Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray Is Superior to Montelukast for Allergic Rhinitis While Neither Affects Overall Asthma Control

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Evaluating the real-life effect of MP-AzeFlu on asthma outcomes in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma in UK primary care

Background

MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®; spray of azelastine/fluticasone propionate) is the most effective allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment available. Its effect on asthma outcomes in patients with AR and asthma is unknown.

Methods

This pre-post historical cohort study, using the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, included patients aged ≥12 years, from UK general practice with active asthma (defined as a recorded diagnosis, with ≥1 prescription for reliever or controller inhaler) in the year before or at the initiation date. The primary study outcome was change in number of acute respiratory events (i.e. exacerbation or antibiotic course for a respiratory event) between baseline and outcome years. The effect size of MP-AzeFlu was quantified as the difference in % of patients that improved and worsened.

Results

Of the 1,188 patients with AR and asthma included, many had a record of irreversible obstruction (67%), and uncontrolled asthma (70.4%), despite high mean daily doses of reliever/controller therapy and acute oral corticosteroid use, in the year pre-MP-AzeFlu initiation. MP-AzeFlu initiation was associated with fewer acute respiratory events (effect size (e) = 5.8%, p = 0.0129) and a reduction in daily use of short-acting β₂-agonists, with fewer patients requiring >2 SABA puffs/week (e = 7.7% p < 0.0001). More patients had well-controlled asthma 1-year post-MP-AzeFlu initiation (e = 4.1%; p = 0.0037), despite a reduction in inhaled corticosteroids (e = 4.8%; p = 0.0078).

Conclusions

This study provides the first direct evidence of the beneficial effect of MP-AzeFlu on asthma outcomes in co-morbid patients in primary care in the United Kingdom.

Trial registration

EUPAS30940. Registered August 13, 2019.

Prospective trial examining safety and efficacy of microcurrent stimulation for the treatment of sinus pain and congestion

Background

Inflammation and swelling of the sinus and nasal mucosa are commonly caused by viral infection, bacterial infection, or exposure to allergens and irritants. Sinonasal inflammation can cause symptoms of nasal congestion, facial pressure, and rhinogenic facial pain or “sinus pain”. A previous randomized controlled study demonstrated that acute treatment with non-invasive periorbital microcurrent stimulation resulted in a rapid and clinically meaningful reduction in self-report of sinus pain that significantly outperformed sham control treatment. Here, we assessed the acute durability of microcurrent pain relief and longitudinal effects of 4 weeks of daily microcurrent treatment in patients presenting with sinus pain.

Methods

Thirty subjects with moderate facial pain (numeric rating scale ≥5) attributed to self-reported sinonasal disease were enrolled in a single-arm, prospective interventional study. At enrollment, subjects were given a microcurrent treatment device and written instructions and self-administered the device to the bilateral periorbital regions for 5 mins. Subjects were instructed to treat themselves at home once daily and up to four times daily as needed for 4 weeks. Pain was measured both acutely and weekly during the 4 weeks of treatment using the numeric rating scale. Congestion and medication use data were collected weekly using the Congestion Quantifier 7 (CQ7) and medication diary, respectively.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled and completed the study. Microcurrent therapy rapidly reduced post-treatment numeric rating scale for pain by − 1.2 at 10 mins (p = 0.0076), − 1.6 at 1 hr (p = 0.0007), − 1.9 at 2 hrs (p < 0.0001), − 2.1 at 4 hrs (p < 0.0001), and − 2.1 at 6 hrs (p < 0.0001). With daily microcurrent treatment, numeric rating scale for pain was reduced over 4 weeks by − 1.3 (− 20.1%) after 1 week (p = 0.0018), − 2.1 (− 32.1%) after 2 weeks (p < 0.0001), − 2.4 (− 36.6%) after 3 weeks (p < 0.0001) and − 2.9 (− 43.3%) after 4 weeks (p < 0.0001). For subjects who enrolled with moderate or worse congestion, mean congestion scores (CQ7) were reduced by − 4.2 (− 22.0%) after 1 week (p < 0.0001), − 5.8 (− 33.0%) after 2 weeks (p < 0.0001), − 7.2 (− 37.4%) after 3 weeks (p < 0.0001) and − 8.6 (− 44.3%) after 4 weeks (p < 0.0001) of microcurrent treatment.

