Efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a withdrawal and retreatment study (GO-BACK).

OBJECTIVES: The GO-BACK study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab (GLM) treatment withdrawal in adults with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who demonstrate inactive disease during a 10-month open-label (OL) GLM run-in. METHODS: Eligible participants received OL GLM in period 1. In period 2, participants who achieved inactive disease were randomized 1:1:1 to receive double-blind (DB) treatment with monthly placebo (PBO, treatment withdrawal) or continued GLM treatment given monthly (GLM QMT) or every 2 months (GLM Q2MT). Participants who did not have a disease flare continued DB treatment for ∼12 months. Participants with a disease flare discontinued DB treatment and resumed monthly OL GLM. Primary endpoint compared the proportion of participants without a disease flare in the continued GLM treatment groups (QMT or Q2MT) vs PBO in a multiplicity-controlled, step-down fashion. Safety follow-up continued for ∼3 months after last treatment. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients, out of the 323 enrolled, were eligible for participation in period 2. Both GLM QMT and GLM Q2MT were superior to treatment withdrawal (PBO) in preventing disease flare (P < 0.001), with a treatment-difference vs PBO of 50.4% and 34.4% for the GLM QMT and GLM Q2MT groups, respectively. The time-to-first flare was significantly longer (log-rank P < 0.0001) with GLM treatment compared with PBO. Of 53 participants (in Q2MT or PBO) who had a confirmed disease flare, 51 (96.2%) attained a clinical response within 3 months of restarting OL GLM. Adverse events were consistent with the known GLM safety profile. CONCLUSION: Among participants with active nr-axSpA who attained inactive disease after 10 months of GLM treatment, continued GLM treatment is well tolerated and provides superior protection against disease flares compared with GLM withdrawal. (EudraCT: 2015-004020-65, registered on 30 March 2022; NCT: 03253796, registered on 18 August 2017.).

Colectomy Incidence Rates in Five-Year Data From the Observational Postmarketing Ulcerative Colitis Study of Originator Infliximab.

BACKGROUND: This analysis of the Observational Postmarketing Ulcerative Colitis Study examined incidence rates of colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis who received originator infliximab (IFX) or conventional therapies (ConvRx) as per their treating physician. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards models compared time to colectomy for both treatment groups. A secondary analysis examined colectomy incidence rates based on IFX exposure timing (defined by a 90-day window after the last IFX dose date). RESULTS: Of 2239 patients with data, 1059 enrolled in IFX and 1180 enrolled in ConvRx (including 296 patients who switched to IFX). Patients in the IFX group had more severe disease at baseline vs the ConvRx group (percentage with baseline partial Mayo score 7-9: 46.0% vs 30.5%, respectively). During 5 years of follow-up, 271 patients (12.1% of enrolled patients) had colectomy. Enrollment in the IFX group was associated with a higher risk of colectomy (hazard ratio = 3.12; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-4.34; P < 0.001) compared with enrollment in the ConvRx group. A total of 174 colectomies occurred in the IFX group, but 97 of these colectomies occurred ≥90 days after the last IFX dose date. CONCLUSIONS: Colectomy was reported at a higher rate in the IFX group than in the ConvRx group, although patients in the IFX group had more severe disease at baseline and most of the colectomies occurred after patients had been off of IFX for ≥90 days.

