Search

Background: The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is well documented in the literature. Additionally, an expert panel has concluded that intranasal corticosteroids are the first line of therapy when obstruction is a major component of rhinitis. Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist recently approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR)., Objective: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a 15-day course of intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 microg, once daily (FP200QD), to oral montelukast 10 mg, once daily (MON10QD), in relieving daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms associated with SAR., Methods: The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population consisted of 705 eligible males and females (> or = 15 years) with SAR randomized to either FP200QD (N = 353) or MON10QD (N = 352). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in subject-rated daytime total nasal symptom scores (the sum of four individual scores: nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), evaluated via visual analog scales, and averaged over weeks 1 to 2. Secondary endpoints included the four daytime individual nasal symptom scores, the nighttime total, and individual nasal symptom scores (each evaluated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3)., Results: Statistically significant differences favoring FP200QD over MON10QD were observed for the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), daytime individual nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), nighttime total (P < 0.001), and all individual nasal symptom scores (P < or = 0.002) over the 15-day treatment period. FP200QD and MON10QD were both well tolerated., Conclusions: The results of this well controlled study demonstrated that FP200QD was consistently superior to MON10QD with regard to every efficacy endpoint evaluated, including daytime and nighttime nasal congestion, in subjects with SAR.

Budesonide inhalation powder via the dry-powder multidose inhaler Turbuhaler (budesonide Turbuhaler) has been shown to improve lung function and symptoms in adults with asthma. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we evaluated the effects of once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 177 adults (aged 18-70 years) with non-steroid-dependent asthma. Patients were randomized to receive budesonide Turbuhaler (400 micrograms) once daily or placebo for 12 weeks. HRQL was assessed at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). In addition to assessment based on the four AQLQ domains (activity limitations, asthma symptoms, emotional function, and response to exposure to environmental stimuli), AQLQ overall scores were analyzed for both treatment groups. Compared with placebo, patients using budesonide Turbuhaler once daily had statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvements from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 in AQLQ overall scores. Statistically significant improvements from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 in all four individual domains also were observed in the budesonide Turbuhaler group compared with placebo. Differences between the two treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in AQLQ overall, asthma symptoms, and emotional function reached the level required for patients to achieve a minimal important difference of change (> or = 0.5 U) at week 12. A retrospective analysis of the data showed that approximately 70% of patients treated with budesonide Turbuhaler experienced a minimal important difference of change in AQLQ overall scores. Overall, improvements in AQLQ correlated significantly (p < or = 0.04) with improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, morning peak expiratory flow measurements, asthma symptoms, and breakthrough bronchodilator use at the study end. Thus, patients with corticosteroid-naïve asthma can experience improved HRQL when using budesonide Turbuhaler.

Objective: The AERx insulin Diabetes Management System (AERx iDMS) (Aradigm, Hayward, CA) delivers an aerosol of liquid human insulin to the deep lung for systemic absorption. This study examined the effects on pulmonary function, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of inhaled insulin in asthmatic and nonasthmatic subjects without diabetes., Research Design and Methods: A total of 28 healthy and 17 asthmatic (forced expiratory volume during the first second [ FEV(1)] 50-80% of predicted value) subjects were enrolled in a two-part, open-label trial. To assess insulin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, a single inhalation dose of 1.57 mg (45 IU) was given on each of the 2 dosing days in part 1. A dose of 4.7 mg (135 IU) of insulin was inhaled in part 2 to assess effects on pulmonary function., Results: Inhaled insulin showed area under the curve (AUC)((0-360 min)) values that were significantly greater for healthy subjects than for asthmatic subjects (P = 0.013), whereas no difference was observed for maximum concentration (C(max)) in the two groups. A greater reduction of serum glucose as indicated by area over the curve (AOC)((0-360 min)) was observed in healthy subjects (P = 0.007). Asthmatic subjects had greater intrasubject variations in insulin AUC((0-360 min)) and C(max) values than healthy subjects, but similar variations in glucose AOC((0-360 min)). No significant changes in FEV(1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV(1)/FVC were observed from pre- to postdose times, and there were no observed safety issues., Conclusions: After inhaling insulin using the AERx iDMS, asthmatic subjects absorbed less insulin than healthy subjects, resulting in less reduction of serum glucose. No effects on airway reactivity were observed. Diabetic patients with asthma may need to inhale more insulin than patients with normal respiratory function in order to achieve similar glycemic control.

