Use of nasal steroids in managing allergic rhinitis

Confronting allergies: strategies for combating pollution and safeguarding our health

Increasing evidence demonstrates a robust link between environmental pollutants and allergic reactions, with air and indoor pollution exacerbating respiratory allergies and climate change intensifying seasonal allergies. Comprehensive action, including government regulations, public awareness, and individual efforts, is essential to mitigate pollution's impact on allergies and safeguard public health and ecological balance. Recent findings indicate a strong correlation between environmental pollutants and allergic reactions, with air pollution from vehicular emissions and industrial activities exacerbating respiratory allergies like asthma and allergic rhinitis. Additionally, indoor pollutants such as mold and volatile organic compounds are significant triggers of allergic responses, especially among vulnerable populations. Furthermore, climate change, driven by pollution, is intensifying seasonal allergies due to altered weather patterns and increased pollen production. This review emphasizes the critical importance of addressing pollution and allergies, highlighting the growing concerns in contemporary society. This review highlights the urgent need to address pollution and allergies, emphasizing their increasing significance in modern society and outlining effective allergy management strategies.

Linking physiology and demographics, non-ocular pathology and pharmaceutical drug use to standard OCT measures of the inner retina: The PPP project

PURPOSE

To assess the associations between physiology and demographics, non-ocular pathology and pharmaceutical drug use against peri-papillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (pRNFL T) and other optical coherence tomography (OCT) inner retinal measures in normal, healthy eyes.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study of 705 consecutive participants with bilateral normal, healthy optic nerves and maculae. PRNFL Ts, vertical cup/disc ratio (CDR), cup volume and macular ganglion cell layer-inner plexiform layer (GCL-IPL) Ts were extracted from Cirrus OCT scans, then regressed against predictor variables of participants' physiology and demographics (eye laterality, refraction, intraocular pressure [IOP], age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc.) and non-ocular pathology and pharmaceutical drug use according to the World Health Organisation classifications. Associations were assessed for statistical significance (p < 0.05) and clinical significance (|β| > 95% limits of agreement for repeated measures).

RESULTS

A multitude of non-ocular pathology and pharmaceutical drug use were statistically and clinically significantly associated with deviations in standard OCT inner retinal measures, exceeding the magnitude of other factors such as age, IOP and race/ethnicity. Thinner inner retina and larger optic nerve cup measures were linked to use of systemic corticosteroids, sex hormones/modulators, presence of vasomotor/allergic rhinitis and other diseases and drugs (up to -29.3 [-49.88, -8.72] μm pRNFL T, 0.31 [0.07, 0.54] vertical CDR, 0.29 [0.03, 0.54] mm3 cup volume and -10.18 [-16.62, -3.74] μm macular GCL-IPL T; all p < 0.05). Thicker inner retina and smaller optic nerve cup measures were diffusely associated with use of antineoplastic agents, presence of liver or urinary diseases and other diseases and drugs (up to 67.12 [64.92, 69.31] μm pRNFL T, -0.31 [-0.53, -0.09] vertical CDR, -0.06 [-0.11, 0] mm3 cup volume and 28.84 [14.51, 43.17] μm macular GCL-IPL T; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There are a multitude of systemic diseases and drugs associated with altered OCT inner retinal measures, with magnitudes far exceeding those of other factors such as age, IOP and race/ethnicity. These systemic factors should at least be considered during OCT assessments to ensure precise interpretation of normal versus pathological inner retinal health.

Budesonide aqueous nasal spray: an updated review in managing chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a frequent medical condition. Type 2 inflammation signs CRSwNP in western countries. Type 2 inflammation leads to nasal airflow limitation. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS); it has been launched in the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps (both as treatment and prevention after surgery). Consolidated evidence documented its efficacy in treating CRSwNP. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with CRSwNP recommend using INCS as the first line in many situations. In particular, patients may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A score >5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms in both diseases and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In addition, BANS may adequately integrate surgery and biologics for CRSwNP management. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing patients with type 2-mediated CRSwNP.

Budenoside aqueous nasal spray: an updated reappraisal in rhinitis management

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis are prevalent diseases. In western countries, type 2 inflammation usually characterizes these medical conditions and mainly sustains nasal obstruction. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) that has been available since the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps (both as treatment and prevention after surgery). Consolidated evidence confirms its efficacy in treating seasonal and perennial AR, and nonallergic rhinitis. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with AR recommend using INCS as the first line in many situations. In particular, patients may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale. A score ≥5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing patients with type 2 inflammation of the nose.

