Omalizumab can inhibit respiratory reaction during aspirin desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin desensitization has been associated with benefit in management of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD). An intervention that would encourage aspirin desensitization to be performed more frequently has substantial potential for improving outcomes and quality of life in patients with AERD. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether omalizumab administration would be associated with attenuation of aspirin-provoked bronchospasm in patients with AERD undergoing aspirin desensitization. METHODS: We carried out a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which subjects with AERD who fulfilled label criteria for omalizumab received omalizumab or placebo for 16 weeks, and then underwent aspirin desensitization. RESULTS: Eleven subjects completed aspirin desensitization. Of the 7 who were randomized to omalizumab, 5 had no respiratory reaction during aspirin desensitization. Compared with placebo, omalizumab was associated with a significantly greater likelihood for subjects with AERD to have no respiratory reaction during desensitization (P = .04, Fisher exact test). There was an overall difference in urinary leukotriene E4 (LTE4) levels in subjects who received omalizumab and did not have a respiratory reaction during desensitization compared with subjects randomized to placebo (P = .035, mixed model with interaction). Urinary LTE4 levels were significantly higher with respiratory reaction in placebo subjects compared with levels obtained after the 100-mg dose in AERD subjects who had no respiratory reaction (P < .001, mixed model with interaction). CONCLUSION: In atopic AERD subjects, omalizumab administration for 16 weeks was associated with "clinically silent" desensitization. Further studies to investigate the therapeutic utility of omalizumab in patients with AERD who are candidates for aspirin desensitization are warranted based on these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00555971.

Comparison of bivalirudin versus heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention (the Randomized Evaluation of PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events [REPLACE]-1 trial).

To assess the efficacy of the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin relative to heparin during contemporary coronary intervention, 1,056 patients who underwent elective or urgent revascularization were randomized in a large-scale pilot study to receive heparin (70 U/kg initial bolus) or bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg bolus, 1.75 mg/kg/hour infusion during the procedure). All patients received aspirin; pretreatment with clopidogrel was encouraged, and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa blockade was at the physician's discretion. Stents were placed in 85% of patients; 72% received a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and 56% were pretreated with clopidogrel. Activated clotting times were higher among patients randomized to bivalirudin than among those given heparin before device activation (median 359 vs 293 seconds, p <0.001). The composite efficacy end point of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization before hospital discharge or within 48 hours occurred in 5.6% and 6.9% of patients in the bivalirudin and heparin groups, respectively (p = 0.40). Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% versus 2.7% of patients randomized to bivalirudin or heparin, respectively (p = 0.52). This trial represents the largest prospective dataset of bivalirudin administered concomitantly with planned GP IIb/IIIa blockade and provides evidence of the safety and efficacy of this combined antithrombotic approach.

Bivalirudin with planned or provisional abciximab versus low-dose heparin and abciximab during percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of the Comparison of Abciximab Complications with Hirulog for Ischemic Events Trial (CACHET).

BACKGROUND: The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has previously been associated with better efficacy and lower hemorrhage risk than heparin during balloon angioplasty. This agent has not yet been tested with stenting or in combination with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a pilot trial, 268 patients who underwent coronary intervention were randomized in 3 sequential phases to treatment with bivalirudin (with or without abciximab) or the control regimen of low-dose weight-adjusted heparin with abciximab. Patients in the bivalirudin arms received bivalirudin (1.0 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 2.5 mg/kg/h for 4 hours) plus abciximab in phase A, bivalirudin (0.5 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/h for the procedure duration) plus provisional ("rescue") abciximab in phase B, or bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/h for the procedure duration) plus provisional abciximab in phase C. Abciximab was necessitated on a provisional basis in 24% of the patients in the bivalirudin arms of phases B and C. A composite clinical endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or major bleeding by 7 days occurred in 3.3%, 5.9%, 0, and 10.6% of the patients in the bivalirudin phase A, bivalirudin phase B, bivalirudin phase C, and heparin plus planned abciximab arms, respectively (P =.018 for the pooled bivalirudin groups versus the heparin group). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin with planned or provisional abciximab may be at least as safe and effective as low-dose heparin plus abciximab during percutaneous coronary intervention.