Effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray versus oral prednisone on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis

Corticosteroid Use in Otolaryngology: Current Considerations During the COVID-19 Era

OBJECTIVE

To offer pragmatic, evidence-informed advice on administering corticosteroids in otolaryngology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, considering therapeutic efficacy, potential adverse effects, susceptibility to COVID-19, and potential effects on efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and guideline databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Guideline search strategies, supplemented by database searches on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), idiopathic facial nerve paralysis (Bell's palsy), sinonasal polyposis, laryngotracheal disorders, head and neck oncology, and pediatric otolaryngology, prioritizing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and COVID-19-specific findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) reduce long-term morbidity in individuals with SSNHL and Bell's palsy, reduce acute laryngotracheal edema, and have benefit in perioperative management for some procedures. Topical or locally injected corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. SCSs have not shown long-term benefit for sinonasal disorders. SCSs are not a contraindication to vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that these vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

SCS use for SSNHL, Bell's palsy, laryngotracheal edema, and perioperative care should follow prepandemic standards. Local or topical corticosteroids are preferable for most other otolaryngologic indications. Whether SCSs attenuate response to vaccination against COVID-19 or increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. Immunosuppression may lower vaccine efficacy, so immunocompromised patients should adhere to recommended infection control practices. COVID-19 vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines is safe for immunocompromised patients.

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression and intranasal corticosteroid use: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are used in the management of sinonasal conditions. Use of exogenous steroids can be associated with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction and adrenal insufficiency (AI). We aimed to estimate the rate of AI after INCS use in a meta-analysis, stratified by steroid type and treatment duration.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, Embase Classic, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies investigating INCS use and AI. AI was defined as morning serum cortisol <550 nmol/L and <80 nmol/L with and without adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation. INCS were classified as first (beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, beclomethasone, budesonide, dexamethasone) and second (ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate) generation. Duration of treatment was classified as short (<1 month), medium (1-12 months), and long-term (>12 months) time periods.

RESULTS

This search identified 3668 articles. A total of 39 studies (1678 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled percentage of AI for routinely utilized first- and second-generation INCS was 0.70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.12%). Stratified by type, AI was observed in 0.78% (95% CI, 0.25-1.30%) of first-generation and 0.58% (95% CI, -0.1% to 1.26%) of second-generation steroids. AI was seen in 0.48% (95% CI, -0.01% to 0.96%) of short-term, 1.13% (95% CI, 0.2-2.1%) of medium-term, and 1.67% (95% CI, 0.37-2.9%) of long-term use of INCS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the use of INCS carries a low risk for AI. Although modest, this risk may differ depending on the length of duration and type of INCS used. Informing patients of these risks is of importance for the treatment of chronic sinonasal conditions.

A Randomized Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability of Fluticasone Propionate Delivered via Xhance Exhalation Delivery System Versus Flonase Nasal Spray and Flovent HFA Inhalational Aerosol

PURPOSE

The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (Xhance®) has been shown to deliver drug substantially more broadly in the nasal cavity (particularly into superior/posterior regions), with less off-target loss of drug to drip-out and swallowing, than conventional nasal sprays. This open-label study evaluated the systemic bioavailability of Xhance® by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of a single dose of fluticasone from 3 products administering the drug using 3 different devices: Xhance®, Flonase® (fluticasone propionate inhalational nasal spray), and Flovent® HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalational aerosol).

METHODS

This open-label study was conducted in 2 parts. Study part 1 compared systemic exposure with a single dose of Xhance® 186 or 372 μg versus Flonase® 400 μg (3-way, 3-treatment, 3-sequence, randomized crossover in healthy subjects; n = 90). A separate study, part 2, under the same umbrella protocol, compared systemic exposure with Xhance® 372 μg versus Flovent® HFA 440 μg (2-way, 2-treatment, 2-sequence, randomized crossover in patients with mild to moderate asthma; n = 30).

FINDINGS

With Xhance® 186 μg, the geometric least squares mean (LSM) C_max was higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (16.02 vs 11.66 pg/mL, respectively; geometric mean ratio [GMR], 137.42%) and the geometric LSM AUC_0-∞ values were similar (97.30 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL; GMR, 97.78%). With Xhance® 372 μg, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ were higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (C_max, 23.50 vs 11.66 pg/mL [GMR, 201.53%]; AUC_0-∞, 146.61 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL [GMR, 147.19%]). In part 2, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ values were lower with Xhance® 372 μg than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg (C_max, 25.28 vs 40.02 pg/mL [GMR, 63.18%]; AUC_0-∞, 205.78 vs 415.16 pg · h/mL [GMR, 49.57%]).

IMPLICATIONS

Similar intranasal doses of Xhance® (372 μg) and Flonase® (400 μg) are clearly not bioequivalent. Systemic exposure is very low with all products. Systemic exposure is higher with Xhance® than with Flonase® and substantially lower than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg and, based on dose normalization, Flovent® HFA 220 μg. ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02266927.

Comparison of Corticosteroids by 3 Approaches to the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps

Purpose

Corticosteroids are regarded as the mainstay of medical treatment of eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (ECRSwNP). To date, a head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoid preparations administered via different routes for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps has not been reported. To compare the efficacy and safety of steroids administered via the oral, intranasal spray and transnasal nebulization routes in the management of ECRSwNP over a short course.

Methods

Overall, 91 patients with ECRSwNP were recruited prospectively and randomized to receive either oral methylprednisolone, budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) via transnasal nebulization, or budesonide nasal spray (BNS) for 2 weeks. Nasal symptoms and polyp sizes were assessed before and after the treatment. Similarly, nasal polyp samples were evaluated for immunological and tissue remodeling markers. Serum cortisol levels were assessed as a safety outcome.

