Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

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.

Carrageenan-Containing Nasal Spray Alleviates Allergic Symptoms in Participants with Grass Pollen Allergy: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Clinical Trial

Purpose

Nonpharmacological, barrier-forming nasal sprays are used to manage symptoms of allergic rhinitis. We aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Callergin (investigational product, IP), a nasal spray containing barrier-forming iota-carrageenan, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

In this randomized, controlled, crossover trial, adults with grass pollen allergy underwent a treatment sequence with IP, VisAlpin (comparator product, CP), and no treatment in random order. Treatment blocks consisted in prophylactic administration of the assigned treatment or no treatment, followed by a 3-hr allergen exposure, and were separated by a washout period of 7 days. Primary endpoint was a mean change from baseline in "Total Nasal Symptom Score" (TNSS, sum of rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, and congestion scores) over 3 hr, recorded every 15 min during the challenge period.

Results

A total of 42 participants underwent randomization. Exposure to grass pollen for 3 hr induced a notable TNSS increase from baseline in all participants at all times. Mean TNSS change from baseline over 3 hr was lower when participants received IP compared to no treatment, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (untreated 6.96 ± 2.30; IP 6.59 ± 1.93; difference 0.37 points [95% CI (confidence interval) -0.17 to 0.91]; p=0.170). In a post-hoc analysis, mean TNSS at 3 hr was significantly reduced after IP treatment compared to no treatment (untreated 8.29 ± 2.64; IP 7.70 ± 2.56; difference 0.60 points [95% CI -0.10 to 1.29] p=0.028). While all individual nasal symptoms contributed to this effect, rhinorrhea (p=0.013) and congestion (p=0.076) contributed most. Consistently, nasal secretion weight was slightly reduced with IP treatment (p=0.119). IP was safe and well-tolerated, with similar incidence of adverse events across treatment groups.

Conclusion

Prophylactic treatment with the iota-carrageenan nasal spray IP is safe, well-tolerated, and alleviates nasal allergy symptoms in adults with grass pollen-induced AR.

Trial Registration

NCT04531358.

Intranasal combo: fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine hydrochloride in therapeutic strategies for rhinosinusitis

A novel strategy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from the innovative combination of antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroid drugs. By combining two preparations with different mechanism of action, this novel approach facilitates quick and effective controls of all upper respiratory tract allergy symptoms. The article presents the results of a study of olopatadine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate fixed-dose combination (GSP301) administered intranasally from a spray formulation, with an attempt at positioning the treatment within the ARIA and EPOS guidelines.

Effect of Anti-allergic Therapy on Quality of Life in Children with Allergic Conjunctivitis and Their Parents

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of anti-allergic therapy on quality of life (QoL) in children with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) and their parents.

METHODS

Prospective single-arm intervention study including 55 AC child-parent pairs. The endpoint was that AC was successfully controlled after anti-allergic therapies. The primary outcome was the change in QoL of children from baseline to endpoint as measured by the total Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PesdQL) score.

RESULTS

The total PedsQL scores of children and parents were improved after treatment (P < .001). QoL improved greater in children with vernal keratoconjunctivitis/atopic keratoconjunctivitis, those without other allergy outside the eye, and those with lower baseline total PedsQL score. Greater improvement of parents' QoL was associated with longer treating duration, greater improvement of children's QoL, lower baseline parents' total PedsQL score, and more severe baseline children's signs.

CONCLUSION

Both pediatric AC patients' and their parents 'reduced QoL were improved after anti-allergic therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000037866.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal microbiome supplementation for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a non-infective chronic inflammatory disease of nasal mucosa.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal microbiome supplementation (GMS) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), concerning improvement on symptoms and signs, laboratory outcomes, quality of life, and medication scores.

METHODS

Five English databases were searched up to Dec 12th, 2022. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics were main therapies or adjuvants in experimental groups. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.4 Software, with meta-influence analyses, subgroup-analyses, meta-regression, and publication bias performed for exploration of heterogeneity by Stata V.14. Trial sequential analyses were performed by TSA 0.9, and quality of the results was accessed through the GRADE-pro GDT.