Five-year Safety Data From OPUS, a European Observational Safety Registry for Adults With Ulcerative Colitis Treated With Originator Infliximab [Remicade®] or Conventional Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Observational Postmarketing Ulcerative colitis Study [OPUS] was conducted to obtain the first long-term [5 years] safety data assessing treatment with originator infliximab versus conventional therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis [UC] in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: The OPUS registry was a prospective, non-randomised, observational study that measured adverse events in nine prespecified categories of interest in UC patients whose treatment with either originator infliximab or conventional therapy [defined as initiation or dose-increase of corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants] was determined by their treating physician. RESULTS: Data for 2239 patients were available: N = 1180 enrolled to conventional therapy [including N = 296 who switched to originator infliximab during follow-up] and N = 1059 enrolled to originator infliximab. Patients in the originator infliximab group, compared with the conventional therapy group, had more severe disease at baseline, based on partial Mayo score [PMS]: 46.0% of patients in the originator infliximab group had severe disease (PMS of 7-9 [out of 9]), compared with 30.5% in the conventional therapy group. In adjusted time-to-event analyses, enrolment into the originator infliximab group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (hazard ratio = 1.98 [95% confidence interval: 1.34, 2.91; p <0.001]) compared with enrolment into the conventional therapy group. No notable risk differences between groups were identified for haematological disorder, autoimmune disorder, malignancy/lymphoproliferative disorder, hepatobiliary disorder or fatality. CONCLUSIONS: UC patients treated with infliximab had higher risk for serious infection, compared with conventional therapies. No new safety concerns were observed with originator infliximab in the OPUS registry. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00705484.].

Continuous Clinical Response Is Associated With a Change of Disease Course in Patients With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Treated With Golimumab.

Background: Responders to induction treatment sustain continuous clinical response (CCR) through 1 year in about 50% of patients in PURSUIT-M trial with golimumab maintenance in ulcerative colitis (UC). This post hoc analysis of PURSUIT-M describes the 1-year clinical, endoscopic, quality of life (QoL), and biomarker and 4-year clinical outcome in patients with sustained response to golimumab therapy for UC. Methods: We compared clinical, endoscopic, QoL, and calprotectin outcomes in CCR and non-CCR patients through 54 weeks in PURSUIT-M. Persistence on golimumab therapy and clinical response at 4 years was assessed for CCR and non-CCR patients. The relationship of colectomy with CCR status was determined. Results: Among patients receiving golimumab maintenance, greater proportions of patients with vs without CCR at week 54 achieved clinical remission (67.1% vs 1.9%), corticosteroid-free remission (61.6% vs 1.9%), endoscopic remission (Mayo endoscopy score 0 [47.9% vs 1.3%]), and normal QoL (inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire score ≥170 [75.0% vs 24.4%]). CCR but not non-CCR patients maintained normalized calprotectin levels during maintenance. Among patients who entered the long-term extension study, a greater proportion of patients with vs without CCR maintained PGA 0 through week 216 (58% vs 42%). Colectomy was performed in 47 induction nonresponders and in 13 induction responders. None of the patients going onto colectomy achieved CCR through 54 weeks in PURSUIT-M. Conclusions: Continuous clinical response is associated with favorable short- and long-term clinical, endoscopic, QoL, and biomarker responses that may result in changing the course of disease and may prevent colectomy in patients with moderate to severe UC treated with golimumab. 10.1093/ibd/izy229_video1izy229.video15806022773001.

Efficacy and safety of golimumab in Indian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Subgroup data from GO-MORE study.

AIM: To conduct a subgroup analysis of GO-MORE trial Part 1, comparing efficacy and safety of add-on subcutaneous golimumab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients enrolled from and outside India. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multicenter, prospective trial of add-on golimumab in biologic-naïve RA patients, having active disease despite being on conventional DMARD regimen(s). Part 1 of the study was chosen as the focus of this subgroup analysis because a substantial number of Indian patients (106) were enrolled compared to no Indian patients in Part 2. The primary efficacy outcome was proportion of patients achieving good to moderate DAS28-ESR (Disease Activity Score of 28 joints calculated using erythrocyte sedimentation rate) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response at month 6. RESULTS: Efficacy evaluable population comprised of 105 and 3175 patients from India and outside India, respectively. Safety analysis included 106 patients enrolled from India and 3251 from outside India. A higher proportion of Indian patients had a high disease activity as measured by DAS28 ESR than outside India patients. At month 6, the proportion of Indian and non-Indian patients achieving DAS28-ESR, DAS28 - C-reactive protein, simplified disease activity index (SDAI) remission, and EuroQoL Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D) scores were comparable. Incidence of all adverse events was lower in Indian patients. There were no deaths, cases of tuberculosis or malignancy reported in the patients from India at month 6. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety results with add-on golimumab were consistent between RA patients from India and outside India, despite high baseline disease activity in the Indian patients.