Conclusion

Self-administered periorbital microcurrent treatment given at home was efficacious in significantly reducing moderate sinus pain for up to 6 hrs and significantly reducing moderate pain and congestion over 4 weeks of daily use. Microcurrent therapy was found to be safe with only minor side effects that resolved without intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03888274. Registered 25 March 2019. Retroactively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03888274.

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets as a disease-modifying add-on treatment option to pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is associated with a significant health and economic burden, and is often accompanied by asthma. Pharmacotherapies are the mainstay treatment options for AR and asthma, but guidelines also recommend allergy immunotherapy (AIT). Unlike pharmacotherapies, AIT has the ability to modify the underlying immunologic mechanisms of AR and asthma with the potential for long-term benefits after treatment is discontinued. Immunotherapy may also prevent progression of AR/C to asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a self-administered alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy that provide the benefits of AIT without the cost and inconvenience of frequent office visits or the discomfort of injections. SLIT-tablets are also an option that can be utilized by primary care clinicians. Pharmacotherapies are generally effective in mild disease although a number of patients remain uncontrolled. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for AR in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Indirect comparisons indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or comparable efficacy compared with traditional pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR, and superior efficacy for perennial AR. House dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant benefits for asthma, with significant observed reductions in daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are well tolerated, with minimal risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are oral site reactions such as oral pruritus and throat irritation. Based on the favorable efficacy and safety profile, as well as the convenience of at-home oral administration and disease-modifying effects, SLIT-tablets should be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C, and as an add-on treatment for HDM allergic asthma.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a common respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction and airway hyperresponsiveness and symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness. Allergic rhinitis is a common comorbidity in asthma and glucocorticoids are the key stone in the treatment of both diseases. Mometasone furoate is a potent synthetic steroid with a very high receptor affinity and a low bioavailability and shown to be superior compared to other inhaled corticosteroids. It is not clear whether the use of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is associated with an improvement in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

This current paper reviews the current knowledge on the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of asthma and includes clinical trials in which both subjective and objective outcomes are assessed.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, only few clinical studies have investigated the effect of nasal steroids in the treatment of asthma. The studies investigating the effect of MFNS report contradicting results, although the most well-designed study to answer this question finds no improvement in asthma control. Thus, it seems unlikely that asthma guidelines will be influenced by the current knowledge on the effect of MFNS in the treatment of asthma.

WITHDRAWN: Topical steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

Review withdrawn from Issue 4, 2016. Replaced by new reviews 'Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016a) and 'Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016b).

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds.

METHODS

Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold.

RESULTS

No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists versus placebo in the treatment of asthma in adults and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are recommended as an alternative treatment in patients with mild asthma, but their effect compared with placebo is unclear.

PURPOSE

To determine the benefits and harms of LTRAs as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids compared with placebo in adults and adolescents with asthma.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through June 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Peer-reviewed, English-language, randomized, controlled trials in patients with asthma that reported the effect of LTRAs versus placebo on measures of asthma control.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three researchers extracted data on study population, interventions, outcome measures, and adverse events. One researcher assessed risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 2008 abstracts that were screened, 50 trials met eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses of 6 trials of LTRA monotherapy showed that LTRAs reduced the risk for an exacerbation (summary risk ratio [RR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.81]). In 4 trials of LTRAs as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids, the summary RR for exacerbation was 0.80 (CI, 0.60 to 1.07). Leukotriene-receptor antagonists either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids increased FEV1, whereas FEV1 percentage of predicted values was improved only in trials of LTRA monotherapy. Adverse event rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups.

LIMITATION

Variation in definitions and reporting of outcomes, high risk of bias in some studies, heterogeneity of findings, possible selective outcome reporting bias, and inability to assess the effect of asthma severity on summary estimates.

