Efficacy and safety of loratadine plus pseudoephedrine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and mild asthma

Efficacy and safety of an extended-release formulation of desloratadine and pseudoephedrine vs the individual components in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Antihistamine-decongestant combination products generally provide more benefit than individual components for adequately treating patients who have seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) with moderate-to-severe nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of a 24-hour, extended-release formulation of desloratadine and pseudoephedrine with the individual components in patients who have SAR with moderate-to-severe nasal congestion.

METHODS

Patients with SAR and significant nasal congestion were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study. Patients were randomly assigned for 2 weeks to once-daily treatment with desloratadine-pseudoephedrine, 5/240-mg tablets; desloratadine, 5 mg; or pseudoephedrine, 240 mg. Primary efficacy variables for the antihistamine and decongestant components of desloratadine-pseudoephedrine were morning and evening reflective total symptom score (TSS), excluding nasal congestion, and morning and evening reflective nasal congestion score during the 2-week treatment period, respectively. Secondary variables included morning instantaneous (end-of-interval) TSS (excluding congestion), nasal congestion score, reflective morning and evening individual symptom scores, overall condition of SAR, and therapeutic response.

RESULTS

A total of 1121 patients were enrolled in the study, and 1047 patients completed the 2-week study. Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine was significantly more effective than desloratadine or pseudoephedrine monotherapy in reducing morning and evening reflective TSS (excluding nasal congestion) during the entire treatment period. Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine also was significantly more effective in reducing the morning and evening reflective nasal congestion score compared with desloratadine or pseudoephedrine monotherapy. Significant differences were seen between the desloratadine-pseudoephedrine and monotherapy groups for changes in morning instantaneous TSS (excluding nasal congestion) and nasal congestion scores. No unusual or unexpected adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Desloratadine-pseudoephedrine, 5/240-mg once-daily tablets, provided additional benefit over desloratadine, 5 mg, or sustained-release pseudoephedrine, 240 mg, monotherapy in the treatment of patients with SAR and moderate-to-severe nasal congestion.

Second-generation antihistamines in asthma therapy: is there a protective effect?

Second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonists are recognized as being highly effective treatments for allergic-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in the world. The newer antihistamines represent a heterogeneous group of compounds with markedly different chemical structures, a spectrum of antihistaminic properties, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution, metabolism and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. Histamine is an important mast cell- and basophil-derived mediator that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma, resulting in smooth muscle contraction, mucus hypersecretion, and increased vascular permeability leading to mucosal edema. Antihistamines should never be used as monotherapy for asthma but there is evidence that these drugs give a measure of protection in histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that the use of second-generation antihistamines, as adjunct therapy, may benefit those patients whose allergic asthma co-exists with allergic rhinitis. Indeed, many patients present with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The link between the upper and lower respiratory airways is now well established and there is increasing evidence that allergic rhinitis is a risk factor for the development of asthma. More recently, a number of novel antihistamines have been developed which are either metabolites of active drugs or enantiomers and there is emerging evidence that at least one of these drugs, desloratadine, may give significant symptomatic benefit in some types of asthma. It is of interest to note that cetirizine provides a primary pharmacological intervention strategy to prevent the development of asthma in specifically-sensitized high risk groups of infants. Moreover, the documented anti-inflammatory activities of antihistamines may provide a novel mechanism of action for the therapeutic control of virus-induced asthma exacerbations by inhibiting the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) by airway epithelial cells. Finally, several well-conducted studies suggest that combination therapy with antihistamines and antileukotrienes may be as effective as corticosteroid use in patients with allergic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis in children : diagnosis and management strategies

The incidence of allergic rhinitis has been increasing for the last few decades, in keeping with the rising incidence of atopy worldwide. Allergic rhinitis has a prevalence of up to 40% in children, although it frequently goes unrecognized and untreated. This can have enormous negative consequences, particularly in children, since it is associated with numerous complications and comorbidities that have a significant health impact on quality of life. In fact, allergic rhinitis is considered to be a risk factor for asthma. There are numerous signs of allergic rhinitis, particularly in children, that can alert an observant clinician to its presence. Children with severe allergic rhinitis often have facial manifestations of itching and obstructed breathing, including a gaping mouth, chapped lips, evidence of sleep deprivation, a long face, dental malloclusions, and the allergic shiner, allergic salute, or allergic crease. The medical history is extremely important as it can reveal information regarding a family history of atopy and the progression of atopy in the child. It is also important to identify the specific triggers of allergic rhinitis, because one of the keys to successful management is the avoidance of triggers. A tripartite treatment strategy that embraces environmental control, immunotherapy, and pharmacologic treatment is the most comprehensive approach. Immunotherapy has come to be viewed as potentially prophylactic, capable of altering the course of allergic rhinitis. The most recent guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis issued by the WHO recommend a tiered approach that integrates diagnosis and treatment, in which allergic rhinitis is subclassified both by frequency, as either intermittent or persistent, and by severity, as either mild or moderate to severe. Oral or topical antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for allergic rhinitis, depending upon its severity, and several agents have been approved for use in children aged 5 years old and younger.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

