Safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate in pediatric patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

Efficacy and safety of various corticosteroids in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids were recommended as first-line drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) children. A variety of corticosteroids were available for clinical choice; however, which could relieve the clinical symptoms of patients to the greatest extent was currently unknown. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different corticosteroids in treating children with AR, which might provide a basis for more rational clinical treatment decisions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched, and the retrieval time range was the time from their inception to November 2023. The literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias of included studies were completed independently by two reviewers. A frequentist NMA was performed with Stata17.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs covering 10,897 participants were included. In the improvement of reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol presented the best efficacy. Regarding the incidence of adverse reactions, mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFANS) and BDP showed a good safety profile. In terms of the influence of cortisol (urinary free cortisol, plasma cortisol) and growth, no significant difference was observed between the different groups.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that BDP nasal aerosol and FFNS had best efficacy; MFANS and BDP had the best safety profile. However, this conclusion was less convincing because of the limited numbers of patients/controls and study quality.

Clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray for perennial allergic rhinitis in children: a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) versus placebo on nasal symptoms and safety in children with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted with data obtained from Medline and Embase databases up to April 2023. The population of interest was patients aged 2-12 years with perennial AR. The selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing FFNS with placebo. Outcomes of interest included the reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) and safety. To assess the minimal clinically important difference for rTNSS, the Cohen's guideline was used. If the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceeded the threshold of -0.20, effects were considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were selected. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, another evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and another evaluated both the short-term and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction over placebo in rTNSS (SMD -0.18; 95 percent CI -0.35 to -0.01, p = 0.03) in long-term treatment studies, but not in short-term treatment studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD -0.20), these results were considered clinically not relevant. Safety outcomes with FFNS were similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS, 110 μg once daily, compared to placebo, does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptom in children with perennial AR.

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.

Impact of Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids Exposure on the Risk of Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Starting in 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma recommended the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of reliever combination therapy in patients 12 years of age and older, thus dramatically increasing the population exposure to ICS. ICS and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are commonly used for a variety of respiratory diseases. Chronic steroid use is a well-known risk factor for elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma regardless of route of administration. This study aimed to determine the reported risk of glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT) and IOP elevation associated with ICS and INS use.

Materials and Methods

Systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases from the date of inception identified studies that assess ocular outcomes related to glaucoma in ICS and INS users. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were done independently in duplicate. Meta-analysis assessed glaucoma incidence, OHT incidence and IOP changes in patients using ICS and INS. Study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Study protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020190241.

Results

Qualitative and quantitative analyses included 65 and 41 studies, respectively. Incidence of glaucoma was not significantly different in either ICS or INS users compared to control over 45,457 person-years of follow-up. Similarly, no significant difference in OHT incidence over 4431 person-years was detected. In studies reporting IOP, a significantly higher IOP was observed (0.69 mmHg) in 857 ICS or INS users compared to 615 controls. However, no significant increase in IOP was observed within ICS or INS users when compared to pre-treatment baseline.

Conclusion

Overall, use of ICS or INS does not significantly increase the incidence of glaucoma or OHT. However, ICS and INS patients had significantly higher IOPs compared to untreated patients. Awareness of these findings is significant in care of patients with additional risk factors for glaucoma.

Safety of intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis in children

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, affecting about 10-40% of children worldwide. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are the first line anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of pediatric AR. The systemic and local adverse effects of INCSs in children with AR should be assessed.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting local and systemic adverse effects of INCSs in pediatric populations with AR were searched out of PubMed and Embase.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, INCSs displayed a favorable safety profile and high local-systemic balance of bioavailability with a low incidence of adverse events in the treatment of AR children. Nevertheless, the use of INCSs should be designed depending on one patient's response and adverse effects. The benefits and risks of INCSs should be assessed to ensure the clinical efficacy and avoid the insidious events.

