Premium
Inhaled vs subcutaneous effects of a dual IL‐4/IL‐13 antagonist in a monkey model of asthma
Author(s) -
Tomkinson A.,
Tepper J.,
Morton M.,
Bowden A.,
Stevens L.,
Harris P.,
Lindell D.,
Fitch N.,
Gundel R.,
Getz E. B.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
allergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.363
H-Index - 173
eISSN - 1398-9995
pISSN - 0105-4538
DOI - 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02156.x
Subject(s) - methacholine , medicine , inhalation , eosinophil , bronchoalveolar lavage , eosinophilia , allergen , immunology , subcutaneous injection , interleukin 5 , asthma , ascaris suum , pharmacology , pulmonary eosinophilia , anesthesia , lung , interleukin , allergy , respiratory disease , cytokine , helminths
Background: Pitrakinra is a recombinant protein derived from human interleukin‐4 (IL‐4) that binds to IL‐4Rα and acts as a competitive antagonist of IL‐4 and IL‐13. The studies reported here compare the dose‐ranging effects of pitrakinra on allergen‐induced airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and airway eosinophilia when administered subcutaneously (s.c.) or by inhalation to the Ascaris suum ‐sensitive cynomolgus monkey for the purpose of elucidating the primary site of pitrakinra’s anti‐asthmatic action. Methods: Airway responsiveness to inhaled methacholine and bronchoalveolar lavage cell composition was determined before and after three allergen exposures with a 1‐week course of twice‐daily (b.i.d.) s.c. or inhaled pitrakinra or placebo treatment. Results: Treatment with s.c. pitrakinra significantly reduced allergen‐induced AHR, with a maximum effect of a 2.8‐ to 3.8‐fold increase in methacholine PC 100 relative to control ( P < 0.05) observed at b.i.d. s.c. doses of 0.05–0.5 mg/kg. Inhaled pitrakinra also significantly reduced AHR with a similar maximum effect of a 2.8‐ to 3.2‐fold increase in methacholine PC 100 relative to control ( P < 0.05) at nominal b.i.d. doses of 3–100 mg. The maximal effect on AHR following inhalation was observed at a plasma concentration which exhibited no efficacy via the subcutaneous route. The effect of pitrakinra on lung eosinophilia was not statistically significant following either route of administration, although lung eosinophil count was reduced in all studies relative to control. Conclusion: Local administration of pitrakinra to the lung is sufficient to inhibit AHR, one of the cardinal features of asthma, indicating the therapeutic potential of inhaled pitrakinra in the treatment of atopic asthma.