PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Bensch

Publications and source records attributed to G Bensch.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with allergic asthma.

The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of treatment with omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, on asthma-related quality of life (AQoL) in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. A total of 546 patients with allergic asthma were randomised to double-blind subcutaneous treatment with either placebo or omalizumab for 52 weeks. A constant beclomethasone dipropionate dose was maintained during the first 16 weeks (steroid-stable phase). This was followed by a 12-week steroid-reduction phase. The core study was followed by a 24-week double-blind extension phase. AQoL was evaluated at baseline and at the end of the steroid-stable (week 16), steroid-reduction (week 28) and extension phases (week 52) using the Juniper Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Baseline AQLQ scores were comparable for the two treatment groups. Relative to placebo, omalizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements from baseline across all four AQLQ domains, as well as overall AQoL score, at weeks 16 (except environmental exposure), 28 and 52. Patients on omalizumab were also more likely to achieve clinically significant improvements in AQoL during the course of the study. Overall, almost 70% of patients and investigators rated treatment with omalizumab as "excellent/good", compared with approximately 40% of placebo recipients. Clinical studies show that omalizumab enhances disease control whilst reducing corticosteroid consumption in patients with allergic asthma. The results of the present study show that these changes are paralleled by improvements in asthma-related quality of life that are meaningful to such patients.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2001

Evaluation of the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochloride 0.05% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and azelastine hydrochlofide 0.05% ophthalmic solution are 2 topical antiallergic agents indicated for the treatment of itching of the eye associated with allergic conjunctivitis. Olopatadine has recently received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an expanded indication for the treatment of signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, including itching, tearing, eyelid swelling, redness, and chemosis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of olopatadine hydrochloride versus azelastine hydrochloride and placebo (artificial tears) in the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled, multicenter, allergen-challenge study. Itching was chosen as the primary efficacy variable since it is the only FDA-approved indication these 2 agents have in common. Subjects with a history of allergic conjunctivitis who responded to the CAC at screening visits 1 and 2 were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: olopatadine in 1 eye and azelastine in the other eye; olopatadine in 1 eye and placebo in the other eye; or azelastine in 1 eye and placebo in the other eye. At the assessment visit (visit 3), subjects received masked study medication according to the randomization scheme. After 5 minutes, subjects were bilaterally challenged with the allergen concentration that had elicited a positive conjunctival allergic response at visits 1 and 2. Immediately after challenge, subjects gave itching assessments (scale, 0 = no itching to 4 = severe itching) every 30 seconds for a total period of 20 minutes. Mean itching scores for all eyes were compared by treatment. Mean itching scores at each time point were compared between treatments using 2 sample t tests. RESULTS: Of the 180 subjects screened, 111 responded to the CAC at visits 1 and 2 and completed the study; 65% (72/111) of patients were female, 87% (97/111) were white, and 49% (54/111) had brown irides. The mean age was approximately 40 years. Seventy-three eyes were treated with olopatadine, 75 with azelastine, and 74 with placebo. A single dose of 1 of the 3 study medications per eye was well tolerated by all subjects. Both treatments were significantly more effective than placebo at reducing itching postchallenge. Olopatadine was significantly more effective than azelastine in reducing itching at 3.5 minutes through 20 minutes postchallenge (average mean unit difference of -0.31; P < 0.05) in the CAC model. CONCLUSION: In this population, olopatadine was significantly more effective than azelastine in the management of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the CAC model.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

A randomized, 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing formoterol dry powder inhaler with albuterol metered-dose inhaler.