The management of paediatric rhinosinusitis

Paediatric rhinosinusitis (PDRS) is commonly used as a synonym for rhinitis within healthcare. Although they may share common symptoms, the pathophysiology does differ; PDRS is the inflammation of the nasal mucosa in addition to the sinuses whereas rhinitis is the inflammation of just nasal mucosa. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and management of PDRS. There is a greater emphasis on the diagnosis and management of PDRS within this review due to a lack of clear guidelines, which can lead to the common misconception that PDRS can be treated indifferently to rhinitis and other upper respiratory conditions. PDRS has detrimental effects on children's current health, long-term health into adulthood and education. Therefore, having a comprehensive guide of PDRS would provide a greater understanding of the condition as well as improved diagnosis and management. This article primarily focuses on the position of Europe and the United Kingdom; however, the recommendations can be applied to other countries as the causes and treatments would not differ significantly.

Intranasal Steroid Use and Satisfaction in Allergic Rhinitis: A Cross-Sectional Study from an Asian Perspective

BACKGROUND

Intranasal steroid (INS) is the most effective medication class for controlling allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms; however, its effectiveness is limited by patient compliance. Previous studies have explored INS use, compliance, satisfaction, and experience. There is, however, no Asian study on these factors in entirety.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the rate of compliance to usage of INS and explore the reasons for noncompliance in our local population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study on 65 AR patients in a tertiary hospital. Recruited patients were administered a questionnaire to collect data about symptoms, INS use, and concerns they may have. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

The overall compliance rate to INS was 63.1%. Noncompliance was associated with increased frequency of dosing (p = 0.050), presence of sensory attributes (p = 0.041), and forgetfulness (p = 0.049). The top 3 most frequent sensory attributes experienced by patients include throat rundown (29.2%), aftertaste (21.5%), and immediate taste (20.0%). There was a significant difference between brands of INS with regard to sensory attributes experienced (p = 0.003) but no side effects (p = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying risk factors for noncompliance to INS can help health-care providers address difficulties faced by patients and hence increase compliance, allowing better control of AR symptoms.

Intranasal fluticasone furoate in pediatric allergic rhinitis: randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious anti-inflammatory medications for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the efficacy and safety of intranasal corticosteroids in children have not yet been subject to specific research in China. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) in a Chinese pediatric population.

METHODS

In this phase 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, pediatric AR patients aged 2-12 years were randomized 1:1:1, receiving either FFNS 55 µg or 110 µg or placebo. Electronic diary cards were completed to record symptoms, rescue medication use, and treatment compliance. Anterior rhinoscopy and overall response to therapy were evaluated and recorded.

RESULTS

Patients treated with FFNS at either dose experienced a significantly greater reduction in daily reflective total nasal symptom score compared with placebo. This was maintained in a younger subset of patients (2-6 years). Drug-related adverse events occurred in <20% of patients in all groups. FFNS was well tolerated at both doses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates favorable efficacy and safety profiles for FFNS 55 µg or 110 µg in Chinese pediatric populations (2-12 years), supporting its use in clinical treatment for AR children, including younger children aged 2-6 years.

IMPACT

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intranasal fluticasone furoate in Chinese pediatric allergic rhinitis. This research not only addresses the deficiency in efficacy and safety data for intranasal corticosteroids in very young patients (aged 2-6 years) worldwide but also demonstrates that fluticasone furoate nasal spray shows a favorable benefit/risk profile at different dose levels. Our data will be of interest to the broad readership of Pediatric Research and will positively contribute to the dialog regarding the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children aged 2-6 years.

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.

Biocompatibility and Pharmacokinetics of Fluticasone-Eluting Sinus Implant in a Rabbit Model

Background

A novel, bioabsorbable, fibrinogen-based implant has been developed as a mucosal dressing after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). This implant can be formulated with fluticasone propionate (TP) for local elution of corticosteroid to reduce postoperative inflammation and promote mucosal healing.

Objective

This study investigated the biocompatibility and pharmacokinetics of the implant in a rabbit model.

