Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials

Intranasal Schirmer Test in Allergic Rhinitis: Relationship to Symptom Scores and Role in Determining Response to Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The Intranasal Schirmer test (INS) is an easy to administer test that can yield objective measurement of the quantity of nasal secretion and has been studied in patients with various nasal and systemic pathologies; however, the role of INS in patients with allergic rhinitis remains unclear. Our aim was to determine the relationship between various allergic symptoms and the Intranasal Schirmer Test (INS) score and to evaluate the utility of INS in determining treatment effect in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This prospective study included patients with allergic rhinitis who were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups (nasal steroid only, oral antihistamine only, nasal steroid and oral antihistamine). For all patients, Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was used to measure symptom severity and INS was administered before and after treatment. Pre-treatment and post treatment TNSS and INS scores were compared between different treatment groups and within each group.

RESULTS

The study included 120 patients, with 40 patients in each group. There were significant differences both in pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity score with changes of INS scores between treatment groups (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity scores and the INS score in each treatment group (P < .001). There was also a significant positive correlation between INS score and TNSS (r = .591 and P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The Intranasal Schirmer Test can be used as an objective tool for patients with allergic rhinitis as an adjunct to subjective patient symptom reports and can also be used to determine the response to treatment.

Outcome of childhood epistaxis with treatment of allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled study

The purpose of this study is to (1) to determine if treatment of underlying allergic rhinitis (AR) in children will affect epistaxis outcome, (2) to compare efficacy of three outpatient AR treatment regimens in epistaxis outcomes, and (3) to investigate potential factors in the pathogenesis of epistaxis with underlying AR. A single-blind randomized-controlled study was conducted in the Otolaryngology clinic in KK Women's and Children's Hospital. Sixty children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis, were randomized to three different AR treatments: treatment 1, antihistamine (20 patients); treatment 2, nasal steroid spray (20 patients); and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray (20 patients). Epistaxis severity and frequency were assessed. Pre-treatment, 95% of patients within each of the three treatment groups described epistaxis symptoms. Post-treatment, there was improvement in epistaxis outcome (resolution of epistaxis) with 20% (4/20), 40% (8/20), and 60% (12/20) of patients in treatment groups 1 (antihistamine), 2 (nasal steroid spray), and 3 (combined therapy) respectively, who reported resolution of epistaxis. Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray resulted in greater improvement of epistaxis severity and frequency. Combined therapy (treatment 3) resulted in the best epistaxis outcome at 1-month follow-up. Majority (90%) reported nose-picking/rubbing behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal corticosteroids are superior to oral antihistamines in relieving itch or rhinorrhea in AR. Intranasal corticosteroids may be important in treating epistaxis with underlying AR, because digital trauma from itch/rhinorrhea-related nose-picking/rubbing frequently leads to epistaxis. Results from this study will be important to primary and emergency physicians, community pediatricians, and pediatric allergists and otolaryngologists.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Childhood epistaxis commonly co-exists with allergic rhinitis (AR), causing significant symptoms and distress to patients. • There are currently no studies reporti ng on epistaxis outcome aft er treatment of underlying AR.

WHAT IS NEW

• This is a single-blind randomized-controlled study of 60 children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis to a children's hospital in Singapore Patients were randomized to three different regimens to treat AR: treatment 1, antihistamine; treatment 2, nasal steroid spray; and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray. • Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray improved epistaxis outcomes, with combined therapy of antihistamine and nasal steroid spray resulting in the best outcome for resolution of epistaxis among the three treatment regimens.

Structures and Anti-Allergic Activities of Natural Products from Marine Organisms

In recent years, allergic diseases have occurred frequently, affecting more than 20% of the global population. The current first-line treatment of anti-allergic drugs mainly includes topical corticosteroids, as well as adjuvant treatment of antihistamine drugs, which have adverse side effects and drug resistance after long-term use. Therefore, it is essential to find alternative anti-allergic agents from natural products. High pressure, low temperature, and low/lack of light lead to highly functionalized and diverse functional natural products in the marine environment. This review summarizes the information on anti-allergic secondary metabolites with a variety of chemical structures such as polyphenols, alkaloids, terpenoids, steroids, and peptides, obtained mainly from fungi, bacteria, macroalgae, sponges, mollusks, and fish. Molecular docking simulation is applied by MOE to further reveal the potential mechanism for some representative marine anti-allergic natural products to target the H1 receptor. This review may not only provide insight into information about the structures and anti-allergic activities of natural products from marine organisms but also provides a valuable reference for marine natural products with immunomodulatory activities.