A Single Measure of FEV 1 Is Associated With Risk of Asthma Attacks in Long-term Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for asthma care emphasize the use of objective measures of asthma severity, and yet little data exist on the relationship between FEV(1) and asthma outcomes over long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We explored the association between measures of FEV(1) percentage of predicted (FEV(1)% predicted) and subsequent asthma attacks over 3-year intervals. Subjects were identified from two longitudinal cohort studies conducted in the United States and the Netherlands. Persons were included in the analysis if they reported ever having an attack of wheezing with associated shortness of breath prior to or during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Over the course of longitudinal follow-up at 3-year intervals, 195 subjects in the Netherlands cohort contributed 510 observations, and 698 subjects in the US cohort contributed 1,268 observations (for each observation, the report of an attack since their last visit was paired with the subject's FEV(1) recorded 3 years prior). Overall, subjects in the Netherlands cohort experienced 114 attacks (22% of the observations) and subjects in the US cohort had 517 attacks (40.6% of the observations). FEV(1)% predicted was significantly associated with risk of an asthma attack over the 3 years following its measurement. After adjusting for current smoking and gender, FEV1% predicted remained an independent predictor of subsequent asthma attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the use of spirometry as an objective measure of asthma severity and risk of adverse outcomes.

Does rhinitis lead to asthma? Evidence for the one-airway hypothesis

The link between upper airway disease (allergic rhinitis) and lower airway disease (asthma) has long been of interest to physicians. Recently, extensive research has established that epidemiologic and therapeutic links exist between allergic rhinitis and asthma. Other recent evidence has provided a better understanding of the pathophysiologic interrelationship between allergic rhinitis and asthma. Such information has had an impact on the management of these disorders, including treatment and prophylaxis.

An update on the asthma-rhinitis link

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For the present article we collected and reviewed the more relevant experimental results concerning the asthma-rhinitis link in allergic diseases, published since January 2002.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the last 2 years, particular attention has been devoted to the behaviour of the immune response in the two compartments of the airways. The recent experimental data, mainly obtained with specific nasal or bronchial allergen challenges, have confirmed that the link between the nose and the bronchi is bidirectional, and that a systemic cross-talk occurs. Furthermore, the pathogenic role of paranasal sinus infections in respiratory allergy has been better elucidated. It was shown that, in sinusitis, a T helper type 2 polarization exists, which can be reverted by proper therapy. On the other hand, despite the abundant experimental evidence, our view of the united airways is still not complete, and several points need to be developed.

SUMMARY

The new findings on the asthma-rhinitis link have confirmed the current pathogenic view of respiratory allergy. These findings have important implications from a therapeutic point of view, and therefore encourage and promote the search for novel integrated treatment strategies.

Rhinitis therapy and the prevention of hospital care for asthma: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that rhinitis therapy improves subjective and objective measures of asthma, it is uncertain whether treatment of allergic rhinitis significantly affects the frequency of asthma exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment with intranasal corticosteroids and/or second-generation antihistamines is associated with changes in rates of asthma exacerbations resulting in emergency room visits and/or hospitalizations in patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This was a nested, case-control study.

RESULTS

Treatment with either nasal corticosteroids or second-generation antihistamines was associated with a lower risk of asthma-related emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77 and 0.34, 0.18 to 0.62, respectively). Patients who used nasal corticosteroids had a significantly lower risk of both asthma-related emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.91 and 0.56, 0.42 to 0.76, respectively), whereas there was a trend toward lower risk of emergency room treatment and hospitalization in patients who used second-generation antihistamines (adjusted OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.26 and 0.68, 0.40 to 1.14, respectively). Combined treatment with both medications was associated with a further lowering of the risk of both emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.73 and 0.22, 0.07 to 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with asthma, treatment of concomitant allergic rhinitis was associated with significant reductions in risk of emergency room treatment and hospitalization for asthma.

