As-Needed Versus Regular Use of Fluticasone Furoate Nasal Spray in Patients with Moderate to Severe, Persistent, Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Advances and future perspectives of intranasal drug delivery: A scientometric review

Intranasal drug delivery is as a noninvasive and efficient approach extensively utilized for treating the local, central nervous system, and systemic diseases. Despite numerous reviews delving into the application of intranasal drug delivery across biomedical fields, a comprehensive analysis of advancements and future perspectives remains elusive. This review elucidates the research progress of intranasal drug delivery through a scientometric analysis. It scrutinizes several challenges to bolster research in this domain, encompassing a thorough exploration of entry and elimination mechanisms specific to intranasal delivery, the identification of drugs compatible with the nasal cavity, the selection of dosage forms to surmount limited drug-loading capacity and poor solubility, and the identification of diseases amenable to the intranasal delivery strategy. Overall, this review furnishes a perspective aimed at galvanizing future research and development concerning intranasal drug delivery.

Global expert views on the diagnosis, classification and pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis in clinical practice using a modified Delphi panel technique

Background

Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) varies considerably despite the availability of treatment guidelines.

Objectives

We aimed to carry out a two-part modified Delphi panel study to elucidate global expert management of AR in real life.

Methods

The modified Delphi panel study was composed of two ten-minute online questionnaires sent to global AR experts, aiming to identify areas of consensus (defined as >75% respondent agreement) on aspects of their real-world daily practice related to AR diagnosis, classification, and pharmacotherapy. A workshop discussion with respondents held after the first-round questionnaire informed the development of the second-round questionnaire.

Results

Eighteen experts (from 7 countries across 3 continents) completed both questionnaires in September-October 2021 and January 2022, respectively. The majority of respondents agreed that diagnosis of AR is best confirmed using a mixture of observation and testing (n = 15) and collaborating with colleagues across other specialties (n = 14). Experts agreed that severity (n = 18), upper/lower respiratory tract involvement (n = 15) and symptom frequency (n = 14) are important factors when classifying AR, however consensus was not reached on which classification tool should be used. Although there were mixed opinions on the preferred pharmacotherapy treatment in the presented case studies, respondents largely agreed on which treatments require less monitoring (intranasal corticosteroid therapies [INCS]) and when treatments should be stepped down (≤3 months). Although opinions varied across respondents, some respondents considered as-needed INCS treatment and surgery to be viable treatment options.

Conclusion

We identified clear differences between real-world practice and treatment guidelines related to the management of AR. Furthermore, we recognized differences among physicians concerning their clinical practice in the pharmacological treatment of AR. These findings highlight the need for greater research into the management of AR and further indicate there is still a major gap between treatment guidelines and daily practice, even among specialists, suggesting a need for local guideline adaptation and implementation plans.

Clinical response to varying pollen exposure in allergic rhinitis in children in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10-15% of children. Symptoms in seasonal AR are influenced by pollen exposure. Pollen counts vary throughout the pollen season and therefore, symptom severity fluctuates. This study investigates the correlation between pollen concentration and symptom load in children with AR in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was performed in a study determining the most effective treatment for children with seasonal AR. Symptoms were measured during three months in 2013 and 2014 using a daily symptom diary. The pollen concentration was measured with a Hirst type volumetric spore trap sampler. A correlation coefficient was calculated for the correlation between the pollen concentration and the mean daily symptom score. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethical review committee of the Erasmus MC and is incorporated in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (EUCTR2012-001,591-11-NL).

RESULTS

In 2014, the correlation coefficient for birch pollen concentration and symptom score was 0.423 (p = 0.000). The correlation coefficient for grass pollen concentration and symptom score was 0.413 (p = 0.000) and 0.655 (p = 0.000) in 2013 and 2014, respectively. A delayed correlation between the birch pollen concentration and the symptom scores was seen up to two days after the pollen measurement (0.151, p = 0.031). For grass pollen this effect lasted up to three days after the pollen measurement (0.194, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

We found comparable correlations between symptom score and pollen concentration as found by EAACI. Birch and grass pollen have an elongated influence on symptom score of several days. This implies patients need to continue on demand medication longer after a measured pollen peak.