Effect of Medical Therapy in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR); however, appraisal of treatment effect has been heterogenous, and few studies have interpreted these outcomes in context with measures of nasal airflow.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for common therapy classes for AR to assess standardized treatment effect on validated patient-reported outcomes and physiologic measures of airflow.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane library databases to identify randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Treatment effects of INCS, POAH, and ASIT on total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were analyzed by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with 4673 AR patients were identified, with 5 INCS, 8 POAH, and 9 ASIT trials. INCS improved TNSS (mean difference [MD] 0.90; P = .002) and PNIF (MD 13.31 L/min [P = .0007]. POAH improved quality of life assessed by RQLQ [MD 0.36; P < .001], but no improvement was found in PNIF. ASIT improved RQLQ [MD 0.65; P < .001], with a trend toward improvement in TNSS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, INCS resulted in a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in symptom scores and physiologic measures in AR. POAH and ASIT both improved symptom scores and quality of life, but their impacts upon nasal airflow are uncertain. There is a lack of studies assessing the effect of INCS on quality of life and the effect of POAH on symptom severity, particularly for mild AR. Future studies should assess the effect of treatment for each of these patient-reported measures.

Septoplasty versus non-surgical management for nasal obstruction due to a deviated nasal septum in adults: A modelling study of cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate how decision-analytic modelling can help to determine circumstances under which surgery may become cost-effective, using septoplasty as an example.

DESIGN

We developed a decision-analytic model comparing septoplasty to non-surgical management for nasal obstruction in adults with a deviated septum. Based on the estimated cost difference between both treatments, we calculated the minimal (a) gain in quality-adjusted life-years, or (b) reduction in productivity losses needed for septoplasty to be cost-effective. Input was derived from literature and publicly available data sources. The time horizon of our model was one year, and the willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year was €20 000, in accordance with current guidelines.

RESULTS

The cost difference between septoplasty and non-surgical management for nasal obstruction due to a deviated nasal septum was €2227 per patient from a healthcare perspective (including direct healthcare costs) and €3288 per patient from an extended perspective (additionally including travel expenses and productivity losses due to poor health). In comparison with non-surgical management, septoplasty needed to gain 0.11 to 0.16 QALYs or save 13 sick days for nasal obstruction. The longer septoplasty's effect lasts, the more time it will have to compensate its extra costs.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the known cost difference between treatments can be used as the starting point to determine beneficial effects needed for cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions. The effect required by septoplasty from a healthcare perspective seems potentially achievable, meaning that it would be useful to perform an RCT assessing the actual benefits of septoplasty.

Intranasal azelastine and mometasone exhibit a synergistic effect on a murine model of allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-allergic effects of the combination of azelastine and mometasone with those of either agent alone in a Dermatophagoides farinae (Derf)-induced murine model of allergic rhinitis (AR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty BALB/c mice were divided into five groups: azelastine (A), mometasone (M), a combination of azelastine and mometasone (MA), Derf, and control. Derf served as the allergen. Allergic symptom scores, eosinophil counts, and serum Derf-specific IgE levels were measured. The mucosal levels of mRNAs encoding interferon (IFN)-γ, T-bet, interleukin (IL)-4, GATA-3, Foxp3, IL-17, and ROR-γt were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The T-bet, GATA-3, Foxp3, and ROR-γt results were confirmed by Western blotting.