RESULTS

Finally, extracted from 53 articles, 65 RCTs involving 3,634 participants with sound worldwide representativeness were included. Primary results showed better improvement in GMS groups on TNSS (WMD=1.05, P for WMD=0.004, 95%CI:0.34 to 1.76), overall nasal condition (WMD=1.25, P for WMD<0.001, 95%CI:0.90 to 1.61), overall quality of life (WMD=6.16, P for WMD<0.001, 95%CI:4.92 to 7.40) and medication score (WMD=0.42, P for WMD=0.42, 95%CI:-0.06 to 0.90).However, GMS groups were inferior than the controls concerning reduction on serum total IgE (WMD=-1.81) and ratios of serum Th1/Th2 (WMD=-1.06). Meta-regressions suggested significant (p<0.05) variations of the effects in some comparisons. In addition, results of sub-group analyses firstly revealed potential influence between final results and the variables above. Instantly after intervention, the GRADE levels of evidence were sound, including "High ⨁⨁⨁⨁" in 10, "Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯" in 33, and "Low ⨁⨁◯◯" in nine comparisons. However, overall certainties decreased obviously during follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our pooled results firstly revealed that GMS yielded acceptable benefits for patients with AR compared with controls with sound certainties, after balancing the benefits and harms.

Updates in the diagnosis and practical management of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease that can be associated with other conditions, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on the history and documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, preferably using molecular diagnostics. Treatments are based on patient education, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), and surgery. Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses current and emerging management strategies for AR, covering pharmacological and non-pharmacological remedies, AIT, and biologics in selected cases with associated severe asthma. However, AIT presently remains the unique causal treatment for AR.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered in the fixed association between intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of AIT.

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.

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Intranasal Olopatadine: Mometasone in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal olopatadine hydrochloride-mometasone furoate (OM) combination in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: mometasone + olopatadine, GSP301, mometasone furoate, and olopatadine hydrochloride.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English between January 1987 and August 2022 related to pharmacology, safety, and clinical trials were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2 phase II clinical trials, twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (QDay) intranasal OM demonstrated significant improvements in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and QDay P < 0.001) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001; QDay P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001). In 2 phase III clinical trials, BID OM showed significant improvements in rTNSS vs. placebo (P < 0.001), olopatadine monotherapy (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003), and mometasone monotherapy (P = 0.02 and P = 0.059).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

OM is indicated for treatment of SAR symptoms. Caution with use must be considered for certain high-risk patients, existing tuberculosis; fungal, bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections; or ocular herpes simplex. Due to its quick and sustained onset of action, OM may be an ideal agent for initial treatment of moderate-severe SAR for patients 12 years and older.

CONCLUSION

OM significantly improves SAR symptoms and is a viable treatment option in short-term SAR.

Comorbid allergic rhinitis and asthma: important clinical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The numerous links between allergic rhinitis and asthma have been extensively explored in the last two decades, gaining great concern within the scientific community. These two conditions frequently coexist in the same patient and share numerous pathogenetic and pathophysiological mechanisms.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed major pathophysiological, epidemiological, and clinical links between allergic rhinitis and asthma. We also provided a comprehensive discussion of allergic rhinitis treatment according to current guidelines, with a particular focus on the relevance of allergic rhinitis therapies in patients with comorbid asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

We believe that there are several unmet needs for our patients, however, there are promising advances forecasted for the future. Although allergic rhinitis is a recognized risk factor for asthma, a proper asthma detection and prevention plan in allergic rhinitis patients is not available. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents a promising preventive strategy and may deserve an earlier positioning in allergic rhinitis management. A multidisciplinary approach should characterize the journey of patients with respiratory allergies, with an adequate referral to specialized Allergy/Asthma centers. Molecular Allergy Diagnosis may provide support for optimal AIT use. Finally, a possible evolution of biological treatment can be envisaged, mainly if biosimilars decrease such therapies' costs.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray (GSP301) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = - 0.99; [95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.79]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTNSS (MD = - 1.05; [95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), rTOSS (MD = - 0.50; [95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.29]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTOSS (MD = - 0.64; [95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.26]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), PNSS (MD = - 1.01; [95% CI - 1.32 to - 0.69]; P < 0.01; I² = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = - 0.43; [95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.30]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43-2.45]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run.

Combine therapy as a modern approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one the most common allergic diseases affecting from 10 to 40% of the population in different countries, including Russia. AR is a risk factor of bronchial asthma, other upper airway disease and may decrease patient quality of life, their productivity, increase probability of occupational traumatism, depression and anxiety. AR also presents a substantial economic burden. The rationale to use fixed dose combination of intranasal steroids and topical H1 antihistamines includes suboptimal control of symptoms by monotherapy, its complementary pharmacologic activity and the results of clinical trials. This review focused on fixed dose combination of intranasal mometasone furoate and olopataine. Double blind placebo-controlled and open clinical trials have confirmed that this combination decreased severity of nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal and perennial AR, improved patient quality of life and had a good tolerability. Its efficacy was higher than those of monotherapy. Fast onset of action and sustainable effect on symptoms (during 1 yr) may improve adherence patients to the treatment and control of symptoms of AR.