Partial remission in ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in treatment with infliximab plus naproxen or naproxen alone: associations between partial remission and baseline disease characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate partial remission during treatment with infliximab (IFX) + naproxen (NPX) vs NPX alone in patients from the two subgroups of SpA and explore baseline predictors of partial remission. METHODS: Infliximab as First Line Therapy in Patients with Early Active Axial Spondyloarthritis Trial was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial of IFX in biologic-naïve patients with early, active axial SpA. Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive 28 weeks of treatment with i.v. IFX 5 mg/kg (weeks 0, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24) + NPX 1000 mg/day or i.v. placebo (PBO) + NPX 1000 mg/day. The current post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes in patients who did or did not meet modified New York radiographic criteria for AS. RESULTS: The analysis included 94 patients who met AS criteria and 56 with non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA). At week 28, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) partial remission was greater with IFX + NPX than PBO + NPX for both the AS group (70.5 vs 33.3%, respectively) and the nr-axSpA group (50.0 vs 37.5%, respectively). A similar pattern occurred with several efficacy measures. Larger treatment effects occurred in the AS group than the nr-axSpA group, possibly due to baseline differences in disease characteristics. Multivariable analyses identified the type of treatment, age and HLA-B27 status as predictors of ASAS partial remission in the total study population. MRI sacroiliac joint scores were associated with partial remission during IFX + NPX treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS had greater partial remission with IFX + NSAID than NSAID therapy alone; patients with nr-axSpA had a smaller treatment effect. Baseline disease characteristics and age were associated with partial remission with IFX therapy.

Factors influencing the patient evaluation of injection experience with the SmartJect autoinjector in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate factors influencing injection patterns and patient evaluations of an autoinjector device in biologic-naïve patients beginning golimumab (GLM) treatment. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥3.2). Patients injected 50 mg subcutaneous GLM once monthly for 6 months. Patients reported use preferences and autoinjector evaluations by questionnaire. Responses were analysed descriptively. Effects of patient variables were evaluated with chi-square tests or t-tests. RESULTS: Of 3,280 efficacy-evaluable patients, 67.7% self-injected with the autoinjector. Compared with patients who self-injected, patients who had someone else administer injections had greater baseline disease activity (e.g., DAS28-ESR 5.84 vs. 6.23, respectively), but not more tender/swollen joints in hands/wrists. Month 6 efficacy was greater for patients who self-injected. In those who self-injected, injection site (thigh [75.2%; 1,563/2,077], abdomen [17.4%; 363/2,077], upper arm [7.2%; 151/2,077]) was not associated with wrist swelling or tender/swollen joints in the hand used for injection. Autoinjector ratings were similar across injection sites, yet less pain/discomfort was associated with abdomen injection. Patient autoinjector ratings were favourable overall (e.g. ease of use, pain). Patients with baseline functional impairment had slightly less favourable ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic-naïve patients who self-injected had less baseline disease activity and higher response rates than patients who did not self-inject. Although patients prefer to inject in the thigh, injection in the belly may be less painful. Most patients who self-injected had favourable autoinjector evaluations; patients with functional impairment had slightly less favourable ratings.