A green spectrophotometric method for the simultaneous determination of nasal binary mixture used in respiratory diseases: Applying isosbestic point and chemometric approaches as a resolving tool, greenness evaluation

Nasal drug combination is a very useful therapy for elevating the symptoms of various respiratory diseases as seasonal allergic rhinitis and infectious respiratory illness as pandemic COVID-19. One of best combination is Fluticasone propionate (FLU) and Azelastine (AZE). In this study, different UV spectrophotometric and chemometric methods have been applied for quantitative analysis of FLU and AZE without previous separation in their pure form, laboratory prepared mixture and pharmaceutical dosage form. Absorbance subtraction (AS) and Amplitude modulation (AM) spectrophotometric methods have been applied for the simultaneous determination of the cited drugs. Besides, three well-known chemometric techniques; namely, classical least squares (CLS), partial least square (PLS), and principal component regression (PCR) have been applied for the simultaneous analysis of both drugs by using spectrophotometric data. To be friendly to the environment, the greenness of the proposed methods was taken into consideration and evaluation of the analytical methods' greenness was done using two green analytical chemistry metrics known as, Analytical Greenness Calculator and an eco-scale scoring method. They indicated that the methods were environmentally friendly in relation to numerous approaches like instrument, reagents, and safety of waste. Analyzing laboratory prepared mixtures including different quantities of FLU and AZE, as well as their marketed dose form, was used to assess the selectivity of the applied methods. The validity of the developed methods was investigated by applying the standard addition technique. The resulting data were statistically compared to those obtained by the official or reported HPLC methods for FLU and AZE, which revealed no significant difference in accuracy and precision at p = 0.05.

Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids on Intraocular Pressure and Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Western Saudi Arabia

Background

Rhinitis represents a global health problem, affecting 10%-20% of the population in Saudi Arabia. Topical intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are widely used by otolaryngologists to treat patients with rhinitis for long periods. Although the effects of orally administered corticosteroids on intraocular pressure (IOP) and lens opacity are well established, the impact of INCS is not well defined. In the present study, we aimed to assess the effect of using INCS on IOP over a six-month period in patients with rhinitis.

Methodology

In this study, a questionnaire was distributed to 93 patients diagnosed with rhinitis in the Ear, Nose, and Throat Clinic of King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Saudi Arabia, between February and July 2019. Thereafter, each patient was evaluated in the Ophthalmology Clinic with optical coherence tomography of the optic nerve using Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) optic disc scans, visual acuity testing, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Pearson correlation coefficients and two-tailed tests of significance were used to assess the relationships between variables.

Results

All 93 patients were using a dose of two puffs at least twice daily for each nostril. Their IOPs, as depicted by Goldman applanation tonometry, were found to be within normal limits. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness was also found to be normal in 95% of the participants.

Conclusions

Our study showed no correlation between INCS and IOP. As an increase in IOP can lead to glaucoma, our data demonstrate the safety profile of INCS use. For patients with rhinitis, this finding could change compliance to medication and reduce the burden of the disease.

Combination Therapy to Treat Fungal Biofilm-Based Infections

An increasing number of people is affected by fungal biofilm-based infections, which are resistant to the majority of currently-used antifungal drugs. Such infections are often caused by species from the genera Candida, Aspergillus or Cryptococcus. Only a few antifungal drugs, including echinocandins and liposomal formulations of amphotericin B, are available to treat such biofilm-based fungal infections. This review discusses combination therapy as a novel antibiofilm strategy. More specifically, in vitro methods to discover new antibiofilm combinations will be discussed. Furthermore, an overview of the main modes of action of promising antibiofilm combination treatments will be provided as this knowledge may facilitate the optimization of existing antibiofilm combinations or the development of new ones with a similar mode of action.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Exploring of the molecular mechanism of rhinitis via bioinformatics methods

The aim of this study was to analyze gene expression profiles for exploring the function and regulatory network of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in pathogenesis of rhinitis by a bioinformatics method. The gene expression profile of GSE43523 was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The dataset contained 7 seasonal allergic rhinitis samples and 5 non-allergic normal samples. DEGs between rhinitis samples and normal samples were identified via the limma package of R. The webGestal database was used to identify enriched Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways of the DEGs. The differentially co-expressed pairs of the DEGs were identified via the DCGL package in R, and the differential co-expression network was constructed based on these pairs. A protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of the DEGs was constructed based on the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes database. A total of 263 DEGs were identified in rhinitis samples compared with normal samples, including 125 downregulated ones and 138 upregulated ones. The DEGs were enriched in 7 KEGG pathways. 308 differential co-expression gene pairs were obtained. A differential co-expression network was constructed, containing 212 nodes. In total, 148 PPI pairs of the DEGs were identified, and a PPI network was constructed based on these pairs. Bioinformatics methods could help us identify significant genes and pathways related to the pathogenesis of rhinitis. Steroid biosynthesis pathway and metabolic pathways might play important roles in the development of allergic rhinitis (AR). Genes such as CDC42 effector protein 5, solute carrier family 39 member A11 and PR/SET domain 10 might be also associated with the pathogenesis of AR, which provided references for the molecular mechanisms of AR.