Desloratadine: an update of its efficacy in the management of allergic disorders

Desloratadine (Clarinex, Neoclarityn, Aerius, Azomyr, Opulis, Allex), the principal metabolite of loratadine, is itself an orally active, nonsedating, peripheral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist. It is indicated in the US and Europe for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a rapid onset of effect, efficacy throughout a 24-hour dosage interval, and sustained efficacy in these allergic conditions, as demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials of up to 6 weeks' duration in adult and adolescent patients. At present, there are no published direct comparisons of desloratadine and other H(1)-antihistamines; however, the principal, potential clinical advantages of desloratadine over late-generation H(1)-antihistamines are the drug's decongestant activity, which has been corroborated in several studies of patients with allergic rhinitis, and its anti-inflammatory effects. Indeed, the decongestant activity of desloratadine did not differ from that of pseudoephedrine in a trial in patients with SAR, and in patients with SAR and coexisting asthma, desloratadine reduced asthma symptoms and beta(2)-agonist use, and improved forced expiratory flow in 1 second. However, these issues warrant further study. Desloratadine is generally well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events in adults, adolescents and children was not significantly different to that with placebo, and similar proportions of desloratadine or placebo recipients reported events such as pharyngitis, dry mouth, myalgia, somnolence, dysmenorrhoea or fatigue. Desloratadine does not cause sedation or prolong the corrected QT (QTc) interval, can be administered without regard to concurrent intake of food and grapefruit juice, and appears to have negligible potential for drug interactions mediated by several metabolic systems.

CONCLUSION

Although comparative studies with second-generation and other recently developed H(1)-antihistamines are needed to define the drug's clinical profile more clearly, desloratadine can be expected to claim a prominent place in the management of allergic disorders in general, and in the amelioration of specific symptoms of allergy (e.g. nasal congestion) in patients with such disorders.

Therapeutic strategies for allergic airways diseases

Asthma and allergic rhinitis are airways allergic diseases and different aspects of these diseases are discussed in this paper. Both diseases require specific treatment but the airways are a continuum and it has been shown that concomitant treatment in patients suffering from both diseases has a better effect than treating only one of the diseases. Furthermore, treatment of allergic rhinitis in asthmatic patients reduces the risk of hospital admission due to asthma and improves bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Anti-inflammatory therapy, particularly with local steroids, is the single most important treatment for airways allergic diseases. Some studies have shown the importance of starting early after diagnosing asthma but the issue of how early in life to start inhaled steroids is still being debated. Also leukotriene antagonists have been shown to have beneficial effects in many patients and can be used in conjunction with inhaled steroids. Combination therapy with inhaled steroids and inhaled beta(2)-agonists has been shown to be effective in adults but this has not yet been fully documented in children. Optimal treatment of exercise-induced asthma is important to enable children and adolescents to fulfill their developmental possibilities. Allergy vaccination has traditionally been used for treating airways allergic diseases. It is often given for allergic rhinitis when pharmacotherapy is not providing full symptom control. One recent study has suggested that allergy vaccination may possibly help to prevent the development of asthma in the child with allergic rhinitis. More research is needed on asthma allergy vaccination. Concordance with treatment may often be difficult and efforts should be taken to ensure the best concordance possible.

Prospects for antihistamines in the treatment of asthma

Antihistamines have been evaluated as potential therapies for asthma for more than 50 years. With first-generation compounds, side effects prevented effective dosing. By reviewing published studies of the effectiveness of terfenadine, cetirizine, and loratadine in clinical asthma, evidence for the relevant effect of the second-generation antihistamines on bronchial asthma can be found. Terfenadine, at doses of 120 or 180 mg twice a day, reduced symptoms and improved pulmonary function in mild and moderate allergic asthma but was ineffective in severe perennial asthma. Fexofenadine at doses used for allergic rhinitis had little effect on seasonal allergic asthma. Research is ongoing to determine the effects of higher doses of fexofenadine. In 5 studies, cetirizine at doses of 10 to 20 mg, once or twice daily, consistently improved asthma symptoms compared with placebo or terfenadine 60 mg twice a day in 2 cases, whereas in 2 studies, loratadine at doses of 10 to 20 mg daily has not produced significant improvement in asthma. However, loratadine 5 mg combined with 60 mg of pseudo-ephedrine twice a day significantly improved both asthma symptoms and peak expiratory flow. Similarly, the combination of loratadine 20 mg and the leukotriene-receptor antagonist montelukast improved asthma symptoms, peak expiratory flow, and beta-agonist use over montelukast alone. Therefore, there might be a role for second- and third-generation antihistamines in treating mild and moderate asthma, which might require administering doses greater than those commonly used to treat allergic rhinitis. If higher doses are sedative, the addition of decongestants or leukotriene-receptor antagonists might enhance the effects of lower doses of the antihistamines.