Patient and physician expectations of add-on treatment with golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: relationships between expectations and clinical and quality of life outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management involves improving clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL). Golimumab is used as add-on therapy for patients who have failed disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This GO-MORE subanalysis investigated relationships between patient and physician expectations and outcomes. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic agent-naive patients with active RA despite DMARD treatment. Patients received 50 mg subcutaneous golimumab monthly for 6 months. At baseline and month 3, patients rated treatment expectations for the following 3 months using 5-point scales (where 1 = good and 5 = poor). Outcomes were compared among expectation tertiles: most positive, intermediate, and least positive. At baseline and month 3, physicians predicted patient disease state 3 months later. RESULTS: At baseline, 3,280 efficacy-evaluable patients with moderate (21.3%) or high (78.7%) disease activity had mean ± SD disease duration of 7.6 ± 7.9 years, mean ± SD Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) score of 1.44 ± 0.67, and mean ± SD EuroQol 5-domain (EQ-5D) score of 0.42 ± 0.33. Patients reported high treatment expectations (mean 1.43); 95.9% expected golimumab to be better than current treatment. Patients with fewer DMARD failures, higher disease activity, shorter disease duration, younger age, and female sex reported higher expectations (P < 0.05 for all). After 6 months, patients with the most positive expectations had higher remission rates (P < 0.0001) and greater HAQ DI (P < 0.0001) and EQ-5D (P < 0.0001) score improvements. At baseline, physicians expected 29.6% and 59.2% of patients to attain remission and low disease activity, respectively, after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Patients had high expectations for golimumab treatment. Patients with more positive expectations had greater remission rates, improvements in function, and QOL.

Efficacy and safety of golimumab as add-on therapy to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results of the GO-MORE study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous golimumab as add-on therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. To evaluate an intravenous plus subcutaneous (IV+SC) golimumab strategy in patients who had not attained remission. METHODS: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in patients with active RA in typical clinical practice settings. In part 1, patients received add-on monthly 50-mg subcutaneous golimumab for 6 months. The percentage of patients with good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) response was compared in patient subgroups with various concurrent or previous DMARD treatments. In part 2, patients with EULAR responses but not remission were randomly assigned to receive IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab to month 12; DAS28-ESR remission was measured. RESULTS: 3366 patients were enrolled. At baseline of part 1, 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients had mean disease duration of 7.6 years and mean DAS28-ESR of 5.97 (SD=1.095). At month 6, 82.1% achieved good/moderate EULAR responses and 23.9% attained remission. When EULAR responses were analysed by the number of previously failed DMARD or the concomitant methotrexate dose, DMARD type, or corticosteroid use, no statistically significant differences were observed. Part 2 patients (N=490) who received IV+SC or subcutaneous golimumab achieved similar remission rates (∼25%). Adverse events were consistent with previous reports of golimumab and other tumour necrosis antagonists in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on monthly subcutaneous golimumab resulted in good/moderate EULAR response in most patients; 25% achieved remission after 6 more months of golimumab, but an IV+SC regimen provided no additional efficacy over the subcutaneous regimen.

Effects of mometasone, fluticasone, and montelukast on bone mineral density in adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Associations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with bone mineral density (BMD) loss have not been characterized consistently. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind study assessed effects of mometasone furoate (MF) administered via dry powder inhaler on BMD of patients with persistent asthma. METHODS: Adults with mild-moderate persistent asthma who did not receive ICS for ≥3 months were randomized to MF 400 µg once daily (QD) in the evening (pm), MF 200 µg QD pm, montelukast sodium (ML) 10 mg QD pm, or fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 µg twice daily. Included patients had 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels ≥15 ng/mL at baseline. All the patients received calcium and vitamin D supplements for daily use during the trial. Duplicate BMD scans were done at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. The mean percentage change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD from baseline to end point for MF 400 µg versus ML 10 mg was the primary analysis. Changes from baseline in left total femur BMD and femoral neck BMD were secondary assessments. RESULTS: At the end point, mean LS BMD increased 0.9% (MF 400 µg), 1.2% (ML), 0.7% (MF 200 µg), and 1.1% (FP), with no significant differences for MF 400 µg versus ML (-0.3% [95% CI, -1.01 to 0.27]) for LS BMD. No significant differences among treatments occurred for changes in left total femur BMD; all were slight increases. Changes in femoral neck BMD were 0.4% (MF 400 µg), -0.2% (ML), -0.2% (MF 200 µg), and -0.4% (FP); only the difference between MF 400 µg and FP was statistically significant (P = .044). CONCLUSION: No detrimental effects on lumbar BMD were observed after up to 1 year of treatment with MF in comparison with ML for patients who received calcium and vitamin D supplements.