CONCLUSION

Leukotriene-receptor antagonists as monotherapy improved asthma control compared with placebo, but which patients are most likely to respond to treatment with LTRAs remains unclear.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Efficacy of nasal mometasone for the treatment of chronic sinonasal disease in patients with inadequately controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

Chronic sinonasal disease is common in asthmatic patients and associated with poor asthma control; however, there are no long-term trials addressing whether chronic treatment of sinonasal disease improves asthma control.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether treatment of chronic sinonasal disease with nasal corticosteroids improves asthma control, as measured by the Childhood Asthma Control Test and Asthma Control Test in children and adults, respectively.

METHODS

A 24-week multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of placebo versus nasal mometasone in adults and children with inadequately controlled asthma was performed. Treatments were randomly assigned, with concealment of allocation.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-seven adults and 151 children were randomized to nasal mometasone versus placebo, and 319 participants completed the study. There was no difference in the Childhood Asthma Control Test score (difference in change with mometasone - change with placebo [ΔM - ΔP], -0.38; 95% CI, -2.19 to 1.44; P = .68; age 6-11 years) or the Asthma Control Test score (ΔM - ΔP, 0.51; 95% CI, -0.46 to 1.48; P = .30; age ≥12 years) in those assigned to mometasone versus placebo. In children and adolescents (age 6-17 years) there was no difference in asthma or sinus symptoms but a decrease in episodes of poorly controlled asthma defined by a decrease in peak flow. In adults there was a small difference in asthma symptoms measured by using the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ΔM - ΔP, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.11; P < .01) and in nasal symptoms (sinus symptom score ΔM - ΔP, -3.82; 95% CI, -7.19 to -0.45; P = .03) but no difference in asthma quality of life, lung function, or episodes of poorly controlled asthma in adults assigned to mometasone versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of chronic sinonasal disease with nasal corticosteroids for 24 weeks does not improve asthma control. Treatment of sinonasal disease in asthmatic patients should be determined by the need to treat sinonasal disease rather than to improve asthma control.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of adding LABA versus LTRA to the treatment regimen for children and adults with asthma who remain symptomatic in spite of regular treatment with ICS. We specifically wished to examine the relative impact of the two agents on asthma exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse health events and withdrawals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register until December 2012. We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers to ask about other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS along with a fixed dose of a LABA or an LTRA for a minimum of four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs (7208 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6872) and two recruited children six to 17 years of age (336) with asthma and significant reversibility to bronchodilator at baseline. Fourteen (79%) trials were of high methodological quality.The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (primary outcome of the review) was significantly lower with the combination of LABA + ICS compared with LTRA + ICS-from 13% to 11% (eight studies, 5923 adults and 334 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.99; high-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with LABA compared with LTRA to prevent one additional exacerbation over four to 102 weeks was 62 (95% CI 34 to 794). The choice of LTRA, the dose of ICS and the participants' age group did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect. Although results were inconclusive, the effect appeared stronger in trials that used a single device rather than two devices to administer ICS and LABA and in trials of less than 12 weeks' duration.The addition of LABA to ICS was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in lung function, as well as in symptoms, rescue medication use and quality of life, although the latter effects were modest. LTRA was superior in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm. More participants were satisfied with the combination of LABA + ICS than LTRA + ICS (three studies, 1625 adults; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; moderate-quality evidence). The overall risk of withdrawal was significantly lower with LABA + ICS than with LTRA + ICS (13 studies, 6652 adults and 308 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Although the risk of overall adverse events was equivalent between the two groups, the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) approached statistical significance in disfavour of LABA compared with LTRA (nine studies, 5658 adults and 630 children; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.79; P value 0.06; moderate-quality evidence), with no apparent impact of participants' age group.The following adverse events were reported, but no significant differences were demonstrated between groups: headache (11 studies, N = 6538); cardiovascular events (five studies, N = 5163), osteopenia and osteoporosis (two studies, N = 2963), adverse events (10 studies, N = 5977 adults and 300 children). A significant difference in the risk of oral moniliasis was noted, but this represents a low occurrence rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled by predominantly low-dose ICS with significant bronchodilator reversibility, the addition of LABA to ICS is modestly superior to the addition of LTRA in reducing oral corticosteroid-treated exacerbations, with an absolute reduction of two percentage points. Differences favouring LABA over LTRA as adjunct therapy were observed in lung function and, to a lesser extend, in rescue medication use, symptoms and quality of life. The lower overall withdrawal rate and the higher proportion of participants satisfied with their therapy indirectly favour the combination of LABA + ICS over LTRA + ICS. Evidence showed a slightly increased risk of SAE with LABA compared with LTRA, with an absolute increase of one percentage point. Our findings modestly support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of both LABA and low- or medium-dose ICS. Because of the paucity of paediatric trials, we are unable to draw firm conclusions about the best adjunct therapy in children.