Asthma and rhinosinusitis

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma are becoming more common in industrialized societies, particularly in the second and third decades of life, when those affected are at a vital stage of their education and career. It is therefore of paramount importance that the treatment options available be effective, improve quality of life, and above all, they must be without any significant unwanted effects. National and international guidelines for the treatment of both allergic rhinitis and asthma have been released recently that put forward recommendations based on an extensive evidence-based review of the literature for the care of these diseases that would meet these goals of disease management.

Quality of life in adolescents with mild asthma

The majority of individuals with asthma have mild disease, often in conjunction with allergic rhinitis and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). Although health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is reduced in moderate to severe asthma and allergic rhinitis, little is known about the effect of mild asthma, mild allergic rhinitis, and EIB on HRQoL outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of mild asthma, allergic rhinitis, and EIB on HRQoL. A cross-sectional study was conducted of 160 adolescent athletes participating in a screening program to detect EIB. Generic HRQoL was assessed with the teen version of the pediatric quality-of-life inventory (PedsQL). Prior diagnoses of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and EIB, and current symptoms of dyspnea during exercise and asthma, were recorded. Lung function and the presence of EIB were determined by spirometry before and after an exercise challenge test. Adolescent athletes with a prior physician diagnosis of asthma had a lower HRQoL scale summary score (P<0.01) and lower physical functioning, emotional functioning, and school functioning domain scores (P values, 0.01-0.02) in comparison to adolescent athletes with no prior diagnosis of these disorders. Athletes with a prior diagnosis of asthma reported dyspnea during exercise more frequently than did those without asthma (P<0.001). Adolescent athletes with dyspnea during exercise had a lower scale summary score, and lower physical functioning, general well-being, and emotional functioning domain scores (P values, 0.02-0.03). These data show that mild asthma and dyspnea without asthma significantly affect HRQoL. Symptoms of dyspnea during exercise are common in asthma and are associated with lower HRQoL. The clinical significance of these differences in HRQoL is unclear.

The role of allergy in chronic rhinosinusitis

Issues surrounding the cause and pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remain controversial. Various models involving physiologic factors and anatomic obstruction have been offered to explain the pathogenesis of this common disease. More recently, the role of chronic inflammatory processes has been demonstrated. These findings may modify the current paradigm of this disease and transform the diagnosis and management of patients with CRS. This review focuses on the role of allergy and inflammation in the pathogenesis of CRS.

Introduction to nasal and pulmonary allergy cascade

The early phase of an IgE-dependent allergic reaction is followed by the activation of a complex network of inflammatory phenomena - T lymphocytes, cytokines, mediators, and adhesion molecules - that mediate late and ongoing allergic symptoms. The kinetics of respiratory inflammation following allergen exposure involve the migration of inflammatory cells to the mucosa within about 30 min, increased inflammatory infiltration over the following hours, and then slow subsidence. A relationship between asthma and allergic rhinitis is supported by epidemiological, histological, physiological, and immunopathological data, and by the response of asthma symptoms in rhinitic patients to intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines. For example, there is no morphological difference between the bronchial inflammatory response following allergen-specific challenge in patients suffering from asthma alone or rhinitis alone. It is the allergen dose that makes the difference in the airway response to allergen in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Recognition of the relationship between asthma and allergic rhinitis has led to the introduction of new diagnostic terminology and treatment recommendations: 1) patients with persistent rhinitis should be evaluated for asthma; 2) patients with persistent asthma should be evaluated for rhinitis; and 3) a strategy should combine the treatment of upper and lower airways in terms of efficacy and safety.