RESULTS

Nose-rubbing motions; the levels of mRNAs encoding IL-4, GATA-3, and ROR-γt; and tissue eosinophil count were reduced in the MA compared with those in the Derf group (all P values <0.05). The levels of mRNAs encoding GATA3 and IL-4 mRNA [synthesized by T helper (Th)2 cells] were reduced and that of mRNA encoding Foxp3 was increased in the MA compared with those in the Derf and A groups. Western blotting confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

We found that the combination of intranasal azelastine and mometasone synergistically suppressed Th17 responses and (reciprocally) elevated Treg responses. Therefore, this combination not only ameliorated allergic inflammation by suppressing Th2 responses, but also usefully modified the Treg/Th17 balance.

An assessment of the onset and duration of action of olopatadine nasal spray

Objective

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is a highly prevalent disease. This study was conducted to evaluate the onset and duration of action of three concentrations of olopatadine nasal spray.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled study, conducted in an environmental exposure chamber in patients with SAR. A total of 320 patients were exposed to ragweed allergen in the chamber and randomized to olopatadine nasal spray 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, or placebo nasal spray. Symptoms (sneezing, runny, itchy, and stuffy nose) were self-assessed during a 12-hour study period.

RESULTS

All concentrations of olopatadine nasal spray provided clinically meaningful reductions in total nasal symptom scores at 30 minutes compared to the placebo. Olopatadine nasal spray 0.6% was significantly more effective ( P <0.05) than placebo nasal spray at all time-points starting at 90 minutes postdose and continuing over 12 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine nasal spray 0.6% demonstrated a fast onset of action and maintained an effect for at least 12 hours after dosing.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a systematic review

The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure.

Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications.

Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors.

Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries “mometasone furoate”, “rhinitis”, “sinusitis”, “asthma”, “polyposis”, “otitis media with effusion”, and “adenoid hypertrophy” we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria.

Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review.

MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia.

Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES.

In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations.

In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough.

The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children.

As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug.

Conclusions: MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.

Efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray and levocetirizine in patients with Japanese cedar pollinosis subjected to an artificial exposure chamber

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the clinical efficacy of a combination therapy of levocetirizine (LCTZ) and fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), compared with LCTZ monotherapy, for the suppression of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms induced in an artificial exposure chamber.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-way cross-over comparative study performed in 42 Japanese cedar pollinosis patients. These subjects received (1) LCTZ plus FFNS (combination group), (2) LCTZ plus FFNS placebo (monotherapy group), or (3) LCTZ placebo plus FFNS placebo (placebo group) once on the night prior to exposure, with a 1-week washout period between exposures. Nasal (sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and itchy nose) and ocular (eye itching and tearing) symptoms were recorded every 15 min, and the number of sneezes, nose blowing events, and the amount of nasal secretions were measured during exposure. The primary end-point was the cumulative incidence of SAR symptoms during exposure and the 'ime to occurrence of symptoms'. The secondary end-points were the total nasal symptom score, the ocular symptom score, the amount of nasal discharge, and the number of sneezes and nose blowing events.

RESULTS

At all the measurement points, the lowest cumulative incidences for the nasal symptoms were observed in the combination group, followed by the monotherapy and placebo groups. All the subjects in the placebo group developed nasal symptoms within 2 h after pollen exposure, while three and eight subjects in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively, did not develop any nasal symptoms during exposure. In addition, combination therapy delayed the onset of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrated that combination therapy with FFNS and LCTZ significantly suppressed the induced SAR symptoms and delayed the onset of symptoms compared with LCTZ monotherapy and placebo. Although the conditions of the allergen challenge study using an exposure chamber are different from those in real life, combination therapy with FF and LCTZ was confirmed to be an effective treatment for SAR.

Systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute rhinosinusitis are frequently encountered in primary care. Although corticosteroids are being increasingly used for symptom control, evidence supporting their use is inconclusive. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for clinically diagnosed, uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

We conducted a block-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at 54 primary care practices (68 family physicians) in the Netherlands between Dec. 30, 2008, and Apr. 28, 2011. Adult patients with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis were randomly assigned to receive either prednisolone 30 mg/d or placebo for 7 days and asked to complete a symptom diary for 14 days. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with resolution of facial pain or pressure on day 7.