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Anti-leukotrienes (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors and leukotriene receptors antagonists) serve as alternative monotherapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotrienes compared to inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy in adults and children with asthma and to provide better insight into the influence of patient and treatment characteristics on the magnitude of effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2010), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2010), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2010), the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Dec 2010), abstract books, and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and the international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared anti-leukotrienes with inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy for a minimum period of four weeks in patients with asthma aged two years and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was the number of patients with at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission, lung function tests, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects, withdrawal rates and biological inflammatory markers.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Fifty-six trials (19 paediatric trials) contributed data (representing total of 10,005 adults and 3,333 children); 21 trials were of high methodological quality; 44 were published in full-text. All trials pertained to patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma. Trial durations varied from four to 52 weeks. The median dose of inhaled corticosteroids was quite homogeneous at 200 µg/day of microfine hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone or equivalent (HFA-BDP eq). Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (N = 6077 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17, 1.96). For every 28 (95% CI 15 to 82) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional patient with an exacerbation requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. The magnitude of effect was significantly greater in patients with moderate compared with those with mild airway obstruction (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.41, 2.91 versus RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97, 1.61), but was not significantly influenced by age group (children representing 23% of the weight versus adults), anti-leukotriene used, duration of intervention, methodological quality, and funding source. Significant group differences favouring inhaled corticosteroids were noted in most secondary outcomes including patients with at least one exacerbation requiring hospital admission (N = 2715 participants; RR 3.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 10.94), the change from baseline FEV(1) (N = 7128 participants; mean group difference (MD) 110 mL, 95% CI 140 to 80) as well as other lung function parameters, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, symptom-free days, the quality of life, parents' and physicians' satisfaction. Anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with increased risk of withdrawals due to poor asthma control (N = 7669 participants; RR 2.56; 95% CI 2.01 to 3.27). For every thirty one (95% CI 22 to 47) patients treated with anti-leukotrienes instead of inhaled corticosteroids, there was one additional withdrawal due to poor control. Risk of side effects was not significantly different between both groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroids display superior efficacy to anti-leukotrienes in adults and children with persistent asthma; the superiority is particularly marked in patients with moderate airway obstruction. On the basis of efficacy, the results support the current guidelines' recommendation that inhaled corticosteroids remain the preferred monotherapy. 

Topical steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroid is used as part of a comprehensive medical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) without polyps. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to show a clear overall benefit. Trials studying the efficacy of topical corticosteroid use various delivery methods in patients who have or have not had sinus surgery, which directly impacts on topical delivery and distribution.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical steroid in patients with CRS without nasal polyps and perform a meta-analysis of symptom improvement data, including subgroup analysis by sinus surgery status and topical delivery methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 9 July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials in which a topically administered corticosteroid was compared with either a placebo, no treatment or alternative topically administered corticosteroid for the treatment of CRS without polyps in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed the search results and selected trials meeting the eligibility criteria, obtaining full texts and contacting authors where necessary. We documented our justification for the exclusion of studies. Two authors extracted data using a pre-determined standardised data form.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (590 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The trials were of low (six trials) and medium (four trials) risk of bias. The primary outcome was sino-nasal symptoms. When compared to placebo, topical steroid improved symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; five trials, n = 286) and had a greater proportion of responders (risk ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.37, P = 0.002; four trials, n = 263). With a limited number of studies, the subgroup analyses of patients who had received sinus surgery versus those who had not was not significant (P = 0.35). Subgroup analyses by topical delivery method revealed more benefit when steroid was administered directly to the sinuses than with simple nasal delivery (P = 0.04). There were no differences between groups for quality of life and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical steroid is a beneficial treatment for CRS without polyps and the adverse effects are minor. It may be included in a comprehensive treatment of CRS without polyps. Direct delivery of steroid to the sinuses may bring more beneficial effect. Further studies comparing different topical drug delivery methods to the sinuses, with appropriate treatment duration (longer than 12 weeks), are required.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta(2)-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.