BACKGROUND: Formoterol is a beta2-adrenergic agent which, when inhaled, produces rapid and long-lasting bronchodilatation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of formoterol powder for inhalation delivered via the Aerolizer device with placebo and with albuterol delivered via metered-dose inhaler in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, 541 patients were randomized at 26 trial sites to receive either formoterol, 12 microg twice daily; formoterol, 24 microg twice daily; albuterol, 180 microg four times daily; or a placebo for 12 weeks. The effects of each treatment on lung function, asthma symptoms, and frequency of rescue albuterol use were evaluated. Adverse effects and clinical laboratory parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: The bronchodilatory effects of formoterol were rapid in onset and persisted for 12 hours. Both formoterol doses were more effective than placebo and albuterol for objective measures of lung function. Morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were more improved with formoterol, and formoterol provided significantly greater improvements in asthma symptom scores compared with both albuterol and placebo. Overall, patients taking formoterol used significantly less rescue medication than did those taking albuterol or placebo. Nocturnal awakenings occurred less often with formoterol than with placebo or albuterol. The therapeutic effects of formoterol were maintained over the entire 12 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were similar for all treatment groups, and clinical laboratory data were unremarkable. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid-onset, long-acting formoterol, administered via the Aerolizer inhaler, is an effective and safe treatment for patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2001

Effective control of asthma with hydrofluoroalkane flunisolide delivered as an extrafine aerosol in asthma patients.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are established as maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. A new aerosol formulation of flunisolide delivers a small particle size by using a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant with a built-in spacer. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of two different flunisolide formulations, HFA and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), with placebo treatment over a range of doses. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial consisted of a 2-week, active run-in phase with CFC flunisolide 500 microg, twice daily, followed by 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo, HFA flunisolide (85, 170, or 340 microg, twice daily), or CFC flunisolide (250, 500, or 1,000 microg, twice daily). Patients (N = 669) were nonsmokers, at least 12 years of age, with mild to moderate asthma who were being treated with inhaled corticosteroids. Outcome measures were change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate, as needed albuterol use, nocturnal awakenings, and asthma symptoms. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, patients receiving 170 microg, twice daily, and 340 microg, twice daily, of HFA flunisolide showed a significant (P < 0.01) improvement in percentage increase in FEV1 (12.22% at 170 microg, twice daily, and 14.69% at 340 microg, twice daily) compared with the placebo group (5.35%). At one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide, HFA flunisolide provided similar improvement in pulmonary function versus placebo. Both formulations demonstrated comparable linear dose dependency for the change from baseline in FEV1 without any evidence of cortisol suppression. Outcome values for all seven secondary efficacy measures were numerically superior in patients receiving HFA flunisolide compared with the CFC formulation. Both formulations seemed to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: HFA flunisolide provides comparable efficacy and safety at one-third the dose of CFC flunisolide.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2001

Efficacy of soluble IL-4 receptor for the treatment of adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: IL-4 mediates important proinflammatory functions in asthma, including induction of the IgE isotype switch, increased expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 and promotion of eosinophil transmigration across the endothelium, stimulation of mucus production, and T(H)2 lymphocyte differentiation, leading to release of IL-4, IL-5, IL-9, and IL-13. OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated the therapeutic potential of inhaled recombinant human soluble interleukin-4 receptor (IL-4R) as an IL-4 antagonist. METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 62 subjects involving 12 once weekly nebulizations of 0.75, 1.5, or 3.0 mg of IL-4R or placebo. During screening, subjects documented dependence on inhaled corticosteroids by an exacerbation in asthma induced by one or two 50% dose reductions at 2-week intervals. After restabilization for 2 weeks on the dose above which their asthma flared, inhaled steroids were discontinued, patients were randomized, and study medication was started on day 0. RESULTS: IL-4R was well tolerated. Efficacy was demonstrated by a decline in FEV(1) observed in the placebo group (-0.4 L and -13% predicted), which did not occur in the group receiving 3.0 mg of IL-4R (-0.1 L and -2% predicted; P =.05 over the 3-month treatment period). Daily patient-measured morning FEV(1) also demonstrated a significant decline in the placebo group (-0.5 L and -18% predicted), which did not occur in the group receiving 3.0 mg of IL-4R (-0.1 L and -4% predicted; P =.02 over the 3-month treatment period). The efficacy of IL-4R was further confirmed by the absence of increase in asthma symptom scores in the group receiving 3.0 mg of IL-4R (Delta 0.1) compared with that seen in the placebo group (Delta 1.4 over 1 month; P =.07). Study discontinuation for asthma exacerbation was not significantly different between groups (placebo, 56%; 3.0 mg of IL-4R, 47%; P = not significant). CONCLUSION: These promising data suggest that IL-4R is safe and effective in the treatment of moderate persistent asthma.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Low-dose levalbuterol in children with asthma: safety and efficacy in comparison with placebo and racemic albuterol.

