Evaluation of patients' preferences for triamcinolone acetonide aqueous, fluticasone propionate, and mometasone furoate nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis

Predicting Adherence to Topical Medications in Chronic Rhinologic Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors of medical adherence and describe strategies to increase adherence in patients with chronic rhinologic disease.

DATA SOURCES

PubMED, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review of 4 databases (PubMED, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane) from inception of databases to September 1, 2022 to identify studies that evaluated factors related to and affected by medical adherence in patients with chronic rhinologic disease.

RESULTS

Of 1491 studies screened, 25 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 7 studies described how sensory attributes of intranasal sprays affect adherence, including odor, taste, aftertaste, and side effects. Five studies described record keeping diaries/notification systems to improve adherence, with demonstration of web-based platforms to send reminders as well as keep record of medication usage to improve adherence. Eight studies described patient-specific risk factors to nonadherence, with demonstration of increased age and conscientious personalities correlating with medical adherence. Five studies looked at pediatric patients specifically, with adherence rates in children parallelling that of adults. Additionally, nonadherence in children may have greater implications for school performance.

CONCLUSION

Overall, adherence to topical medical therapy in patients with chronic rhinologic disease is affected by patient-related and medication-specific factors which should be considered when counseling patients. Web-based diary or notification systems may help increase adherence. Additionally, children are equally adherent to topical medical therapy as adults and nonadherence may have negative implications for school performance.

Development and validation of a product acceptability questionnaire for intranasal Q-Griffithsin COVID-19 prophylaxis (SPRAY PAL)

OBJECTIVES

Patient experiences are critical when determining the acceptability of novel interventional pharmaceuticals. Here, we report the development and validation of a product acceptability questionnaire (SPRAY PAL) assessing feasibility, acceptability and tolerability of an intranasal Q-Griffithsin (Q-GRFT) drug product designed for COVID-19 prophylaxis.

DESIGN

SPRAY PAL validation was undertaken as part of an ongoing phase 1 clinical trial designed to test the safety, pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intranasally administered Q-GRFT for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SETTING

The phase 1 clinical trial took place at a University Outpatient Clinical Trials Unit from November 2021 to September 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

The initial SPRAY PAL questionnaire was piloted among healthy volunteers ages 25 to 55 in phase 1a of the clinical trial (N=18) and revised for administration in phase 1b for participants ages 24-59 (N=22).

RESULTS

Spearman correlations tested convergent and discriminant validity. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients of responses collected from three repeated questionnaire administrations. The initial version demonstrated excellent internal consistency. The revised version demonstrated very good internal consistency after removal of one item (alpha=0.739). Excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient=0.927) and adequate convergent (r's=0.208-0.774) and discriminant (r's=0.123-0.392) validity were achieved. Subscales adequately distinguished between the constructs of acceptability, feasibility and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPRAY PAL product acceptability questionnaire is a valid and reliable patient-reported outcomes measure that can be considered a credible tool for assessing patient-reported information about product acceptability, feasibility of use, tolerability of product and side effects and cost of product for novel intranasal drug formulations. The SPRAY PAL is generalisable, and items may be readily adapted to assess other intranasal formulations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT05122260 and NCT05437029.

Geographic Variation in Otolaryngologist Intranasal Steroid Prescribing Patterns Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are a commonly prescribed medication to treat various rhinological conditions. However, no prior studies have looked at factors and patterns that influence the rates of INCS prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the patterns of INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

Data on the most common INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries were obtained from the 2013 to 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) and the Part D Public Use Files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). INCS prescriptions were analyzed by cost, state, provider, and regional temperature. State temperature data was collected through the National Centers for Environmental Information.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the total claims per beneficiary for fluticasone, mometasone, and triamcinolone combined increased from 2.31 to 2.39. Combined cost/beneficiary was similar for mometasone and triamcinolone at 102.47 and 103.60 respectively, while it was much lower for fluticasone at 39.12. There was a strong correlation between otolaryngology providers per beneficiary in each state and total claims per state with a correlation coefficient of .79. Additionally, comparing the average state temperature to the claims/beneficiary yielded a moderately strong correlation coefficient of .44, suggesting that temperature was a possible factor for INCS prescription patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists and the number of INCS beneficiaries have increased between 2013 and 2017. Over the same time period, the costs of fluticasone and triamcinolone have decreased while the cost of mometasone increased. Total providers by state correlated with claims per state. Additionally, average annual temperature was positively correlated with INCS claims per beneficiary in each state.