Omalizumab in severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with standard therapy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended in patients with asthma that is not well-controlled; however, many patients continue to have inadequately controlled asthma despite this therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with inadequately controlled severe asthma who are receiving high-dose ICS and LABAs, with or without additional controller therapy.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00314575).

SETTING

193 investigational sites in the United States and 4 sites in Canada.

PATIENTS

850 patients aged 12 to 75 years who had inadequately controlled asthma despite treatment with high-dose ICS plus LABAs, with or without other controllers.

INTERVENTION

Omalizumab (n = 427) or placebo (n = 423) was added to existing medication regimens for 48 weeks.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was the rate of protocol-defined exacerbations over the study period. Secondary efficacy end points included the change from baseline to week 48 in mean daily number of puffs of albuterol, mean total asthma symptom score, and mean overall score on the standardized version of the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ[S]). Safety end points included the frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

During 48 weeks, the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations was significantly reduced for omalizumab compared with placebo (0.66 vs. 0.88 per patient; P = 0.006), representing a 25% relative reduction (incidence rate ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Omalizumab improved mean AQLQ(S) scores (0.29 point [CI, 0.15 to 0.43]), reduced mean daily albuterol puffs (-0.27 puff/d [CI, -0.49 to -0.04 puff/d]), and decreased mean asthma symptom score (-0.26 [CI, -0.42 to -0.10]) compared with placebo during the 48-week study period. The incidence of adverse events (80.4% vs. 79.5%) and serious adverse events (9.3% vs. 10.5%) were similar in the omalizumab and placebo groups, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The results are limited by early patient discontinuation (20.8%). The study was not powered to detect rare safety events or the treatment effect in the oral corticosteroid subgroup.

CONCLUSION

In this study, omalizumab provided additional clinical benefit for patients with severe allergic asthma that is inadequately controlled with high-dose ICS and LABA therapy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Genentech and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

The role of inhaled and/or nasal corticosteroids on the bronchodilator response

PURPOSE

To compare the profiles of the bronchodilator response (BDR) among children with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis (AR) and to determine whether BDR in these children is reduced by treatment with inhaled and/or nasal corticosteroid.

METHODS

Sixty-eight children with asthma (mean age, 10.9 years), 45 children with comorbid asthma and AR (mean age, 10.5 years), and 44 children with AR alone (mean age, 10.2 years) were investigated. After a 2-week baseline period, all children were treated with inhaled fluticasone propionate (either 100 or 250 µg b.i.d., tailored to asthma severity) or nasal fluticasone propionate (one spray b.i.d. in each nostril) or both, according to the condition. Before and 2 weeks after starting treatment, all children were evaluated with spirometry and bronchodilator testing. BDR was calculated as a percent change from the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) at baseline.

RESULTS

The mean BDR was 10.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3-12.4%] in children with asthma, 9.0% (95% CI 7.3-10.9%) in subjects with asthma and AR, and 5.0% (95% CI 4.1-5.9%) in children with AR alone (P<0.001). After treatment, the mean BDR was reduced to 5.2% (95% CI 4.2-6.3%) (P<0.001) in children with asthma and to 4.5% (95% CI 3.5-5.5%) (P<0.001) in children with asthma and AR. However, children with rhinitis showed no significant change in BDR after treatment, with the mean value being 4.7% (95% CI 3.7-5.8%) (P=0.597).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study imply that an elevated BDR in children with AR cannot be attributed to nasal inflammation alone and highlights the close relationship between the upper and lower airways.

Steroid sparing effects of intranasal corticosteroids in asthma and allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Treating allergic rhinitis may have a downstream anti-inflammatory effect on the lower airways. We conducted a dose ranging study in asthma and persistent allergic rhinitis to evaluate if intranasal corticosteroids exhibit a sparing effect on the dose of inhaled corticosteroid.