BACKGROUND: Racemic albuterol (RAC) is an equal mixture of (R)-albuterol and (S)-albuterol. Only the (R)-isomer, levalbuterol (LEV), is therapeutically active. Lower doses of LEV, devoid of (S)-albuterol, have demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of higher doses of the (R)-isomer administered as a component of RAC. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether LEV results in improved safety and efficacy in children. METHODS: Asthmatic children aged 4 to 11 years (n = 338; FEV(1), 40% to 85% of predicted) participated in this multicenter, randomized, double-blinded study and received 21 days of 3-times-a-day treatment with nebulized LEV (0.31 or 0.63 mg), RAC (1.25 or 2.5 mg), or placebo. The primary endpoint was FEV(1) (peak percent change). Adverse events, clinical laboratory test results, vital signs, and electrocardiograms were evaluated for safety. RESULTS: All active treatments significantly improved the primary endpoint in comparison with placebo (P < .001). Significant differences in FEV(1) were noted immediately after nebulization (median change, 2.0%, 19.0%, 18.1%, 12.4%, and 15.6% for placebo, LEV 0.31 and 0.63, RAC 1.25 and 2.5 mg, respectively; P < .05 vs placebo; P < .05 for LEV 0.31 and 0.63 vs RAC 1.25 mg). LEV 0.31 mg was the only treatment not different from placebo for changes in ventricular heart rate, QT(c) interval, and glucose (P > .05). All active treatments decreased serum potassium (range, -0.3 to -0.6; P < .002 vs placebo), and RAC 2.5 mg caused the greatest change (P < .005 vs other actives). In a patient subset with severe asthma, a dose-response relationship was observed for levalbuterol, indicating that higher doses were more effective. CONCLUSION: LEV was clinically comparable to 4- to 8-fold higher doses of RAC, and it demonstrated a more favorable safety profile. LEV 0.31 mg should be used as the starting dose in 4-11 year old children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Patients with severe disease might benefit from higher doses.

Adrenergic beta-Agonists↗
PubMed2000

A comparison of the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and clinical performance of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% ophthalmic solution and ketotifen fumarate 0.025% ophthalmic solution in the conjunctival antigen challenge model. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, contralaterally controlled, single-center, antigen challenge study. Of the 53 subjects screened, 32 were enrolled and completed the study. The study comprised 3 visits. Primary efficacy variables were ocular itching (assessed at visits 2 and 3) and subject satisfaction (assessed at visit 3). Tolerability variables were slit-lamp findings (all visits), visual acuity (all visits), ocular comfort after drug instillation (visit 3), and adverse events (visits 2 and 3). At visit 1, the antigen concentration that elicited a positive ocular allergic response was determined, and this concentration was confirmed at visit 2. Subjects graded itching on a 5-point scale at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. The scores from this visit were used as baseline scores and compared with scores from visit 3 to determine drug efficacy. At visit 3, subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups. Group A received 1 drop of olopatadine in the right eye and I drop of ketotifen in the left eye. Group B received 1 drop of olopatadine in the left eye and 1 drop of ketotifen in the right eye. Following drug instillation, the subjects assessed the comfort level in each eye. Twelve hours after instillation, subjects were challenged with the antigen concentration that elicited a positive response at the previous visits. Itching was subjectively graded at 3, 5, and 10 minutes postchallenge. Subjects were asked to choose which therapy they were more satisfied with. RESULTS: Twelve hours after administration, efficacy scores for olopatadine were significantly higher than those for ketotifen at 3 and 5 minutes postchallenge (1.84 and 1.75 vs 1.25 and 1.34; P < 0.05). Olopatadine-treated eyes were rated significantly more comfortable than those treated with ketotifen immediately after drug instillation (1.25 vs 2.09; P < 0.05) and 12 hours later, as measured by patient ratings of ocular comfort. Of the 22 subjects who had a preference, 16 (73%) were more satisfied with olopatadine than with ketotifen. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine is more effective than ketotifen in reducing the itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis in the antigen challenge model. Olopatadine caused less ocular discomfort than ketotifen and was preferred by approximately 3 times as many patients as was ketotifen.

