-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.
OBJECTIVES
To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.
PubMed: 27582089
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010758.pub2 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Apr 2015The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish... (Review)
Review
The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish COPD guideline was revised to acknowledge the progress in diagnosis and management of COPD. This Finnish COPD guideline in English language is a part of the original guideline and focuses on the diagnosis, assessment and pharmacotherapy of stable COPD. It is intended to be used mainly in primary health care but not forgetting respiratory specialists and other healthcare workers. The new recommendations and statements are based on the best evidence available from the medical literature, other published national guidelines and the GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) report. This guideline introduces the diagnostic approach, differential diagnostics towards asthma, assessment and treatment strategy to control symptoms and to prevent exacerbations. The pharmacotherapy is based on the symptoms and a clinical phenotype of the individual patient. The guideline defines three clinically relevant phenotypes including the low and high exacerbation risk phenotypes and the neglected asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians to identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For the low exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with short-acting β2 -agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline) or anticholinergics (ipratropium) or their combination (fenoterol-ipratropium) is recommended in patients with less symptoms. If short-acting bronchodilators are not enough to control symptoms, a long-acting β2 -agonist (formoterol, indacaterol, olodaterol or salmeterol) or a long-acting anticholinergic (muscarinic receptor antagonists; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) or their combination is recommended. For the high exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with a long-acting anticholinergic or a fixed combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid and a long-acting β2 -agonist (budesonide-formoterol, beclomethasone dipropionate-formoterol, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) is recommended as a first choice. Other treatment options for this phenotype include combination of long-acting bronchodilators given from separate inhalers or as a fixed combination (glycopyrronium-indacaterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol) or a triple combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting β2 -agonist and a long-acting anticholinergic. If the patient has severe-to-very severe COPD (FEV1 < 50% predicted), chronic bronchitis and frequent exacerbations despite long-acting bronchodilators, the pharmacotherapy may include also roflumilast. ACOS is a phenotype of COPD in which there are features that comply with both asthma and COPD. Patients belonging to this phenotype have usually been excluded from studies evaluating the effects of drugs both in asthma and in COPD. Thus, evidence-based recommendation of treatment cannot be given. The treatment should cover both diseases. Generally, the therapy should include at least inhaled glucocorticoids (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate or mometasone) combined with a long-acting bronchodilator (β2 -agonist or anticholinergic or both).
Topics: Animals; Finland; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Vaccination
PubMed: 25515181
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12366 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Jun 2019GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).
METHODS
In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 μg), mometasone (25 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION
GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Sprays; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30910440
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.03.017 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Nigella sativa oil is known antiallergic and immunomodulatory effects. We aimed to compare this oil with mometasone furoate, a topical steroid, on a rat model in the...
OBJECTIVES
Nigella sativa oil is known antiallergic and immunomodulatory effects. We aimed to compare this oil with mometasone furoate, a topical steroid, on a rat model in the prevention of allergic rhinitis symptoms.
METHODS
A total of 28 two-to-four-month-old Wistar Hannover rats weighing 250-350 g were randomly divided into four groups of seven, which included control, allergic rhinitis, mometasone furoate, and Nigella sativa oil groups. Loss of cilia, an increase of goblet cells, vascular proliferation, inflammatory cell count, eosinophil infiltration, and the degree of hypertrophy in chondrocytes were assessed by light microscopy.
RESULTS
The frequency of nasal scratching in the Nigella sativa oil group was found to be significantly lower compared with the allergic rhinitis group (p < 0.05). Typical inflammatory changes seen in allergic rhinitis were not detected in the Nigella sativa oil group. No inflammation was observed in 85.7% of both the healthy control group and the Nigella sativa oil group. In addition, no inflammation was observed in 71.4% of the mometasone furoate group, and this difference was found to be significant compared with the control group (p < 0.05). In addition, eosinophil infiltration, cilia loss, chondrocyte hypertrophy, vascular proliferation, and goblet cell increase were found to be significantly decreased in the mometazone furoate and Nigella sativa oil groups compared to the allergic rhinitis group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
According to the findings obtained from this study, we found anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic effects of Nigella sativa oil as equally effective as mometasone furoate in the treatment of experimentaly generated allergic rhinitis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Pregnadienediols; Rats, Wistar; Mometasone Furoate; Rhinitis, Allergic; Anti-Allergic Agents; Eosinophilia; Hypertrophy; Administration, Intranasal
PubMed: 36243604
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.09.003 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY, an ICS/LABA/LAMA) and MF/IND (an ICS/LABA) via Breezhaler have been... (Review)
Review
Mometasone/Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) and MF/IND at Different MF Strengths versus Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Xinafoate (FLU/SAL) and FLU/SAL+ Tiotropium in Patients with Asthma.