Fexofenadine is efficacious and safe in children (aged 6-11 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This is the first prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing statistical improvement of an H(1)-antihistamine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis in all symptoms throughout the entire treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This study was conducted at 148 centers in 15 countries. Nine hundred thirty-five children (aged 6-11 years) were randomized and treated with either fexofenadine HCl 30 mg (n = 464) or placebo (n = 471) tablets twice a day for 14 days. Individual symptoms (sneezing; rhinorrhea; itchy nose, mouth, throat, and/or ears; itchy, watery, and/or red eyes; and nasal congestion) were assessed at baseline and then daily at 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM (+/-1 hour) during the double-blind treatment period. Each total symptom score was the sum of all symptoms, excluding nasal congestion. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the average of the daily 12-hour evening reflective total symptom scores throughout the double-blind treatment. Safety was evaluated from adverse-event reporting, vital signs, physical examinations, and clinical laboratory data at screening and study end point.

RESULTS

Fexofenadine was significantly superior to placebo in the primary efficacy analysis (P </=.0001). Individual symptom scores showed statistically significant superiority compared with placebo (P <.05), including nasal congestion in the evening reflective assessment (P <.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between fexofenadine and placebo, either overall or by causality.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of the H(1)-antihistamine fexofenadine has been confirmed in this multicenter, multinational study of children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy and safety of clemastine-pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen versus pseudoephedrine-acetaminophen in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in a 1-day, placebo-controlled park study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis afflicts more than 40 million people in the United States and is a leading cause of reduced productivity at work and in school. Patients with allergic rhinitis have a wide range of symptoms that are often treated with oral combination products that contain antihistamines, decongestants, and analgesics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the onset of action and the extent of efficacy and safety of a combination (CPA) of clemastine (0.68 mg), pseudoephedrine (60 mg), and acetaminophen (1,000 mg) versus a combination (PA) of pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen versus placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The primary goal was to evaluate the benefit of adding clemastine to the PA combination product to treat the symptoms of SAR.

METHOD

A 1-day, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group park study was organized, and medication was given at 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

RESULTS

A total of 298 subjects participated at two outdoor facilities. The primary efficacy outcome was the major symptom complex score averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours after each dose. Mean absolute and percentage reduction in major symptom complex averaged over the period of 2 to 5 hours in the CPA group was significantly superior to those of either the PA (P < 0.01) or placebo (P < 0.03) groups. Somnolence, fatigue, and nausea were the most common volunteered adverse events; only somnolence was significantly greater after CPA than after either PA or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with CPA was safe and highly effective in reducing symptoms associated with SAR. It was more effective than either PA or placebo over most of the postdose observation period.

Role of histamine in the pathophysiology of asthma: immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory activities of H1-receptor antagonists

Cumulative clinical and laboratory evidence on histamine and its actions suggests that it has a pathophysiologic role in asthma. These findings have renewed interest in the potential therapeutic role of H1 antihistamines in this disease. A murine model of allergen-induced airway inflammation and methacholine-induced airway hyperresponsiveness has been used to clarify mechanisms of airway function, to identify potential therapeutic targets, and to investigate the effects of the H1-receptor antagonist fexofenadine. Findings suggest that there may be a role for second-generation antihistamines in treating asthma, with patient selection as well as dosing both important therapeutic considerations. Because high-dose therapy may be required to achieve a clinical response, agents with the widest therapeutic window and the lowest potential for sedation would offer the greatest therapeutic potential.

A preliminary retrospective treatment and pharmacoeconomic analysis of asthma care provided by allergists, immunologists, and primary care physicians in a teaching hospital