Allergens↗
PubMed1999

Noninfectious immunologic disorders in adults.

This article covers a variety of immunologic defects and discusses their potential side effects, with an emphasis on immunodeficiencies with survival into adulthood. To organize the approach to immunodeficiencies, the immune system is broken down broadly into four major components: the complement cascade, antibody (B cell)-mediated immunity, cellular (T cell)-mediated immunity, and phagocytosis.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Improved bronchodilation with levalbuterol compared with racemic albuterol in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Racemic albuterol is an equal mixture of (R)-albuterol (levalbuterol), which is responsible for the bronchodilator effect, and (S)-albuterol, which provides no benefit and may be detrimental. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare 2 doses of a single enantiomer, levalbuterol (0.63 mg and 1.25 mg), and equivalent amounts of levalbuterol administered as racemic albuterol with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Three hundred sixty-two patients 12 years of age or older were treated with study drug administered by means of nebulization 3 times daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was peak change in FEV1 after 4 weeks. RESULTS: The change in peak FEV1 response to the first dose in the combined levalbuterol group was significantly greater compared with the combined racemic albuterol group (0.92 and 0.82 L, respectively; P =.03), with similar but nonsignificant results after 4 weeks (0.84 and 0.74 L, respectively). Improvement in FEV1 was similar for levalbuterol 0.63 mg and racemic albuterol 2.5 mg and greatest for levalbuterol 1.25 mg. Racemic albuterol 1.25 mg demonstrated the weakest bronchodilator effect, particularly after chronic dosing. The greatest increase in FEV1 was seen after levalbuterol 1.25 mg, especially in subjects with severe asthma. All active treatments were well tolerated, and beta-adrenergic side effects after administration of levalbuterol 0.63 mg were reduced relative to levalbuterol 1.25 mg or racemic albuterol 2.5 mg. At week 4, the predose FEV1 value was greatest in patients who received levalbuterol or placebo when compared with those who received racemic albuterol. The difference was more evident and was statistically significant in patients who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Levalbuterol appears to provide a better therapeutic index than the standard dose of racemic albuterol. These results support the concept that (S)-albuterol may have detrimental effects on pulmonary function.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Sparfloxacin vs ofloxacin in the treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. Sparfloxacin Multicenter ABECB Study Group.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Comparison of efficacy and safety of sparfloxacin vs ofloxacin for treatment of acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (ABECB). DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. SETTING: Sixty-eight private offices and outpatient clinics in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: Seven hundred ninety-eight adults with ABECB, as confirmed by the acute onset of new (or worsened from the immediate premorbid state) cough and sputum production. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization 1:1 to sparfloxacin, 400 mg on day 1, then 200 mg once daily, or ofloxacin, 400 mg twice daily, with matching comparator placebos, given concurrently for 10 consecutive days. RESULTS: The primary efficacy parameter was overall response in the bacteriologically evaluable population. Overall success rates in this population were 85.3% and 89.3% for sparfloxacin and ofloxacin, respectively. The two-sided 95% confidence interval was -9.9, 1.9, indicating that sparfloxacin was statistically equivalent to ofloxacin. The all-treated population analysis was similar to that in the evaluable population. Bacterial eradication rates were similar in both treatment groups for Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The frequency of adverse events overall was comparable in the two treatment groups. The sparfloxacin group had a lower frequency of digestive and nervous system adverse events, but a higher frequency of photosensitivity reactions than the ofloxacin group. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily oral treatment with 200 mg sparfloxacin (after initial 400 mg dose) is as effective as twice-daily treatment with 400 mg ofloxacin in patients with ABECB.

Acute Disease↗