Management of Allergic Rhinitisand Sinusitis

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis are chronic conditions of the airway and cause significant morbidity. Both can require pharmacotherapy with nonprescription products to relieve symptoms or with prescription products to treat the underlying pathophysiology. Because these diseases are prevalent conditions, the pharmacist is in the unique position of being the first health professional contact for many patients. The pharmacist can assist the patient in selection of nonprescription antihistamines, decongestants, and nasal saline sprays as well as provide instruction on the use of steam therapy, aromatic vapors, and warm compresses for the relief of symptoms. Equally important, the pharmacist can encourage patients to seek care from a physician when treatment with intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, and nonsedating antihistamines are needed.

New therapeutic options for allergic rhinitis: back to the future with intranasal corticosteroid aerosols

BACKGROUND

Under current guidelines, intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are considered the most effective first-line therapy to improve allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and burden of disease. In the late 1980s-1990s, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled corticosteroid aerosol nasal sprays formed the standard of care for the treatment of AR. Because of environmental concerns, CFC aerosols were gradually phased out, and aqueous INS formulations of nasal sprays became the standard of care. Although many aqueous INS sprays are available, specific product-related factors can reduce patient adherence to an INS and subsequently reduce treatment efficacy. The purpose of this paper was to review the evolution of AR therapeutics and drug devices and how it may have an effect on patient adherence/compliance and patient satisfaction with current available therapies and show the unmet need to improve INS delivery systems.

METHODS

Although aqueous INSs are effective and well tolerated, use in some patients may be compromised because of patient sensory perception and device preference. A historical review of the evolution of intranasal delivery of INSs was undertaken to provide further insight into improving treatment options for patients with AR.

RESULTS

Although the various approved INSs appear to be equivalent in terms of reducing AR disease burden, the method in which an INS is delivered to a patient has significant bearing on the overall success of each specific drug product.

CONCLUSION

Hydrofluoroalkane-propelled INS drug products offer a back-to-the-future delivery approach that may be further tailored to the individual patient's needs. Past experiences and the development of new devices are paving the way toward further therapy choices, ultimately affording health care providers access to the most effective treatments for patients with AR.

Bioavailability and disposition of azelastine and fluticasone propionate when delivered by MP29-02, a novel aqueous nasal spray

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

• The topical second generation anti-histamine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and the potent corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) are well established first-line treatments in allergic rhinitis (AR). • MP29-02, a novel intranasal AZE and FP formulation, has been shown to control AR symptoms faster and better than standard intranasal AZE or FP. • The systemic bioavailabilities of marketed AZE and FP nasal spray products have been established at about 40% and 1% only, respectively. • For new combination medicinal products such as MP29-02, the determination of possible pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions between both active components and formulation-based bioavailability alterations is essential.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

• This paper provides for the first time information on potential drug-drug interactions, AZE and FP bioavailability and disposition characteristics of each component administered by the novel nasal spray formulation MP29-02. • The studies employed highly sensitive FP and AZE LC-MS/MS assays and could therefore be conducted with recommended therapeutic doses, thereby circumventing previously recognized draw-backs that required nasal bioavailability studies to be conducted using supra-therapeutic doses. • No significant PK drug-drug interaction between the active components AZE and FP was noted for MP29-02. • AZE bioavailabilty was equivalent when MP29-02 data were compared with MP29-02-AZE-mono and Astelin®. • Increased FP exposure was observed with MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP serum concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products suggesting no clinically meaningful pharmacodynamic differences in terms of systemic safety.

AIM(S)

To determine azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) bioavailabilities of the novel nasal spray combination product MP 29-02, compared with MP29-02-based products containing only AZE (MP29-02-AZE-mono), FP (MP29-02-FP-mono), marketed AZE and FP single entity products (Astelin® and FP Boehringer-Ingelheim; FP-BI).

METHODS

Two randomized, three period, six sequence, three treatment crossover studies were conducted in healthy subjects. Study 1 administered 200 µg FP as MP29-02, MP29-02-FP-mono or FP-BI. Study 2 administered 548 µg AZE as MP29-02, MP29-02-AZE-mono or Astelin®. Each dose consisted of two sprays/nostril. Serum FP and plasma AZE were followed over 24 (FP) and 120 h (AZE) and quantified by LC-MS/MS. Peak (C(max) ) and total exposures AUC(0,t(last) ) were compared between the treatments by anova.

RESULTS

Study 1: Average FP C(max) was very low with all products (≤ 10 pg ml(-1) ). FP AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-FP-mono and MP29-02 : FP-BI ratios (%) were 93.6 (83.6, 104.7) and 161.1 (137.1, 189.3). Corresponding ratios for C(max) were 91.0 (82.5, 100.4) and 157.4 (132.5, 187.1). Study 2: AZE AUC(0,t(last) ) point estimates (90% CIs) for MP29-02 : MP29-02-AZE-mono and MP29-02 : Astelin® ratios (%) were 98.8 (91.0, 107.4) and 105.5 (95.6, 116.4). Corresponding outcomes for C(max) were 102.7 (92.1, 114.4) and 107.3 (92.6, 124.3).