BACKGROUND
Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY, an ICS/LABA/LAMA) and MF/IND (an ICS/LABA) via Breezhaler have been approved for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma inadequately controlled with medium-or high-dose ICS or medium-or high-dose ICS/LABA treatment.
OBJECTIVE
Once-daily (o.d.) formulations of MF/IND/GLY and MF/IND at different MF dose strengths have been compared with twice-daily (b.i.d.) fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FLU/SAL), and b.i.d. FLU/SAL+ o.d. tiotropium (TIO) in the PALLADIUM, IRIDIUM and ARGON studies.
METHODS
The similarity in study design and consistent outcomes in these studies prompted the pooling of data in this review to better characterise these novel once-daily controller formulations.
RESULTS
Pooled data from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies showed comparable or greater efficacy with o.d. MF/IND formulations versus b.i.d. FLU/SAL. The o.d. MF/IND/GLY was superior to b.i.d. FLU/SAL in the IRIDIUM study, and similar to, if not more efficacious than b.i.d. FLU/SAL + o.d. TIO in the ARGON study.
CONCLUSION
These formulations therefore provide novel once-daily treatment options for patients across asthma severity and flexibility for clinicians to step-up or step-down the treatment using the same device and formulations.
PubMed: 36714049
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S392975 -
Laryngoscope Investigative... Oct 2021To examine neurotologists' 2013 to 2016 Medicare Part-D data and evaluate commonly prescribed medications, longitudinal changes in prescribing patterns, presumed...
OBJECTIVE
To examine neurotologists' 2013 to 2016 Medicare Part-D data and evaluate commonly prescribed medications, longitudinal changes in prescribing patterns, presumed associated pathologies, and cost distribution across United States.
METHODS
Comprehensive prescription data of Part-D-participating neurotologists was quiered from the 2013 to 2016 Medicare Part-D database. Outcome variables consisted of the 25 most commonly prescribed + refilled medications, cost distribution per medication, presumed associated pathologies, and standardized prescription cost across United States.
RESULTS
Of the 594 available U.S. neurotologists, 336 (57%) were found in the Medicare Part-D database. In 2016, total prescription costs were $4 483 268 with an averaged $13 343 ± $18 698 per neurotologist. The three most frequently filled drugs were fluticasone propionate, ciprofloxacin, and triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide. From 2013 to 2016, the greatest change in prescription pattern was observed with azelastine (+188%), montelukast sodium (+104%), mupirocin (+63%), and mometasone (-91%), whereas the greatest change in relative drug cost distribution was seen in ofloxacin, (+695.7%) neomycin-polymyxin-hydrocortisone (+262.1%), and mometasone (-83%). Triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide, prednisone, montelukast, amoxicillin-clavulanate, azelastine, spironolactone, and mupirocin had statistically significant increases in average number of prescriptions per physician, whereas ofloxacin and mometasone had significant decreases. Medications presumably treating Eustachian tube dysfunction, Meniere's disease, and vestibular migraine had the greatest percent changes across years. Cost distribution of four drugs increased upwards of 100%. Geographic analysis demonstrated that Southern and Midwest regions had higher standardized prescription costs.
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first to analyze neurotologists' trends in prescribing patterns, regional prescription cost distributions, and commonly treated pathologies. This can lead to better standardization of prescribing patterns and cost in the future.
PubMed: 34667853
DOI: 10.1002/lio2.617 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.
PubMed: 37288109
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2022Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease seriously affecting the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the Tuomin Zhiti...
