthma exacerbation and has laid the foundation for future comparative studies using PBMCs.

A randomized, controlled, phase 2 study of AMG 317, an IL-4Ralpha antagonist, in patients with asthma.

RATIONALE: IL-4 and IL-13 share many biological functions important in the development of allergic airway inflammation and are implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma. AMG 317 is a fully human monoclonal antibody to IL-4Ralpha that blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 pathways. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of AMG 317 in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received weekly subcutaneous injections of placebo or AMG 317 (75-300 mg) for 12 weeks, followed by a 4-week follow-up period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at Week 12 in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) symptom score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean ACQ change (SE) was -0.49 (0.09) in placebo (n = 74), and -0.43 (0.11), -0.58 (0.12), and -0.70 (0.09) in the AMG 317 75 mg (n = 73), 150 mg (n = 73), and 300 mg (n = 74) groups, respectively (treatment effect P = 0.25). No statistically significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints. Numerical decreases in number of and time to exacerbations were noted in patients receiving AMG 317 150 mg and 300 mg. Preplanned analyses by tertile of baseline ACQ revealed that patients with higher baseline ACQ scores (>or=2.86) were more likely to respond to AMG 317. Serious adverse events were reported in three patients, each noted as not related to study drug. CONCLUSIONS: AMG 317 did not demonstrate clinical efficacy across the overall group of patients. Clinically significant improvements were observed in several outcome measures in patients with higher baseline ACQ scores. AMG 317 was safe and well tolerated in this study population. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00436670).

Efficacy and safety evaluation of ciclesonide in subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma not currently using inhaled corticosteroids.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a first-line treatment for persistent asthma. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide (CIC) in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS. This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 16-week study in subjects who were > or =12 years old, had a > or =6-month history of persistent asthma, a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60 to < or =85% predicted, and who were not using an ICS < or =30 days before study entry. Subjects were randomized to CIC, 80 microg twice daily (CIC80 b.i.d.; n = 170); CIC, 160 microg once daily in the morning (CIC160 q.d. in the A.M.; n = 173); CIC80 b.i.d. for 4 weeks followed by CIC160 q.d. for 12 weeks (CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d.; n = 171); or placebo (n = 177). Change in FEV(1) from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 (primary end point) and to week 16, A.M. peak expiratory flow, rescue albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, asthma symptom scores, and safety were evaluated. FEV(1) improved from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 for CIC80 b.i.d. (+0.30L; p < 0.0001), CIC160q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), and placebo (+0.06L; p = 0.0251); improvement was greatest for CIC80 b.i.d. (p < 0.01). At week 16, all CIC treatments significantly improved FEV(1) and A.M. PEF from baseline (p < 0.0001) and compared with placebo (p < or = 0.015). All treatments reduced albuterol use and nighttime awakenings and improved asthma symptom scores (p < or = 0.05 versus baseline); these improvements were greater for CIC80 b.i.d. than for placebo (p < 0.01). The incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment groups (range, 53-58%). In this study, CIC80 b.i.d. improved disease control in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS and provided greater improvements than CIC160 q.d.

Patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe asthma after use of budesonide and formoterol administered via 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important for evaluating asthma therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate PROs in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma receiving budesonide and formoterol administered via 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). METHODS: This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter study randomized 596 patients 12 years or older to budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x 2 inhalations (320 microg) + formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg); budesonide pMDI 160 microg x 2 inhalations (320 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg); or placebo, each twice daily, after 2 weeks of budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg) twice daily. PROs were assessed in 553 patients 18 years or older using the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]), Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) Sleep Scale, Patient Satisfaction With Asthma Medication (PSAM) questionnaire, diary data, and global assessments. RESULTS: Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol reported significantly greater improvements from baseline on the AQLQ(S) and asthma control variables (based on symptoms and rescue medication use; all P < .001) vs placebo. Clinically important improvements (increase of > or = 0.5 points) from baseline to end of treatment in AQLQ(S) overall scores were achieved by 43.6% of patients receiving budesonide/formoterol vs 22.6% of patients receiving placebo (P = .001). The MOS Sleep Scale scores generally showed no differences among treatment groups. Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol had significantly greater PSAM questionnaire scores and better outcomes on physician-patient global assessments at end of treatment vs placebo (all P < or = .001). CONCLUSION: Significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life and asthma control and greater treatment satisfaction were observed with budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs placebo.

Efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% versus epinastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution for treating itching and redness induced by conjunctival allergen challenge.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine 0.2% (Pataday, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and epinastine 0.05% (Elestat, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) are topical ocular anti-allergic agents. Both are H(1) antihistamine/mast cell stabilizers indicated for the treatment of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and comfort of olopatadine 0.2% with epinastine 0.05%, in the prevention of ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis following conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 7 week, four visit, double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled CAC study. Visit 1 screened subjects for positive ocular allergic responses and Visit 2 confirmed those responses. At Visit 3, 92 subjects were randomized into one of four treatment groups to receive one drop of study medication in each eye: (1) olopatadine 0.2%/placebo, (2) epinastine 0.05%/placebo, (3) olopatadine 0.2%/epinastine 0.05%, (4) placebo/placebo. Subjects were challenged 12 h after drop instillation to evaluate duration of action. At Visit 4, subjects were challenged 5 min after drop instillation to evaluate onset of action. Drop comfort was assessed at Visit 4. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES; RESULTS: This article focuses on the results of the onset-of-action challenge (Visit 4). At Visit 4, ocular itching was assessed at 3, 5, and 7 min and redness was assessed at 7, 15, and 20 min post-challenge. Drop comfort was assessed upon instillation, at 30s, and at 1, 2, and 5 min post-instillation. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean ocular itching scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at 5 (p = 0.024) and 7 min (p = 0.003) post-challenge. Olopatadine 0.2%-treated eyes exhibited significantly lower mean redness scores versus epinastine 0.05%-treated eyes at all time points post-challenge (ciliary: p < or = 0.013, conjunctival: p < or = 0.015, episcleral: p < or = 0.006). Olopatadine 0.2% was rated as significantly more comfortable than epinastine 0.05% at 1 min post-drop instillation (p = 0.003). All adverse events were non-serious and unrelated to study medication. Although the CAC model reproduces allergic responses that are not environmentally-induced, patients experience varying severities of responses as are seen in real-world situations. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine 0.2% was superior to epinastine 0.05% in preventing ocular itching and redness at onset when induced by the CAC model.

Once-daily evening administration of mometasone furoate in asthma treatment initiation.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, a 200-microg once-daily evening dose of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler (DPI) was effective in patients with asthma previously taking inhaled corticosteroids. No studies have been conducted to test the effect of a once-daily evening dose in patients previously using only short-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (SABAs) for symptom relief. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of mometasone furoate DPI administered once daily in the evening as initial controller therapy in patients previously using SABAs alone for asthma. METHODS: Patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma from 18 US centers participated in a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either mometasone furoate DPI, 200 microg, or placebo once daily in the evening. The primary efficacy variable was the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to the end point (last evaluable visit). Other measurements included forced vital capacity, forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75%, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, use of albuterol, nocturnal awakenings, physicians' evaluation of response to therapy, and time to asthma worsening. RESULTS: At the end point, the mean increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second relative to baseline for the mometasone furoate DPI group of 0.43 L (16.8%) was significantly greater than that for the placebo group of 0.16 L (6.0%) (P < .01). Morning peak expiratory flow, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% also significantly improved with mometasone furoate DPI treatment relative to placebo (P < .01). Once-daily dosing with mometasone furoate DPI was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Mometasone furoate DPI (200 microg) administered once daily in the evening significantly improves pulmonary function in patients previously using SABAs alone for asthma control.

Comparison of patient preference and ease of teaching inhaler technique for Pulmicort Turbuhaler versus pressurized metered-dose inhalers.

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study with two 4-week evaluation periods compared patient preference and ease of teaching correct inhaler technique for Pulmicort Turbuhaler versus pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). Patients 18 to 65 years of age with stable, mild to moderate asthma, who required or were eligible for inhaled corticosteroid therapy, were randomized to treatment sequences consisting of 4-week evaluation periods with Pulmicort Turbuhaler (budesonide inhalation powder) two puffs (400 microg) bid and one of three inhaled corticosteroids via pMDI: Aerobid-M (flunisolide) four puffs (1 mg) bid, Flovent (fluticasone propionate) two puffs (440 microg) bid, or Vanceril Double Strength (beclomethasone dipropionate) five puffs (420 microg) bid. Patients indicated device preference at study end and completed the Patient Device Experience Assessment (PDEA) questionnaire after each evaluation period. Ease of teaching, time required to master use of the device, percentage of patients demonstrating mastery on the first attempt, and the number of attempts required to demonstrate mastery were assessed. Despite previous use of pMDIs by most patients, Pulmicort Turbuhaler was significantly preferred (p < 0.001) and required significantly less time to master than pMDIs (p < 0.001). Median times to device mastery were 3.67 min for Pulmicort Turbuhaler versus 5.33 min for pMDIs. Patients rated Pulmicort Turbuhaler significantly better than pMDIs on PDEA ease of use (p = 0.0005) and overall satisfaction (p < 0.0001) single-item scales and all four multi-item scales (pharyngeal symptoms, oral sensation, operational use, and inhaler attributes; p < 0.05). Overall, patients preferred Pulmicort Turbuhaler over pMDIs and required less time to be taught how to correctly use Turbuhaler trade mark.

Combination therapy: appropriate for everyone?

The severity of asthma often varies throughout the course of the disease. At times the symptoms and underlying inflammation that are characteristic of asthma can worsen. Thus during an episode of viral-induced asthma or during a seasonal increase in asthma severity, a patient may be directed to increase his or her dosage of asthma controllers (i.e., inhaled corticosteroid) or add a long-acting bronchodilator (or other controller medications such as antileukotrienes) to manage symptoms, as recommended in guidelines published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Similarly, when symptoms are stable, decreasing dosages or discontinuing certain medications may be appropriate. The recent introduction of a combination product, of a long-acting bronchodilator formulated in the same dry powder device with an inhaled corticosteroid raises new challenges for the step care approach to asthma management recommended by the NIH in 1997. Although unquestionably more convenient for the patient, a combination formulation has the potential to decrease the flexibility required to successfully manage asthma over long periods. In addition, controversy exists regarding long-acting beta-agonists alone because their regular use may mask inflammation in the lung and decrease responsiveness to the bronchodilating effects of rescue medications (i.e., short-acting beta-agonists). The purpose of this article is to help physicians make informed therapeutic decisions for their patients with asthma. It focuses on the advantages and potential disadvantages of using combination products, which contain both an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-agonist in the context of the NIH step care approach. Recent publications outlining the use of other add-on controller medications are also discussed.