CONCLUSIONS

No interactions of AZE and FP were found with the MP29-02 formulation. Azelastine bioavailability was similar for MP29-02 and Astelin®. Maximum and total FP exposure was higher for MP29-02-based products compared with FP-BI. FP concentrations were generally very low with all investigational products and did not suggest clinically meaningful differences concerning systemic safety.

Influence of treatment with intranasal corticosteroids on the nasal mucosa, weight, and corticosteroid concentration in rats

BACKGROUND

The effect of intranasal corticosteroids on the nasal epithelium mucosa is an important parameter of treatment safety. This study was designed to examine whether treatment with topical corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis causes atrophic nasal mucosal changes, when compared with systemic corticosteroids, in rats.

METHODS

Male Wistar rats were treated daily during 7 weeks with topical administration with 10 microliters of normal saline (control group), 10 microliters of mometasone furoate group, 10 microliters of triamcinolone acetonide (T group), and 8 mg/kg of daily subcutaneous injections of methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MP group). Body weight was evaluated weekly. At the end of the treatment, rats were killed by decapitation to collect blood for determination of corticosterone levels and nasal cavities were prepared for histological descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with T and MP decreased body weight. Plasma corticosterone concentration was significantly reduced by MP treatment and presented a clear tendency to decrease after T treatment. Histological changes observed in group T included ripples, cell vacuolization, increase in the number of nuclei, and decrease in the number of cilia in the epithelial cells.

CONCLUSION

Growth and corticosterone concentration were impaired by T and MP at the same proportion, suggesting a role of this hormone in body gain. With the exception of T, intranasal or systemic treatment with the corticosteroids evaluated in this study did not affect nasal mucosa.

Effectiveness of twice daily azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Azelastine nasal spray (Allergodil^®, Lastin^®, Afluon^®; Meda AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is a fast-acting, efficacious and well-tolerated H1-receptor antagonist for the treatment of rhinitis. In addition it also has mast-cell stabilizing and anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the concentration of leukotrienes, kinins and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo, as well as inflammatory cell migration in rhinitis patients. Well-controlled studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial rhinitis (PR) or vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) confirm that azelastine nasal spray has a rapid onset of action, and improves nasal symptoms associated with rhinitis such as nasal congestion and post-nasal drip. Azelastine nasal spray is effective at the lower dose of 1 spray as well at a dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, but with an improved tolerability profile compared to the 2-spray per nostril twice daily regimen. Compared with intranasal corticosteroids, azelastine nasal spray has a faster onset of action and a better safety profile, showing at least comparable efficacy with fluticasone propionate (Flonase^®; GSK, USA), and a superior efficacy to mometasone furoate (Nasonex^®; Schering Plough, USA). In combination with fluticasone propionate, azelastine nasal spray exhibits greater efficacy than either agent used alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with difficult to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. In addition, azelastine nasal spray can be used on an as-needed basis without compromising clinical efficacy. Compared with oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray also demonstrates superior efficacy and a more rapid onset of action, and is effective even in patients who did not respond to previous oral antihistamine therapy. Unlike most oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray is effective in alleviating nasal congestion, a particularly bothersome symptom for rhinitis sufferers. Azelastine nasal spray is well tolerated in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis. Bitter taste which seems to be associated with incorrect dosing technique is the most common side effect reported by patients, but this problem can be minimized by correct dosing technique.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

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

Review of the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of azelastine hydrochloride

Rhinitis is one of the most common diseases in the general population. Although it is not a life-threatening condition, rhinitis can cause significant discomfort and, therefore, negatively impact quality of life. Several treatment options are available; however, optimal relief of symptoms is difficult to achieve for most patients. Azelastine hydrochloride (Astelin) nasal spray is the only prescription intranasal antihistamine available in the USA, and is approved for treating symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. Oral formulations of azelastine are available outside the USA for use in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, asthma and urticaria. Azelastine hydrochloride has demonstrated a favorable safety profile during approximately 20 years of clinical use.

Review of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis

Azelastine is a potent H(1)-antihistamine, which is available as a topical nasal spray and indicated for both seasonal allergic and non-allergic vasomotor rhinitis. In addition to its antihistaminic effects, it has also been shown to have a number of other potentially important attributes, including effects on cytokines, adhesion molecules and inflammatory cells. Azelastine nasal spray has been shown to benefit patients who have not responded adequately to loratadine and fexofenadine, and is significantly more efficacious than cetirizine and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Given its unique pharmacologic properties and clinical profile, azelastine maintains an important role in the treatment of chronic rhinitis.

Efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate vs nedocromil sodium as prophylactic treatment for moderate/severe seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The preventive use of medications has been proposed to be effective in the treatment of seasonal rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate and nedocromil sodium nasal sprays as prophylactic treatment for moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

PATIENTS

Sixty-one patients were recruited from 3 referral allergy centers. Inclusion criteria were history of SAR for 2 years or longer, sensitization to relevant local pollen (grasses, Parietaria, and olive), and age older than 12 years.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, parallel-group, "real-life" study design was used. Patients received mometasone furoate nasal spray once daily or nedocromil sodium nasal spray 3 times daily starting 2 to 4 weeks before the pollen season and continuing for up to 4 months. Instructions regarding the use of additional medications were given. Diary cards recording symptoms, use of medication, and adverse events were kept by the patients.

RESULTS

All 61 patients completed the study. The prophylactic use of mometasone furoate vs nedocromil sodium led to significantly more days without symptoms (75.1% vs 54.5%; P < .001). The mometasone furoate group also had lower nasal symptom scores (mean, 1.4 vs 2.9; median, 0 vs 2; P < .001) and was more satisfied (93.1% vs 43.5%; P < .001). No serious adverse event was recorded, and there was no difference between the treatments in any adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of mometasone furoate before the pollen season is safe and may lead to improved control of SAR compared with the use of nedocromil sodium.

Effect of topical nasal steroid sprays on nasal mucosa and ciliary function

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review was conducted to examine current evidence focusing on the effect of nasal steroid sprays on nasal ciliary function.

RECENT FINDINGS

Review of current literature suggests that long term effects of topical corticosteroid nasal sprays are safe and fail to cause damage to local nasal structure and function.

SUMMARY

The use of corticosteroid nasal sprays for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is widely accepted. Popularity of this class of medications is based on a well-established combination of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Although current literature suggests that the use of intranasal steroids is indeed safe, increasing indications for prolonged administration continue to fuel debate regarding the long-term effect on local nasal structure and function. The purpose of this article is to review current literature addressing the effects of the components of local intranasal steroid sprays on the structure and function of the nasal mucosa.

Allergic rhinitis in children : diagnosis and management strategies

The incidence of allergic rhinitis has been increasing for the last few decades, in keeping with the rising incidence of atopy worldwide. Allergic rhinitis has a prevalence of up to 40% in children, although it frequently goes unrecognized and untreated. This can have enormous negative consequences, particularly in children, since it is associated with numerous complications and comorbidities that have a significant health impact on quality of life. In fact, allergic rhinitis is considered to be a risk factor for asthma. There are numerous signs of allergic rhinitis, particularly in children, that can alert an observant clinician to its presence. Children with severe allergic rhinitis often have facial manifestations of itching and obstructed breathing, including a gaping mouth, chapped lips, evidence of sleep deprivation, a long face, dental malloclusions, and the allergic shiner, allergic salute, or allergic crease. The medical history is extremely important as it can reveal information regarding a family history of atopy and the progression of atopy in the child. It is also important to identify the specific triggers of allergic rhinitis, because one of the keys to successful management is the avoidance of triggers. A tripartite treatment strategy that embraces environmental control, immunotherapy, and pharmacologic treatment is the most comprehensive approach. Immunotherapy has come to be viewed as potentially prophylactic, capable of altering the course of allergic rhinitis. The most recent guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis issued by the WHO recommend a tiered approach that integrates diagnosis and treatment, in which allergic rhinitis is subclassified both by frequency, as either intermittent or persistent, and by severity, as either mild or moderate to severe. Oral or topical antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for allergic rhinitis, depending upon its severity, and several agents have been approved for use in children aged 5 years old and younger.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare product attributes, preferences, and expected compliance associated with triamcinolone acetonide aqueous (TAA-AQ), fluticasone propionate (FP), and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from 2 randomized, double-blind crossover studies with identical design were pooled (N = 215). Patients completed a 14-item sensory attributes questionnaire immediately after each product, and stated their preference and expected compliance with a prescription after receiving all products.

RESULTS

Compared with FP and MF, TAA-AQ was associated with significantly less odor and greater liking of odor ( P < 0.001); and less taste, less dryness of nose/throat, less aftertaste, and greater overall liking ( P < 0.05). Significantly more patients preferred most a prescription of TAA-AQ (50.0%) versus FP (25.0%; P < 0.001) and MF (25.0%; P < 0.001), and would "definitely comply" with TAA-AQ (62.5%) versus FP (49.0%; P < 0.01) and MF (51.0%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

TAA-AQ was associated with significantly more positive sensory attributes, higher preference, and better expected compliance than FP and MF.

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients' preferences for the sensory attributes of an intranasal corticosteroid may affect adherence to treatment.