METHODS

Twenty five participants were randomized to receive two weeks of 100 microg/day (Low dose) or 500 microg/day (High dose) of inhaled fluticasone propionate both with intranasal placebo; or inhaled fluticasone 100 microg/day with intranasal fluticasone 200 microg/day (Combined) in a double-blind cross-over fashion.

RESULTS

Low dose fluticasone produced a shift of 1.20 doubling-dilutions (95% CI, 0.63, 1.77); Combined fluticasone, 1.79 doubling-dilutions (95% CI, 0.77, 2.80) and high dose fluticasone, 2.01 doubling-dilutions (95% CI, 1.42, 2.61) in methacholine PC(20) from respective baselines. There was a significant difference between high and low doses: 0.82 doubling dilutions (95%CI, 0.12, 1.50) but not between combined and low dose 0.58 doubling dilutions (95% CI, -0.78, 1.95). Combined treatment alone produced improvements in peak nasal inspiratory flow (P < 0.001), rhinitis quality of life (P = 0.004) and nasal NO (P = 0.01); reduced blood eosinophil count (P = 0.03), and serum eosinophil cationic protein (P = 0.02). All treatments significantly improved tidal NO, FEV(1) and asthma quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose fluticasone was superior to low dose fluticasone for methacholine PC20, demonstrating room for further improvement. Combined treatment was not significantly different from low dose fluticasone and we could not demonstrate a steroid sparing effect on methacholine PC20. Combined treatment alone produced improvements in upper airway outcomes and suppressed systemic inflammation but not adrenal function.

Montelukast: Pharmacology, Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are common disorders effecting large percentages of the population of Western countries. There are multiple treatment options available for allergic rhinitis and asthma and stepwise approaches to therapy have been recommended. Montelukast is a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist that has been found to be effective both in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. This paper will describe the pharmacology, safety, efficacy and tolerability of montelukast. It will examine the comparative efficacy of montelukast to other medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, as well as discuss the recent studies of combination therapy.

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

Rates of asthma attacks in patients with previously inadequately controlled mild asthma treated in clinical practice with combination drug therapy: an exploratory post-hoc analysis

Background

Differences could exist in the likelihood of asthma attacks in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), and montelukast (MON) (ICS/LABA/MON) and patients treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and montelukast (MON) (ICS/MON).

Methods

This was a post-hoc analysis of a pretest-posttest retrospective cohort study. Patients with mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, who were taking an ICS either alone or in combination with a LABA, started concomitant MON treatment as part of their routine care. Rates of asthma- and allergic rhinitis-related medical resource use in the 12-months after the initial (index) MON prescription were compared in the ICS/MON and ICS/LABA/MON groups. An asthma attack was defined as an asthma-related hospitalization, ER visit, or use of an oral corticosteroid.

Results

Of the total of 344 patients, 181 (53%) received ICS/MON and 163 (47%) received ICS/LABA/MON in the post-index period for means of 10.5 and 11.4 months, respectively, (P < 0.05). Short-acting beta-agonists were used by 74.6% in the ICS/MON and 71.8% in the ICS/LABA/MON groups (P > 0.05). An asthma attack occurred in 4.4% of the ICS/MON group and 6.8% of the ICS/LABA/MON group (P > 0.05). The adjusted odds of an asthma attack in the post-index period in the ICS/LABA/MON group relative to the ICS/MON group was 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.35–4.44.

Conclusion

In this observational study of combination drug treatment of mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, no difference was observed between LABA/ICS/MON combination therapy and the ICS/MON combination without LABA use, for the rate of asthma attacks over one year.

Rhinosinusitis and asthma: the missing link

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disease of the nose and sinuses is the most common comorbidity associated with asthma. Rhinitis, sinusitis and asthma may represent part of one disease process with manifestations at different sites. The purpose of this review is to highlight significant new findings on the epidemiological and pathophysiological link between the upper and lower airway. Finally, we will review recent data assessing the impact of treating sinonasal disease on both the development of asthma and asthma control.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies illustrate that rhinitis is very common in asthma, and associated with worse asthma control. Rhinitis typically precedes the development of asthma. Even in patients with rhinitis without asthma, there is evidence of subclinical change in the lower airways as measured by physiological changes and the presence of inflammatory mediators. There is much interest on the impact of treating allergic rhinitis on the development of asthma.