RESULTS

Of the 185 patients included in the trial (93 in the treatment group, 92 in the placebo group), 2 withdrew from the study and 9 were excluded from the primary analysis because of incomplete symptom reporting. The remaining 174 patients (88 in the treatment group, 86 in the placebo group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The proportions of patients with resolution of facial pain or pressure on day 7 were 62.5% (55/88) in the prednisolone group and 55.8% (48/86) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference 6.7%, 95% confidence interval -7.9% to 21.2%). The groups were similar with regard to the decrease over time in the proportion of patients with total symptoms (combined symptoms of runny nose, postnasal discharge, nasal congestion, cough and facial pain) and health-related quality of life. Adverse events were mild and did not differ significantly between the groups.

INTERPRETATION

Systemic corticosteroid monotherapy had no clinically relevant beneficial effects among patients with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis. Netherlands Trial Register registration no. 1295 (www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp).

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

While nasal congestion has been identified as one of the most bothersome and prevalent symptoms of allergic rhinitis, it is underappreciated that many patients find rhinorrhea also to be bothersome. Rhinorrhea as a symptom of allergic rhinitis virtually never occurs alone; about 97% of patients with allergic rhinitis suffer from at least two symptoms, a finding that underscores the advantage of treating a broad range of symptoms with a single medication. Along with sneezing and nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea is a classic acute symptom of allergic rhinitis; it appears as a late-phase symptom as well. In this review, the characterization and epidemiology of rhinorrhea, the pathophysiology of rhinorrhea in allergic rhinitis, the roles played by mediators in early- and late-phase rhinorrhea, the prevalence and impact of this symptom, and the efficacy and safety of available treatment options are all discussed in context of relevant literature. A review of the clinical studies assessing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) for rhinorrhea is presented. Many clinical studies and several meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that, in addition to being safe and well-tolerated, INS are more effective than other agents (including oral and intranasal antihistamines) across the spectrum of AR symptoms, including rhinorrhea and nasal congestion.

Effectiveness of twice daily azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Azelastine nasal spray (Allergodil^®, Lastin^®, Afluon^®; Meda AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is a fast-acting, efficacious and well-tolerated H1-receptor antagonist for the treatment of rhinitis. In addition it also has mast-cell stabilizing and anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the concentration of leukotrienes, kinins and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo, as well as inflammatory cell migration in rhinitis patients. Well-controlled studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial rhinitis (PR) or vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) confirm that azelastine nasal spray has a rapid onset of action, and improves nasal symptoms associated with rhinitis such as nasal congestion and post-nasal drip. Azelastine nasal spray is effective at the lower dose of 1 spray as well at a dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, but with an improved tolerability profile compared to the 2-spray per nostril twice daily regimen. Compared with intranasal corticosteroids, azelastine nasal spray has a faster onset of action and a better safety profile, showing at least comparable efficacy with fluticasone propionate (Flonase^®; GSK, USA), and a superior efficacy to mometasone furoate (Nasonex^®; Schering Plough, USA). In combination with fluticasone propionate, azelastine nasal spray exhibits greater efficacy than either agent used alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with difficult to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. In addition, azelastine nasal spray can be used on an as-needed basis without compromising clinical efficacy. Compared with oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray also demonstrates superior efficacy and a more rapid onset of action, and is effective even in patients who did not respond to previous oral antihistamine therapy. Unlike most oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray is effective in alleviating nasal congestion, a particularly bothersome symptom for rhinitis sufferers. Azelastine nasal spray is well tolerated in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis. Bitter taste which seems to be associated with incorrect dosing technique is the most common side effect reported by patients, but this problem can be minimized by correct dosing technique.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of azelastine and fluticasone in a single nasal spray delivery device

BACKGROUND

A proof-of-concept study suggested that combination therapy with commercial azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray significantly improved nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with either agent alone.

OBJECTIVE

To compare an azelastine-fluticasone combination nasal spray administered in a single-delivery device with a commercially available azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray.

METHODS

This 14-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in, 610 patients with moderate-to-severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, (2) fluticasone nasal spray, (3) combination azelastine and fluticasone nasal spray, or (4) placebo nasal spray. All treatments were given as 1 spray per nostril twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing.

