Comparison of patient preference for sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

Pharmacology, particle deposition and drug administration techniques of intranasal corticosteroids for treating allergic rhinitis

This review presents an overview of the available literature regarding intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Various treatment options exist for AR including INCs, antihistamines and leucotriene antagonists. INCs are considered to be the most effective therapy for moderate-to-severe AR, as they are effective against nasal and ocular symptoms and improve quality of life. Their safety has been widely observed. INCs are effective and safe for short-term use. Local adverse events are observed but generally well-tolerated. The occurrence of (serious) systemic adverse events is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. There is a lack of long-term safety data. INC may cause serious eye complications. The risk of INCs on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, on bone mineral density reduction or osteoporosis and on growth in children, should be considered during treatment. Pharmacological characteristics of INCs (e.g. the mode of action and pharmacokinetics) are well known and described. We sought to gain insight into whether specific properties affect the efficacy and safety of INCs, including nasal particle deposition, which the administration technique affects. However, advances are lacking regarding the improved understanding of the effect of particle deposition on efficacy and safety and the effect of the administration technique. This review emphasizes the gaps in knowledge regarding this subject. Advances in research and health care are necessary to improve care for patients with AR.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Intranasal Corticosteroid in Allergic Rhinitis Patients: Development of a New Questionnaire

Objectives: The knowledge gap and attitude of allergic rhinitis (AR) patients using intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) led to the poor outcome of their disease. We aimed to develop and validate a new questionnaire to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of AR patients that can be used to assess and understand the factors affecting compliance of INCS. Methods: The questionnaire comprised development and validation stages. A self-administered questionnaire was developed after a comprehensive literature review. It was subjected to content and face validity before a revised final version was drafted. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the validity of the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha was used to verify internal consistency. Results: The development phase resulted in a questionnaire consisting of 14 items. Explanatory factor analysis revealed four factors associated with KAP. The four factors were extracted, and 12 items were kept. The factors were attitude domain with four items (factor 1), practice domain with four items (factor 2), and knowledge domain with four items (factor 3 has two items, and factor 4 has two items). The Cronbach’s alpha of the four factors ranged from 0.614 to 0.809. The final questionnaire consists of 3 domains with 12 items (the knowledge domain with four questions; the attitude domain with four questions; the practice domain with four questions) and was valid and reliable. Conclusions: The newly developed questionnaire has adequate validity and reliability. It is a useful tool to improve the treatment of AR patients by understanding the factors affecting their compliance.

Evaluation of Intranasal Corticosteroid Sensory Attributes and Patient Preference for Fluticasone Furoate for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

PURPOSE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent disease, affecting the quality of life of millions of Americans. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) are widely recommended as first-line therapy for moderate to severe AR. Although these drugs exhibit similar safety and efficacy, a potentially differentiating factor within this class is the varying sensory attributes associated with each INC. The objective of this literature review was to evaluate product characteristics, sensory attributes, and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate intranasal spray (FFNS) compared with other INCs.

METHODS

A narrative literature search for studies evaluating FFNS was performed in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Key terms included "allergic rhinitis," "anti-allergic agents," "intranasal administration," "fluticasone furoate," and "patient preference." Studies published from 2007 to present were included. Nine trials met the search criteria, each evaluating FFNS versus placebo or other INCs for efficacy, safety, and/or preference, and were included. Approximately 2400 patients with AR were enrolled across varying study protocols.

FINDINGS

In 4 placebo-controlled trials, FFNS showed significant efficacy in relieving symptoms of AR and a tolerable safety profile. Three trials evaluating FFNS and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) found that FFNS was significantly preferred over FPNS regarding scent, aftertaste, and leakage down the throat/nose. The results of 2 trials found that FFNS was preferred overall over mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS).

IMPLICATIONS

INCs are effective first-line treatments for AR and show significant reduction in nasal and ocular symptoms. Patients preferred the scent, aftertaste, and mist gentleness of FFNS ∼2:1 over the same sensory attributes of FPNS. Patients experienced less negative sensory characteristics with FFNS compared with MFNS, preferring FFNS to MFNS overall. Selecting an INC with favorable attributes in accordance with patient preferences could potentially improve adherence, therapeutic outcomes, and health care costs.