Methods

Implants with and without TP were placed on both intact and demucosalized maxillary sinuses of 33 New Zealand White rabbits. Sinuses with either intact or denuded bone without implants acted as controls. Histopathologic assessments were carried out at 5, 15, and 28 days. Concentrations of TP in the maxillary sinus mucosa, nasal cavity mucosa, and plasma were measured for up to 44 days.

Results

Implants placed on intact mucosa or denuded bone were grossly integrated within 15 days. Minimal foreign body reaction was seen with negligible differences for inflammation, fibrosis, or bone remodeling among controls, sinuses with the implant, or sinuses with the implant plus TP, at all time points. All samples also showed complete or near-complete percentage reepithelialization at 28 days, although the denuded bone controls demonstrated greater percentage reepithelialization at 5 days compared with denuded bone with the implant or implant plus TP (p <0.0001). The maxillary sinus mucosa demonstrated levels of TP of >140 ng/g up to 44 days. Plasma concentrations of TP were generally very low and were undetectable after day 7.

Conclusions

The implant and the implant plus TP seemed to be biocompatible in rabbits. The implant plus TP effectively eluted steroid locally over at least 44 days, with negligible plasma concentrations. Further studies are warranted regarding potential therapeutic applications in patients undergoing ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis.

Recent pharmacological developments in the treatment of perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a major negative impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and carries a high socio economic burden. This is particularly the case for patients who experience symptoms for extended periods of time (i.e. those with perennial (PAR) or persistent AR (PER), depending on the classification system used). This review covers available pharmacological advances and recent developments in the treatment of PAR or PER.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacological AR treatment is used to reduce symptom burden and help restore patients' normal daily routine. Traditionally, non-sedating antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) were the two drug classes recommended for use first line. These, along with antileukotrienes, decongestants, mast cell stabilizers and anticholinergics, constituted the bulk of the AR treatment arsenal. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the most recent addition to that arsenal. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered in a single spray and has surpassed available therapies in terms of symptom control and treatment response. Other relatively new treatments for PAR or PER include H3 antihistamines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, cellulose powders and micro-emulsions, novel biomolecular formulations and omalizumab. Each of these new additions is reviewed here.

EXPERT OPINION

A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.

Efficacy of MP-AzeFlu in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Importance of paediatric symptom assessment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single spray) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and explore the importance of child symptom severity assessment in paediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) trials.

METHODS

A total of 348 children (4-11 years) with moderate/severe SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Efficacy was assessed by changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual symptom scores over 14 days (children 6-11 years; n = 304), recorded by either children or caregivers. To determine whether a by-proxy effect existed, efficacy outcomes were assessed according to degree of child/caregiver rating. Moreover, total Paediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A statistically superior, clinically relevant efficacy signal of MP-AzeFlu versus placebo was apparent for PRQLQ overall score (diff: -0.29, 95% CI -0.55, -0.03; p = 0.027), but not for rTNSS (diff: -0.80; 95% CI: -1.75; 0.15; p = 0.099). However, as the extent of children's self-rating increased, so too did the treatment difference between MP-AzeFlu and placebo; MP-AzeFlu provided significantly better relief than placebo for rTNSS (p = 0.002), rTOSS (p = 0.009) and each individual nasal and ocular symptom assessed (except rhinorrhoea; p = 0.064) when children mostly rated their own symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu is an effective treatment for AR in childhood. Caregivers are less able than children to accurately assess response to treatment with available tools. A simple paediatric-specific tool to assess efficacy in AR trials in children is needed.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in Japanese children 2 to <15 years of age with perennial allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) is a glucocorticoid developed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). This study aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and systemic exposure of FFNS in Japanese children with perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 61 children aged 2 to <15 years were treated with FFNS 55 μg, once daily for 12 weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were scored by parents/guardians/patients and recorded in a patient's daily diary. In addition, rhinoscopy findings, including mucosal swelling, were scored by the investigators as an efficacy measure. As a safety measure, adverse events and clinical laboratory data were evaluated.