Desloratadine: an update of its efficacy in the management of allergic disorders

Desloratadine (Clarinex, Neoclarityn, Aerius, Azomyr, Opulis, Allex), the principal metabolite of loratadine, is itself an orally active, nonsedating, peripheral histamine H(1)-receptor antagonist. It is indicated in the US and Europe for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). It has a rapid onset of effect, efficacy throughout a 24-hour dosage interval, and sustained efficacy in these allergic conditions, as demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials of up to 6 weeks' duration in adult and adolescent patients. At present, there are no published direct comparisons of desloratadine and other H(1)-antihistamines; however, the principal, potential clinical advantages of desloratadine over late-generation H(1)-antihistamines are the drug's decongestant activity, which has been corroborated in several studies of patients with allergic rhinitis, and its anti-inflammatory effects. Indeed, the decongestant activity of desloratadine did not differ from that of pseudoephedrine in a trial in patients with SAR, and in patients with SAR and coexisting asthma, desloratadine reduced asthma symptoms and beta(2)-agonist use, and improved forced expiratory flow in 1 second. However, these issues warrant further study. Desloratadine is generally well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events in adults, adolescents and children was not significantly different to that with placebo, and similar proportions of desloratadine or placebo recipients reported events such as pharyngitis, dry mouth, myalgia, somnolence, dysmenorrhoea or fatigue. Desloratadine does not cause sedation or prolong the corrected QT (QTc) interval, can be administered without regard to concurrent intake of food and grapefruit juice, and appears to have negligible potential for drug interactions mediated by several metabolic systems.

CONCLUSION

Although comparative studies with second-generation and other recently developed H(1)-antihistamines are needed to define the drug's clinical profile more clearly, desloratadine can be expected to claim a prominent place in the management of allergic disorders in general, and in the amelioration of specific symptoms of allergy (e.g. nasal congestion) in patients with such disorders.

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.

Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models

BACKGROUND

It is presumed that exposure to allergens in the environment occurs through both the eyes and the nose. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is typically treated with a nasal spray or systemic antihistamine, neither of which may provide adequate relief of the ocular component of the disease.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to gain a better understanding of the physiologic interaction between the conjunctival and nasal mucosa and thus help establish a profile for the most effective ocular treatment in patients whose allergies have both an ocular and a nasal component.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked clinical study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) and nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models. It compared the clinical signs and symptoms induced by CAC and NAC, the effects of drugs administered by 3 different routes, and the movement of fluorescein after instillation into the eye and nose (Jones test), and assessed levels of of inflammatory mediators in tears and nasal secretions. At visit l, subjects previously identified as CAC responders underwent NAC to determine the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a sufficient positive reaction. At visit 2, which took place 1 week later, subjects with a positive reaction at visit 1 were randomized to group A (CAC) or group B (NAC), and underwent challenge to confirm the allergen dose necessary to produce a positive reaction. Subjects who qualified were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution, placebo nasal spray, and placebo tablets; mometasone furoate monohydrate 50-microg nasal spray, placebo topical solution, and placebo tablets; or fexofenadine hydrochloride 180-mg tablets, placebo topical solution, and placebo nasal spray. All study medications were administered according to their approved labeling: drops were administered twice daily in the eyes, and the nasal sprays and tablets were administered once daily. At visit 3, which took place 1 week after visit 2, subjects received study medication and 15 minutes later underwent CAC or NAC as before. The primary efficacy variables were ocular itching, ocular redness, and overall nasal symptoms (sneezing, rhino rrhea/postnasal drip, nasal pruritus, palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) rated on standard scales. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured at each visit, and the Jones test was performed at visits 1 and 3. At baseline and after challenge at visits 2 and 3, tear and nasal lavage samples were collected from a subset of randomly selected subjects for analysis of eosinophil cationic protein and tryptase.

RESULTS

Seventy-three subjects (42 women, 31 men; mean age, 45.26 years [range, 21-73 years]) were screened, and all were randomized to treatment. Two subjects did not complete the study. CAC induced clinically significant (>1 unit difference) ocular and nasal signs and symptoms, whereas NAC induced clinically significant nasal signs and symptoms only. In group A, there was a greater reduction in ocular itching with olopatadine compared with mometasone and fexofenadine at 3 minutes (P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) and 5 minutes (P = 0.007 and P = 0.013) after challenge. Although the difference was not statistically significant, overall relief of conjunctival redness (average of 3 vessel beds) was greatest in the olopatadine group, followed by fexofenadine. In group B, prevention of total nasal symptoms was significantly greater with mometasone compared with fexofenadine at 20 minutes (P = 0.006) and 30 minutes (P = 0.014) after challenge. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in nasal symptom scores at any time point after CAC. There were also no significant differences in PNIF between treatment groups. Fluorescein was present in nasal secretions within 5 minutes of being instilled into the eye; no fluorescein was detected in the eye after instillation into the nose.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, exposure of the nasal mucosa to allergen resulted in allergic rhinitis, and exposure of the ocular the ocular surface to allergen resulted in conjunctivitis with a secondary effect in the nose. These results suggest movement of allergens, their mediators, and antiallergy drugs from the ocular surfaces into the nasal cavity, with no meaningful movement from the nasal cavity to the ocular surface. In this controlled model, both the systemic agent and the nasal spray failed to control ocular symptoms. The topical ophthalmic solution provided the most effective management of allergic ocular signs and symptoms, and the nasal spray was most effective for nasal symptoms. Combined use of a nasal spray and topical ophthalmic solution may provide maximal relief in patients whose allergies have both ocular and nasal components.

