Links between pollen, atopy and the asthma epidemic

Pollen allergy has been found in 80&ndash;90% of childhood asthmatics and 40&ndash;50% of adult-onset asthmatics. Despite the high prevalence of atopy in asthmatics, a causal relationship between the allergic response and asthma has not been clearly established. Pollen grains are too large to penetrate the small airways where asthma occurs. Yet pollen cytoplasmic fragments are respirable and are likely correlated with the asthmatic response in allergic asthmatics. In this review, we outline the mechanism of pollen fragmentation and possible pathophysiology of pollen fragment-induced asthma. Pollen grains rupture within the male flowers and emit cytoplasmic debris when winds or other disturbances disperse the pollen. Peak levels of grass and birch pollen allergens in the atmosphere correlated with the occurrence of moist weather conditions during the flowering period. Thunderstorm asthma epidemics may be triggered by grass pollen rupture in the atmosphere and the entrainment of respirable-sized particles in the outflows of air masses at ground level. Pollen contains nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (reduced) oxidases and bioactive lipid mediators which likely contribute to the inflammatory response. Several studies have examined synergistic effects and enhanced immune response from interaction in the atmosphere, or from co-deposition in the airways, of pollen allergens, endogenous pro-inflammatory agents, and the particulate and gaseous fraction of combustion products. Pollen and fungal fragments also contain compounds that can suppress reactive oxidants and quench free radicals. It is important to know more about how these substances interact to potentially enhance, or even ameliorate, allergic asthma.<br /

Preventing hereditary angioedema attacks in children using Cinryze®: interim efficacy and safety phase 3 findings

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease causing unpredictable and potentially life-threatening subcutaneous and submucosal edematous attacks. Cinryze® (Shire ViroPharma Inc., Lexington, MA, USA), a nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (C1-INH), is approved in Europe for the treatment, preprocedure prevention, and routine prophylaxis of HAE attacks, and for the routine prophylaxis of attacks in the USA. This phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of 2 C1-INH doses in preventing attacks in children aged 6-11 years. Methods: A randomized single-blind crossover study was initiated in March 2014. Results for the first 6 patients completing the study are reported here. After a 12-week qualifying observation period, patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 C1-INH doses, 500 or 1,000 U, every 3-4 days for 12 weeks and crossed over to the alternative dose for a second 12-week period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of angioedema attacks per month. Results: Six females with HAE type I and a median age of 10.5 years received 2 doses of C1-INH (500 and 1,000 U). The mean (SD) difference in the number of monthly angioedema attacks between the baseline observation period and the treatment period was -1.89 (1.31) with 500 U and -1.89 (1.11) with 1,000 U. During the treatment periods, cumulative attack severity, cumulative daily severity, and the number of attacks needing acute treatment were lower. No serious adverse events or study drug discontinuations occurred. Conclusions: Interim findings from this study indicate that routine prevention with intravenous administration of C1-INH is efficacious, safe, and well tolerated in children ≥6 years of age

A randomized trial of human C1 inhibitor prophylaxis in children with hereditary angioedema

BACKGROUND: Patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency or dysfunction have burdensome recurrent angioedema attacks. The safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) prophylaxis (intravenously administered) in patients aged 6-11 years were investigated. METHODS: Eligible patients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, crossover, phase 3 trial. After a 12-week baseline observation period (BOP), patients received 500 or 1000 U C1-INH, twice weekly, for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate dose for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the monthly normalized number of angioedema attacks (NNA). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-dimensional descriptive system youth version and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). RESULTS: Twelve randomized patients had a median (range) age of 10.0 (7-11) years. Mean (SD) percentage reduction in monthly NNA from BOP was 71.1% (27.1%) with 500 U and 84.5% (20.0%) with 1000 U C1-INH. Mean (SD) within-patient difference (-0.4 [0.58]) for monthly NNA with both doses was significant (P = 0.035 [90% CI, -0.706 to -0.102]). Cumulative attack severity, cumulative daily severity, and number of acute attacks treated were reduced. No serious adverse events or discontinuations occurred. Mean EQ-VAS change from BOP to week 9 of treatment (500 U C1-INH, 10.4; 1000 U C1-INH, 21.6) was greater than the minimal important difference, indicating a meaningful HRQoL change. CONCLUSIONS: C1-INH prophylaxis was effective, safe, and well tolerated in children aged 6-11 years experiencing recurrent angioedema attacks. A post hoc analysis indicated a meaningful improvement in HRQoL with C1-INH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02052141

Icatibant, a new bradykinin-receptor antagonist, in hereditary angioedema

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema is characterized by recurrent attacks of angioedema of the skin, larynx, and gastrointestinal tract. Bradykinin is the key mediator of symptoms. Icatibant is a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. METHODS: In two double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials, we evaluated the effect of icatibant in patients with hereditary angioedema presenting with cutaneous or abdominal attacks. In the For Angioedema Subcutaneous Treatment (FAST) 1 trial, patients received either icatibant or placebo; in FAST-2, patients received either icatibant or oral tranexamic acid, at a dose of 3 g daily for 2 days. Icatibant was given once, subcutaneously, at a dose of 30 mg. The primary end point was the median time to clinically significant relief of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 56 and 74 patients underwent randomization in the FAST-1 and FAST-2 trials, respectively. The primary end point was reached in 2.5 hours with icatibant versus 4.6 hours with placebo in the FAST-1 trial (P=0.14) and in 2.0 hours with icatibant versus 12.0 hours with tranexamic acid in the FAST-2 trial (P<0.001). In the FAST-1 study, 3 recipients of icatibant and 13 recipients of placebo needed treatment with rescue medication. The median time to first improvement of symptoms, as assessed by patients and by investigators, was significantly shorter with icatibant in both trials. No icatibant-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with hereditary angioedema having acute attacks, we found a significant benefit of icatibant as compared with tranexamic acid in one trial and a nonsignificant benefit of icatibant as compared with placebo in the other trial with regard to the primary end point. The early use of rescue medication may have obscured the benefit of icatibant in the placebo trial. (Funded by Jerini; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00097695 and NCT00500656.