RESULTS

An adverse event was reported by 67% of patients during the treatment and follow-up period, all of which were mild in intensity. The most commonly reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis and acute sinusitis (acute rhinosinusitis). There were no serious adverse events. FFNS 55 μg improved nasal symptom scores and rhinoscopy findings compared with the baseline. Ocular symptom scores were also improved compared with the baseline in FFNS 55 μg in a sub-group of patients with any ocular symptoms at baseline. FFNS 55 μg was shown to be well tolerated over the 12-week treatment period. Majority of patients receiving FFNS 55 μg had unquantifiable plasma levels of fluticasone furoate (FF).

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve-week treatment with FFNS 55 μg, once daily, is well tolerated and effective with low systemic exposure in Japanese children aged 2 to <15 years with PAR.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in Japanese children with perennial allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) is a glucocorticoid developed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). This is the first randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of FFNS in Japanese children with perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study, 261 children aged 6 to <15 years were treated with FFNS 55μg, once daily or placebo for two weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were rated by parents/guardians/patients in the patient daily diary. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the three total nasal symptom score (3TNSS). In addition, rhinoscopic findings were rated by the investigators as an efficacy measure. As a safety measure, adverse events and clinical chemistry and hematology were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in 3TNSS was greater in the FFNS 55μg group compared with placebo, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Significant improvements in rhinoscopic findings of swelling of inferior turbinate mucosa and quantity of nasal discharge were also observed. The total ocular symptom score (TOSS) was reduced significantly in the FFNS 55μg group, compared with placebo, in the second week in a subgroup of patients with baseline TOSS > 0. The incidence of adverse events was similar between FFNS 55μg(18%) and placebo (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-week treatment with FFNS 55μg, once daily is effective and tolerable in Japanese children aged 6 to <15 years with PAR.

Growth velocity reduced with once-daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray in prepubescent children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The effect of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) on growth in prepubescent children has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the difference in mean prepubescent growth velocities, as determined by stadiometry, between patients treated continuously for 1 year with FFNS 110 mcg once daily and placebo nasal spray.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 76-week safety study. Nasal symptom assessments were used as a measure of adherence. Eligible patients were ages 5 to <8.5 years at screening and had at least a 1-year clinical history and diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis, including a positive skin test or specific IgE to an appropriate perennial allergen within the past year.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-six patients in the FFNS group and 187 patients in the placebo group completed the entire 52-week treatment period. During treatment, the least squares mean growth velocity was 5.19 cm/y for the FFNS group and 5.46 cm/y for the placebo group; mean difference, -0.270 cm/y (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06 cm/y). Other safety assessments, including 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion, were comparable between the treatment groups. Daily reflective total nasal symptom scores declined similarly in both the FFNS and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily treatment with FFNS over 52 weeks in prepubescent children resulted in a small reduction in growth velocity compared with placebo. Clinicians will need to balance the reduction in growth observed with FFNS to its potential for clinical benefit.

Paediatric rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.

Pneumatisation of turbinates and paranasal sinuses in children: case report

OBJECTIVE

To describe a rare case of multiple anatomical variations in the sinonasal skeleton of an adolescent with chronic rhinosinusitis, together with its successful surgical management.

CASE REPORT

A 15-year-old male adolescent was referred with a 3-year history of nasal blockage and hyposmia. His symptoms did not improve on maximal medical therapy. A pre-operative computed tomography scan revealed numerous anatomical variations in his nose and paranasal sinuses. He underwent neuronavigation-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery without complication, and with subsequent resolution of his symptoms at 10 months.

CONCLUSION

Chronic rhinosinusitis in children offers its own set of unique surgical challenges. The effectiveness and safety of sinus surgery in this population can be improved through the knowledge of anatomical variants, and is aided by the use of image guidance systems.