Bioactive components of different nasal spray solutions may defeat SARS-Cov2: repurposing and in silico studies

The recent outbreak "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" is caused by fast-spreading and highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2). This virus enters into the human respiratory system by binding of the viral surface spike glycoprotein (S-protein) to an angiotensin-converting enzyme2 (ACE2) receptor that is found in the nasal passage and oral cavity of a human. Both spike protein and the ACE2 receptor have been identified as promising therapeutic targets to develop anti-SARS-CoV2 drugs. No therapeutic drugs have been developed as of today except for some vaccines. Therefore, potent therapeutic agents are urgently needed to combat the COVID-19 infections. This goal would be achieved only by applying drug repurposing and computational approaches. Thus, based on drug repurposing approach, we have investigated 16 bioactive components (1-16) from different nasal spray solutions to check their efficacies against human ACE2 and SARS-CoV2 spike proteins by performing molecular docking and molecular dynamic (MD) simulation studies. In this study, three bioactive components namely ciclesonide (8), levocabastine (13), and triamcinolone acetonide (16) have been found as promising inhibitory agents against SARS-CoV2 spike and human ACE2 receptor proteins with excellent binding affinities, comparing to reference drugs such as nafamostat, arbidol, losartan, and benazepril. Furthermore, MD simulations were performed (triplicate) for 100 ns to confirm the stability of 8, 13, and 16 with said protein targets and to compute MM-PBSA-based binding-free energy calculations. Thus, bioactive components 8, 13, and 16 open the door for researchers and scientist globally to investigate them against SARS-CoV2 through in vitro and in vivo analysis.

The Efficacy of Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Combined With Triamcinolone Acetonide Aqueous Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Objective

We aimed to investigate the efficacy of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) combined with triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (TAA AQ) for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Methods

From December 2019 to June 2021, 109 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were classified into a control group (n = 50) and an experimental group (n = 59) according to the method of treatment. Subjects in the control group were treated with FESS while those in the experimental group were treated with FESS + TAA AQ. We then compared clinical indices, total effective rate, and the clinical symptoms of patients between the two groups. The pre- and postoperative serum levels of inflammatory cytokines were also determined. Before and 12 months after surgery, we analyzed the recovery of the nasal mucosa, olfactory function, and mucociliary transport rate of each patient. Postoperative complications were observed and recorded and the quality-of-life 12 months after surgery was ascertained.

Results

Clinical indices and total effective rate were higher in the experimental group. After treatment, the VAS score and serum levels of inflammatory cytokines in the two groups both decreased, although the experimental group had lower VAS scores and inflammatory cytokine levels. Six months after treatment, olfactory function, and the recovery of nasal mucosa were improved, MTR had increased, and the total incidence of complications had reduced in the experimental group when compared with the control group. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of quality-of-life (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The combination of FESS and TAA AQ exerted a certain therapeutic effect on chronic rhinosinusitis.

Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Background

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy, safety, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of once-daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS), fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS), mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), and triamcinolone aqueous nasal spray (TANS) for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adult patients.

Methods

A MEDLINE search (1966 to January 2004) was conducted to identify potentially relevant English language articles. Pertinent abstracts from recent allergy society meetings were identified also. The medical subject heading search terms included were intranasal corticosteroid (INS), nasal steroid, BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS and AR. Selected studies were randomized, controlled, comparison trials of patients with AR treated with once-daily BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS.

Results

All four INSs administered once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of AR in adult patients, with similar efficacy and adverse event profiles. No differences were seen between INSs in systemic effects, except for significantly lower overnight urinary cortisol levels in healthy volunteers treated with FPNS compared with placebo. Based on sensory attributes, patients preferred BANS and TANS versus MFNS and FPNS. BANS was associated with more days of treatment per prescription at a lower cost per day for adults compared with the other INSs and is the only INS with a pregnancy category B rating.

Conclusion

BANS, FPNS, MFNS, and TANS have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Differences in sensory attributes, documented safety during pregnancy, and cost may contribute to better patient acceptance of one INS versus another and promote better adherence to therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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.