Efficacy and safety of timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablets in North American children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) treatment might be a safe and convenient form of specific immunotherapy but it has not been investigated in North American children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of timothy grass AIT treatment in North American children/adolescents with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma. METHODS: Three hundred forty-five subjects (5-17 years old) were randomized to once-daily grass AIT treatment (2,800 bioequivalent allergen units, 75,000 standardized quality tablet, approximately 15 µg of Phl p 5) or placebo approximately 16 weeks before the 2009 grass pollen season (GPS). Treatment continued through the GPS. Daily symptoms and allergy rescue medication use were recorded. The primary end point was the total combined score (TCS) of the daily symptom score (DSS) and daily medication score (DMS) for the entire GPS. DSS, DMS, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and Phl p 5-specific IgG4 and IgE-blocking factor levels were secondary end points. Safety was assessed through adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of subjects were multisensitized. TCS, DSS, DMS, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score versus placebo improved 26% (P = .001), 25% (P = .005), 81% (P = .006), and 18% (P = .04). Phl p 5-specific IgG4 and IgE-blocking factor levels were significantly higher at the peak and end of the GPS (P < .001). Treatment was well tolerated. Adverse events were generally mild and transient. Although no investigator-assessed systemic allergic reactions were reported, 1 grass AIT-treated subject experienced an event indicating a systemic reaction (lip angioedema, dysphagia, and cough). CONCLUSIONS: Use of once-daily timothy grass AIT treatment effectively treats timothy grass (cross-reactive with Festucoideae grasses) pollen-induced ARC in North American children 5 years and older. Given its convenient administration, lack of dose build-up requirement, safety profile, and efficacy, AIT treatment might become an important addition to the North American ARC treatment armamentarium.

Onset of action of loratadine/montelukast in seasonal allergic rhinitis subjects exposed to ragweed pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit.

Onset of action is recognized as an important pharmacologic property of allergic rhinitis (AR) medications. This study was designed to evaluate the onset of action of loratadine/montelukast (L/M; 10 mg/10 mg) versus placebo in subjects with ragweed-induced seasonal AR (SAR). A single-center, double-blind, parallel-group study of ragweed-sensitive AR subjects (n = 310) was performed in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU). Subjects were exposed to ragweed pollen in the EEU and symptoms were recorded at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes before a single dose of L/M or placebo. After dosing, symptoms were recorded for 4 hours, at 15-minute intervals for the first 2 hours and at 30-minute intervals for the final 2 hours. The primary end point was time to onset of action of L/M, defined as the first time point at which the mean change from baseline in total symptom score (TSS) for L/M became and remained significantly better than placebo. Secondary end points included nasal congestion scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF). The onset of action of L/M for TSS was 1 hour and 15 minutes (p = 0.005 versus placebo). L/M reduced nasal congestion as indicated by significant improvements in both the nasal congestion score (p = 0.011) and the PNIF measurements (p = 0.007) within 1 hour and 15 minutes postdose. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. The onset of action after treatment with L/M was 1 hour and 15 minutes for TSS, as well as nasal congestion. L/M was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose loratadine/montelukast in seasonal allergic rhinitis: effects on nasal congestion.

A need exists for safe, effective therapy for the relief of the symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) that also consistently relieves nasal congestion, the most common and bothersome symptom. This study was performed to assess efficacy and safety of a once-daily tablet containing 10 mg of loratadine, an antihistamine, and 10 mg of montelukast, a leukotriene antagonist (SCH 445761) versus placebo and pseudoephedrine (PSE; 240 mg once-daily formulation; active comparator). In a multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study, 1095 subjects with documented history of seasonal AR and positive skin-prick test to a prevailing aeroallergen were treated for 15 days with fixed-dose combination loratadine/montelukast (L/M), PSE, or placebo. After randomization, subjects rated severity of nasal congestion and measured peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) rate in the morning and evening. The change in quality of life from baseline was also assessed. L/M and PSE were significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating nighttime and daytime nasal congestion and improving PNIF rate, an objective measure of nasal obstruction. There were no significant differences between L/M and PSE for any efficacy analysis including improvement in the quality of life. Subjects treated with L/M experienced a similar incidence of total adverse events versus placebo and a lower incidence of total adverse events (including dizziness, insomnia, jitteriness, nausea, and dry mouth) versus PSE. Nasal decongestant activity of L/M was significantly higher than that of placebo and similar to that of PSE in symptomatic AR subjects. L/M showed a safety profile similar to placebo and was better tolerated than PSE. Thus, L/M offers a safe and efficacious alternative to PSE for the treatment of nasal congestion associated with AR.