RESULTS

All 3 active groups were statistically superior (P <or= .02) to placebo, and the combination was statistically superior (P <or= .003) to either agent alone. The TNSS improved by 28.4% with combination azelastine-fluticasone, 20.4% with fluticasone, 16.4% with azelastine, and 11.2% with placebo. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination azelastine-fluticasone nasal spray provided statistically significant improvement in the TNSS and additive clinical benefit compared with either agent alone in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00660517.

Intranasal corticosteroid monotherapy in acute rhinosinusitis: An evidence-based case report

In this evidence-based case report we studied the clinical question: Does intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) monotherapy reduce time to recovery in adults with acute noncomplicated rhinosinusitis? The search yielded 490 papers, of which only two were relevant and had a high validity regarding our clinical question.

The pathophysiology, clinical impact, and management of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is a cardinal symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). It is difficult to treat and is associated with decreased quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the clinical features of nasal congestion, its complex pathophysiology in the context of AR, its clinical impact, and the strengths and weaknesses of available treatments.

METHODS

Primary studies and reviews in the peer-reviewed, English-language literature were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-2008) and the Cochrane Library (1996-2008) using the terms nasal congestion, allergic rhinitis, pathophysiology, quality of life, and burden. Additional references were obtained by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Abstracts from the 2006 and 2007 meetings of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology were also searched. Pertinent articles were included in the review if they were recently published and patient-focused, and if their authors were recognized leaders in the field.

RESULTS

A survey of 2355 patients with AR or their guardians found that almost half of respondents rated nasal congestion the most bothersome symptom; in a survey of 2500 adults with AR, 78% rated nasal congestion either extremely or moderately bothersome. Histamine and leukotrienes are major mediators of the allergic inflammation associated with nasal congestion, as indicated by reductions in nasal cross-sectional area in response to histamine challenge (P<0.001) and increases in nasal airway resistance in response to leukotriene challenge (P<0.05).Therapy for nasal congestion in AR is often hampered by limitations associated with the individual agents; for example, decongestants are effective in the control of nasal congestion, but their use is restricted by their adverse-event profiles. A meta-analysis of 16 controlled studies involving 2267 patients with AR found that intranasal corticosteroids provided significantly greater relief of nasal congestion than oral antihistamines (95% CI for combined standardized mean difference, -0.73 to -0.53). The results of several clinical trials have suggested that leukotriene-receptor antagonists may be associated with reduced nasal congestion; however, no agents in this class are currently approved for the treatment of nasal congestion in AR.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for therapies that are well tolerated and effective in relieving nasal congestion in AR.

Clinical benefits of combination treatment with mometasone furoate nasal spray and loratadine vs monotherapy with mometasone furoate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines are the drug classes most often prescribed to treat allergic rhinitis (AR). Treatment guidelines recommend a combination of these agents for moderate-to-severe AR. However, clinical studies have found that combining an antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid provides few or no advantages over monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) plus loratadine with that of monotherapy with the individual agents in patients 12 years and older with at least a 2-year history of seasonal AR.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical study, 702 patients were randomized to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, plus loratadine, 10 mg (n = 169); mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg (n = 176); loratadine, 10 mg (n = 181); or placebo (n = 176) once daily for 15 days. Primary efficacy variables were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total symptom score (TSS) as recorded on diary cards.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed between mometasone furoate NS plus loratadine and mometasone furoate NS monotherapy for the primary efficacy variables. For TNSS and TSS, all 3 active drug therapies were more effective than placebo (P < or = .02). Both mometasone furoate NS treatment regimens were more effective than loratadine or placebo for TNSS (P < .01 for both) and TSS (P < or = .03 for both), whereas loratadine was more effective than placebo for TNSS only (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with mometasone furoate NS and loratadine provided benefits similar to monotherapy with mometasone furoate NS for the symptoms of seasonal AR. Therefore, mometasone furoate NS monotherapy was shown to be an effective treatment for seasonal AR.