Allergy immunology specialists (AIs) differ from primary care physicians (PCP) in their treatment of asthma. A limited retrospective chart review of several visits over a 1-year period in 1997 evaluating the quality of asthma care by AIs vs. PCPs was conducted in an academic center. Data concerning quality, effectiveness and cost of asthma care was randomly collected from 15 AIs and 15 PCPs from charts at 3-month intervals over a 1-year period. Information obtained from data collection forms revealed that asthma patients evaluated by AIs had more visits and received a greater quantity of medication compared to those treated by PCPs. All 15 patients with persistent asthma followed by AIs were treated with inhaled corticosteroids at each visit in contrast to only 80% of those treated by PCPs. The total numbers of controller medications (i.e., inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol, cromolyn, and theophylline) that were utilized, as recommended, by the National Asthma Expert Panel (NAEP) of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guidelines were 70 by AIs vs. 24 by PCPs over three visits. Cromolyn was prescribed five times over three visits by AIs and not at all by PCPs. Recognition and treatment of coexisting allergic rhinitis was evident in only 13% of patients treated by PCPs as compared to 80% in those treated by AIS. (p < 0.0001). However, all patients treated by AIs were skin tested to explore the presence of allergic triggers, while no patients treated by PCPs were evaluated for IgE-mediated reactions. Treatment cost for allergic rhinitis was therefore higher, at $2039, for AIs as compared to $741 for PCPs. There were no peakflow values in charts obtained from PCPs. However, all charts from AIs had peakflow values, which improved during the course of therapy in 33% of patients. Total medication costs for asthma were higher for AIs @ $5,646.30 vs. $1,932.25 for PCPs. Total medication costs for allergic rhinitis plus asthma were higher for AIs @ $7615 vs. $2681 for PCPs. However, patients treated by AIs had more severe asthma and required more frequent visits. Ipratropium bromide was prescribed a total of four times over several visits by PCPs vs. only once by AIs. In comparing asthma care between AI specialists and PCPs, it was found that AI specialists treat more severe asthmatics, provide more frequent follow-up visits, utilize peak flow rates, prescribe more controller medications, and more often recognize and treat comorbid conditions such as allergic rhinitis that impact on asthma care. Thus, although treatment costs for AIs are higher, these costs are justified by a quality of care that is more consistent with national (NHLBI) guidelines.

Intranasal steroids and the risk of emergency department visits for asthma

BACKGROUND

In patients with asthma, treatment for associated conditions, such as rhinitis, is recommended. It is unknown whether this treatment can reduce the risk for emergency department (ED) visits for asthma.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether treatment with intranasal steroids or prescription antihistamines in persons with asthma is associated with a reduced risk for ED visits caused by asthma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of members of a managed care organization aged greater than 5 years who were identified during the period of October 1991 to September 1994 as having a diagnosis of asthma by using a computerized medical record system. The main outcome measure was an ED visit for asthma.

RESULTS

Of the 13,844 eligible persons, 1031 (7.4%) had an ED visit for asthma. The overall relative risk (RR) for an ED visit among those who received intranasal corticosteroids, adjusted for age, sex, frequency of orally inhaled corticosteroid and beta-agonist dispensing, amount and type of ambulatory care for asthma, and diagnosis of an upper airways condition (rhinitis, sinusitis, or otitis media), was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.94). For those receiving prescription antihistamines, the risk was indeterminate (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). When different rates of dispensing for intranasal steroids were examined, a reduced risk was seen in ED visits in those with greater than 0 to 1 (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99) and greater than 3 (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.23-1.05) dispensed prescriptions per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of nasal conditions, particularly with intranasal steroids, confers significant protection against exacerbations of asthma leading to ED visits for asthma. These results support the use of intranasal steroids by individuals with asthma and upper airways conditions.

Upper airway disorders and asthma: a syndrome of airway inflammation

OBJECTIVE

This article presents recent evidence of an upper and lower airway link. After reading this article, readers should have an understanding of the evidence for the pathologic relationship between asthma and upper airway disorders such as rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Epidemiologic, pathophysiologic, and treatment outcomes studies were used. Only literature in the English language was reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION

Material was taken from academic/scholarly journals.

RESULTS

Epidemiologic data indicate that asthma and allergic rhinitis frequently coexist, with rhinitis symptoms reported among 19 to 94% of asthma patients, and asthma reported among 19 to 38% of those with allergic rhinitis. Allergic rhinitis often precedes asthma symptomatology and has been shown to be a risk factor for the development of asthma. The severity of one's allergic rhinitis also has been shown to be directly correlated with asthma severity. Patients with allergic rhinitis exhibit increased eosinophil activity in both upper and lower airways. In these patients, nasal allergen challenge can induce increased bronchial hyperresponsiveness, suggesting that upper and lower airway disorders share common inflammatory features. Treatment of rhinitis symptoms has been shown to produce better asthma symptom control and, in a few studies, the improvement of airway function in patients with concomitant asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that upper respiratory disorders such as allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis are different facets of a larger systemic inflammatory syndrome involving both the upper and lower airways. Several important questions remain to be answered before the nature of the relationship between lower and upper airway disorders is fully understood.