SUMMARY

Rhinitis, sinusitis and asthma are likely part of one disease process. Treatment of established rhinitis may have some impact on measures of airway obstruction, but an effect on lower airway inflammation is yet to be established. Prospective studies are required to determine whether treatment of rhinitis can prevent the development of asthma, or decrease airway inflammation to improve asthma outcomes in those with established asthma or both.

Nasobronchial interaction mechanisms in allergic airways disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During the past few decades, the incidence of sensitization to inhaled allergens as well as allergic airways disease has grown steadily. Genetic and environmental factors are recognized as etiologic factors in the development of allergic airway disease, with allergic rhinitis often preceding the development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is considered a risk factor for the development of asthma, and almost all allergic asthmatic patients have rhinitis. Insight into the risk factors responsible for allergic airways disease and the interaction between the involved organs results in a better diagnostic and therapeutic approach in global airway allergy syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have shown that local tissue factors, such as microbial stimuli and systemic inflammatory mechanisms, play a role in the clinical expression of the allergic airway syndrome. In addition, impaired nasal function affects the lower airways of asthmatic patients via different pathways. To date, most human and animal data point towards a systemic pathway linking the upper and lower airways, involving both bloodstream and bone marrow. Recent clinical trials and current guidelines underline the importance of an integrated treatment strategy involving both ends of the respiratory tract.

SUMMARY

This review provides an overview of recent epidemiological and immunopathologic evidence concerning the link between upper and lower airways in allergic disease and its therapeutic implications.

Montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based review

Cysteinyl-leukotrienes (CysLTs) are endogenous mediators of inflammation and play an important role in allergic airway disease by stimulating bronchoconstriction, mucus production, mucosal oedema and inflammation, airway infiltration by eosinophils, and dendritic cell maturation that prepares for future allergic response. Montelukast inhibits these actions by blocking type 1 CysLT receptors found on immunocytes, smooth muscle and endothelium in the respiratory mucosa. Initially developed as a treatment for asthma, montelukast has more recently found use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic review of studies that have evaluated montelukast in the treatment of seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR), with and without concomitant asthma. Primary consideration was given to large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which AR endpoints were assessed and the use of concurrent treatments for AR was excluded. Eight such studies were found in the literature. The primary endpoint in these was daytime nasal symptom severity represented by a composite score derived from individual self-ratings of nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, nasal pruritus and sneezing. Secondary endpoints have included these individual nasal symptom scores, additional scores for eye, ear and throat symptoms, the impact of rhinitis on quality of sleep, global evaluations of outcome by patients and physicians, and measures of the severity of concomitant asthma. A general outcome was that patients treated with montelukast had significantly greater improvements in their symptoms of SAR and PAR than did patients who were given a placebo. As monotherapy, montelukast exhibited efficacy similar to that of loratadine, but less than that of the intranasally administered corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. The use of montelukast in combination with antihistamines such as loratadine or cetirizine has generally resulted in greater efficacy than when these agents were used alone, and in some studies has produced results comparable with intranasally applied corticosteroids. In patients with AR comorbid with asthma, montelukast treatment has resulted in significant improvements in both, compared with placebo. Montelukast is well tolerated and has a favourable safety profile; adverse events have occurred at similar frequencies in patients taking either montelukast or placebo. Montelukast provides an effective and well tolerated oral treatment for allergic airway inflammation in patients with SAR or PAR without asthma, and in patients in whom AR is comorbid with asthma.