Allergic rhinitis--current pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis remains a central strategy in the integrated treatment of the patient. The most appropriate medical therapy depends upon the nature of specific rhinitis symptoms, patient tolerance to and preference for certain classes of medications, and response to treatment. Through an appreciation of these various physiological mechanisms, the physician can select the treatment option or options that will be most likely to effectively manage symptoms.

Combination therapy with azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, there are no published studies that evaluated the efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid, although anecdotal reports of the use of these agents in combination are common.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently compared with the efficacy of each agent alone.

METHODS

This randomized, 2-week, multicenter, double-blind trial was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in period, 151 patients with moderate to severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with the following: (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily; or (3) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion.

RESULTS

All 3 groups had statistically significant (P < .001) improvements from their baseline TNSS after 2 weeks of treatment. The TNSS improved 27.1% with fluticasone nasal spray, 24.8% with azelastine nasal spray, and 37.9% with the 2 agents in combination (P < .05 vs either agent alone). All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant improvement in the TNSS with combination therapy relative to the individual agents alone is in contrast to previously published studies that found no advantage with an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid in combination. Azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with therapy with either agent alone.

Allergic rhinitis: the impact of discordant perspectives of patient and physician on treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

A wealth of literature is available that documents the effects of inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis (AR) on patients' daily activities, including impaired sleep, reduced cognitive functioning, and interference with sport and leisure activities. However, despite its high prevalence and significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and productivity, AR may be undertreated. This might arise, in part, from the low priority given to the disease by physicians.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to assess the existence of disparities between the attitudes of patients and physicians to AR, and to comment on the impact these disparities may have on treatment choices.

METHODS

A search was conducted of MEDLINE (1990-2006) and data presented at recent congresses (The 25th Congress of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, June 10-14, 2006, Vienna, Austria, and the 62nd Annual American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Meeting, March 3-7, 2006, Miami Beach, Florida) for articles that contained combinations of the terms allergic rhinitis, patient, physician, perspective, attitude, opinion, experience, or burden. Appropriate articles were selected for review in combination with data from a recent Adelphi Group Products (New York, New York) survey.

RESULTS

A study of the impact of seasonal AR on HRQOL found that adolescent patients (n = 83) scored practical problems higher in terms of importance. AR was found to affect the home and social life of > or =33% of patients in a study from the United Kingdom. A European survey of 1494 patients with AR found that nasal congestion was the most common moderate or severe nasal symptom (55%) and that 44% of patients suffered moderate or severe ocular symptoms. A Danish study of adults and adolescents found that AR was undiagnosed in 32% of patients. In a study of 100 physicians in the United States, approximately 30% of physicians under-estimated the severity of AR and its impact on patients' work or school activities. Furthermore, 1 study indicated that approximately 99% of physicians did not issue adequate treatment, although no study was found that directly linked physicians' perspectives of AR and their treatment decisions to date.

CONCLUSIONS

In a review of the existing literature, evidence of disparities between patients' and physicians' perspectives of AR were found, although no studies linked perspectives to prescribing behavior; therefore, research into the impact on treatment decisions might be warranted. In the future, the patient-physician dialogue might be improved by a standardized questionnaire designed to identify the most bothersome symptoms of a patient's disease, so that the most appropriate treatments can be selected to maximize quality of life.

Azelastine hydrochloride: a review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and tolerability

INTRODUCTION

Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray 0.1% solution is a second-generation intranasal antihistamine available in the US for treatment of both seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (VMR).

SCOPE

Searches of journal articles including the title word 'azelastine' from 1979 through the present were conducted by the product manufacturer primarily through Medline and EMBASE but also included, at various times, Dialog, Biosis, Toxline, and Diogenes (an adverse-event database). One limitation of the present review is that it could not exclude the possibility of publication bias, whereby findings from smaller studies and/or trials with negative findings may not have been published.