Management of allergic rhinitis in the era of effective over-the-counter treatments

Allergic rhinitis (AR) may be regarded as a trivial issue unworthy of the doctor's time, and with the availability of many different over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, up to two thirds of patients self-manage AR before seeking medical care. Yet, AR can have a significant impact on health-related quality of life and is associated with a greater detriment to work productivity than other chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. For many patients, the impact on quality of life is greater than suggested by reported symptoms and should also be a focus of treatment. Although many patients can effectively manage AR symptoms independently, a significant percentage will need direction from a physician to obtain optimal results. The availability of several different classes of treatment - including decongestants, sedating and non-sedating antihistamines, and more recently intranasal corticosteroids (INS) - has increased the complexity of self-management, leaving patients confused about the best approach to treatment. Treatment guidelines universally classify INS as the most effective medical agents available for use in the OTC and primary care settings. Many patients are unaware that INS are available OTC and that they are more effective than other therapies. Patients may have negative perceptions about the safety of INS and may have experienced unpleasant taste, scent, and feel with nasal sprays. Unless a patient volunteers the information, healthcare professionals (HCPs) may be unaware that the patient has significant AR and is using one or more OTC AR therapies. To address this gap in communication, HCPs must be proactive in identifying, assessing, and advising patients with AR, including best strategies to assess allergen trigger symptoms, which treatments are appropriate, and when and how to use them. Proper use of delivery devices is especially important. This article reviews the primary care management of AR in the context of the availability of effective OTC medicines.

Overcoming barriers to intranasal corticosteroid use in patients with uncontrolled allergic rhinitis

Patients suffering from allergic rhinitis often attempt to self-manage their symptoms and may seek advice from pharmacists about nonprescription product choices. Several drug classes, both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC), are available, including intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs); oral, intranasal, and ocular antihistamines; leukotriene antagonists; and topical and systemic decongestants, as well as immunotherapies. Selection of the optimal treatment approach depends on the temporal pattern, frequency, and severity of symptoms as well as the patient’s age. Nasal congestion is typically the most bothersome symptom, although rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and ocular symptoms are also problematic. Together, these symptoms may adversely impact the quality of life, work productivity, sleep quality, and the ability to perform daily activities, particularly when uncontrolled. Practice guidelines recognize that INCSs are the most effective medications for controlling allergic rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion. Available INCS products have comparable safety and efficacy profiles, but they differ in formulation characteristics and sensory attributes. Several barriers can impede the use of INCSs, including concerns about safety, misperceptions regarding the loss of response from frequent use, and undesirable sensations associated with intranasal administration. Given the increasing number of INCSs available OTC, pharmacists can help allay these concerns by discussing treatment expectations, recommending INCS products with favorable formulation characteristics, and reviewing proper use and technique for the administration of the selected product. These steps can help to foster a collaborative relationship between the patient and the pharmacist in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

A patient preference study that evaluated fluticasone furoate and mometasone furoate nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis

Background:

Corticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment.

Objective:

This study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Methods:

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes).

Results:

Overall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of “less drip down the throat” (p < 0.001), “less run out of the nose” (p < 0.05), “more soothing” (p < 0.05), and “less irritating” (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), and “run out of the nose” (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), “run out of the nose” (p < 0.01), “presence of aftertaste” (p < 0.01), and “no nasal irritation” (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Patients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including “less drip down the throat,” “less run out of the nose,” and “less irritating.” Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.

The improved efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone furoate and levocabastine relative to the individual components in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic disease, which has significant detrimental effect on well-being and quality of life as well as substantial socio-economic impact. Combination pharmacotherapy is utilized by 40-50% of patients to treat their symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intranasal fluticasone furoate (FF)/levocabastine (LEVO) fixed-dose combination (FDC) with each component alone on allergen-induced nasal and ocular symptoms.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way, incomplete block, cross-over, proof-of-concept study in 71 patients with AR, evaluated FF 100 μg, LEVO 200 μg and FDC (FF 100/LEVO 200 μg), once daily via intranasal spray for 8 days. On days 1 and 8, total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) were assessed every 15 min during a 4-h allergen exposure in the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The primary endpoint was Day 8 weighted mean TNSS.