Efficacy of loratadine-montelukast on nasal congestion in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Nasal congestion is considered to be one of the most bothersome symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) and often the most difficult to treat. Oral therapies providing safe, effective, and reliable relief of AR symptoms, including nasal congestion, are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of loratadine-montelukast (10 mg/10 mg) vs placebo and phenylephrine (10 mg) in relieving nasal congestion over 6 hours after ragweed pollen exposure in the environmental exposure unit at the Kingston General Hospital. METHODS: After a screening visit and up to 6 priming visits, patients who met minimum symptom requirements during ragweed pollen exposure were randomized to receive loratadine-montelukast, phenylephrine, or placebo. Patients evaluated nasal congestion and other symptoms of AR and measured peak nasal inspiratory flow before dosing and at 20-minute intervals during the subsequent 8 hours of pollen exposure. RESULTS: During the first 6 hours after treatment (primary end point), loratadine-montelukast treatment resulted in greater improvement in the mean nasal congestion score vs placebo (P = .007) and phenylephrine (P < .001). Loratadine-montelukast was more effective than placebo (P < or = .02) and phenylephrine (P < or = .002) in relieving total symptoms, nasal symptoms, and nonnasal symptoms and in improving peak nasal inspiratory flow. There were no statistically significant differences between phenylephrine and placebo for any measures. Fewer patients in the loratadine-montelukast group (3.9%) reported adverse events than in the phenylephrine (7.9%) and placebo (7.1%) groups; most adverse events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Loratadine-montelukast was more effective than placebo and phenylephrine in relieving nasal congestion and other nasal and nonnasal symptoms resulting from ragweed pollen exposure. There was no statistically significant difference between phenylephrine and placebo.

A placebo-controlled study of the nasal decongestant effect of phenylephrine and pseudoephedrine in the Vienna Challenge Chamber.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the efficacy of phenylephrine in the treatment of nasal congestion have yielded inconsistent results, notwithstanding its approval for this indication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the decongestant effect of a single dose of phenylephrine to placebo and pseudoephedrine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover study evaluated patient-scored nasal congestion, peak nasal inspiratory flow, and rhinomanometry at more than 6 hours in 39 grass-sensitive patients exposed to grass pollen in the Vienna Challenge Chamber. Patients were dosed with immediate-release formulations of phenylephrine, 12 mg, pseudoephedrine, 60 mg, as a control, or placebo. RESULTS: Phenylephrine was not significantly different from placebo in the primary end point, mean change in nasal congestion score at more than 6 hours (P = .56), whereas pseudoephedrine was significantly more effective than both placebo (P < .01) and phenylephrine (P = .01). Phase 1 results showed a difference between phenylephrine and placebo that was 64% of the difference between pseudoephedrine and placebo, substantially greater than the 17% difference observed for all phases. Carryover bias due to patient recall of the pseudoephedrine effect may have influenced these results. Rhinomanometry and peak nasal inspiratory flow results were consistent with these data. Neither phenylephrine nor pseudoephedrine had an effect on the nonnasal symptoms. No adverse events were reported in this study. CONCLUSIONS: During a 6-hour observation period, a single dose of pseudoephedrine but not phenylephrine resulted in significant improvement in measures of nasal congestion. Neither phenylephrine nor pseudoephedrine had an effect on nonnasal symptoms.