FINDINGS

Azelastine is a phthalazinone derivative with H(1)-receptor binding approximately tenfold greater than chlorpheniramine on a milligram-per-milligram basis. Azelastine has demonstrated a wide range of pharmacologic effects on chemical mediators of inflammation including leukotrienes, kinins, and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo. The molecule also has been shown to downregulate intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression and to reduce inflammatory cell migration in patients with rhinitis. Well-controlled studies in SAR and VMR demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of rhinitis, including congestion and postnasal drip, and has a rapid onset of action that appears likely due to topical activity. Azelastine nasal spray has demonstrated greater efficacy when used in combination with fluticasone propionate nasal spray when compared to either agent alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis. Bitter taste is the most common side effect associated with azelastine nasal spray and this problem can be mitigated by the dosing technique recommended by the manufacturer in the product labeling. The incidence of somnolence also may be reduced with the recommended administration technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine is an effective, rapid-acting, and well-tolerated second-generation antihistamine that improves nasal symptoms associated with SAR and VMR. Clinical studies demonstrated that azelastine nasal spray can improve symptoms of SAR in patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with oral antihistamines and that azelastine nasal spray in combination with fluticasone nasal spray provided significantly (p < 0.05) greater relief than either agent alone in patients with SAR.

Mono- oder Kombinationstherapie mit einem Antihistaminikum

BACKGROUND

The guidelines of German and European associations of allergology recommend the treatment of severe allergic rhinitis with a combination of oral antihistamines and nasal steroids. Many patients face this option rather skeptically, so that ENT specialists mostly use antihistamine monotherapy with a higher dosage. This increased dose may cause drowsiness, as has been demonstrated for cetirizine and loratadine. However, ebastine is a non-sedating antihistamine. Furthermore, it has been shown that improved clinical efficacy can be attained with an increased dosage of 20 mg daily in comparison to the usual dosage of 10 mg/day without increasing the rate of side effects.

METHODS

In this prospective post-marketing survey, the treatment of 4,307 patients with allergic rhinitis was documented during the pollen season 2005. The severity of rhinitis symptoms and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Treatment with 20 mg ebastine daily as monotherapy led to a significantly greater reduction in symptoms (P=0.002) than the combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

This outcome could be attributed to an assumed better compliance in patients with monotherapy.

The safety and efficacy of desloratadine for the management of allergic disease

Allergic disease is an increasing problem worldwide. Allergic rhinitis, an inflammatory response to an allergen, affects an estimated 20-40 million people in the US, while chronic idiopathic urticaria is a dermatoallergic condition that affects 0.1-3% of people in the US and Europe. The primary goals of treatment for allergic rhinitis are to reduce symptoms, which include sneezing, rhinorrhoea and nasal congestion, improve quality of life and prevent the sequelae associated with this disease, while the goal for chronic idiopathic urticaria is the rapid and prolonged control of symptoms. Quantitatively, histamine is the most abundant mediator present during an allergic episode - thus, antihistamines (historically called histamine H(1) receptor antagonists, now called H(1) receptor inverse agonists) are a first-line defense against allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Although first-generation antihistamines can cause sedation and cognitive impairment, second-generation antihistamines are relatively non-sedating and free of such adverse events owing to their comparative inability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Desloratadine is one such second-generation antihistamine and is indicated for the treatment of allergic diseases, including allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. It has proven efficacy against the symptoms associated with seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, including nasal congestion, and chronic idiopathic urticaria. As a result, it has been shown to improve patients' quality of life. The safety and efficacy profiles of desloratadine are well established, and published postmarketing analyses have assessed >54 000 patients. Although earlier second-generation antihistamines have been associated with cardiovascular adverse effects, desloratadine has been shown to be safe and well tolerated at nine times the recommended dose. In addition, it has been shown to not interact with concomitantly administered drugs and food. Overall, current data indicate that desloratadine is a safe and effective treatment for allergic diseases.