Adherence to pharmacological treatment and specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

The term compliance simply indicates how much doses of the prescribed medication are taken, whereas the term adherence implies also an agreement between patient and physician about the therapeutic plan, and it is therefore preferred. Adherence is a main problem in all long-term treatments. Thus, it represents a problem also in the case of rhinitis, expecially concerning specific immunotherapy that must be assumed continuously for several years. Many factors can affect the adherence, depending on patient, on treatment itself and on the healthcare context, and all those factors usually interact. The adherence measured in controlled trials is usually good, but this does not reflect what happens in real life, where adherence should be preferably measured. There are few data on the adherence in real life for pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (e.g. nasal steroids or antihistamines), whereas more data are available for specific immunotherapy. In this latter case, in real life, adherence seems to be far from optimal, for both sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy, although the recent studies agree on the fact that some interventions (i.e. patients' education, strict follow-up, regular contacts) could effectively improve the adherence. In this article, the literature concerning the adherence to pharmacological treatments and immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis was searched and reviewed.

Assessment of Patient Attitudes About Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray: The Ease-of-Use Patient Survey

Background

Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are recommended as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of an INS delivery system on patient satisfaction. Unless patients use a medication appropriately and consistently, they will not fully benefit from its therapeutic effects.

Objective

To determine whether the characteristics of the mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) delivery device are an impediment to its use.

Methods/Database

A random sample of preidentified MFNS users was recruited through e-mail (N = 1544). In online interviews, participants were asked about MFNS ease of use and attributes.

Results

Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported that MFNS is easy to use, and 96% said that the applicator is easy to administer. Nearly all elderly users and users with arthritis said that the applicator fits comfortably in the nostril (96% and 97%, respectively) and is appropriately sized (97% and 96%, respectively); 96% of pediatric users agreed that the applicator fits comfortably. All users said the applicator's ease of use and comfortable fit were its most important attributes.

Conclusions

The perceived ease of use of MFNS may help providers appropriately treat patients with allergic rhinitis and may improve patient adherence to INS use.

Psychometric validation of the experience with allergic rhinitis nasal spray questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Patient experience and preference are critical factors influencing compliance in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) receiving intranasal corticosteroids. The Experience with Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray Questionnaire (EARNS-Q) was developed to measure subject experiences with and preferences for nasal sprays.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the psychometric validation of the EARNS-Q modules.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with subjects aged 18-65 years with physician-diagnosed vasomotor, seasonal, and/or perennial allergic rhinitis who were using a prescription nasal spray. Subjects completed the experience module of the EARNS-Q and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire with Medication (TSQM) at baseline and after 2 weeks. Further validation analyses were conducted in a 3-week, randomized, single-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical study in which subjects ≥18 years of age with documented seasonal AR received flunisolide and beclomethasone and completed the EARNS-Q experience module on days 1 and 8, the EARNS-Q preference module on day 22, and the TSQM on days 8 and 22.

RESULTS

The observational and clinical studies were completed by 121 and 89 subjects, respectively. Both modules demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.72 experience module; α = 0.93 preference module global scores) and validity (intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC 0.64 to 0.82 test-retest validity). Correlations among the experience and preference modules were moderate (r = 0.39 to 0.79) and within internal consistency reliability estimates, indicating measurement of distinct constructs.

CONCLUSION

The EARNS-Q is a patient-reported outcomes measure that enables reliable and valid measurement of subject experience with, and preference for, prescription intranasal corticosteroid sprays for allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal Mometasone Furoate for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic nasal disease that affects the upper respiratory tract. This disorder is characterized by inflammation of the mucous membranes and it manifests with several nasal symptoms accompanied sometimes by non-nasal symptoms. Best therapy aims to prevent and improve the AR-clinical picture. Steroids have an important role in the treatment of AR. The development of steroids administrated directly on nasal mucosa has much reduced the systemic adverse affects associated with oral steroids therapy. Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray is a synthetic steroid assessed for intranasal use in the therapy of adults and children affected by AR. Such topical nasal steroid is an effective molecule improving clinical picture of AR and it is also approved as prophylactic therapy. In this article, apart from a careful description of its successful clinical use the authors review pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of such steroid molecule.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

To compare preferences for fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays after 1 week of treatment in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR.