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease seriously affecting the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the Tuomin Zhiti decoction in allergic rhinitis and to provide a reference for clinical treatment. One hundred patients with AR treated in the Department of Otolaryngology of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were recruited and assigned via a random number table method (1 : 1) to receive either oral loratadine and mometasone nasal spray (control group) or the Tuomin Zhiti decoction plus oral loratadine and mometasone nasal spray (study group). The total clinical efficacy was 86% (43/50) in the study group, which was significantly higher than that of 64% (32/50) in the control group. After treatment, the Total Nasal Symptoms Scores (TNSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores between the two groups were similar, but 12 weeks after treatment, the study group had significantly lower TNSS and RQLQ scores than the control group. After treatment, the study group obtained lower levels of interleukin (IL)-4 and higher levels of interferon- (IFN-) than the control group. Significantly lower post-treatment peripheral blood eosinophil count (EOS) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) levels were observed in the study group in contrast to those of the control group. The Tuomin Zhiti decoction for the treatment of AR patients alleviates their clinical symptoms, reduces the inflammatory responses, enhances the immune function of patients by regulating IL-4 and IFN-, and lowers the long-term recurrence rate.
PubMed: 35774745
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8616075 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal 2018Neurogenic inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis. Highly effective in reducing the sensory irritation caused by some substances,...
Neurogenic inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis. Highly effective in reducing the sensory irritation caused by some substances, strontium salts directly affect C-type nerve fibers. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of mometasone furoate and strontium chloride on early-phase symptoms in a rat model of allergic rhinitis. Wistar albino rats (n = 24) were randomly divided into three groups: the mometasone group, receiving 1 μg mometasone furoate (2 µl/site); the strontium 3% group, receiving 3% strontium chloride (2 μl/site); and the strontium 5% group, receiving 5% strontium chloride (2 μl/site). To induce significant nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis, 5 µmol of histamine dihydrochloride (HDC) (2 µl/site) was administered. Symptoms of allergic rhinitis were recorded as frequencies of sneezing and nasal rubbing during a 15-minute interval. On days 1 and 2, respectively, 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) (2 μl/site to each nasal cavity) and HDC were administered in all of the study groups. On days 3 and 4, the study drugs were administered 10 and 30 minutes before the administration of HDC. On day 5, the study drugs were administered 10 minutes after the administration of HDC. The results of the present study revealed that when strontium chloride or mometasone furoate was administered 30 minutes before the onset of symptoms, a significant decrease was observed in sneezing and nasal rubbing. The number of sneezing occurrences was significantly lower and the number of nasal rubbing occurrences was higher in the strontium 3% group compared to the groups in which mometasone furoate and 5% strontium chloride were administered after onset of symptoms. Recent studies have investigated the efficacy and safety of strontium chloride nasal drops compared with common pharmacologic treatments of allergic rhinitis. These studies have revealed that allergic rhinitis can be successfully and safely treated with strontium-chloride-containing products, thus offering a potential new treatment strategy.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Disease Models, Animal; Histamine; Male; Mometasone Furoate; Rats; Rats, Wistar; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sneezing; Strontium; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29493722
DOI: 10.1177/0145561318097001-225 -
Gastroenterology & Hepatology Apr 2022Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition identified by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. Historically, pharmacologic...
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated condition identified by eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa. Historically, pharmacologic options have been limited to proton pump inhibitors and swallowed topical corticosteroids, neither of which have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of EoE. The goal of therapy is ultimately to avoid irreversible stricturing disease. Despite the rising prevalence of EoE, there have been few therapeutic advancements until recently. Some newer topical corticosteroid preparations are being studied, including a budesonide suspension (TAK-721), orodispersible tablet formulations of budesonide and fluticasone (APT-1011), and mometasone and ciclesonide preparations. Also in various stages of clinical trials are potential disease-modifying biologics such as dupilumab, cendakimab, lirentelimab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab. Some of these medications have proven efficacious for other atopic conditions and show incredible promise for the treatment of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. Further studies will be needed to determine long-term treatment outcomes for each of these drugs.
PubMed: 35505944
DOI: No ID Found