Although allergic rhinitis is commonly associated most with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching, the symptom of sinus pain and pressure often prompts the patient to seek medical attention. The effect of fluticasone propionate on this symptom has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray to placebo vehicle in the treatment of patients with sinus pain and pressure arising from allergic rhinitis. A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial was conducted in 206 symptomatic patients > or = 12 years with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients were treated for 14 days with either fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, 200 mcg once daily, or placebo vehicle. Patients attended clinic visits and kept diary cards rating sinus pain and pressure (measured as one symptom) and nasal congestion symptoms during the study. Treatment with fluticasone propionate provided significantly greater relief of symptoms of sinus pain and pressure compared with placebo over the entire 14-day treatment period. Nasal congestion scores also were significantly reduced compared with placebo at each time point. Treatments were well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events attributable to study treatments was similar between groups. Our data indicate that symptoms of sinus pain and pressure and nasal congestion can be significantly reduced in patients with allergic rhinitis when treated with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, 200 mcg once daily.

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) for the treatment of mild to severe asthma., Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide Turbuhaler administered once daily each morning with placebo in inhaled corticosteroid-naive adults with persistent asthma., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 177 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) received placebo or once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (400 microg) for 12 weeks. Efficacy variables included mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and AM/PM peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and nighttime/daytime asthma symptom scores, patient discontinuations, use of breakthrough medication (albuterol), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25%-75%), and quality of life assessments. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, and laboratory tests., Results: Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between study groups. The mean percentages of predicted FEV1 at baseline were 71.9 +/- 9.8 in patients receiving budesonide Turbuhaler and 70.6 +/- 11.0 in patients receiving placebo. Mean changes from baseline over the 12-week treatment period in FEV1 were significantly (P = 0.007) improved in patients receiving once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler compared with placebo (0.31 L and 0.17 L, respectively). Significant (P < or = 0.037) improvements over placebo also were observed in AM PEFR, nighttime/daytime asthma symptoms, and albuterol use with budesonide Turbuhaler treatment. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity and similar between study groups., Conclusions: Budesonide Turbuhaler 400 microg administered once daily in the AM is efficacious and safe for inhaled corticosteroid-naive asthmatic adults.

Background: The proportion of older adults in the US population will increase dramatically in the near future, yet the frequency and nature of care furnished to older adults by Allergy/Immunology practitioners has not been described., Objective: To determine the extent and nature of care being provided to adults and older adults by Allergy/Immunology practitioners., Methods: ACAAI members and fellows were surveyed to obtain information regarding certification and training as well as their practice patterns., Results: The distribution of diagnoses among patients aged 40 to 54 years were very similar to distributions found among adults age 55 to 69 years and > or = 70 years of age. Virtually all respondents indicated they provide inhalant allergen immunotherapy for patients age 40 to 54 years with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis; administration of inhalant allergen immunotherapy for asthma and allergic rhinitis was also frequently reported for adults > or = 55 years. The proportions of respondents providing venom immunotherapy for adults aged 40 to 54, 55 to 69, and > or = 70 years were 82%, 70%, and 39%, respectively., Conclusion: ACAAI members and fellows commonly provide care to older adults. Our survey findings highlight the need to develop strategies for successful management of Allergy/Immunology conditions specifically pertaining to older adults, including studies to determine the therapeutic utility of inhalant allergen and venom immunotherapy in this age group.