METHODS

Patients with seasonal AR were enrolled (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to active treatment (fluticasone furoate, 110 microg, or fluticasone propionate, 200 microg, followed by crossover treatment for 1 week each) or matched placebo sequence with a 1-week washout before crossover dosing. Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate efficacy was measured by change from baseline during 1 week in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) that assessed severity of rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing. Patient preference for fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate was assessed at the end of the study by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty patients from 29 clinical sites in the Unites States were randomized and treated between August 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007. Most patients were white (73%) and female (59%), with a mean age of 38.3 years, and had had seasonal AR for at least 10 years (74%). Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate each reduced the daily rTNSS compared with their respective placebos (least squares mean [SD] difference, -0.8 [0.24], P < .001, and -0.6 [0.24], P = .01, respectively). More patients (P < .001) preferred fluticasone furoate to fluticasone propionate based on attributes of scent or odor (58% vs 27%), aftertaste (60% vs 18%), leaking out of the nose and down the throat (59% vs 21%), and mist gentleness (57% vs 26%). No statistically significant differences were seen in preferences regarding ease of use, delivery method, or device comfort.

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate significantly improved symptoms in adult patients with seasonal AR. Most patients preferred the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate to those of fluticasone propionate after 1 week of treatment.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF.

CONCLUSION

In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Pediatric allergy medications: review of currently available formulations

BACKGROUND

Allergy affects about 50% of the pediatric population globally. Allergic rhinitis (AR), one form of allergy, causes considerable impairment in quality of life, including disruption of sleep and, in children, interference with school attendance and performance.

SCOPE

Traditional formulations and delivery systems - tablets, capsules, or intranasal sprays - successfully used by adults for treatment of AR may not be as easily administered in children. Liquid oral medications are more readily taken by children but contain sugars and excipients; they can also be inconvenient with less accurate dosing and are associated with dental caries and gastrointestinal upset.

METHODOLOGY

This review evaluated medications for treatment of AR currently available for pediatric patients and identified the attitudes of parents and health care professionals toward these medications. Guidelines from international organizations and governmental websites were reviewed for recommendations and product labeling requirements. A Medline search was conducted using the terms dyes, excipients, palatability, prescribing habits, sugar, among others.

FINDINGS

In recent years, governmental regulatory agencies and professional organizations in Europe and the United States have recommended avoidance of sugar in pediatric medicines and required stricter labeling of their ingredients. Public awareness about the adverse effects of sugar and some excipients has also increased, and parents more frequently express the desire for safer and more convenient medicines for their children. In response, more sugar-free, dye-free liquid medicines and other formulations, such as granules, filmstrips, chewable tablets, fast-dissolving tablets, and drops, are becoming available for pediatric use.

LIMITATIONS

Data from well-designed trials conducted in children for the treatment of AR are lacking. In addition, the possibility of a social response bias may exist for parents and physicians about sugar and other ingredients in children's medications.

CONCLUSION

Treatment for AR is often long-term, particularly in persistent AR; therefore, safety, tolerability, convenience, and patient/parental acceptance are important considerations when deciding which medication to prescribe.

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults

BACKGROUND

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR.

METHODS

This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.

Diagnosis and management of nasal congestion: the role of intranasal corticosteroids

Nasal congestion is considered the most bothersome of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and can significantly impair ability to function at work, home, and school. Effective management of AR-related nasal congestion depends on accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Many individuals with AR and AR-related congestion remain undiagnosed and do not receive prescription medication. However, new tools intended to improve the diagnosis of nasal congestion have been developed and validated. Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AR and also when nasal congestion is a prominent symptom. Double blind, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated greater efficacy of INSs versus placebo, antihistamines, or montelukast for relief of all nasal symptoms, especially congestion. Patient adherence to treatment also affects outcomes, and this may be influenced by patient preferences for the sensory attributes of an individual drug. Increased awareness of the effects of AR-related nasal congestion, the efficacy and safety of available pharmacotherapies, and barriers to adherence may improve clinical outcomes.

Intranasal corticosteroids: the development of a drug delivery device for fluticasone furoate as a potential step toward improved compliance

Devices for the aqueous delivery of intranasal corticosteroids to patients with allergic rhinitis have been available since 1984, so there is a need for new devices to be developed to provide ease of use, efficacy and safety. A novel drug delivery system has been developed for fluticasone furoate (FF; GlaxoSmithKline): a new enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with a scent-free formulation. The FF system was developed, giving attention to patients' unmet needs, in order to promote acceptance and compliance. It demonstrates a number of key features including its ergonomic design, side-actuation system and short delivery nozzle. Exploiting issues with present devices highlighted the need for the FF system. This review reports data from key studies and surveys conducted by GlaxoSmithKline during development, to determine ease of use and acceptance of the FF system. Findings suggest that the FF system should aid in improving attitudes to the use of intranasal corticosteroids amongst physicians and patients.