One-year efficacy and safety of inhaled formoterol dry powder in children with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: The long-term efficacy and safety of formoterol dry powder capsules for inhalation in pediatric asthma have not previously been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness of inhaled formoterol over a period of 12 months in asthmatic children who were still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory treatment. METHODS: After a run-in period, 518 patients (5 to 12 years old) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive 12 or 24 microg formoterol dry powder (Foradil, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) or placebo twice daily for 12 months. The drug was administered by inhaler (Aerolizer, Novartis Pharma AG) and was given in addition to their anti-inflammatory treatment. The primary variable was the area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured over 12 hours after the morning dose of study medication. RESULTS: The area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second after the first dose of treatment and after 3 and 12 months of treatment was significantly greater for patients receiving formoterol 12 microg and 24 microg than for patients receiving placebo (all P < or = 0.0062). Compared with placebo, both doses of formoterol significantly improved morning and evening premedication peak expiratory flow rate (all P < 0.001). In the group treated with formoterol 24 microg, median symptom score and median dose of rescue medication at night were lower than during the run-in period, whereas the opposite occurred in the placebo group. The incidence of hospitalizations for asthma was higher in the formoterol groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, in asthmatic children who are still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory therapy, the addition of formoterol consistently improves airflow obstruction and nocturnal symptoms and reduces the use of rescue medication. However, this treatment requires close disease monitoring to detect early signs of acute exacerbation.

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy of emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the human conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Emedastine difumarate 0.05% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents available in the United States and other countries. Emedastine is indicated for the temporary relief of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Ketotifen is indicated for the temporary relief of ocular itching caused by allergic conjunctivitis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of these agents in the temporary relief of ocular itching due to allergic conjunctivitis. The 2 agents were compared with each other and with placebo (artificial tears) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. At visit 1, CAC was performed on eligible subjects to identify the dose required to elicit a positive allergic reaction. Subjects returned after 7 days for visit 2 to confirm the allergen dose. On day 14 (+/-3) of the study, enrolled subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: emedastine in I eye and placebo in the other, ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other, or emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other. In 25 subjects, bilateral CAC was performed 5 minutes after study medication instillation. In a second group of 20 subjects, CAC was performed 15 minutes after medication instillation. Itching was graded according to a standardized 5-point scale (0 = none to 4 = severe itching) at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Differences in efficacy scores between treatments and versus placebo were compared using 2-sample t tests of equal variance. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients (mean age, 41.2 years) received treatment: 16 received emedastine in 1 eye and ketotifen in the other; 14 received emedastine in 1 eye and placebo in the other; and 15 received ketotifen in 1 eye and placebo in the other. Both emedastine and ketotifen significantly inhibited itching (P < 0.05) compared with placebo at all time points after the 5- and 15-minute CAC. Mean raw scores for the active treatments were not statistically different. The mean itching efficacy scores were also not statistically different between active treatments. No adverse events were reported in this study. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that emedastine and ketotifen are not significantly different with respect to anti-itching efficacy in the CAC model of acute allergic conjunctivitis.

Safety and tolerability of cold-adapted influenza virus vaccine in children and adolescents with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Influenza infections can cause severe respiratory disease in high risk persons such as those with asthma, but immunization rates for high risk groups remain suboptimal. An investigational influenza virus vaccine, trivalent, types A and B, live, cold-adapted (CAIV-T) administered by intranasal spray was shown previously to be effective in healthy adults and healthy children. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and tolerability of CAIV-T in subjects 9 years of age and older with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study, spirometry was performed twice before vaccination to establish a baseline forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) and once 2 to 5 days thereafter. The primary outcome index was the percent change in percent predicted FEV1 before and after vaccination. Peak flows, clinical asthma symptom scores and nighttime awakening scores were measured daily from 7 days pre- to 28 days postvaccination. RESULTS: The primary outcome index (percentage change in percent predicted FEV1) was not different between the two groups (0.2% vs. 0.4% for the treatment and placebo groups, respectively; P = 0.78). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two groups; these included the number of subjects with a decrease in FEV1 > or =15% from baseline, reductions in peak flows > or =15%, > or =30% or > or =2 sd below baseline, use of beta-adrenergic rescue medications, asthma exacerbations and clinical asthma symptom scores before and after vaccination. The same proportion of subjects in each group experienced postvaccination symptoms within 10 days (92% and 91%, respectively; P = 1.0). No serious adverse event occurred. CONCLUSION: CAIV-T was generally safe and well-tolerated in children and adolescents with moderate to severe asthma.