No mucosal atrophy and reduced inflammatory cells: active-controlled trial with yearlong fluticasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) are well tolerated and more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Effects of FFNS on the nasal histology have not been previously reported. This study examines the effects of FFNS and MFNS, administered daily for 1 year, on the nasal mucosa in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized 1:1 to q.d., open-label treatment with FFNS, 110 μg, or MFNS, 200 μg, for 1 year. These groups and a healthy control group that did not receive study medication underwent nasal biopsies at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

The nasal biopsy population comprised 96 participants (37 using FFNS, 42 using MFNS, and 17 healthy controls). Epithelial thickness did not change appreciably from baseline to week 52 in any of the groups and mean change from baseline did not differ between FFNS and MFNS (least square mean difference, -0.001 mm, 95% confidence interval, -0.007, 0.006). Although not tested for significance, improvements over baseline were observed in epithelial histology in the FFNS group with more epithelium including intact columnar and ciliated epithelial cells. No appreciable change in the percentage of goblet cells was established. FFNS and MFNS were associated with decreases in epithelial and subepithelial nasal mucosal eosinophils and basophils from baseline to week 52. The percentage of subjects with no inflammatory cells at week 52 was 49 and 33% for eosinophils and 46 and 24% for basophils, for FFNS and MFNS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Yearlong therapy with either FFNS or MFNS showed no changes in epithelial thickness or the percentage of goblet cells as well as a reduction in inflammatory cell infiltrate. FFNS was associated with improvements in epithelial histology. These data support the long-term safety of FFNS in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is the latest glucocorticoid officially approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. FF has shown the highest affinity and selectivity for the glucocorticoid receptors as well the longest tissue retention compared with other available intranasal steroids; these new pharmacologic characteristics provide the basis for its potent and prolonged anti-inflammatory activity at the target site.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review achieved through PubMed and Medline research methods supports the clinical efficacy of FF versus placebo in reducing ocular and nasal symptoms related to allergic rhinitis (at the recommended starting doses of 110 μg once daily for adults and adolescents and 55 μg once daily for children), with a good safety profile. Moreover, the present review also compares FF with other intranasal steroids: FF represents a molecular evolution of fluticasone propionate (FP), and there is scientific evidence of therapeutic advantages over FP.

EXPERT OPINION

Fluticasone furoate is a promising molecule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis as it fits fully all the official guidelines' criteria. It is now being considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacological model for glucocorticoids due to its satisfying safety/tolerability profile, both in adults and children, leads FF to be considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacologic model for glucocorticoids. More studies should be directed to assess the improvement of quality of life in subjects with allergic rhinitis treated with FF, in comparison with other intranasal steroids and even H1-antihistamines; in addition, it could be also interesting to analyze eventual, additional effects of FF in patients with bronchial asthma, which is frequently associated with allergic rhinitis.

How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is one of the treatments for allergic rhinitis. However, for allergists, nonspecialists, regulators, payers, and patients, there remain gaps in understanding the evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treating the same diseases, RCTs in SIT and pharmacotherapy should be considered separately for several reasons, as developed in this study. These include the severity and persistence of allergic rhinitis in the patients enrolled in the study, the problem of the placebo, allergen exposure (in particular pollen and mite), the analysis and reporting of the study, the level of symptoms of placebo-treated patients, the clinical relevance of the efficacy of SIT, the need for a validated combined symptom-medication score, the differences between children and adults and pharmacoeconomic analyses. This statement reviews issues raised by the interpretation of RCTs in sublingual immunotherapy. It is not possible to directly extrapolate the rules or parameters used in medication RCTs to SIT. It also provides some suggestions for the research that will be needed. Interestingly, some of the research questions can be approached with the available data obtained from large RCTs.

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.

Efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray in children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of children by age 6 years. Perennial AR (PAR) causes sleep disturbance, diminishes concentration in school, impairs psychosocial functioning, and reduces quality of life. This study evaluated efficacy and long-term safety of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in children with PAR.