Prescribing Guidelines for ENT Medications during Pregnancy

Profound physiologic changes occur during pregnancy, and they can alter the pharmacodynamics of an administered drug. Almost 85% of women take at least one prescription medication during a pregnancy. Nearly every drug administered to a mother crosses the placenta, and fetal drug levels can reach 50 to 100% of maternal serum concentrations. Because many otolaryngologic conditions are associated with pregnancy, it is essential that otolaryngologists who care for gravid patients know which drugs are safe and avoid unnecessary prescriptions so that the best care can be delivered to the pregnant patient without harming her unborn child. In this article, we discuss the relative safety and efficacy of various types of drugs frequently prescribed for pregnant women by otolaryngologists.

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.

Clinical prescribing of allergic rhinitis medication in the preschool and young school-age child: what are the options?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common chronic condition in children and is estimated to affect up to 40% of all children. It is usually diagnosed by the age of 6 years. The major impact in children is due to co-morbidity of sinusitis, otitis media with effusion, and bronchial asthma. AR also has profound effects on school absenteeism, performance and quality of life. Pharmacotherapy for AR should be based on the severity and duration of signs and symptoms. For mild, intermittent symptoms lasting a few hours to a few days, an oral second-generation antihistamine should be used on an as-needed basis. This is preferable to a less expensive first-generation antihistamine because of the effect of the latter on sedation and cognition. Four second-generation antihistamines are currently available for children under 12 years of age: cetirizine, loratadine, fexofenadine and azelastine nasal spray; each has been found to be well tolerated and effective. There are no clearcut advantages to distinguish these antihistamines, although for children under 5 years of age, only cetirizine and loratadine are approved. Other agents include pseudoephedrine, an oral vasoconstrictor, for nasal congestion, and the anticholinergic nasal spray ipratropium bromide for rhinorrhoea. Sodium cromoglycate, a mast cell stabiliser nasal spray, may also be useful in this population. For patients with more persistent, severe symptoms, intranasal corticosteroids are indicated, although one might consider azelastine nasal spray, which has anti- inflammatory activity in addition to its antihistamine effect. With the exception of fluticasone propionate for children aged 4 years and older, and mometasone furoate for those aged 3 years and older, the other intranasal corticosteroids including beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone, flunisolide and budesonide are approved for children aged 6 years and older. All are effective, so a major consideration would be cost and safety. For short term therapy of 1 to 2 months, the first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone, budesonide and flunisolide) could be used, and mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate could be considered for longer-term treatment. Although somewhat more costly, these second-generation drugs have lower bioavailability and thus would have a better safety profile. In patients not responding to the above programme or who require continuous medication, identification of specific triggers by an allergist can allow for specific avoidance measures and/or immunotherapy to decrease the allergic component and increase the effectiveness of the pharmacological regimen.

Paediatric issues relating to the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis in children has risen significantly over the last two decades. Important comorbidities like asthma have grown in parallel due to a complex mix of environmental and genetic factors. These conditions have similar allergic inflammatory mechanisms, which raises the possibility of treating both conditions by targeting shared inflammatory mediators pharmacologically. The first line treatment for paediatric allergic rhinitis is a topical nasal corticosteroid or a non-sedating antihistamine. Available intranasal corticosteroids show superior symptom control to second-generation antihistamines. However, most topical steroids and non-sedating antihistamines have equivalent clinical efficacy within their respective classes, so the choice of agent depends on safety and tolerability. Ideally, topical nasal steroids should exhibit high local receptor binding affinity and low systemic bioavailability, allied with a lack of long-term growth suppression in children and adolescents. Regular use of topical steroids is advisable, but intermittent and prophylactic use is also effective. Second-generation antihistamines are effective and some have no adverse cardiac or sedative effects. Non-sedating antihistamine treatment can ameliorate rhinitis-induced decrements in learning. alpha-Adrenergic nasal decongestants provide short-term benefit, but topical agents can cause rebound symptoms. Prophylactic treatment with chromones is safe and effective, but multiple daily dosing is needed. Ipratroprium bromide nasal spray is useful as an intermittent therapy for mild disease or as add-on treatment, but its effect is limited to the control of rhinorrhoea. Children with allergic rhinitis should receive pharmacotherapy if allergen avoidance measures are ineffective, ideally with a topical intranasal steroid or a second-generation antihistamine.

