No abstract

The clinical benefit and steroid-sparing effect of treatment with the antiimmunoglobulin-E (IgE) antibody, omalizumab, was assessed in patients with moderateto-severe allergic asthma.After a run-in period, 546 allergic asthmatics (aged 12-76 yrs), symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroids (500-1,200 mg daily of beclomethasone dipropionate), were randomized to receive double-blind either placebo or omalizumab every 2 or 4 weeks (depending on body weight and serum total IgE) subcutaneously for 7 months. A constant beclomethasone dose was maintained during a 16-week stable-steroid phase and progressively reduced to the lowest dose required for asthma control over the following 8 weeks. The latter dose was maintained for the next 4 weeks. Asthma exacerbations represented the primary variable.Compared to the placebo group, the omalizumab group showed 58% fewer exacerbations per patient during the stable-steroid phase (pv0.001). During the steroid-reduction phase, there were 52% fewer exacerbations in the omalizumab group versus the placebo group (pv0.001) despite the greater reduction of the beclomethasone dosage on omalizumab (pv0.001). Treatment with omalizumab was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups.These results indicate that omalizumab therapy safely improves asthma control in allergic asthmatics who remain symptomatic despite regular use of inhaled corticosteroids and simultaneous reduction in corticosteroid requirement.

Omalizumab treatment improves asthma control in severely allergic asthmatics, reducing inhaled corticosteroid requirements without worsening of symptom control or increase in rescue medication use.

Background:  Patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite treatment according to current asthma management guidelines have a significant unmet medical need. Such patients are at high risk of serious exacerbations and asthma‐related mortality. Methods:  Here, we pooled data from seven studies to determine the effect of omalizumab, an anti‐immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody, on asthma exacerbations in patients with severe persistent asthma. Omalizumab was added to current asthma therapy and compared with placebo (in five double‐blind studies) or with current asthma therapy alone (in two open‐label studies). The studies included 4308 patients (2511 treated with omalizumab), 93% of whom had severe persistent asthma according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2002 classification. Using the Poisson regression model, results were calculated as the ratio of treatment effect (omalizumab : control) on the standardized exacerbation rate per year. Results:  Omalizumab significantly reduced the rate of asthma exacerbations by 38% (P < 0.0001 vs control) and the rate of total emergency visits by 47% (P < 0.0001 vs control). Analysis of demographic subgroups showed that the efficacy of omalizumab on asthma exacerbations was unaffected by patient age, gender, baseline serum IgE (split by median) or by 2‐ or 4‐weekly dosing schedule, although benefit in absolute terms appeared to be greatest in patients with more severe asthma, defined by a lower value of percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at baseline. Conclusions:  These results suggest that omalizumab may fulfil an important need in patients with severe persistent asthma, many of whom are not adequately controlled on current therapy.

We compared the effectiveness of inhaled formoterol with that of ipratropium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). After a 2-wk run-in period, 780 patients with COPD were randomized to receive for 12 wk formoterol dry powder 12 or 24 microg twice daily, ipratropium bromide 40 microg four times daily, or placebo in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy variable was the area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) measured over 12 h after 12 wk of treatment. Secondary variables included diary symptoms and quality of life. Both doses of formoterol and ipratropium significantly increased the area under the curve for FEV(1) in comparison with placebo (all p < 0.001). Both doses of formoterol were also significantly superior to ipratropium (all p < 0.025). Compared with placebo, both doses of formoterol significantly improved symptoms (all p < or = 0.007) and quality of life (p < 0.01 for total scores) whereas ipratropium did not show significant effects (all p > or = 0.3). All study treatments exhibited a similar safety profile. We conclude that formoterol is more effective than ipratropium bromide in the treatment of COPD, as the efficacy of ipratropium on airflow obstruction does not translate into a clinical benefit that patients can perceive.