METHODS

This study comprised a double-blind, 4-week efficacy and safety period followed by a 6-month, open-label safety period. Primary efficacy variable during the double-blind period was mean change in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 15. Other efficacy variables during this phase included subject-evaluated TNSS, individual nasal symptoms, and total symptom score (TSS, nasal and non-nasal symptoms, summed). Physician-evaluated improvement in overall condition of PAR was assessed during the open-label period. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Subjects aged 3-11 years with PAR (n = 381) were randomized to MFNS 100 microg (n = 190) or placebo (n = 191) daily for 4 weeks; 357 subjects continued into the open-label period, receiving MFNS only. Between baseline and day 15, significantly greater mean changes were seen with MFNS-treated patients than placebo in physician-evaluated TNSS (-2.8, -39%, vs. -2.2, -32%; p = 0.02). Statistically significant improvements in MFNS versus placebo were reported for subject-evaluated TNSS, TSS, and individual nasal symptom scores (p < or = 0.03 for all). Improvement continued through the open-label period. Subjects treated with MFNS in both periods experienced a 45% further reduction in TSS in this study phase, while those who switched from placebo to MFNS saw a further 49% decrease. MFNS was well-tolerated in both periods. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs during the double-blind period for MFNS and placebo, respectively, were epistaxis, seven (4%) and nine (5%); sneezing, five (3%) and seven (4%); headache, six (3%) and five (3%). During the open-label period, the AEs reported most often were epistaxis 37 (10%), headache nine (3%), and rhinitis 12 (3%).

LIMITATIONS

Studies in children present unique challenges because subjects are too young to grasp subjective concepts such as symptom severity, especially as rated on a numbered scale. In addition, the 6-month extension of the placebo-controlled phase used a single agent. It is also possible that subjects' symptoms could have abated independent of mometasone furoate treatment.

CONCLUSION

MFNS 100 microg/day effectively reduces TNSS, TSS (including ocular symptoms), and individual symptoms associated with PAR and is well-tolerated for up to 6 months in children aged 3-11 years with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

Treatment of congestion in upper respiratory diseases

Congestion, as a symptom of upper respiratory tract diseases including seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis, is principally caused by mucosal inflammation. Though effective pharmacotherapy options exist, no agent is universally efficacious; therapeutic decisions must account for individual patient preferences. Oral H₁-antihistamines, though effective for the common symptoms of allergic rhinitis, have modest decongestant action, as do leukotriene receptor antagonists. Intranasal antihistamines appear to improve congestion better than oral forms. Topical decongestants reduce congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, but local adverse effects make them unsuitable for long-term use. Oral decongestants show some efficacy against congestion in allergic rhinitis and the common cold, and can be combined with oral antihistamines. Intranasal corticosteroids have broad anti-inflammatory activities, are the most potent long-term pharmacologic treatment of congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, and show some congestion relief in rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Immunotherapy and surgery may be used in some cases refractory to pharmacotherapy. Steps in congestion management include (1) diagnosis of the cause(s), (2) patient education and monitoring, (3) avoidance of environmental triggers where possible, (4) pharmacotherapy, and (5) immunotherapy (for patients with allergic rhinitis) or surgery for patients whose condition is otherwise uncontrolled.

Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an open-label extension

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the most effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, available INS safety and efficacy data in children younger than 6 years are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To report the first well-controlled study assessing the safety and efficacy of an INS in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR.

METHODS

In a 4-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to receive triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (TAA AQ), 110 microg once daily, or placebo. A subset of children continued into a 6-month, open-label phase. Efficacy end points included total nasal symptom scores. Safety measures included reports of adverse events, morning serum cortisol levels before and after cosyntropin infusion, and growth as measured using office stadiometry.

RESULTS

A total of 474 patients were randomized to receive TAA AQ (n = 236) or placebo (n = 238); 436 entered the open-label extension phase. Adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline during the double-blind period in instantaneous and reflective total nasal symptom scores were -2.28 (0.16) and -2.31 (0.15), respectively, in the TAA AQ group (P = .09) vs -1.92 (0.16) and -1.87 (0.15) in the placebo group (P = .03). Adverse event rates were comparable between treatment groups. There was no significant change from baseline in serum cortisol levels after cosyntropin infusion at study end. The distribution of children by stature-for-age percentile remained stable during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of TAA AQ, 110 microg once daily, for up to 6 months offers a favorable efficacy to safety ratio in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray is safe and effective for 1-year treatment of children with perennial allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) affects children at a young age. Current guidelines recommend intranasal corticosteroids as the first-line treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe or persistent disease or in those who have congestion. In this study, the long-term safety and efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) were assessed in children with PAR.