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids and oral antihistamines are both effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, although the therapeutic value of administering the two types of agents concurrently has rarely been evaluated. This study was designed to compared the efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP ANS), loratadine, FP ANS plus loratadine, and placebo (an aqueous nasal spray plus tablet) in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis during the mountain cedar allergy season in south central Texas., Methods: Six hundred patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were treated for 2 weeks with either FP ANS 200 microgram once daily, loratadine 10 mg once daily, the FP ANS and loratadine regimens combined, or placebo in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study., Results: Clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores after 7 and 14 days of therapy and overall evaluations were significantly lower (P < .001) in the FP ANS and FP ANS plus loratadine groups compared with the loratadine only and placebo groups. Loratadine was not statistically different from placebo in clinician and patient symptom score ratings nor in overall clinician and patient evaluations. FP ANS plus loratadine and FP ANS monotherapy were comparable in efficacy in almost all evaluations; for some patient-rated symptoms the combination was found superior. Mean score changes in the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire from baseline to day 14 showed significantly greater improvement (P < .001) in quality of life in the FP ANS group than in the group of patients receiving loratadine only or placebo and no significant benefit was demonstrated in the FP ANS plus loratadine group over the FP ANS monotherapy group. No serious or unusual drug-related adverse events were reported. Combining loratadine with FP ANS did not alter the adverse events profile or frequency.

This was a 1-week study evaluating the safety and efficacy of two dosage regimens of salmeterol in children with asthma. A total of 243 children, aged 4-11 years, with mild-to-moderate asthma were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluating salmeterol xinafoate 21 micrograms and 42 micrograms administered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) twice daily for 1 week. Patients were allowed to use albuterol MDI as needed for relief of acute symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids and/or cromolyn at fixed dosages could be continued during the study, but theophylline and oral beta-agonists were not allowed. Twelve-hour serial spirometry (for patients aged 6-11 years) and serial peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (all patients) were performed on days 1 and 8 of treatment; morning and evening PEFR were recorded each day prior to inhalation of the study drug. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG), and 24-hr ECG (Holter) monitoring. Both the 21-micrograms and 42-micrograms doses of salmeterol produced significantly greater bronchodilation, as measured by 12-hr serial forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) (p < or = 0.02) and PEFR (p < or = 0.001), than did placebo on days 1 and 8. A small dose-response was observed, with the 42-micrograms dosage producing consistently higher serial FEV1 and PEFR than did the 21-micrograms dosage, although the differences were not statistically significant. Morning and evening PEFR increased significantly (p < or = 0.008) with both dosages of salmeterol compared with placebo. Twelve patients (5%) experienced potentially drug-related adverse events, with headache (4% in each salmeterol group) being the most common. There were no clinically significant changes in heart rate as measured by Holter monitoring, ECGs, vital signs, or clinical laboratory values following treatment with either dose of salmeterol. Salmeterol 21 micrograms or 42 micrograms twice daily was effective in producing bronchodilation in children aged 4-11 years, and both dosages had good safety profiles. Patients treated with salmeterol 42 micrograms twice daily showed a trend toward greater improvement in asthma control compared with those who received salmeterol 21 micrograms.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray is an intranasal corticosteroid for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. This double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to confirm that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray is attributable to topical rather than systemic effects. A total of 304 patients with documented seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive fluticasone propionate nasal spray 200 micrograms once daily (n = 77), oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg once daily (n = 73), oral fluticasone propionate 10 mg once daily (n = 77), or placebo (n = 77) for 14 days. Plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations were determined at baseline and after 14 days of treatment (day 15). Nasal symptoms were recorded daily by patients and assessed weekly by clinicians. On day 15, more patients in the oral fluticasone propionate 5-mg or 10-mg groups, compared with patients in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group or the placebo group, had detectable plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations, and mean concentrations were higher in the oral fluticasone propionate groups. Both clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores for obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching were significantly lower in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group compared with either of the oral fluticasone propionate groups or the placebo group. With few exceptions, oral fluticasone propionate (5 mg or 10 mg) was not significantly different from placebo on any measures of efficacy. These findings indicate that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray (200 micrograms once daily) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects rather than from indirect effects after systemic absorption.