Critical appraisal of antileukotriene use in asthma management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recognition of the importance of leukotrienes in the pathogenesis of asthma has led to the development of leukotriene modifiers, the first new class of drugs for asthma treatment to become available since the introduction of inhaled corticosteroids. Nevertheless, despite their widespread use in clinical practice, the role of leukotriene modifiers in the management of asthma remains controversial. In the present article the clinical applications of this class of drugs have been critically reviewed based on recent evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In an effort to try and establish the proper place of antileukotrienes in the management of asthma, important systematic reviews have been carried out over these recent years in three critical areas: antileukotrienes as second choice first line agents after inhaled corticosteroids; antileukotrienes as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids; add-on antileukotrienes versus long acting beta-agonists to patients not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids. In addition, novel and useful clinical targets for this class of drugs have been recently explored and include: patients with severe asthma; aspirin-intolerant asthma; asthmatic patients with allergic rhinitis.

SUMMARY

Use of antileukotrienes is not recommended as first-line monotherapy in patients with asthma, except those who have aspirin intolerant asthma. Patients with concomitant allergic rhinitis may be a good target population for therapy with antileukotrienes. Addition of leukotriene modifiers to inhaled corticosteroids produces only a modest improvement in the clinical response, and is not greater to that of add-on long acting beta-agonists. The exact role of antileukotrienes in asthma management guidelines still continues to evolve.

Treatment and outcomes in patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis in the United kingdom

BACKGROUND

Since allergic rhinitis in asthma patients is associated with worse asthma control, the treatment of the comorbid condition may improve outcomes.

METHODS

A 1-year retrospective study using the UK Mediplus database (2001-2004) included asthmatic patients aged 15-55 with allergic rhinitis. Patients starting therapy based on the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, defined as an increase in inhaled corticosteroids (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, hdICS), or the addition of montelukast (ICS+MON) or long-acting beta-agonists (ICS+LABA) to ICS, were studied. Univariable and multiple logistic regressions evaluated asthma-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 2,596 asthma and allergic rhinitis patients, 83.2% initiated ICS+LABA, 12.1% hdICS and 4.7% ICS+MON. The mean age was 34 years and 60% were female. ICS+MON patients had more moderate-severe asthma (p = 0.04). Approximately 84% of the ICS+LABA patients experienced an asthma control failure compared to 50% in the other groups (p < 0.0001). The proportions of patients requiring treatment change were 73.8, 22 and 27.3% in the ICS+LABA, hdICS and ICS+MON groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Asthma-related resource use was similar among all groups. The ICS+MON group received fewer mean prescriptions for oral corticosteroids (p = 0.024) than the other groups (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma and allergic rhinitis, treatment with ICS+MON or hdICS was associated with lower rates of asthma control failure and fewer treatment changes than the ICS+LABA group. MON users also required fewer oral corticosteroids.

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis in asthma: differential effects on symptoms and pulmonary function

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis are frequently associated with asthma. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of self-reported allergic rhinitis and sinusitis on lower airway disease in a large cohort of participants with well-characterized asthma.

METHODS

A cohort study of participants in two trials of the American Lung Association-Asthma Clinical Research Centers: 2,031 asthmatics in the Safety of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Asthma in Adults and Children (SIIVA) trial and 488 asthmatics in the Effectiveness of Low Dose Theophylline as Add-on Treatment in Asthma (LODO) trial. At baseline, participants reported the presence of allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, and then lung function and asthma control were measured. During the trials, participants were monitored for asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

More than 70% of participants reported either allergic rhinitis or sinusitis. Sinusitis was more common in female patients (odds ratio, 1.46 [SIIVA]), those with gastroesophageal reflux disease (odds ratio, 2.21 [SIIVA]), and those of white race (odds ratio, 1.53 [SIIVA]). Similar associations were seen for allergic rhinitis. LODO participants with allergic rhinitis and sinusitis had increased asthma symptoms and a trend toward more sleep disturbance. Participants with allergic rhinitis had higher baseline lung function than those without allergic rhinitis measured by peak flow (91.2% vs 95.8% in the SIIVA trial). Participants with sinusitis had similar lung function to those without sinusitis. Participants with and without allergic rhinitis had similar exacerbation rates. In the LODO trial only, participants with sinusitis had increased asthma exacerbations (5.68 per patient per year vs 3.72 per patient per year).

CONCLUSION

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis are associated with more severe asthmatic symptoms and, in patients with poorly controlled asthma, more exacerbations but are not associated with low lung function.