Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily in patients with allergy to Texas mountain cedar pollen

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of two doses of azelastine hydrochloride in perennial allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

Materials and methods

A total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo.

Results

Least square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported.

Conclusion

The present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Cilia Stimulatory and Antibacterial Activities of T2R Bitter Taste Receptor Agonist Diphenhydramine: Insights into Repurposing Bitter Drugs for Nasal Infections

T2R bitter taste receptors in airway motile cilia increase ciliary beat frequency (CBF) and nitric oxide (NO) production. Polymorphisms in some T2Rs are linked to disease outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and cystic fibrosis (CF). We examined the expression of cilia T2Rs during the differentiation of human nasal epithelial cells grown at air–liquid interface (ALI). The T2R expression increased with differentiation but did not vary between CF and non-CF cultures. Treatment with Pseudomonas aeruginosa flagellin decreased the expression of diphenhydramine-responsive T2R14 and 40, among others. Diphenhydramine increased both NO production, measured by fluorescent dye DAF-FM, and CBF, measured via high-speed imaging. Increases in CBF were disrupted after flagellin treatment. Diphenhydramine impaired the growth of lab and clinical strains of P. aeruginosa, a major pathogen in CF and CF-related CRS. Diphenhydramine impaired biofilm formation of P. aeruginosa, measured via crystal violet staining, as well as the surface attachment of P. aeruginosa to CF airway epithelial cells, measured using colony-forming unit counting. Because the T2R agonist diphenhydramine increases NO production and CBF while also decreasing bacterial growth and biofilm production, diphenhydramine-derived compounds may have potential clinical usefulness in CF-related CRS as a topical therapy. However, utilizing T2R agonists as therapeutics within the context of P. aeruginosa infection may require co-treatment with anti-inflammatories to enhance T2R expression.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Impact of repeated asenapine treatment on FosB/ΔFosB expression in the forebrain structures under normal conditions and mild stress preconditioning in the rat

Long-term effect of asenapine (ASE), an atypical antipsychotic drug, on FosB/ΔFosB quantitative variations in the striatum, septum, nucleus accumbens, and prefrontal cortex, was light microscopically evaluated in normal rats and rats preconditioned with chronic unpredictable mild stress (CMS). CMS included restraint, social isolation, crowding, swimming, and cold. The rats were exposed to CMS for 21 days. From the 7th day of CMS, the rats were injected subcutaneously with saline (300μl/rat) or ASE (0.3mg/kg b.w.), twice a day for 14 days. On the 22nd day, i.e. 16-18h after the last treatment, the animals were perfused with fixative and the brains cut into 30μm thick coronal sections. FosB/ΔFosB protein was immunohistochemically visualized by avidin-biotin peroxidase complex (ABC). Four groups of animals were investigated: control+vehicle, control+ASE, CMS+vehicle, and CMS+ASE. Repeated ASE treatment significantly increased the amount of FosB/ΔFosB immunostained cell nuclei in the dorsolateral and dorsomedial striatum and the shell of the nucleus accumbens, followed by strVM and coACC, as assessed by numerical analysis in both total (different size for each structure) and unified (equal size for each structure) brain sectors. The effect of ASE was significantly lowered by CMS preconditioning only in the dorsolateral striatum, dorsomedial striatum, and the shell of the nucleus accumbens, indicated by both total and unified calculations. Although, highest FosB/ΔFosB expression was seen in the prefrontal cortex and lowest in the dorsolateral and ventrolateral septum, no differences between the groups occurred. CMS itself did not affect FosB/ΔFosB expression level. These findings demonstrate for the first time that repeated administration of ASE may result in eliciting of long-lasting FosB/ΔFosB-like transcription factors that could mediate some of the persistent and region-specific changes in brain function, interconnected with chronic drug exposure. However, it cannot be excluded that the impact of repeated ASE exposure might be influenced by an ambient stressogen leverage.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis with ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops in comparison with azelastine containing nasal spray and eye drops or with cromoglycic Acid containing nasal spray

Objectives. Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with increasing prevalence and high impact on economic burden and comorbidities. As treatment with pharmacological drugs is not always satisfactory due to side effects and incomplete efficacy, alternative treatment strategies are needed. Ectoine is an osmolyte with membrane stabilizing and inflammation reducing capacities. Nasal spray and eye drops containing ectoine are promising new treatment regimens for allergic rhinitis sufferers. Design and Methods. The current two noninterventional trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops for treating allergic rhinitis in comparison with either azelastine or cromoglycic acid containing products. Nasal and ocular symptom developments as well as judgment of tolerability and efficacy were assessed both by investigators and patients over a time period of one to two weeks. Results. Both trials confirmed that ectoine containing products reduced nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. Results clearly demonstrated good safety profiles of the ectoine products comparable to those of azelastine and even better to those of cromoglycate products. Conclusion. Ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops are interesting new treatment strategies for sufferers of allergic rhinitis, combining both good efficacy and absence of side effects.

The mountain cedar model in clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis use the mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) season as the predominate model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical trials of rhinoconjunctivitis using mountain cedar, to present analysis of pollen counts during 18 seasons, and to discuss the model.

METHODS

The medical literature was searched for clinical trials performed using mountain cedar either in or out of season. Pollen counts were recorded and analyzed for the duration of 18 seasons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were identified. Of these, 1 evaluated onset of allergy, 8 were immunotherapy trials, 28 were pharmaceutical clinical trials, and 1 studied symptoms elicited in a pollen challenge chamber trial. Many generic equivalency trials are unreported. In the 18 years of counts in the Texas Hill Country, a dependable and intense pollen density was present in every season. The combination of dependable seasons without confounding pollens, the large number of allergic patients, and the ability to concentrate resources in one geographic area has made mountain cedar allergy a mainstay for therapeutic trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Mountain cedar allergy presents a dependable and durable model of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.