Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

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.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.

Clinically relevant outcome measures for new pharmacotherapy, allergen avoidance and immunotherapy trials in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview on both primary and secondary measures of efficacy of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) patients. In particular, this review highlights similarities and differences regarding endpoints in trials involving allergen immunotherapy (AIT), pharmacotherapy and allergen avoidance and addresses unmet needs regarding these measures in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) proposed a standard for the definition of the primary endpoint for AIT trials in ARC and, moreover, emphasized the advantages and disadvantages as well as unmet needs considering outcome measures for this treatment. Recently, as an (indirect) comparison of clinical efficacy of different interventions, the relative clinical impact (RCI) has been used to determine the percentage reduction of symptom scores in active versus placebo treatment.

SUMMARY

Several primary and secondary clinical endpoints of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in ARC patients such as AIT or pharmacotherapy have been proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Moreover, recommendations for the implication of these endpoints in clinical trials have been promoted by academia such as the World Allergy Organization (WAO) or the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI).However, an urgent need for the future will be a thorough international harmonization regarding the definition of clinical endpoints, timing of assessments of clinical efficacy and determination of the clinically meaningful and relevant magnitude of efficacy of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in ARC patients.

Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) by providing direct delivery of medication to the nasal mucosa, reducing the potential for systemic adverse effects, decreasing burden of disease, and improving quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review currently available intranasal sprays indicated for maintenance therapy of AR in the United States: intranasal antihistamines (INAH); intranasal corticosteroids (INCS); and MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of the INAH, azelastine hydrochloride, and the INCS, fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

MEDLINE searches were conducted to identify placebo-controlled studies of commercially available prescription nasal sprays at U.S.-approved doses and indications, and published after an earlier systematic review of AR treatment. Inclusion criteria were ≥20 subjects; duration of ≥2 weeks for seasonal (or episodic) AR, ≥4 weeks for perennial (or persistent) AR, and reporting a total nasal symptom score as a primary or secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 pediatric, 16 adult/adolescent. There were 4 perennial AR studies (381 children, 1607 adults) and 16 seasonal AR trials (3081 children, 6548 adults). In these studies, 2451 subjects (481 children, 1970 adults) received an INCS, 3001 (1116 children, 1885 adults) received an INAH, and 346 adult subjects received MP-AzeFlu. All active treatments were well tolerated and effective as measured by the reduction in nasal symptoms. Head-to-head comparisons were only available for MP-AzeFlu versus the individual active agent components. MP-AzeFlu provided significantly greater symptom relief than either azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone and with an onset starting at 30 minutes after the dose.

CONCLUSION

The most recent addition to intranasal sprays for the maintenance therapy of AR is MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system. Analysis of clinical data showed this to be the first new intranasal medication that provides greater clinical benefit than an INCS in treating AR.

A meta-analysis of sublingual allergen immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal glucocorticosteroids - not only in allergic rhinitis In the 40th anniversary of intranasal glucocorticosteroids' introduction

It has been 40 years since Niels Mygind's publication in British Medical Journal on intranasal application of beclomethasone dipropionate aerosol in allergic rhinitis (AR). Since then a new era in treatment of allergic and nonallergic upper airway diseases began. This publication presents current concepts on application of intranasal glucocorticosteroids (inGCS) in treatment of upper airway diseases and in particular of AR and rhinosinusitis. Nonquestionable advantage of inGCS is their strong anti-inflammatory local action with little impact on general health responsible for few and benign side effects. Main way of action of glucocorticosteroids is connected with binding to the intracellular glucocorticosteroid receptor and its impact on nuclear cytoplasmic transcriptional factors. Glucocorticosteroids suppress gene expression of factors responsible for generating and supporting inflammatory processes, proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines production, and adhesive molecules expression. It appears that glucocorticosteroids have also other mechanisms of action, non-involving intracellular receptors, leading to inhibition of early and late phase of allergic reaction. At the moment the following glucocorticosteroids are registered in Poland: beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, and mometasone furoate. Furoates earn special attention as their lateral furoate ester chain makes the molecules highly lipophilic, and hence easily absorbed by nasal mucous membranes, epithelium and cell membrane phospholipids. This minimizes their general action and maximizes local action. According to current state of knowledge topical glucocorticosteroids are used in the following upper airway diseases with different inflammatory mechanisms: AR, non-AR, particularly NARES, acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps, adenoid hypertrophy and rhinitis in bronchial asthma.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray relieves the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have examined the effects of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) in relieving the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis. However, because most of these studies were based on subjective assessments by patients, the associated factors and mechanism of action are unknown.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was carried out in which patients with SAR were randomly assigned to an INS mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) group or to a placebo group and treated once daily for 4 weeks. Substance P concentrations in tears were measured, ocular and nasal symptoms were recorded by patients in an allergy diary, and findings were recorded by an ophthalmologist.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of substance P concentration in tears after 4 weeks of treatment, but the mean change tended to increase in the placebo group and tended to decrease in the MFNS group (P = 0.089). All ocular and nasal symptom scores, except eye tearing, were significantly lower in the MFNS group than in the placebo group. Furthermore, substance P concentrations were strongly correlated with ocular and nasal symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with SAR, INSs tend to decrease the substance P concentration in tears, which is correlated with the severity of ocular and nasal symptoms.