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.

Development and Evaluation of a Nomogram for INCS Insensitivity in Chinese Adults with Allergic Rhinitis

Objective

The objective of this study was to design and validate a nomogram of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) insensitivity for adult patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

Training and validation datasets comprised randomly divided groups of AR patients diagnosed between 2019 and 2022, with a 7 : 3 ratio. These patients were categorized according to their INCS insensitivity status, and LASSO and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associated risk factors. These factors were incorporated into a nomogram for predicting INCS insensitivity. The performance of the nomogram was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and discrimination techniques.

Results

In this study, 313 patients were included, of which 120 (38.3%) showed INCS insensitivity. The type of AR, comorbidities, family history of AR, and duration of AR were identified as predictors and incorporated into the nomogram using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and multivariate logistic regression. The calibration curves showed excellent agreement between predicted and actual probabilities of INCS insensitivity in both the training and validation sets. The area under the curve values observed in the validation set were 0.918 (95% confidence interval, 0.859-0.943), and 0.932 (95% confidence interval, 0.849-0.953) in the training set, indicating strong performance on both sets. Decision curve analysis showed that the constructed nomogram yielded a net clinical benefit for AR patients.

Conclusion

The nomogram constructed from risk predictors of INCS insensitivity in patients with AR demonstrated strong predictive power and enabled clinicians to identify high-risk patients, aiding them in developing an optimal treatment plan for AR.

The Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Approach of Value-Added Medicines: As-Needed Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis

Drug repurposing is a major field of value-added medicine. It involves investigating and evaluating existing drugs for new therapeutic purposes that address unmet healthcare needs. Several unmet needs in allergic rhinitis could be improved by drug repurposing. This could be game-changing for disease management. Current medications for allergic rhinitis are centered on continuous long-term treatment, and medication registration is based on randomized controlled trials carried out for a minimum of 14 days with adherence of 70% or greater. A new way of treating allergic rhinitis is to propose as-needed treatment depending on symptoms, rather than classical continuous treatment. This rostrum will discuss existing clinical trials on as-needed treatment for allergic rhinitis and real-world data obtained by the mobile health app MASK-air, which focuses on digitally-enabled, patient-centered care pathways.

Different Methods and Formulations of Drugs and Vaccines for Nasal Administration

Nasal drug delivery is advantageous when compared with other routes of drug delivery as it avoids the hepatic first-pass effect, blood–brain barrier penetration, and compliance issues with parenteral administration. However, nasal administration also has some limitations, such as its low bioavailability due to metabolism on the mucosal surface, and irreversible damage to the nasal mucosa due to the ingredients added into the formula. Moreover, the method of nasal administration is not applicable to all drugs. The current review presents the nasal anatomy and mucosal environment for the nasal delivery of vaccines and drugs, as well as presents various methods for enhancing nasal absorption, and different drug carriers and delivery devices to improve nasal drug delivery. It also presents future prospects on the nasal drug delivery of vaccines and drugs.

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray (INCS) is commonly used by patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have suboptimal symptom control. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of as-needed INCS for treating AR.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials studying the effects of as-needed INCS compared to regular INCS, as-needed antihistamine, or placebo were performed. Primary outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and disease-specific quality of life (DSQoL).

RESULTS

Eight studies (882 participants) met the criteria. Regular use of INCS showed greater improvements than as-needed INCS in TNSS, DSQoL, nasal peak inspiratory flow, sneezing, and nasal congestion scores with small effect sizes. There were no differences between regular and as-needed INCS usage for ocular symptoms, symptom-free days, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea scores. As-needed INCS was superior to as-needed antihistamine and placebo with medium effect sizes. There were no differences in risk of adverse events between the groups in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of INCS improved total nasal symptoms score and DSQoL better than as-needed INCS. However, as-needed INCS improved TNSS better than as-needed antihistamine and placebo. The effects of as-needed INCS were closer to regular INCS usage than to placebo or as-needed AH usage.