RESULTS

After 8 days, FDC resulted in both statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean TNSS compared with FF and LEVO alone [adjusted mean differences (95% CI): FDC vs. FF: -2.26 (-2.90, -1.62); FDC vs. LEVO: -2.57 (-3.21, -1.93)]. All active treatments were significantly superior to placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% CI) from placebo: FDC: -4.1 (-4.86, -3.34); FF: -1.84 (-2.66, -1.03); LEVO: -1.53 (-2.34, -0.72)]. Onset of action was rapid following FDC and LEVO treatment with an approximate two unit reduction in mean TNSS from pre-dose levels by 30 min and 1 h. Mean TOSS was also reduced following all active treatments relative to placebo (range 0.6-0.8 unit reduction). All treatments were equally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results suggest that once daily FF/LEVO FDC could provide a clinical therapeutic advantage to existing standard monotherapies in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AR, and support progression to evaluation in larger phase III clinical studies.

The risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomized clinical trial publications

OBJECTIVES

To assess the proportion of clinical trials explicitly reporting the risk of unblinding, to evaluate the completeness of reporting on unblinding risk, and to describe the reported procedures involved in assessing unblinding.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We sampled at random 300 blinded randomized clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2010. Two authors read the trial publications and extracted data independently.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trial publications, or 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5, 12%), explicitly reported the risk of unblinding, of which 16 publications, or 5% (95% CI, 3, 8%), reported compromised blinding; and 8 publications, or 3% (95% CI, 1, 5%), intact blinding. The reporting on risk of unblinding in the 24 trial publications was generally incomplete. The median proportion of assessments per trial affected by unblinding was 3% (range 1-30%). The most common mechanism for unblinding was perceptible physical properties of the treatments, for example, a difference in the taste and odor of a typhoid vaccine compared with its placebo.

CONCLUSION

Published articles on randomized clinical trials infrequently reported risk of unblinding. This may reflect a tendency for avoiding reporting actual or suspected unblinding or a genuine low risk of unblinding.

Burden of illness and quality of life in patients being treated for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a cohort survey

Background

Allergic Rhinitis is an inflammatory disease which is characterised by burdensome nasal and/or ocular symptoms. This study aimed to assess the impact of symptoms (number of symptom-free days (SFD) and Quality of Life (QoL)) in patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis (SAR) being treated with fluticasone furoate (FF), mometasone furoate (MF) or fluticasone propionate (FP).

Methods

In a cross-sectional, non-interventional, cohort analysis, primary care physicians and allergy specialists in France, Germany, and Spain were recruited via telephone interviews. Each physician prospectively recruited 4 SAR patients - 2 receiving FF, 1 receiving MF and 1 receiving FP - during June 2009. Patients answered questions on symptoms and completed questionnaires on QoL (mini-rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, RQLQ) and burden of illness (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).

Results

A total of 540 patients were recruited during June 2009. 88 patients were subsequently found to be ineligible and excluded from the analyses. In the 4 weeks prior to assessment, patients reported a mean of 14.58 (±8.42) SFD. Patients receiving FF had more SFD (mean 15.45 ±8.29) than patients receiving MF (adjusted mean difference -1.22, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-3.16 to 0.72], p=0.434) or FP (adjusted mean difference -1.95, 95% CI [-3.87 to -0.03], p=0.092), although statistical significance was not achieved. The mean RQLQ score was 1.54 (±1.06). Patients receiving FF had a better quality of life in the previous week (mini-RQLQ score: mean 1.42, ±1.04) than patients receiving MF (adjusted mean difference 0.28, 95% CI [0.03 to 0.52], p=0.052) or FP (adjusted mean difference 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05 to 0.41], p=0.244). Again, none of these results achieved statistical significance.