Background: One of the risks associated with the use of oral corticosteroids is suppression of adrenocortical function. Triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) aqueous nasal spray administered once daily (110 micrograms and 220 micrograms) has been shown to reduce allergic rhinitis symptoms., Objective: This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study determined the effects of TAA aqueous nasal spray, placebo, and oral prednisone on adrenocortical function in patients with allergic rhinitis., Methods: Sixty-four patients received TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 micrograms or 440 micrograms), oral prednisone (10 mg), or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Adrenocortical function was assessed after cosyntropin stimulation for 6 hours before treatment and after 6 weeks of treatment., Results: There was no statistically significant effect on adrenocortical function in patients who received either dose of TAA aqueous nasal spray compared with placebo. In contrast, prednisone produced statistically significant (p < 0.001) reductions in adrenocortical function compared with placebo; reductions occurred in both the mean 6-hour plasma cortisol levels and mean change in 6-hour plasma cortisol levels from pretreatment., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, unlike oral prednisone, TAA aqueous nasal spray, in therapeutic doses, did not alter adrenocortical function and was comparable to treatment with placebo in its absence of measurable effects on adrenocortical function.

Intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to be more effective than oral antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, there are some who question whether intranasally administered corticosteroids should be used due to potential systemic effects. Fluticasone propionate, a potent corticosteroid with high specificity for the glucocorticoid receptor, is available as an aqueous nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. To determine whether the efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) was due to direct topical effects on the nasal mucosa or to indirect systemic effects following absorption from the nasal mucosa or from the swallowed portion of an intranasal dose, FPANS 200 micrograms once daily was compared with oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg or 10 mg once daily or placebo for 2 weeks in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. These oral dosages were chosen to yield low but consistent plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations. Both clinician- and patient-rated scores for nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and nasal itching were significantly lower in the intranasal fluticasone propionate group compared with both oral fluticasone propionate groups. A separate placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with perennial rhinitis to determine if administration of FPANS 200 micrograms once daily for 1 year was associated with adverse systemic effects. At the 1-year assessment, there were no significant effects on bone mineral density or on biochemical markers of bone turnover. Similarly, there was no evidence of posterior subcapsular cataracts nor of glaucoma. Furthermore, there were no significant effects on hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis function as assessed by plasma cortisol and 24-h urinary cortisol response to the 6-h cosyntropin stimulation test. These data confirm that the efficacy of FPANS for the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects, thus reducing the likelihood of adverse systemic effects.

This study was designed to determine whether lettuce treated with a commercially available sulfite-containing freshener prepared according to manufacturer's directions could provoke reactions in sulfite-sensitive subjects with asthma (SSAs). Five adult SSAs with stable asthma who had multiple prior reactions to double-blind, placebo-controlled, sulfite-capsule challenges were studied. Each patient ingested, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion, four portions of lettuce (3 oz) pretreated with one of two commercially available, nearly identical vegetable fresheners. One freshener contained sodium bisulfite and was used on one portion of lettuce. The other freshener contained no sulfite and was used on three portions of lettuce. The fresheners were prepared and the lettuce was treated according to label instructions. After baseline spirometry, the SSAs consumed the lettuce samples with the same dressing of their choice, serial spirometry was performed, and a positive reaction was defined as a greater than 20% drop in FEV1 decreased 0% to 7%; mean, 3%. Two of the subjects experienced severe reactions to the sulfite-treated lettuce. One of these reactions was life threatening; the other reaction occurred despite placing only 30% of the usual sulfite dose on the lettuce. This study has demonstrated that sulfite-treated lettuce is capable of provoking bronchospasm in SSAs and suggests that such food is one cause of restaurant-provoked asthma in these individuals.