Effects of liposomal nasal spray with vitamins A and E on allergic rhinitis

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between nasal obstruction and nasal cytology in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) treated with a liposomal based nasal spray containing vitamins A and E. This is a prospective double-blind, controlled study. A total of 106 patients with AR, who rejected anti-allergic therapy, were randomly divided into two groups: G (study group, n = 53) received liposomal nasal spray and C (control group, n = 53) received 0.9% sodium chloride solution nasal spray. Both nasal sprays were applied two times a day, in the morning and at night, in both nasal cavities. The study lasted for 30 days. The first ENT evaluation was performed the first day (T0) and the second evaluation was performed at the end of the study (T1). Symptoms (SNOT-22 test with VAS) and signs (nasal cytology) of both groups were recorded at T0 and T1. Liposomal nasal spray was effective in improving both nasal symptoms and cytology in patients suffering from perennial AR. Treatment with liposomal nasal spray with vitamins A and E was followed by a significant improvement of VAS scale (p < 0.0001), a significant decrease in SNOT-22 (p < 0.0001) and a significant decrease in inflammatory cell count (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, our study provides evidence that liposomal nasal spray improves the nasal symptoms of AR. The patients were compliant to this therapy because of limited side effects. The reduction in inflammatory cells count was remarkable and confirmed the close association between eosinophil infiltration and nasal airflow impairment. These results may have implications for clinical practice.

Translation, adaption and validation of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) for Lithuanian population

Background

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most prevalent allergic diseases worldwide which diagnosis is based on typical clinical signs and positive results of allergic tests. Selection and evaluation of treatment is based mainly on subjective symptoms. Objective measurement of patients’ complaints is necessary for proper documentation and follow-up. There are no short simple validated questionnaire assessing nasal symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis in Lithuania. Total nasal symptoms score (TNSS) is a brief questionnaire which evaluate the severity of main symptoms of allergic rhinitis widely used in different countries. Our aim was to translate the TNSS in the Lithuanian language and to validate it.

Methods

Prospective cross-cultural adaption and validation study was performed. Linguistic validation of TNSS was performed and validity and reliability were assessed. Patients with chronic allergic and non-allergic rhinitis and healthy individuals were included in this study. Patients had to complete translated version of TNSS. Patients with allergic rhinitis additionally were asked to fill Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ).

Results

Seventy-six individuals were involved into the study: 16 with non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) (21.1%), 49 with allergic rhinitis (AR) (64.5%) and 11 healthy individuals (14.5%). Cronbach’s α was 0.87. TNSS score was significantly higher in patients with NAR and AR compared with healthy individuals (3.56 ± 2.28 vs. 4.28 ± 2.46 vs. 0.27 ± 0.91). Positive significant correlation was found between TNSS score and RQLQ score (rs = 0.77, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The Lithuanian version of the TNSS proved to be a valid instrument for assessing nasal symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for pediatric allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem in adults as well as the younger population, continuously increasing and posing a significant problem for patients, health care systems and economies. For the younger population, some aspects differ from treatment of adults, namely, prevention, compliance and adherence.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes all the pharmacotherapeutic options with special focus on the pediatric population. Moreover, it elucidates prevention strategies as well as future developments of AR treatment. Currently, symptomatic therapy in the form of steroids and antihistamines is applied topically and systemically where steroids need to be administered with caution and for a very short term. The only disease-modifying and causal treatment is allergen immunotherapy administered sublingually and subcutaneously. Future and current novel therapeutic options are human monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

The greatest potential for future developments currently lie in allergen immunotherapy and here in different routes of administration and modification of (recombinant) allergens as well as immune-modulating adjuvants and nanoparticles. Secondly, monoclonal antibodies are promising molecules blocking and/or interfering with up- and downstream immune mechanisms. Another important aspect lies in prevention of allergic sensitization and disease progression through both AIT and biologics which is particularly true for the pediatric population.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H₁ antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H₁ antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR.

METHODS

A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H₁ antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (Score_Monotherapy - Score_{Combined therapy}) / Score_Monotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal H₁ antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily and once-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 25 μg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 50 μg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 μg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 μg or once-daily 50 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.