A comparison of once daily fexofenadine versus the combination of montelukast plus loratadine on domiciliary nasal peak flow and symptoms in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The combination of montelukast (ML) and loratadine (LT) has previously been shown to be superior to either drug alone in managing seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), whilst fexofenadine (FEX) has been shown to be better than LT as monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We wished to compare ML + LT vs. FEX alone for effects on daily measurements (am/pm) of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and symptoms.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with SAR (skin prick positive to grass pollen) were randomised into a single-blind, double-dummy placebo (PL)-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 120mg FEX or (b) 10mg ML + 10mg LT. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomised treatment. The average of am/pm PIF (the primary outcome variable) was analysed. Patients recorded their symptom scores (from 0 to 3) twice daily, for nasal blockage, discharge, itching and sneezing with; total eye symptoms, ocular cromoglycate use, and daily activity. The total nasal symptom score was calculated as a composite (out of 24).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between baselines after the run-in and washout placebos for any variables. There were significant (P < 0.05, Bonferroni) improvements in all symptoms and PIF compared to pooled placebo with both treatments for all end-points, but no differences between the two treatment regimes (as means and within-treatment 95% confidence intervals): PIF: PL 102 (98-107), FEX 111 (107-116), ML+LT 113 (109-118); total nasal symptoms: PL 7.4 (6.7-2.0), FEX 5.0 (4.3-5.7), ML + LT 4.0 (3.3-4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Once daily FEX as monotherapy was equally effective as the combination of once daily ML + LT in improving nasal peak flow and controlling symptoms in SAR. Further studies are indicated to assess whether ML confers additional benefits to FEX in SAR.

Rhinitis, sinusitis and asthma: one linked airway disease

Understanding the relationship between upper and lower airways has greatly increased through epidemiological and pharmacological studies. Scientific evidence supports the concept that rhinosinusitis and asthma may be the expression of an inflammatory process which appears in different sites of the respiratory tract at different times. The implications are not only academic but are important for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

Quality of life in adults and children with allergic rhinitis

Quality of life, when referring to an individual's health, is called health-related quality of life (HRQL). HRQL focuses on patients' perceptions of their disease and measures impairments that have significant impact on the patient. Similar symptoms may vary in their effect on different individuals; the goal of therapy should be to reduce impairments that patients consider important. HRQL can be measured with generic or specific questionnaires. Specific questionnaires may be more sensitive and are much more likely to detect clinically important changes in patients' impairments. Specific questionnaires used to assess HRQL in rhinitis are the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, the Adolescent Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. HRQL issues in adult rhinitis patients include fatigue, decrease in energy, general health perception, and social function; impairment of HQRL generally increases with increasing degree of symptoms and severity of disease. In children, HRQL issues include learning impairment, inability to integrate with peers, anxiety, and family dysfunction. Comorbid disorders often associated with rhinitis, including sinusitis, otitis media, and frequent respiratory infections, can further compromise HRQL. Pharmacologic treatments can have both positive and negative effects on HRQL. Agents that have troublesome adverse effects such as sedation can have a negative impact, whereas nonsedating antihistamines and intranasal cortico-steroids can significantly improve HRQL in patients of all ages with rhinitis.

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.

Desloratadine activity in concurrent seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and asthma, which are frequently comorbid, share some common allergic pathogenic bases. Clinical manifestations of these disorders might therefore be viewed as local manifestations of a systemic inflammatory state. Not only do the onsets of allergic-rhinitis (AR) and asthma symptoms often coincide (within 1 year), but also nasal challenges with SAR allergens can induce airways hyperreactivity (AHR). Eosinophils, which are key effector cells in both SAR and asthma, cause AHR, tissue damage, and neuronal effects through secretion of toxic granule proteins, enzymes, and other mediators. The novel, nonsedating, histamine H1-receptor antagonist, desloratadine, which exerts various favorable effects on the allergic cascade, significantly decreased SAR symptoms (e.g., nasal congestion) and diminished daily beta2-agonist use and improved asthma symptoms, while maintaining pulmonary function, in patients with SAR-asthma who were treated with once-daily desloratadine regimens.

Do antihistamines have a role in asthma therapy?

The coexistence of allergic rhinitis with asthma is widely recognized by clinicians. Histamine, a common mediator for both diseases, has a substantial role in the pathophysiology of asthma through its ability to produce smooth muscle contraction and promote vascular permeability. Because antihistamines often are administered to manage allergic rhinitis symptoms, the effects of antihistamines in asthma should be evaluated. The usefulness of first-generation antihistamines is limited by their side-effect profile, namely sedation and cognitive impairment. Second-generation antihistamines have only a modest effect in attenuating bronchospasm induced by histamine, cold air, exercise, and allergen bronchoprovocation, suggesting that second-generation antihistamines do not have a direct role as a single agent for treating asthma. Studies have shown that controlling allergic rhinitis with antihistamines has a small, indirect effect in improving asthma symptoms. Future work should be directed at improving the potency of antihistamines and defining their antiinflammatory activity.