METHODS

In this multicenter, active-controlled, evaluator-blind, 12-month study, 255 children aged 6-11 years with a >or=1-year history of PAR were randomized to receive once-daily MFNS 100 microg (n=166) or the active comparator beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 microg (n=85). Changes from baseline in overall PAR symptoms and response to treatment were rated at each visit. Cosyntropin stimulation testing, as well as tonometry and slit lamp procedures, were performed. Safety variables were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 137 subjects in the MFNS group and 68 in the BDP group completed treatment. The mean reductions in physician- and subject-rated overall condition of PAR at week 52 were -42.1% and -39.7%, respectively, for MFNS, compared with -44.0% and -39.0%, respectively, for BDP. A total of 94% and 100% of MFNS and BDP subjects, respectively, reported adverse events (AEs), which were mostly mild or moderate. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs in both groups were epistaxis, headache, and pharyngitis. Response to cosyntropin was normal and no posterior subcapsular cataracts were observed in either group. Although no significant changes in intraocular pressure were observed with MFNS, one subject receiving BDP demonstrated this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with MFNS 100 microg once daily for 1 year was well tolerated in children 6-11 years old, with negligible systemic exposure and no evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis or ocular changes.

Safety and tolerability of fluticasone furoate nasal spray once daily in paediatric patients aged 6-11 years with allergic rhinitis: subanalysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre studies

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate is a novel enhanced-affinity corticosteroid that has demonstrated favourable safety and tolerability in paediatric patients. Three pivotal phase III studies were conducted in children as young as 2 years of age; however, because the European Medicines Agency has recently approved fluticasone furoate for use in children aged>or=6 years, a subanalysis has been conducted to support safety and tolerability in the 6- to 11-year age group.

METHODS

All three trials included in the subanalysis were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies: a 2-week US study in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), a 12-week global study in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and a 6-week US hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis safety study in patients with PAR. Randomized patients received once-daily treatment with either fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) 55 microg (n=297; 2-week SAR and 12-week PAR studies only), FFNS 110 microg (n=321) or vehicle placebo nasal spray (n=330). Safety assessments included clinical adverse event (AE) monitoring, clinical laboratory tests, detailed nasal examinations, monitoring of vital signs, and 12-lead ECGs. Ophthalmic examinations (12-week PAR study only) were conducted by an ophthalmologist or optometrist before randomization and at final treatment visit. Twenty-four-hour urinary cortisol (UC) excretions (6- and 12-week PAR studies) and serum cortisol (SC) concentrations (6-week PAR study only) were assessed at specified timepoints over 24 hours as a measure of HPA axis function. In the 6-week HPA axis safety study in patients with PAR, 24-hour UC and SC samples were collected in a domiciled (clinical) setting.

RESULTS

No unexpected safety results were observed in patients aged 6-11 years enrolled in the three studies. Across all three trials, AEs considered by the investigator to be drug related were observed in 10%, 7% and 8% of patients in the FFNS 55 microg, FFNS 110 microg and placebo groups, respectively. The most common AEs were headache (8%, 9% and 8% in the FFNS 55 microg, FFNS 110 microg and placebo groups, respectively), nasopharyngitis (5%, 6% and 5%, respectively), pharyngolaryngeal pain (5%, 3% and 4%, respectively), epistaxis (4% in both active treatment groups and 4% in the placebo group) and pyrexia (3% in both active treatment groups and 2% in the placebo group). Findings from nasal examinations were similar across the treatment and placebo groups. Ophthalmic examinations found no differences between the treatment groups for mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure (assessed in the 12-week PAR study only), and no posterior subcapsular cataracts were reported in patients in either FFNS-treatment group. In the 6-week HPA axis study, 24-hour SC geometric mean concentrations were similar for FFNS and placebo groups. The lower limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment ratio was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8 (treatment ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.80, 1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

FFNS has a favourable safety and tolerability profile in patients aged 6-11 years with PAR or SAR.