Conclusions

At the height of the allergy season, patients with SAR suffer symptoms approximately 50% of the time, and report an impact on their QoL. No significant differences were observed between FF, FP and MF related to SFD or QoL.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01199757

A novel intranasal therapy of azelastine with fluticasone for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) is a challenge to treat, with many patients using multiple therapies and achieving limited symptom control. More effective therapies must be developed and tested in well-controlled, randomized, prospective studies with a direct comparison to current standards.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of these studies was to investigate the efficacy of MP29-02 (a novel formulation of azelastine and fluticasone propionate [FP]) in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and to compare its efficacy with 2 first-line therapies (ie, intranasal azelastine and intranasal FP) in this population.

METHODS

Three thousand three hundred ninety-eight patients (≥12 years old) with moderate-to-severe SAR were enrolled into 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trials (MP4002 [NCT00651118], MP4004 [NCT00740792], and MP4006 [NCT00883168]). Each trial was conducted for 14 days during different allergy seasons. The primary efficacy variable was the sum of the morning and evening change from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (range, 0-24) over the treatment period. Outcomes for the meta-analysis included efficacy according to disease severity and time to response in relevant responder criteria.

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis MP29-02 reduced the mean reflective total nasal symptom score from baseline (-5.7 [SD, 5.3]) more than FP (-5.1 [SD, 4.9], P < .001), azelastine (-4.4 [SD, 4.8], P < .001), or placebo (-3.0 [SD, 4.2], P < .001). This benefit was observed from the first day of assessment, with improvement in each individual nasal symptom, even in the patients with the most severe disease. MP29-02 achieved response consistently days earlier and showed greater efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe rhinitis than FP and azelastine.

CONCLUSIONS

MP29-02 represents a novel therapy that demonstrated superiority to 2 first-line therapies for AR. Patients with moderate-to-severe SAR achieved better control, and their symptoms were controlled earlier with MP29-02 than with recommended medications according to guidelines.

A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is the latest glucocorticoid officially approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. FF has shown the highest affinity and selectivity for the glucocorticoid receptors as well the longest tissue retention compared with other available intranasal steroids; these new pharmacologic characteristics provide the basis for its potent and prolonged anti-inflammatory activity at the target site.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review achieved through PubMed and Medline research methods supports the clinical efficacy of FF versus placebo in reducing ocular and nasal symptoms related to allergic rhinitis (at the recommended starting doses of 110 μg once daily for adults and adolescents and 55 μg once daily for children), with a good safety profile. Moreover, the present review also compares FF with other intranasal steroids: FF represents a molecular evolution of fluticasone propionate (FP), and there is scientific evidence of therapeutic advantages over FP.

EXPERT OPINION

Fluticasone furoate is a promising molecule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis as it fits fully all the official guidelines' criteria. It is now being considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacological model for glucocorticoids due to its satisfying safety/tolerability profile, both in adults and children, leads FF to be considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacologic model for glucocorticoids. More studies should be directed to assess the improvement of quality of life in subjects with allergic rhinitis treated with FF, in comparison with other intranasal steroids and even H1-antihistamines; in addition, it could be also interesting to analyze eventual, additional effects of FF in patients with bronchial asthma, which is frequently associated with allergic rhinitis.

Preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its treatment

OBJECTIVES

A growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of considering patient preferences as part of the medical decision-making process. The purpose of the current review was to identify and summarize published research on preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and its treatment, while suggesting directions for future research.

METHODS

A literature search identified 15 articles that included a choice-based assessment of preferences related to ADHD.

RESULTS

The 15 studies were grouped into four categories based on preference content: preference for a treatment directly experienced by the respondent or the respondent's child; preference for general treatment approaches; preference for a specific treatment attribute or outcome; and preference for aspects of ADHD-related treatment. Preference assessment methods ranged from global single items to detailed choice-based procedures, with few studies using rigorously developed assessment methods. Respondents included patients with ADHD, clinicians, parents, teachers, and survey respondents from the general population. Factors influencing preference include treatment characteristics, effectiveness for specific symptoms, side effects, and respondent demographics. Minimal research has examined treatment preferences of adults with ADHD.

DISCUSSION

Because there is no dominant treatment known to be the first choice for all patients, ADHD is a condition for which individual preferences can play an important role when making treatment decisions for individual patients. Given the potential role of preferences in clinical decision-making, more research is needed to better understand the preferences of patients with ADHD and other individuals who are directly affected by the disorder, such as parents and teachers.