Results

Oral methylprednisolone and BIS decreased symptoms and polyp sizes to a significantly greater extent from baseline (P < 0.05) than BNS. Similarly, BIS and oral methylprednisolone significantly reduced eosinophils, T helper 2 cells, eosinophil cationic protein, interleukin (IL)-5, and expression of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9, and significantly increased type 1 regulatory T cells, IL-10, transforming growth factor-β, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 and 2 in nasal polyps to a greater extent than BNS. Post-treatment serum cortisol levels were significantly decreased by oral methylprednisolone compared to BIS or BNS, which did not significantly alter the cortisol levels.

Conclusions

A short course of BIS transnasal nebulization is more efficacious compared to BNS in the management of ECRSwNP and is safer than oral methylprednisolone with respect to hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function.

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.

Intranasal Steroid Use for Otitis Media with Effusion: Ongoing Opportunities for Quality Improvement

Objectives Our objectives were (1) to assess patterns of intranasal steroid administration when otitis media with effusion (OME) has been diagnosed in children, (2) to investigate whether usage varies according to visit setting, and (3) to determine if practice gaps are such that quality improvement could be tracked. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis of an administrative database. Subjects and Methods National Ambulatory and Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, 2005 to 2012; univariate, multivariate, and stratified analyses of intranasal steroid usage were performed. The primary outcome was intranasal steroid administration, and the primary predictor was a diagnosis of OME. The impact of location of service was also analyzed. Results Data representing 1,943,177,903 visits demonstrated that intranasal steroids were administered in 10.0% of visits in which OME was diagnosed, in comparison to 3.5% of visits in which OME was not diagnosed (univariate odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-5.08; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other confounding conditions, multivariate analysis demonstrated that OME remained associated with an increase in intranasal steroid usage (odds ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.60-8.01; P = .002). This practice pattern was more prevalent in the ambulatory office setting (risk difference 6.6%, P < .001) and less seen in a hospital-based office or emergency department. Conclusion Despite randomized controlled trials showing a lack of efficacy for isolated OME, nasal steroids continue to be used in treating children with OME in the United States. Related quality improvement opportunities to prevent usage of an ineffective treatment exist.

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents

Purpose

Our objective was to highlight the importance of database selection in observational research and to determine the incidence of corticosteroid-related events in patients exposed to fluticasone propionate intranasal spray (FPNS) compared with other intranasal steroids (INS).

Methods

After a feasibility study using an electronic medical record database in the UK (1990–2002), a retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large administrative claims database in the USA from 1994 to 2002 comparing the incidence and rate ratios of steroid-related events among intermittent, sub-chronic, and chronic FPNS use and other INS use episodes.

Results

Most patients used INS intermittently; power was low to evaluate risk associated with chronic use. Significantly elevated adjusted rate ratios were observed in the US study comparing FPNS with other INS for hypercorticism, sinusitis, abscess, and empyema, as well as a significantly decreased rate ratio for cataracts. The US claims database provided greater granularity on covariates and markers of severity to improve control of confounding for this study and time period, but neither database was able to assess the indication for prescription and the UK study could not address the use of INS without a prescription.

Conclusions

The FPNS results were consistent with the risk profile for INS and did not raise any new safety signals at the time of study conduct, which is consistent with the current safety profile. We were not able to discern the extent of potential off-label use of FPNS or other INS. Differences in the available data and healthcare systems highlight important considerations for database selection in the feasibility phase to assess the precision and limitations prior to formal risk evaluation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40801-015-0057-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systemic glucocorticoid therapy and adrenal insufficiency in adults: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic literature review was to summarize the current knowledge regarding the prevalence of, time to recovery from, and influence of glucocorticoid dose and duration on glucocorticoid-induced adrenal insufficiency (AI).

METHODS

Eligible studies were original research articles, which included adult patients with an indication for glucocorticoids and measured adrenal function following exposure to systemic glucocorticoids. Searches were performed in Web of Science and MEDLINE, with further articles identified from reference lists. Screening was performed in duplicate. Data were extracted for each group of glucocorticoid-exposed patients within eligible studies. The reported proportion of patients with AI was summarized as median and inter-quartile range. Results were then stratified by daily dose, cumulative dose, duration of exposure and time since last glucocorticoid use. The risk of bias within and across studies was considered: for randomised controlled trials risk of bias was assessed using the tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Overall, 73 eligible studies were identified out of 673 screened. The percentage of patients with AI ranged from 0% to 100% with a median (IQR) = 37.4% (13-63%). Studies were small-median (IQR) group size 16 (9-38)-and heterogeneous in methodology. AI persisted in 15% of patients retested 3 years after glucocorticoid withdrawal. Results remained widely distributed following stratification. AI was demonstrated at <5mg prednisolone equivalent dose/day, <4 weeks of exposure, cumulative dose <0.5g, and following tapered withdrawal.

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneity of studies and variability in results make it difficult to answer the research questions with confidence based on the current literature. There is evidence of AI following low doses and short durations of glucocorticoids. Hence, clinicians should be vigilant for adrenal insufficiency at all degrees of glucocorticoid exposure.

Adrenal Insufficiency in Corticosteroids Use: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to estimate pooled percentages of patients with adrenal insufficiency after treatment with corticosteroids for various conditions in a meta-analysis. Secondly, we aimed to stratify the results by route of administration, disease, treatment dose, and duration.

METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL/Academic Search Premier) in February 2014 to identify potentially relevant studies. Original articles testing adult corticosteroid users for adrenal insufficiency were eligible.