The nose-lung interaction in allergic rhinitis and asthma: united airways disease

The link between upper and lower respiratory tracts has been repeatedly observed in the past 50 years but only carefully investigated during the past decade. Several clinical and experimental observations suggested the hypothesis of the unity of upper and lower airways (allergic rhinobronchitis or united airways disease). The relationships between rhinitis (and sinusitis) and asthma also include non-epidemiological aspects such as viral infections and bronchial hyperreactivity. The hypotheses have been confirmed by means of epidemiological observations, functional and immunological evidence and, indirectly, by observing the effects of drugs used mainly for rhinitis on asthma symptoms. In this article, therefore, we collected and reviewed the most relevant experimental results available to support the hypothesis for united airways disease and the studies conducted on the possible mechanisms of nose-lung interaction.

Impact of allergic rhinitis treatment on quality of life

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the nasal passages. It affects approximately 20% of the population, is a significant health and economic burden, and severely impairs quality of life. Two main instruments, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form health survey (SF-36) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) have been used to assess quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis. Antihistamines, corticosteroids, anticholinergic agents, decongestants, cromoglycates, and immunotherapy are used to treat patients with allergic rhinitis. Of these, antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious and frequently utilised medications. Studies have demonstrated improvements in quality of life with both of these medications in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Systemic immunologic and inflammatory aspects of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that is characterized by inflammation of the nasal mucosa. Although allergic rhinitis is a condition with upper respiratory symptoms, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that allergic rhinitis may be linked to the development of systemic allergic manifestations that include allergic asthma. The evidence reveals that individuals with allergic rhinitis are sensitized to the eliciting allergens and exhibit cutaneous and respiratory hypersensitivity responses on exposure to the allergen. On exposure to a nasal allergen, circulating immunoglobulin E levels increased and remained elevated 2 weeks after the initial provocation. Patients with allergic rhinitis exhibit peripheral eosinophilia and basophilia, the magnitude of which correlates with the severity of symptoms. Additionally, there are several links between allergic rhinitis and asthma. First, 85% to 95% of patients with allergic asthma report rhinitis symptoms, and the severity of the 2 conditions increases in parallel on exposure to an allergen. Second, nasal administration of allergens can provoke impaired lower airway airflow in 25% to 30% of individuals and cause airway eosinophilia, as evidenced by increased numbers of eosinophils in sputum and mucosal biopsy specimens. Third, the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with both systemic (eg, antihistamines) and local agents (eg, glucocorticosteroid analogues) can alleviate the symptoms of asthma. In summary, evidence that associates allergic rhinitis with systemic immunologic and inflammatory processes is growing, thereby warranting further in-depth investigation.

Therapeutic approaches to allergic rhinitis: treating the child

Allergic rhinitis is currently the most common of all chronic diseases in children. However, children frequently lack the ability to verbalize their symptoms, with the result that the condition may go undiagnosed and untreated. Unfortunately, untreated allergic rhinitis not only detrimentally affects children's physical and psychosocial well-being, quality of life, and capacity to function and learn, but it is also associated with and may contribute to potentially serious sequelae, including asthma, sinusitis, and otitis media. Because children may not accurately describe their symptoms, the classic signs of allergic rhinitis in the pediatric population, including the allergic shiner, the allergic crease, and the allergic salute, are particularly important in enabling the clinician to recognize those children who may have this condition; other significant signs include mouth breathing, snoring, chronic cough, and continual throat clearing. The options for treating allergic rhinitis in the child are the same as those for the adult, and the clinician can expect the same level of efficacy. Environmental control for allergen avoidance is an important goal, but the clinician must prescribe it within the context of the family's lifestyle to obtain compliance. Complete avoidance of inhalant allergens is not always feasible, and medications are necessary. Oral antihistamines remain the mainstay of initial treatment for allergies. Given evidence of the significant deleterious effects of the sedating antihistamines on learning, the clinician should prescribe nonsedating second-generation agents whenever possible. Decongestants may be needed. Intranasal corticosteroids are a most effective option, and these agents lack the systemic side effects associated with orally administered steroids. In persistent disease, allergen immunotherapy injections may be considered. In all cases, the clinician should consider issues that are likely to influence compliance in the pediatric population.