Twenty-Four–hour Duration of Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Clinical Evidence and Relevance

Background

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms are often most severe and/or disruptive during overnight and morning hours, resulting in cognitive/performance impairments and reduced quality of life throughout the following day. Surveys of allergy patients and health care practitioners reveal a common perception that intranasal steroids (INSs), many of which are dosed q.d., fail to adequately relieve symptoms for a full 24 hours. This review assessed whether perceptions of the 24-hour duration of action of INSs correspond with duration of action documented in clinical literature.

Methods

SAR clinical trial literature of the last 5 years was reviewed to identify studies of INSs incorporating morning instantaneous (A.M. NOW) or instantaneous assessments of 24-hour duration of action.

Results

In numerous placebo-controlled trials of INSs in patients with SAR, treatment was associated with significantly greater improvements in A.M. NOW symptoms from baseline versus placebo. For congestion, this is noteworthy, because patients often cite this symptom, especially in the morning, as the most bothersome symptom. Comparison of A.M. NOW and daily scores suggests minimal drop in efficacy at 24 hours postdose. In several studies, INS treatment was found superior to intranasal or oral antihistamines in A.M. NOW symptom improvement.

Conclusion

Once-daily INSs have potential for effective 24-hour symptom relief; however, there is an apparent disconnect between these findings and patient/physician perceptions. This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by less-than-ideal treatment adherence among “real-world” patients versus subjects treated in clinical trials. Proactive counseling can encourage proper INS use and help maximize treatment benefits.

Early interventional treatment with intranasal mometasone furoate in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety and effectiveness of early interventional treatment (EIT) with intranasal corticosteroids for seasonal allergic rhinitis. We designed a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week trial of EIT with mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis (JCCP).

METHODS

A total of 50 JCCP patients received MFNS (200μg once daily: n = 25) or placebo (n = 25) starting on February 1, 2010. Treatments continued until the end of April. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) between the MFNS and placebo groups. The secondary endpoints included comparisons of QOL, daytime sleepiness, nasal ECP levels, and safety.

RESULTS

Continuous dispersion of Japanese cedar pollen began on February 22. Although the placebo group showed a significant worsening of symptoms after the start of the continuous dispersion, no worsening occurred in the MFNS group. A significant difference in the TNSS between the two groups was seen starting at 4 weeks after the treatment. Similar results were seen for QOL and sleepiness. Nasal ECP levels in March were significantly lower in the MFNS group. A total of 56% of the MFNS group progressed to a persistent allergic rhinitis state in accordance with the ARIA classification, as opposed to 84% of the placebo group. MFNS was well tolerated, and the plasma cortisol concentrations were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EIT with MFNS for JCCP is both safe and effective. This treatment can potentially lessen symptoms and help pollinosis patients remain in the intermittent state.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

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

Impact of mometasone furoate nasal spray on individual ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are a mainstay of treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) nasal symptoms. The INS mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) has well-documented efficacy and safety for the treatment and prophylaxis of nasal symptoms of seasonal AR (SAR) and for the treatment of nasal symptoms of perennial AR (PAR). Increasing interest has focused on whether INSs, including MFNS, may have beneficial effects on the ocular symptoms frequently associated with AR.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the efficacy of MFNS 200 mcg daily in relieving ocular allergy symptoms, including itching/burning, redness, and tearing/watering in both SAR and PAR. Four PAR studies and six SAR studies are included in the analysis. A fixed-effect inverse variance model was used to calculate weighted mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison, and a combined overall treatment effect (Z) with P-value.

RESULTS

In both analyses of SAR and PAR studies, including 3132 patients, all individual ocular symptoms were reduced in patients treated with MFNS. Overall treatment effect was significant for all three individual ocular symptoms in the SAR studies (Z = 9.18 for tearing, Z = 10.15 for itching, and Z = 8.88 for redness; P < 0.00001 for all) and in the PAR studies (Z = 5.94, P < 0.00001 for tearing; Z = 2.43, P = 0.02 for itching; and Z = 2.42, P = 0.02 for redness).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the growing body of literature supporting the positive class effect of INSs, including MFNS, on ocular symptoms associated with SAR and PAR.