RESULTS

We included 74 articles with a total of 3753 participants. Stratified by administration form, percentages of patients with adrenal insufficiency ranged from 4.2% for nasal administration (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-28.9) to 52.2% for intra-articular administration (95% CI, 40.5-63.6). Stratified by disease, percentages ranged from 6.8% for asthma with inhalation corticosteroids only (95% CI, 3.8-12.0) to 60.0% for hematological malignancies (95% CI, 38.0-78.6). The risk also varied according to dose from 2.4% (95% CI, 0.6-9.3) (low dose) to 21.5% (95% CI, 12.0-35.5) (high dose), and according to treatment duration from 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3-7.4) (<28 d) to 27.4% (95% CI, 17.7-39.8) (>1 year) in asthma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Adrenal insufficiency after discontinuation of glucocorticoid occurs frequently; 2) there is no administration form, dosing, treatment duration, or underlying disease for which adrenal insufficiency can be excluded with certainty, although higher dose and longer use give the highest risk; 3) the threshold to test corticosteroid users for adrenal insufficiency should be low in clinical practice, especially for those patients with nonspecific symptoms after cessation.

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.

Impact of study design on the evaluation of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids' effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function

In part I of this review, an overview of the designs of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis studies in the setting of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or intranasal corticosteroids (INS) use was discussed. Part II provides detailed discussion on the HPA axis evaluation results for each common ICS and INS, and how these results are possibly affected by the factors of study design. Significant adrenal suppression at conventional ICS/INS doses appears to be rare in clinical settings. The magnitude of cortisol suppression varies widely among different study designs. Factors potentially impacting this variability include: the choice of dose, dosing duration, assay sensitivity, statistical methodology, study population, and compliance. All of these factors have the potential to affect the extent of HPA axis effects detected and should be considered when designing or interpreting the results of a HPA axis study.

The safety and efficacy of short-term budesonide delivered via mucosal atomization device for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

Budesonide is a potent corticosteroid commonly prescribed for management of inflammation in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The standard for prescribing budesonide is via impregnated nasal saline irrigation (INSI), although recently the mucosal atomization device (MAD) has emerged as a theoretically superior method of distributing medication into the sinuses. The MAD atomizes medication into small droplets and this is thought to enhance absorption and improve bioavailability. However, no studies have shown whether enhanced absorption and improved bioavailability of budesonide via MAD causes adrenal suppression. The objective of this study is to determine whether budesonide via MAD affects the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

METHODS

Twenty CRS patients were recruited from a tertiary rhinology clinic and randomized to take budesonide (1 mg) via MAD or via INSI twice a day for 60 days. The adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test and 22-item Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22) questionnaire were administered on days 1, 30, and 60 of the study. Plasma budesonide and cortisol levels were simultaneously quantified using a high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry technique.

RESULTS

There was no indication of adrenal suppression in either group (n = 20) based on ACTH stimulation test results nor was there significant plasma budesonide levels detected in either group. Quality of life, as indicated by SNOT-22, did not differ between groups at 60 days (p = 0.404; 95% confidence interval [CI], -37.2 to 15.9), but SNOT-22 scores for patients using MAD did show statistically significant improvement at 60 days compared to baseline (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The MAD is likely a safe and effective method of delivering budesonide to the sinuses in the short term.

Impact of study design on the evaluation of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids' effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, part I: general overview of HPA axis study design

Inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids (ICS and INS) are among the mainstays of the treatment for asthma and allergic rhinitis, respectively, and also carry the potential to suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Several important factors affect the interpretability of trials investigating the impact of ICS and INS on the HPA axis. This paper reviews 106 published clinical trials, peer-reviewed articles, and New Drug Application reviews of approved ICS and INS, using MEDLINE and Drugs@FDA database. The trials included in this review evaluated the potential impact on HPA axis function of eight approved single-ingredient ICS and INS (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone furoate, flucticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide) and combination products containing these ingredients. The most commonly utilized design was blinded, placebo controlled, and short term (<6 weeks) for adult trials and blinded, placebo controlled, and long term (≥6 weeks) for pediatric trials. Factors potentially affecting trial results include the choice of dose, dosing duration, assay sensitivity, statistical methodology, and the study population evaluated (patients or healthy volunteers). All of these factors have the potential to affect the level of adrenal suppression detected. In conclusion, to be informative, a HPA axis study should be well designed and carefully implemented to minimize variability in results and improve the overall interpretability of data obtained.

[Mechanism of action of nasal glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2: Practical aspects of application]

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the single most common allergic disease and one of the most common chronic diseases. It affects approximately 25-30% of the population, and can substantially worsen patients' medical conditions, reduce quality of life, and contribute to absenteeism from work or school. It is also responsible for substantial direct and indirect economic burdens on the health care system. The medical management of allergic rhinitis includes several available pharmacotherapies, such as α-sympathomimetics, anticholinergic drugs, natural saline or other nasal rinses, mast cell-stabilizing agents, topical and systemic antihistamines, topical and systemic glucocorticosteroids, leukotriene-receptor antagonists and the new monoclonal antibodies following a stepwise approach. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only treatment option that interferes with the natural course of the disease and, besides allergen elimination, is thought to be the only causative treatment option. Nasal glucocorticosteroids (nGCS) are thought to be the most effective treatment choice for controlling the symptoms of AR. Double-blind, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated greater efficacy of nGCSs versus placebo, antihistamines or montelukast for relief of all nasal symptoms, especially congestion. Therefore, especially in the management of AR-related nasal inflammation and congestion, nGCSs are considered the most appropriate treatment. Patients should be informed that symptom improvement can be expected after 2-4 days for intermittent rhinitis and after up to 2-3 weeks for persistent rhinitis. The medication has to be taken regularly and not as "on-demand" treatment. Adherence to treatment also affects outcomes, and this may be influenced by patient preferences for the sensory attributes of an individual drug and the awareness of possible side effects. More recently, safety studies have shown that the newer nGCS agents have improved safety profiles compared with older nGCS agents. The newer nGCS drugs have been found to have minimal adverse effects on growth and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis function in children. This review will discuss the pathophysiology of allergic inflammation in the nasal mucosa and the mechanism of action of nGCSs; also the efficacy and safety of nGCSs will be discussed by focusing on clinical evidence.

A randomized control trail of stepwise treatment with fluticasone propionate nasal spray and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablet for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In Japan, oral antihistamines are frequently used as the initial treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), and intranasal steroids are added when nasal symptoms worsen. This study aimed to evaluate whether starting treatment with fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FP) from the beginning of pollinosis symptoms and adding fexofenadine hydrochloride tablet (FEX) when SAR is aggravated could achieve improved amelioration of nasal symptoms throughout the pollen season in comparison with a treatment that involves starting with FEX and later adding FP.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial, 51 Japanese cedar pollinosis patients (age, 16-85 years) were randomly divided and administered FP 100 mcg twice daily as an initial drug with FEX 60 mg twice daily as an additional drug and the same treatment in the reverse order. Nasal symptoms were evaluated in a daily dairy using a 4-point scale. The primary outcome was area under curve of the line representing the daily total nasal symptom score in the pollen season on a graph.

RESULTS

Initial treatment with FP was significantly (P = 0.0015) more effective than initial treatment with FEX in improving the primary outcome. The average daily total nasal symptom score in the initial treatment with FP group was better than that in the initial treatment with FEX group throughout the pollen season.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment with FP and adding FEX might lead to improved outcomes for nasal symptoms in comparison with the same drugs administered in the reverse order.

Mechanisms and clinical implications of glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common airway disease characterized by hypersensitivity, exudation, hypersecretion, inflammatory cell infiltration and remodelling. Intranasal glucocorticosteroids are the most effective drugs for controlling the inflammation caused by allergic rhinitis. Glucocorticosteroids exert anti-inflammatory effects through at least two pathways: the transactivation pathway and the transrepression pathway. Glucocorticosteroids also exert regulatory functions by inducing regulatory cytokines and forkhead box P3 (FoxP3(+)) regulatory T cells. Evidence suggests that intranasal glucocorticosteroids control not only nasal symptoms but also ocular symptoms. In contrast to sedating H1 receptor antagonists, intranasal glucocorticosteroids can improve impaired performance symptoms, such as daytime sleepiness, associated with allergic rhinitis. Recent studies suggest that intranasal glucocorticosteroids might also be useful for the prophylactic treatment of pollinosis; this possibility is supported by the molecular mechanism of the anti-inflammatory action of glucocorticosteroids. These findings suggest that intranasal glucocorticosteroids might be positioned as first-line drugs for the treatment of both perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Safety of intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis

Treatment guidelines for acute rhinosinusitis (RS) recommend the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. However, the adverse event (AE) profiles of oral glucocorticoids, which result largely from the systemic absorption of those agents, have engendered concerns about the safety of INSs. These concerns persist for INSs despite significant or marked clinical differences between them and systemic corticosteroids in systemic absorption and among the INSs in bioavailability, mechanism of action, and lipophilicity, which may contribute to differences in AEs. For example, the systemic bioavailability of the INSs as a percentage of the administered drug is less than 0.1% for mometasone furoate, less than 1% for fluticasone propionate, 46% for triamcinolone acetonide, and 44% for beclomethasone dipropionate. A review of the safety profiles of INSs, as reported in clinical trials in acute and chronic RS and allergic rhinitis, shows primarily local AEs (eg, epistaxis and headache) that are generally classified as mild to moderate, with occurrence rates that are similar to those with placebo. Studies of the safety of mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and triamcinolone acetonide did not identify any evidence of systemic AEs, such as growth retardation in children due to suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, bone mineral density loss, or cataracts, which suggests that INSs can be safely administered in patients with acute RS without concern for systemic AEs.

Lack of effect on adult and adolescent hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function with use of fluticasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR), and because of their pharmacologic class, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function is evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether cortisol production was suppressed (as a measure of HPA axis function) by 6 weeks of treatment with fluticasone furoate nasal spray, 110 microg once daily, in patients with perennial AR.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled (prednisone), parallel-group study. Outpatients aged 12 to 65 years with perennial AR for 2 years or more were from 1 center in the United States and 1 center in Canada. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic samples were collected during 24-hour domiciled visits (overnight in clinic). Measurements included change from baseline in 24-hour serum cortisol weighted mean and 24-hour urinary free cortisol excretion, total 24-hour urinary free cortisol excretion and 6-beta hydroxycortisol excretion, and plasma concentration of fluticasone furoate.

RESULTS

A total of 112 of 183 patients were randomized. Fluticasone furoate was noninferior to placebo with respect to the ratio from baseline in serum cortisol weighted mean (treatment ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.07). In contrast, use of prednisone, 10 mg once daily, significantly reduced the ratio from baseline compared with placebo. Change from baseline in 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion was similar in the fluticasone furoate and placebo groups. Plasma levels of fluticasone furoate were undetectable after 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray, 110 microg once daily, was not associated with HPA axis suppression in patients 12 years and older with perennial AR.

Long-term safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in adults and adolescents with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate is a novel-enhanced affinity glucocorticoid and its long-term safety must be assessed. This study was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of 12-month intranasal administration of fluticasone furoate in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 806 patients with PAR were randomized to once daily (od) fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 microg (n = 605) or vehicle placebo nasal spray (n = 201) for 12 months, following a 7- to 14-day screening period. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events (AEs), 24-h urinary cortisol excretion, nasal and ophthalmic examinations, electrocardiograms and clinical laboratory tests. Plasma concentrations of fluticasone furoate were determined from blood samples.

RESULTS

Fluticasone furoate was well tolerated. The incidence of most AEs was similar to that observed with placebo, with the exception of epistaxis, which was more frequently reported on active treatment. There were no clinically meaningful differences between fluticasone furoate and placebo in terms of safety assessments, including mean changes in ophthalmic parameters and 24-h urine cortisol excretion. Plasma concentrations of fluticasone furoate were not quantifiable in the majority of patients following intranasal administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term (12-month) administration of fluticasone furoate 110 microg od revealed an AE profile typical of the intranasal corticosteroid class in both adult and adolescent patients with PAR, with no evidence of clinically relevant systemic corticosteroid exposure.

Glycyrrhizin alleviates experimental allergic asthma in mice

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease, the incidence of which is increasing globally. The existing therapy is inadequate and has many adverse effects. It needs a better therapeutic molecule preferably of natural origin, which has negligible or no adverse effects. In view of this, we evaluated Glycyrrhizin (GRZ), a major constituent of a plant Glycyrrhiza glabra, for its efficacy on asthmatic features in a mouse model of asthma. BALB/c mice were sensitized and challenged with ovalbumin (OVA) to develop the asthmatic features such as airway hyperresponsiveness: allergen induced airway constriction and airway hyperreactivity (AHR) to methacholine (MCh), and pulmonary inflammation. The mice were orally treated with GRZ (2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg) during or after OVA-sensitization and OVA-challenge to evaluate its protective or reversal effect, respectively on the above asthmatic features. The status of airway hyperresponsiveness was measured by monitoring specific airway conductance (SGaw) using a non-invasive method and the pulmonary inflammation was assessed by haematoxylin and eosin staining of lung sections. Several other parameters associated with asthma such as interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma), OVA-specific IgE, total IgG(2a) and cortisol were measured by ELISA. GRZ (5 mg/kg) markedly inhibited OVA-induced immediate airway constriction, AHR to MCh (p<0.01), lung inflammation, and infiltration of eosinophils in the peribronchial and perivascular areas. It prevented the reduction of IFN-gamma (p<0.02), and decreased IL-4 (p<0.05), IL-5 (p<0.05) and eosinophils (p<0.0002) in the BAL fluid. Also, it reduced OVA-specific IgE levels (p<0.01) and prevented the reduction of total IgG(2a) (p<0.01) in serum. We have also showed that it has no effect on serum cortisol levels. Our results demonstrate that GRZ alleviates asthmatic features in mice and it could be useful towards developing a better therapeutic molecule in the future.

Glucocorticosteroids in allergic inflammation: clinical benefits in allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media

Allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are among the most common health problems encountered in general practice. Although frequently trivialized, they affect the quality of life, represent a significant socioeconomic burden, and are associated with some serious complications. In addition, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are often considered as comorbidities. These disorders involve an inflammatory process of the respiratory mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses, or middle ear. Because of their well-known anti-inflammatory effects, the role of glucocorticosteroids in the management of these three disorders has been questioned, evaluated, and, in some cases, established.

Effect of budesonide aqueous nasal spray on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function in children with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are safe and effective for treating allergic rhinitis in adults. Since children may receive more systemic corticosteroid on a dose-per-weight basis than adults, the safety of corticosteroid therapy in pediatric patients is an important issue.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of treatment with budesonide aqueous nasal spray using the recommended once-daily dose for adults and children 6 years and older on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function in pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 78 patients aged 2 to 5 years with allergic rhinitis were treated with budesonide aqueous nasal spray (64 microg/d) or placebo. Mean change in morning plasma cortisol levels from baseline to study end 0, 30, and 60 minutes after low-dose (10-microg) cosyntropin stimulation and mean change in the difference from 0 to 30 minutes and from 0 to 60 minutes after cosyntropin stimulation were used to evaluate HPA axis function.

RESULTS

Mean change from baseline to study end in plasma cortisol levels 0, 30, and 60 minutes after cosyntropin stimulation and the difference from 0 to 30 minutes and from 0 to 60 minutes were not significantly different between the treatment and placebo groups (P > .05 for all). At the end of the study, 3 budesonide aqueous nasal spray and 6 placebo patients were classified as having subnormal HPA axis function. The safety and tolerability profile of budesonide aqueous nasal spray was comparable to that of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of budesonide aqueous nasal spray for 6 weeks was well tolerated and safe and had no measurable suppressive effects on HPA axis function in patients aged 2 to 5 years with allergic rhinitis.

Techniques of intranasal steroid use

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of topical intranasal steroids (INS) sprays for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis may be limited by lack of instruction in the optimal spray technique. To determine whether the technique used affects the efficacy and safety of the product, this review of evidence had the goal of identifying and establishing a preferred method of applying INS sprays.

STUDY DESIGN

A MEDLINE search of pertinent literature on 7 INS and 1 intranasal antihistamine spray preparations conducted with the use of appropriate search terms, yielded an initial 121 articles, 29 of which were identified as appropriate for review and grading for quality of evidence.

RESULTS

The analysis provided no definitive evidence regarding how best to instruct patients to use INS or antihistamine spray devices.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a lack of clear evidence regarding instructions to maximize efficacy and safety of these drugs, the panel recommended a 7-step standard technique.

Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials

For several years there has been discussion of whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids. No well documented, clinically relevant differences seem to exist for individual nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Likewise, the current body of literature does not seem to favor any specific intranasal corticosteroid. When comparing efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, present data favor intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not support antihistamines as superior in treating conjunctivitis associated with allergic rhinitis. Safety data from comparative studies in allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide additional beneficial effects to intranasal corticosteroids alone. Considering present data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis, when compared with antihistamines.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

The safety of intranasal steroids

The increasing use of intranasal steroids in the management of allergic rhinitis reflects their efficacy, tolerability, and safety. However, issues related to the safety of intranasal steroids continue to generate debate and confusion among clinicians. Consequently, there is often reluctance and uncertainty in prescribing these effective agents for the treatment of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis. Issues of particular concern are whether intranasal steroids adversely affect various homeostatic systems, influence growth and bone metabolism, and compromise ocular function. Furthermore, the expanding role of intranasal steroids in the pediatric, geriatric, and postmenopausal populations has raised concerns that these agents may result in a steroid burden that more readily causes adverse effects. An extensive review of the literature overwhelmingly supports the assertion that intranasal steroids are safe in prescribed doses and should allay the misconceptions regarding their appropriate use in the management of allergic rhinitis.

Effect of intranasal fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide on basal and dynamic measures of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis activity in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Most published studies show that intranasal corticosteroids have no effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, but there have been isolated reports to the contrary, contradicting accumulated knowledge on pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE

To re-evaluate the effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) aqueous nasal spray on the HPA axis using an improved study design.

METHODS

Twenty-three healthy volunteers were randomized in a double-blind, three-way crossover study. The study comprised a 4-day placebo run-in phase followed by three 4-day treatment periods (placebo, FPANS (200 microg once daily) or TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 microg once daily)), separated by 7-14 days washout intervals. Before the first, and on the last day of each treatment period, 12-h overnight urine was collected to assess cortisol excretion and cortisol creatinine ratio. Approximately 26 h after the last administration of study medication, volunteers underwent stimulation with 0.5 microg adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). Serum cortisol concentrations were measured before and 20 and 30 min after injection. Blood and urine samples were analysed for cortisol by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, EP or TAA had no significant effect on mean overnight (12 h) urinary cortisol excretion, and did not significantly suppress the overnight geometric mean urinary cortisol/creatinine excretion ratio. Values for serum cortisol before and after ACTH simulation showed no significant suppression, although there was a slight blunting of the HPA-axis response following TAA treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that there are no detectable effects on the HPA axis following short-term intranasal FP or TAA at their recommended dosages.

Lack of effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in 2- and 3-year-old patients

OBJECTIVE

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP) at the highest recommended doses does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function in adults or older children, but its potential effects in children younger than 4 years have not been previously studied. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effects of FP on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol levels in children 2 to 3 years of age.

METHODS

Patients ages 2 to 3 years with symptoms of allergic rhinitis were administered FP 200 microg/day (FP200 QD) or vehicle placebo for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The FP200 QD group (n = 33) was equivalent to the placebo group (n = 32) in mean change from baseline in the primary safety measure of 12-hour creatinine-corrected urinary-free cortisol concentration (geometric mean difference [standard error; SE] for placebo-FP200 QD = 0.96 [1.20]; 95% confidence interval 0.66, 1.39) at the end of the treatment period. The adjusted geometric mean change from baseline value was 0.98 for FP200 QD (SE = 1.14) and 0.94 for placebo (SE = 1.15); a value of 1.0 reflects no change from baseline. Cough and fever were the most common adverse events reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

FP200 QD was equivalent to placebo with respect to effects on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol in 2- and 3-year-old patients. FP200 QD was well-tolerated in these very young children with allergic rhinitis.

Are nasal steroids safe?

Nasal steroids have emerged as an integral part of rhinitis management. Most studies have shown no evidence of significant hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression from nasal steroid use, at least based on dynamic testing. Bone mineral density loss, glaucoma, and cataract formation are risks associated with systemic steroids, but reports with nasal steroid use are few. Growth retardation has been seen with some nasal steroids, but not others, based on stadiometric growth studies. Further studies are certainly needed to resolve this issue. Nasal steroids, in general, have an excellent safety record.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids are accepted as safe and effective first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Several intranasal corticosteroids are available: beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. All are efficacious in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis and as prophylaxis for perennial allergic rhinitis. In general, they relieve nasal congestion and itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing that occur in the early and late phases of allergic response, with studies showing almost complete prevention of late-phase symptoms. The rationale for topical intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis is that adequate drug concentrations can be achieved at receptor sites in the nasal mucosa. This leads to symptom control and reduces the risk of systemic adverse effects. Adverse reactions usually are limited to the nasal mucosa, such as dryness, burning and stinging, and sneezing, together with headache and epistaxis in 5-10% of patients regardless of formulation or compound. Differences among agents are limited to potency, patient preference, dosing regimens, and delivery, device and vehicle.

Inhaled mometasone furoate: a review of its use in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma

Mometasone furoate is a corticosteroid with relatively high in vitro potency. Recent randomised, double-blind, multicentre trials have assessed the efficacy of mometasone furoate delivered by dry powder inhaler over 12 weeks in adults and adolescents with mild to severe persistent asthma. Mometasone furoate 200 microg twice daily or 400 microg once daily in the morning or 200 microg once daily in the evening improved lung function, asthma symptom scores and use of rescue medication to a significantly greater extent than placebo in patients who had previously received only short-acting inhaled beta2-adrenoceptor agonists alone as treatment in 3 trials (n = 195 to 306). In studies in 227 to 733 patients with mild to moderate asthma who were receiving ongoing treatment with inhaled corticosteroids prior to enrolment, mometasone furoate 100 to 400 microg twice daily was consistently better at improving the above indicators of asthma than placebo. Mometasone furoate 100 to 200 microg twice daily was as effective as beclomethasone dipropionate 200 microg twice daily or budesonide 400 microg twice daily and mometasone furoate 200 microg twice daily was as effective as fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily. Mometasone furoate 400 or 800 microg twice daily was also consistently more effective than placebo in reducing oral corticosteroid dosages and improving lung function and asthma symptoms in 132 patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Once daily administration of mometasone furoate 400 microg appears to be as effective at improving indicators of asthma as twice daily administration of 200 microg. Patients receiving mometasone furoate < or =800 microg/day and recipients of placebo experienced a similar overall incidence of adverse events considered to be related to treatment. The most common of these events were oral candidiasis, headache, pharyngitis and dysphonia. Mometasone furoate 100 to 400 microg twice daily, beclomethasone dipropionate 200 microg twice daily, budesonide 400 microg twice daily or fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily were similarly tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled mometasone furoate is well tolerated, with minimal systemic activity and is equally effective when administered as a divided dose or as a single daily dose. Use of the drug can result in a decrease in requirements for oral corticosteroids in patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma and is as effective as other inhaled corticosteroids currently used in the treatment of mild to moderate persistent asthma. Thus mometasone furoate is suitable for the control of mild to severe persistent asthma in adults or adolescents.

Efficacy of fluticasone nasal spray for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that a 6-week course of a nasal glucocorticoid spray would decrease the severity of obstructive sleep apnea in children with adenotonsillar hypertrophy.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized, triple-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-group trial of nasal fluticasone propionate versus placebo in 25 children aged 1 to 10 years with obstructive sleep apnea proven on polysomnography. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the frequency of mixed and obstructive apneas and hypopneas.

RESULTS

Thirteen children received fluticasone, and 12 received placebo. The mixed/obstructive apnea/hypopnea index decreased from 10.7 +/- 2.6 (SE) to 5.8 +/- 2.2 in the fluticasone group but increased from 10.9 +/- 2.3 to 13.1 +/- 3.6 in the placebo group, P =.04. The mixed/obstructive apnea/hypopnea index decreased in 12 of 13 subjects treated with fluticasone versus 6 of 12 treated with placebo, P =.03. The frequencies of hemoglobin desaturation and respiratory movement/arousals also decreased more in the fluticasone group. Changes from baseline in tonsillar size, adenoidal size, and symptom score were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Nasal fluticasone decreased the frequency of mixed and obstructive apneas and hypopneas, suggesting that topical corticosteroids may be helpful in ameliorating pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.

Mometasone furoate has minimal effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis when delivered at high doses

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the potential for mometasone furoate (MF) to exert systemic effects following administration by dry powder inhaler (DPI) or metered-dose inhaler (MDI).

DESIGN

Three randomized, evaluator-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 28-day studies.

PATIENTS

Adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

INTERVENTIONS

Study 1 (12 patients per treatment group; MF DPI at 200 microg bid, 400 microg qd, 800 microg qd, or 1,200 microg qd). Study 2 (16 patients per treatment group; MF DPI at 400 microg bid or 800 microg bid, or oral prednisone at 10 mg qd). Study 3 (16 patients per treatment group; MF MDI at 400 microg bid or 800 microg bid, or fluticasone propionate [FP] at 880 microg bid by MDI).

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Study 1. Plasma concentrations were near the lower limit of quantitation (50 pg/mL) at the MF DPI 400-microg qd dosage and approximately 250 pg/mL at the 1,200-microg qd dosage. The area under the curve for serum cortisol concentrations over 24 h (AUC(24)) was essentially unaltered at all doses. Study 2. Plasma levels over days 7 to 28 were 100.3 +/- 5.9 pg/mL (mean +/- SEM) for MF DPI 400 microg bid, and 181.0 +/- 10.9 pg/mL for 800 microg bid. Although there were relatively low levels of suppression (19 to 25%) at earlier time points for MF DPI 400 microg bid, serum cortisol AUC(24) levels at day 28 were similar to placebo. MF DPI 800 microg bid and oral prednisone both decreased serum cortisol AUC(24) levels at days 7 to 28 by 28.0 +/- 8.3% and 67.2 +/- 3.6%, respectively. The response to cosyntropin was normal in 15, 14, 11, and 1 of the patients in the placebo, MF DPI 400 microg bid, MF DPI 800 microg bid, and prednisone groups, respectively. Study 3. MF MDI caused even less systemic exposure than by DPI. MF MDI 800 microg bid (24.0 +/- 3.1%) and FP (51.7 +/- 3.8%) caused a significant decrease in serum cortisol AUC(24) on days 14 to 28. MF MDI 400 microg bid was similar to placebo treatment at all time points.

CONCLUSIONS

The MF 800-microg bid dosage (1,600 microg/d), which is twice the highest projected clinical dosage, represents the lower limit for consistently detectable systemic effects of MF.

Systemic effects of intranasal steroids: an endocrinologist's perspective

Intranasal steroids (INSs) are established as first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis. Extensive use of INSs with few reported adverse events supports the safety of these medications. Nevertheless, the prescription of more potent INSs for consistent and more prolonged use to younger and older patients, often in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, justifies the careful examination of their potential adverse systemic effects. Systemic bioavailability of INSs, by way of nasal and intestinal absorption, can be substantial; but current INSs vary significantly in their degree of first-pass hepatic inactivation and clearance from the body of the swallowed drug. For safety studies of INSs, distinguishing detectable physiologic perturbations from important adverse events is aided by an understanding of normal endocrine physiology and the methods used to test these systems. A review of available information indicates that (1) sensitive tests can measure the effects of INSs on biologic feedback systems, but they do not accurately predict clinically relevant adverse effects; (2) the primary factors that influence the relationship between therapeutic and adverse systemic effects of INSs are dosing frequency and efficiency of hepatic inactivation of swallowed drug; (3) INS treatment in recommended doses does not cause clinically significant hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression; (4) growth suppression can occur with twice-daily administration of certain INSs but does not appear to occur with once-daily dosing or with agents with more complete first-pass hepatic inactivation; (5) harmful effects of INSs on bone metabolism have not yet been adequately studied but would not be expected with the use of an INS dose and dosing frequency that do not suppress basal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function or growth; and (6) these conclusions apply to INS treatment alone and in recommended doses-the risk of adverse effects in individual patients who are treated with INSs is increased by excessive dosing or concomitant inhaled corticosteroid or other topical corticosteroid therapy.

Safety of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids: lessons for the new millennium

Although inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids are first-line therapy for asthma and allergic rhinitis, there has recently been an increasing awareness of their propensity to produce systemic adverse effects. The availability of more potent and lipophilic corticosteroids and new chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-free formulations has focused attention on these safety issues. The main determinant of systemic bioavailability of these drugs is direct absorption from the lung or nose, where there is no first-pass inactivation. Consequently, the systemic bioavailability of inhaled corticosteroids is greatly influenced by the efficiency of the inhaler device. Thus, when comparing different inhaled corticosteroids it is imperative to consider the unique drug/device interaction. The pharmacokinetic profile is important in determining the systemic bioactivity of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids. For highly lipophilic drugs, such as fluticasone propionate or mometasone furoate, there is preferential partitioning into the systemic tissue compartment, and consequently a large volume of distribution at steady state. In contrast, drugs with lower lipophilicity, such as triamcinolone acetonide or budesonide, have a smaller volume of distribution. The systemic tissue compartment may act as a slow release reservoir, resulting in a long elimination half-life for the lipophilic drugs. For intranasal corticosteroids, a high degree of lipophilicity diminishes water solubility in mucosa and therefore increases the amount of drug swept away by mucociliary clearance before it can gain access to tissue receptor sites. This may reduce the anti-inflammatory efficacy in the nose, but might also reduce the propensity for direct systemic absorption from the nasal cavity. The hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) formulations of beclomethasone dipropionate are solutions and exhibit a much higher respirable fine particle dose than do the CFC formulations. Dose-response studies with one of the HFA formulations have shown therapeutic equivalence at half the dosage, with little evidence of adrenal suppression at dosages up to 800 microg/day. A lack of similar studies for another of the available HFA formulations has led to a discrepancy in the recommendations for equivalence. Although in vitro studies have pointed to a similar fine particle distribution for the HFA and CFC formulations of fluticasone propionate, this is not supported by in vivo data for lung bioavailability, suggesting that care will be required when switching these formulations. Prescribers of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids should be aware of the potential for long term systemic effects. The safest way to use these drugs is to 'step-down' to achieve the lowest possible effective maintenance dosage.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of treatment with fluticasone propionate and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. FLNCO2 Italian Study Group

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) is a topically active glucocorticoid which has been successfully used for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Topical levocabastine is a highly selective H1 antagonist which has been proposed as an alternative treatment of SAR. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two topical nasal treatments, FPANS and levocabastine, in the treatment of SAR. Additionally, the effect of treatments on nasal inflammation was examined during natural pollen exposure. A group of 288 adolescent and adult patients with at least a 2-year history of SAR to seasonal pollens participated in a multicenter, doubleblind, double-dummy, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were treated with either FPANS 200 microg, once daily (n = 97), or topical levocabastine, 200 microg, given twice daily (n = 96), or matched placebo (n = 95) for a period of 6 weeks, starting from the expected beginning of the pollen season. Clinically relevant pollens included Parietaria, olive, and grass. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on nasal cytology of nasal lavage. Nasal lavage was performed immediately before, during, and at the end of treatment in 39 patients. FPANS significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for nasal obstruction on waking and during the day, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching. FPANS provided a better control for night and day nasal obstruction (P<0.02 and P<0.01) and rhinorrhea (P<0.01) than levocabas tine. In addition, fewer patients treated with FPANS used rescue medication (P<0.025). The percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage was reduced only during treatment with FPANS. The results of this study indicate that FPANS 200 microg, once daily, provides a better clinical effect than levocabastine 200 microg, twice daily, in patients with SAR. Unlike levocabastine, FPANS significantly attenuates nasal eosinophilia during pollen exposure, a feature which may explain its therapeutic efficacy.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: how do different agents compare?

Intranasal steroids have proved to be an effective and safe form of therapy for allergic rhinitis. However, as the number of new glucocorticoid compounds has increased over the past decade, it has become important to consider whether significant differences exist between these agents. Pharmacologically, newer drugs such as mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate appear to have substantially higher topical potencies and lipid solubilities and lower systemic bioavailabilities than do older compounds. In clinical use, however, all the available drugs appear to be equally effective in controlling symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. With respect to adverse effects, emerging data suggest that mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate may have less potential for systemic effects during prolonged use, particularly in children. Newer intranasal steroids appear to have practical advantages over older agents that may favor their use in some groups of patients with allergic rhinitis.