Effectiveness of ciclesonide nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is an investigational corticosteroid under development for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ciclesonide is converted to active metabolite, desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC), by upper and lower airway esterases. In vitro studies in human nasal epithelial cells and bronchial epithelial cells have demonstrated a long duration of anti-inflammatory activity of des-CIC.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dose-dependent efficacy and safety of a hypotonic intranasal formulation of ciclesonide in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

This was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults (n = approximately 145 per treatment group) with a minimum 2-year history of SAR received placebo or ciclesonide (25, 50, 100, or 200 microg/d) for 14 days. The primary end point was change in the sum of morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) over 2 weeks. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Ciclesonide, 100 microg/d (P = .04) and 200 microg/d (P = .003), significantly improved the sum of morning and evening reflective TNSS vs placebo at more than 2 weeks of treatment. Baseline values for morning and evening reflective TNSS ranged from 17.80 to 18.82 across treatment groups. The average change from baseline in reflective TNSS was -4.2 for placebo and -4.8, -4.8, -5.3, and -5.8 for ciclesonide, 25, 50, 100, and 200 microg/d, respectively. There were no dose-related differences in the incidence of adverse events among treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study indicate that 100-microg and 200-microg daily doses of ciclesonide are effective in the treatment of SAR. Ciclesonide, 200 microg/d, appears to be the optimal dose studied for reducing the symptoms of SAR while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

Effect of immunotherapy in myelitis with atopic diathesis

OBJECTIVE

A recent nationwide survey of myelitis with atopic diathesis in Japan disclosed that the disease frequently shows a chronic persistent course. A neuropathological study of the spinal cord also revealed chronic active inflammation. Since the effects of various immunotherapies have not been studied extensively in this condition, we evaluated the efficacies of various immunotherapies in patients with myelitis with atopic diathesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two treatments in 26 patients with myelitis with atopic diathesis were retrospectively analyzed. One of the following therapies was administered: (1) corticosteroids (CS) (pulse therapy followed by oral administration with gradual tapering); (2) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (400 mg/kg/day for 5 consecutive days); (3) plasma exchanges (PE); or (4) PE followed by IVIG or CS (PE+IVIG/CS). The therapeutic efficacies were evaluated by thorough neurological examination and laboratory tests including MRI, somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs).

RESULTS

Objective neurological findings improved in 89% of the PE group and 90% of the PE+IVIG/CS group, compared with only 72% of the CS and 60% of the IVIG groups. Improvement determined by laboratory tests was seen in 57% of the PE and 57% of the PE+IVIG/CS groups, compared with only 15% of the CS and none of the IVIG groups. Thus, the improvement rate determined by laboratory tests was significantly greater for therapies including PE than for those without PE (p=0.0187).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that immunotherapy is effective in myelitis with atopic diathesis despite a chronic persistent course, and that PE is the most beneficial immunotherapy.

The economic burden of allergic rhinitis: a critical evaluation of the literature

Although a large number of economic analyses of allergic rhinitis have been published, there are relatively few empirically based studies, particularly outside the US. The majority of these analyses can be classified as burden-of-illness studies. Most estimates of the annual cost of allergic rhinitis range from dollars US 2-5 billion (2003 values). The wide range of estimates can be attributed to differences in identifying patients with allergic rhinitis, differences in cost assignment, limitations associated with available data and difficulties in assigning indirect costs (associated with reduced productivity) of allergic rhinitis. Approximately one-third of burden-of-illness studies include direct and indirect costs of allergic rhinitis, about one-third focus on direct costs only, and the remaining one-third focus exclusively on indirect costs due to reduced productivity. Indirect costs attributable to allergic rhinitis were higher in studies only estimating indirect costs (dollars US 5.5-9.7 billion) than in those estimating both direct and indirect costs (dollars US 1.7-4.3 billion). Although there are many economic evaluations of allergic rhinitis treatments in the published medical literature, very few represent formal cost-effectiveness evaluations that compare the incremental costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies. Those that are incremental cost-effectiveness analyses have several limitations, including small samples, short study periods and the lack of a standardized measure of effectiveness. To date, the medical literature is lacking a comprehensive economic evaluation of general treatment strategies for allergic rhinitis. In undertaking such an analysis, serious consideration must be given to the study population of interest, the choice of appropriate comparators, the perspective from which the analysis is conducted, the target audience, the changing healthcare marketplace and the selection of a measure of effectiveness that incorporates both positive and negative aspects of treatments for allergic rhinitis. Future work would benefit from the development of a consensus on a summary measure of effectiveness that could be used in cost-effectiveness analyses of therapies for allergic rhinitis as well as additional empirical work to measure the association between severity of disease and its impact on worker productivity.