Dataset Information

Iodixanol nasal solution reduces allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms in Allergen BioCube®: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects ~20% of the population worldwide. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iodixanol nasal solution (Nasapaque) for AR treatment, using the Allergen BioCube® (ABC®), an environmental exposure unit. Iodixanol is a commonly used contrast media agent that shows efficacy on the signs and symptoms of AR. Patients and methods:Seventy-three adult subjects with AR were randomized to iodixanol or placebo treatment in a double-masked efficacy and safety study conducted outside of ragweed pollen season. In-office treatment was administered after BioCube® ragweed pollen exposure, and again 8 days later prior to ragweed exposure. Nasal and ocular efficacy and safety assessments were conducted before and after treatment. Results:Iodixanol treatment resulted in statistically significantly lower total nasal symptom scores as compared to placebo at several time points post-treatment and ABC exposure. Individual nasal and ocular symptoms, notably nasal itching and ocular itching, showed evidence of lower scores in the iodixanol group. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) improved (9%-16%) with iodixanol from baseline as compared to PNIF in the placebo group which ranged from 3% worsening to improvement of 2%. Few (9) adverse events occurred. Conclusion:Iodixanol nasal solution demonstrated efficacy for relief of several nasal and ocular allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms, and was safe and well tolerated in this early Phase II exploratory trial. Further studies with iodixanol are warranted. Allergy challenge models such as the ABC provide valuable assessments of allergen exposures and drug efficacies. Study Identification Number:NCT02377895.

SUBMITTER: Gomes PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6400136 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Allergy Organization and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommend to perform product-specific meta-analyses for allergen-specific immunotherapies because of the high degree of heterogeneity between individual products. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of Glutaraldehyde-modified and MCT® (MicroCrystalline Tyrosine)-adsorbed allergoids (MATA).MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, LILACS, embase, LIVIVO, Web of Science and Google (Scholar) were searched for publications on MATA up to June 2019. Primary endpoint was the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS). Secondary endpoints were single scores, immunogenicity and improvement of allergic condition. Secondary safety endpoints were the occurrence of side effects. A random effects model was applied with (standardized) mean differences ([S]MDs) including confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was analyzed using the I2 index and publication bias using Egger's test and Funnel plots. Subgroups were analyzed regarding age and asthma status.ResultsEight randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials were selected for efficacy and 43 publications for safety analysis. In total, 4531 patients were included in this analysis including eight studies containing data on children and adolescents. AIT with MATA significantly reduced allergic symptoms and medication use with a SMD for CSMS of -0.8 (CI: -1.24, -0.36) in comparison to placebo. Heterogeneity was moderate between the studies. The total symptom score (-1.2 [CI: -2.11, -0.29]) and the total medication score (-2.2 [CI: -3.65, -0.74]) were also significantly reduced after MATA treatment. Patient's condition improved significantly after treatment with MATA, with an odds ratio of 3.05 (CI: 1.90, 4.90) when compared to placebo. The proportion of patients, who developed side effects was 38% (CI: 19%, 57%). No serious side effects occurred. Safety in the subgroups of asthmatic patients, children and adolescents did not differ from the overall patient population.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis reveals a large body of evidence from publications investigating MATA. MATA significantly improved allergic symptoms and reduced the use of anti-allergic medication in comparison to placebo, with an excellent safety profile. Especially for children and asthmatic patients, the use of MATAs can be considered as safe, because the safety profiles in these groups did not differ from the total patient population.

Project description:BackgroundThe capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.ResultsTwenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.ConclusionsIn an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Project description:BackgroundPatients are often dissatisfied with the symptom control obtained from available pharmacological treatments for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Therefore, patients seek for alternative, nonpharmacological options to treat their symptoms. Here, we assessed the efficacy of ectoine nasal spray and ectoine eye drops in comparison to placebo to prevent nasal and ocular symptoms following exposure to pollen in patients with ARC.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 46 patients with ARC applied ectoine eye drops and nasal spray in immediate succession or placebo eye drops and nasal spray for 13 days before ARC symptoms were induced in an environmental exposure chamber. Primary endpoint was the baseline-adjusted area under the curve (AUC) posttreatment total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and the total ocular symptom score (TOSS) using analysis of covariance. Secondary endpoints were, amongst others, total nonnasal symptoms score (TNNSS) and nasal patency (measured using acoustic rhinometry).ResultsTreatment with both ectoine and placebo reduced TNSS, TOSS, and TNNSS upon allergen exposure. The analysis of parameters at baseline and after allergen exposure demonstrated that ectoine induced a clinically relevant improvement in ARC symptoms compared to placebo: the least square mean difference for baseline-adjusted AUC was -1.87 for TNSS, -1.45 for TOSS and -2.20 for TNNSS. The mean change from baseline AUC of TNNSS for ectoine was also significantly greater than for placebo (-5.49 vs. -3.46; p = 0.011). Ectoine significantly improved the singular symptoms "sneezing," "watery eyes" and "itchy eyes" (p ≤ 0.021) as well as "itchy ear/palate" (p = 0.036) in comparison to placebo. Mean cross sectional areas of the nasal cavity were reduced to a lesser extent after treatment with ectoine (-0.020 ± 0.022) than with placebo (-0.047 ± 0.029). The current study also demonstrated a very good safety profile of ectoine treatment. Few AEs with comparable numbers in both treatment groups were reported during the study, which were mild in severity and resolved without medical treatment.ConclusionThe study suggests that ectoine is effective in reducing nasal and ocular symptoms associated with ARC. Being a natural, bacteria derived stress protection molecule functioning by a physical mode of action, it therefore represents an alternative nonpharmacological treatment option.

Dataset Information

Iodixanol nasal solution reduces allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms in Allergen BioCube®: a randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets