Effectiveness of azelastine nasal spray compared with oral cetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial

RATIONALE

Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability.

RESULTS

AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.

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.

Management of adult asthma and chronic rhinitis as one airway disease

Introduction: Chronic rhinitis is defined as nasal inflammation with the presence of minimum two symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing and/or itching one hour daily for a minimum of 12 weeks/year. According their etiology, four groups of rhinitis are described: allergic, infectious, non-allergic non-infectious and mixed.Chronic rhinitis is frequently associated with asthma, shares similar mechanisms of the pathogenesis and has a negative impact of its outcomes sustaining the concept of unified airways disease.Areas covered: The present review summarizes the complex relationship between chronic rhinitis and asthma on the basis of recent epidemiological data, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and therapeutic management. All four groups are discussed with the impact of their specific treatment on asthma outcomes. Some medications are common for chronic rhinitis and asthma while others are more specific but able to treat the associated comorbidity.Expert opinion: The systematic assessment of chronic rhinitis in patients with asthma and its specific treatment improves both disease outcomes. Conversely, several therapies of asthma demonstrated beneficial effects on chronic rhinitis. Treating both diseases at the same time by only one medication is an interesting option to explore in the future in order to limit drugs administration, related costs and side effects.

The Nose as a Route for Therapy: Part 1. Pharmacotherapy

This article reviews nasal structure and function in the light of intranasal pharmacotherapy. The nose provides an accessible, fast route for local treatment of nose and sinus diseases, with lower doses than are necessary systemically and few adverse effects. It can also be used for other medications as it has sufficient surface area protected from local damage by mucociliary clearance, absence of digestive enzymes, responsive blood flow, and provides a rapid route to the central nervous system.

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.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The effect of compound nasal surgery on obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

BACKGROUND

Nasal surgery often fails to ameliorate the symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). We developed a compound nasal surgery (CNS) method that consists of septoplasty combined with submucosal inferior turbinectomy and posterior nasal neurectomy to ensure low nasal resistance during sleep.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the effect of CNS on OSAS, pre- and postoperative changes in sleep-related events were studied by using polysomnography, the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), the visual analog scale for snoring, and health-related quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Forty-five consecutive patients with OSAS and with nasal problems underwent CNS. Three months later, the postoperative effect on OSAS was assessed by using polysomnography findings, daytime sleepiness by the ESS, nasal allergy symptoms, and health-related QOL. Snoring was assessed by the family by using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The indices of apnea, apnea-hypopnea, oxygen desaturation, and arousal; the ESS; allergic symptom score; health-related QOL; and snoring on a visual analog scale were all significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

CNS improves OSAS events without any pharyngeal surgical procedure in selected patients. If high nasal resistance associated with OSAS is present, then CNS should thus be considered.

Update on local allergic rhinitis

We here provide an update on the literature regarding local allergic rhinitis (LAR). In reviewing LAR, we have included an updated definition, classifications, mechanisms, comorbidities, and recommendations for diagnosis and treatment for LAR, as well as the defined research areas for future evidence-based studies. LAR is a localised nasal allergic response in the absence of systemic atopy characterised by local production of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies, a TH2 pattern of mucosal cell infiltration during natural exposure to aeroallergens, and a positive nasal allergen provocation test response, with the release of inflammatory mediators. The localised allergic response of LAR is an important topic for the study of allergies. This review provides an update on the current knowledge of LAR.

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis is a mainstay of treatment for patients with mild to severe nasal allergy symptoms. A wide array of medical treatment options is available for both episodic relief and prevention of symptoms. Treatment regimens can be tailored to individual patients based on nasal symptoms, severity, and associated atopic disorders. The purposes of this review are to identify available pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis, to discuss the benefits and limitations of each treatment option, and to help guide practitioners in providing optimal medical treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis was performed using a PubMed search. Secondary sources within indexed studies were also compiled to review current medication options for patients with allergic rhinitis. The benefits and limitations of each class of allergy medication were reviewed to provide information on selecting the optimal treatment regimen for patients with allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis that are currently used in clinical practice include antihistamines, corticosteroids, leukotriene modifiers, mast cell stabilizers, expectorants, and decongestants. Symptoms of nasal congestion, itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea can be targeted with specific therapies that modulate the acute-phase or late-phase allergic reactions. Associated atopic disorders, including conjunctivitis and asthma, can help guide medication selection.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis offer numerous options that are safe, effective, and readily available to target specific nasal symptoms. Symptom-based selection of allergy medications can result in optimal treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

Allergic Rhinitis: an Overview

Allergic rhinitis is an inflammatory disorder of the nasal mucosa induced by allergen exposure triggering IgE-mediated inflammation. Clinically, it is characterized by four major symptoms-rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching, and nasal congestion. It can also be associated with co-morbid conditions as Asthma, Atopic Dermatitis & Nasal polyps. Around 20-30 % of the Indian population suffers from allergic rhinitis and that 15 % develop asthma. The diagnosis & treatment of allergic rhinitis should follow ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines while of asthma should follow the GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines. The treatment of allergic rhinitis should combine allergen avoidance (whenever possible), pharmacotherapy, and allergen immunotherapy. Intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective modality for treating allergic rhinitis and their sensory attributes are important in patient compliance.

Monascus secondary metabolites monascin and ankaflavin inhibit activation of RBL-2H3 cells

Monascus-fermented products have been used as dietary food and traditional medicine due to their beneficial effects on circulation and digestive systems in Asia for thousands of years. Besides, monascin and ankaflavin, secondary metabolites from Monascus-fermented products, have proven anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. In previous research, monascin and ankaflavin ameliorated ovalbumin-induced airway allergic reaction often used as a type I allergy asthma model. Additionally, mast cells play critical roles in type I allergy. Therefore, RBL-2H3 cells were used as the mast cell model to determine whether the improving effects on asthma of monascin and ankaflavin came from influencing mast cells. PMA and ionomycin are common activators of mast cells because they stimulate the main signaling molecules during mast cell activation. Forty micromolar monascin and ankaflavin inhibited PMA/ionomycin-induced mast cell degranulation and TNF-α secretion through suppressing the phosphorylation of PKC and MAPK family ERK, JNK, and p38. Consequently, monascin and ankaflavin affected the activation of mast cells and may have the potential to improve type I allergy.

Allergic rhinitis: Diagnosis through management

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immune hypersensitivity response of the nasal mucosa affecting children and adults. Patients with a genetic predisposition become sensitized to certain allergens over time with repeated exposures. This article will discuss AR from diagnosis through treatment.

Brazilian Academy of Rhinology position paper on topical intranasal therapy

This documents aims at educating those who treat sinonasal diseases - both general practitioners and specialists - about topical nasal treatments. By means of scientific evidence reviews, the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology provides its practical and updated guidelines on the most utilized topical nasal medication, except for the drugs that have topical antibiotics in their formulas.

The clinical use of cetirizine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Cetirizine is among the first second-generation H1 antihistamines (SGAHs) developed to provide selective H1 receptor inhibition without central nervous system depression.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to summarize the amount of data collected over 25 years of clinical use of cetirizine and compare this with data available for other SGAHs in the management of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search for publications relating to cetirizine was performed using the Pubmed database, and relevant papers published in English were selected for detailed review.

RESULTS

Compared with the majority of other SGAHs, cetirizine was generally shown to have a more favourable pharmacological profile, to be well tolerated, be at least equally or more efficacious in attenuating/inhibiting nasal and ocular symptoms and to improve the quality of life in AR patients. The majority of clinical trials investigating the effect of SGAHs in AR patients further indicated that cetirizine was often employed as the main comparator active drug.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence that cetirizine is a commonly employed active comparator drug in AR, it is tempting to suggest that cetirizine may be a suitable benchmark in the development of novel pharmacotherapies for AR.

A prospective, controlled study of SNS01 (ectoine nasal spray) compared to BNO-101 (phytotherapeutic dragées) in patients with acute rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

In this observational study, data on the efficacy, effects on quality of life and tolerability of the topical formulation SNS01 (Ectoin Rhinitis nasal spray) were compared to those of BNO-101 (Sinupret forte dragées) in patients with acute rhinosinusitis in the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinical setting.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis were included in this non-interventional study with a treatment duration of 14-16 days. They received either a herbal phytotherapeutic dragée (control) or an ectoine-based nasal spray (investigational product), each to be taken according to the instructions for use (IFU) and summary of product characteristics (SPC). At each visit, the physician performed a nasal endoscopy, recorded the Sinusitis Symptom Score and checked for adverse events. During the entire treatment period, patients recorded the Sinusitis Symptom Score in patient diaries. In addition, patients receiving the nasal spray filled out a questionnaire to assess the tolerability of the treatment. To investigate effects on quality of life patients were asked to fill out the German version of a sinusitis-specific HRQL (health related quality of life) questionnaire.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01684540.

RESULTS

Patient diary entries, the assessment of the Sinusitis Symptom Score and the HRQL questionnaire demonstrated that the ectoine nasal spray was as effective as the phytotherapeutic dragées in treating acute rhinosinusitis. After two weeks of treatment, the assessments of both the patients' diaries and physicians' record forms indicated statistically significant improvement (p ≤ 0.001) in the symptom scores of the two groups (57.8% improvement for ectoine and 49.3% improvement for the phytotherapeutic dragées compared to baseline). Also, overall scores of 80 in the sensory questionnaire confirmed the good tolerability of the nasal spray. Correspondingly, HRQL improved significantly over the course of the treatment in both groups.

CONCLUSION

SNS01 and BNO-101 demonstrated comparable effects in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.

LIMITATIONS

Following German regulations, this trial was set up as an observational 'non-interventional' study, which does not allow for a placebo group or randomization of patients. Although the grade of evidence delivered by the study data is thus reduced from Ib to IIa, it does, however, reflect a realistic view of the most common clinical practice.

A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine has been shown to be effective against seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) is a validated model of experimental SAR. The objective of this double-blind, four-way crossover study was to evaluate the onset of action of azelastine nasal spray, versus the oral antihistamines loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg in the relief of the symptoms of SAR.

Methods

70 participants, aged 18-65, were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray, cetirizine, loratadine, or placebo after controlled ragweed pollen exposure in the EEU. Symptoms were evaluated using the total nasal symptom score (TNSS). The primary efficacy parameter was the onset of action as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS.

Results

Azelastine displayed a statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo at all time points from 15 minutes through 6 hours post dose. Azelastine, cetirizine, and loratadine reduced TNSS compared to placebo with an onset of action of 15 (p < 0.001), 60 (p = 0.015), and 75 (p = 0.034) minutes, respectively. The overall assessment of efficacy was rated as good or very good by 46% of the participants for azelastine, 51% of the participants for cetirizine, and 30% of the participants for loratadine compared to 18% of the participants for placebo.

Conclusions

Azelastine’s onset of action for symptom relief was faster than that of cetirizine and loratadine. The overall participant satisfaction in treatment with azelastine is comparable to cetirizine and statistically superior to loratadine. These results suggest that azelastine may be preferential to oral antihistamines for the rapid relief of SAR symptoms.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

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.

The efficacy of intranasal antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the new use of intranasal antihistamines as first-line therapies, compare and contrast this class of medication with the traditionally available medications, and discuss the potential for intranasal antihistamines to provide relief superior to second-generation oral antihistamines.

DATA SOURCES

Review articles and original research articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, OVID, PubMed (1950 to November 2009), personal files of articles, and bibliographies of located articles that addressed the topic of interest.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were selected for their relevance to intranasal antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis. Publications included reviews, treatment guidelines, and clinical studies (primarily randomized controlled trials) of both children and adults.

RESULTS

This panel was charged with reviewing the place of intranasal antihistamines in the spectrum of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Intranasal antihistamines have been shown in numerous randomized, placebo-controlled trials to be more efficacious than the oral antihistamines. Although intranasal corticosteroids are considered by some to be superior to intranasal antihistamines, multiple studies have shown an equal effect of the 2 classes of medication. Both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines have been shown to reduce all symptoms of allergic rhinitis. In addition, some intranasal antihistamines have a more rapid onset of action than intranasal corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

The future of allergy treatment will likely involve a combination of both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines because of the benefits of local administration and their additive effect on efficacy.

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.

Olopatadine nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 6 years and older

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Allergic rhinitis is an IgE-mediated condition that produces inflammation of the mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses and, frequently, of the ocular conjunctiva. Allergic rhinitis causes a significant disease burden in terms of quality of life, lost productivity and medical treatment costs. One of the newest treatments approved by the FDA is Patanase (olopatadine hydrochloride) Nasal Spray, 665 microg/spray (OLO). Olopatadine is an antihistamine with selective H(1)-receptor antagonist activity.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review details the basic and clinical research on the olopatadine molecule and OLO nasal spray from 1996 to the present day.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a better understanding of the pharmacology of OLO nasal spray, the clinical trial data that have established the efficacy of OLO nasal spray and the overall role of OLO nasal spray in the management of allergic rhinitis.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Olopatadine nasal spray is one of the newest treatments approved by the FDA for the management of allergic rhinitis. OLO has a rapid onset of action, efficacy comparable to intranasal steroid sprays and is approved for seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged > or = 6 years.

Azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

Rhinitis affects millions of people around the world, places a huge burden on the economy and reduces patients' health-related quality of life. Azelastine nasal spray is a second-generation antihistamine, indicated for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis in both adults and children. It offers a rapid onset of action (15 min) and flexibility of both dose (i.e., one or two sprays/nostril twice daily) as well as dosage (i.e., fixed or as needed). Compared with other agents used to treat allergic rhinitis, azelastine nasal spray exhibits superior efficacy to oral antihistamines (e.g., desloratadine and cetirizine), other intranasal antihistamines (e.g., levocabastine) and the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate, and comparable efficacy to the potent intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP). Combination therapy with intranasal FP has the potential to enhance clinical benefit, as the combination of azelastine and FP nasal sprays reduce symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients more than either agent alone. Azelastine nasal spray has an excellent safety profile.

Review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of azelastine hydrochloride

Rhinitis is one of the most common diseases in the general population. Although it is not a life-threatening condition, rhinitis can cause significant discomfort and, therefore, negatively impact quality of life. Several treatment options are available; however, optimal relief of symptoms is difficult to achieve for most patients. Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray is the only prescription intranasal antihistamine available in the USA, and is approved for treating symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. Oral formulations of azelastine are available outside the USA for use in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, asthma and urticaria. Azelastine hydrochloride has demonstrated a favorable safety profile during approximately 20 years of clinical use.

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Reformulated Azelastine Nasal Spray in Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine with a distinctive taste that may be objectionable to some patients. The primary objectives of this clinical trial were (1) to determine if a reformulated azelastine nasal spray (Astepro) with sucralose as a taste-masking agent provides comparable efficacy to the original formulation (Astelin) and (2) to evaluate dose–response relationships between groups.

Methods

Eight hundred thirty-five patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomized to six treatment groups: (1) original azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (2) reformulated azelastine, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (3) placebo, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (4) original azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d., (5) reformulated, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.; and (6) placebo, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion.

Results

Original azelastine nasal spray and the reformulated spray produced comparable improvements in the TNSS at both dosages. There was a dose-related difference in TNSS comparing the 1- and 2-spray dosages. The percentage changes from baseline in the TNSS in the 2-sprays/nostril dosage groups were 27.9% (p < 0.001) with the reformulated nasal spray, 23.5% (p < 0.01) with the original formulation, and 15.4% with placebo. The incidence of bitter taste was 7% with the reformulated spray and 8% with the original at the 2-sprays/nostril dosage.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed efficacy both with original azelastine nasal spray and with the reformulated nasal spray and a clear dose–response difference between the 1- and 2-spray dosages.

Update on prescription and over-the-counter histamine inverse agonists in rhinitis therapy

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is associated with histamine-mediated physiologic events. The currently used histamine antagonists are all inverse agonists that bind and inactivate histamine H1 receptors. Second-generation antihistamines are much more H1-receptor selective with less central nervous system penetration than first-generation agents. Antihistamines typically are more effective in seasonal than perennial AR and do not demonstrate significant relief of nasal congestion. The recent availability of some second-generation antihistamines as over-the-counter products clearly places them as the preferred first-line treatment for mild to moderate AR based on safety when compared with first-generation over-the-counter antihistamines. The remaining prescription-only second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine, desloratadine, and levocetirizine, all have unique attributes. Antihistamines in oral, intranasal, or intraocular formulations will likely remain among the mainstays of allergy therapeutics.

The effects of the nasal antihistamines olopatadine and azelastine in nasal allergen provocation

BACKGROUND

Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model.

METHODS

The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids.

RESULTS

Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.

ARIA-suggested drugs for allergic rhinitis: what impact on quality of life? A GA2LEN review

Allergic diseases constitute a global health problem, as they have an increasing economic and social impact and, especially, they can deeply interfere with the patients' daily life, being a cause of physical and emotional discomfort. This is why the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) has become increasingly important in health care research; in fact, the assessment of the impact the disease and its treatment have on patients, provides a more comprehensive approach in outcome evaluation. Numerous validated questionnaires are available and many studies have been performed evaluating HRQoL in people affected by allergic rhinitis (AR), thus testifying a great interest in this topic. The aims of the present review are: to examine the scientific literature of the last 3 years dealing with the impact of AR treatments suggested by allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma guidelines on patients' QoL, and to identify the unexplored or not-fully-investigated areas concerning this issue.

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.

A novel and effective approach to treating rhinitis with nasal antihistamines

OBJECTIVES

To review existing treatments for rhinitis and summarize data available on the use of a nasal antihistamine (azelastine) in treating allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles and references published between 1995 and 2007 regarding the treatment of allergic and vasomotor rhinitis were identified from PubMed, review articles, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

All key relevant articles were reviewed and the most relevant selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

The efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in treating allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis have been determined in a number of U.S. multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In all trials, azelastine was associated with a rapid onset of action and a sustained improvement over time in rhinitis, congestion, and other symptoms. In patients with allergic rhinitis, the combination of azelastine and nasal corticosteroids increased treatment efficacy by more than 40% compared with either product alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal antihistamine therapy represents an effective mode of drug delivery in patients with allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis and is an important option for rhinitis therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required or if congestion is a major symptom. Use of azelastine plus nasal corticosteroids is effective in both allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis, suggesting that this combination represents an effective treatment strategy for all patients with either allergic or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

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.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database.

PATIENTS

Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46).

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.

Impact of azelastine nasal spray on symptoms and quality of life compared with cetirizine oral tablets in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In fall 2004, the first Azelastine Cetirizine Trial demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores with the use of azelastine nasal spray vs oral cetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of azelastine nasal spray vs cetirizine on the TNSS and RQLQ scores in patients with SAR.

METHODS

This 2-week, double-blind, multicenter trial randomized 360 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR to azelastine, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, or cetirizine, 10-mg tablets once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the 12-hour reflective TNSS (rhinorrhea, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion). Secondary efficacy variables were individual symptom scores and the RQLQ score.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray and cetirizine significantly improved the TNSS and individual symptoms compared with baseline (P < .001). The TNSS improved by a mean of 4.6 (23.9%) with azelastine nasal spray compared with 3.9 (19.6%) with cetirizine. Significant differences favoring azelastine nasal spray were seen for the individual symptoms of sneezing and nasal congestion. Improvements in the RQLQ overall (P = .002) and individual domain (P < or = .02) scores were greater with azelastine nasal spray. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray and cetirizine effectively treated nasal symptoms in patients with SAR. Improvements in the TNSS and individual symptoms favored azelastine over cetirizine, with significant differences for nasal congestion and sneezing. Azelastine nasal spray significantly improved the RQLQ overall and domain scores compared with cetirizine.