The use of a capillary rheometer to determine the shear and extensional flow behaviour of nasal spray suspensions

The rheological profiles of four commercial nasal spray suspensions (Beconase, Flixonase, Nasacort and Nasonex) were compared using rotational viscometry. Two of the nasal sprays (Beconase and Nasonex) were further examined in both shear and extension using a capillary rheometer under conditions similar to those experienced at the spray nozzle (i.e. extremely high shear rates with significant stretching or extensional flow). In rotation, the shear viscosity fell rapidly with increase in shear rate. Plots of the viscosity derived at the lower shear rates in rotation were extrapolated to include the high-shear rate capillary values. At very high shear rates, the shear viscosity of Beconase was higher than that of Nasonex with the cross-over occurring in the extrapolated region at approximately 10,000 s(-1). In the transition region between laminar and turbulent flow (shear rate 6-8 x 10(4) s(-1)) there was a minimum in the shear viscosity to less than that of water for Nasonex and similar to water for Beconase, and a plateau region in extensional viscosity for Beconase but not Nasonex. These anomalies were due to the extensive aeration of both samples when sprayed. Whereas Beconase had de-aerated within 30 min of the experiment, Nasonex had not de-aerated completely after six weeks. The very low viscosity at the shear rates at the nozzle imply that it is unlikely that the low viscosity of the spray on delivery to the nose is a key factor in prolonging its residence time. The extensional viscosity for these rather fluid samples was over 1000-times the shear viscosity (not 3-times as with Newtonian fluids) and both sprays exhibited strain hardening over the range covered. The high extensional stress in the nozzle enables the fluid to form as reasonably sized droplets rather than fine atomized droplets, which rather than settling in the nose, would be prone to redistribution through the normal respiratory function. Both sprays resisted degradation despite the high shear rates and extensional stresses experienced.

A risk-benefit assessment of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in allergic rhinitis

The efficacy of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in seasonal and allergic rhinitis has been evaluated in clinical trials and has been compared with antihistamines and other intranasal corticosteroids. Intranasal corticosteroids are either as equally effective as or more effective than comparative drugs. Intranasal corticosteroids are particularly useful as they decrease membrane permeability and inhibit both early and late phase reactions to allergens. They minimise the nasal secretory response and reduce the sensitivity of local nasal irritant receptors. A potential benefit of topical application is the flushing action of the nasal mucosa, which may reduce allergens and secretions. In addition to seasonal and perennial rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids have additional benefits when used to reduce inflammation in the treatment of sinusitis and may help in decreasing secondary rhinovirus infections. Furthermore, suboptimal control of asthma can be avoided by treatment of allergic rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids. In clinical trials, common adverse effects for triamcinolone acetonide include sneezing, dry, mucosa, nasal irritation, sinus discomfort, throat discomfort, epistaxis and headache. Posterior subcapsular cataract formation has not been seen with triamcinolone acetonide. Recent literature evaluating systemic absorption of intranasal corticosteroids have shown surprising results where significant absorption has occurred with intranasal budesonide and fluticasone propionate. Growth and hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) function studies have been reviewed, with some intranasal corticosteroids showing changes with continual use. A retrospective study in children receiving daily triamcinolone acetonide for 12 months showed no effect on height and bodyweight. Triamcinolone acetonide at standard dosages (110 or 220microg once or twice a day) does not appear to suppress adrenal gland function and is effective in relieving most symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The International Consensus Conference Proceedings on Rhinitis now currently recommends the use of intranasal corticosteroids as first line therapy, since they have been found to be well tolerated and effective with minimal adverse effects and, specifically, no cognitive impairment. The recommended maximum dose of aqueous triamcinolone acetonide in adults and children is 220microg once a day. The aerosol form may be recommended in children between 7 and 12 years old, up to 440microg once a day or in divided doses. Duration of allergy treatment is generally for the length of each allergy season. If symptoms are perennial, then a reduction of dosage is made to the lowest effective dose with monitoring every 3 months for risk and benefit assessment. Complications to watch for include bleeding, and possible septal perforation and nasal candidiasis, although these are rare.

Changes in nasal leukocytes and epithelial cells associated with topical beclomethasone treatment

BACKGROUND

We had previously observed that changes in nasal cytology were associated with specific clinical patterns in cross-sectional studies of allergy clinic patients. In the present study, we sought to determine whether specific cytologic changes occurred with antiinflammatory therapy in a controlled setting in a prospective manner.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in nasal leukocytes and epithelial cells associated with topical beclomethasone treatment in allergic rhinitis patients. Specifically we tested the hypothesis that number of nasal leukocytes relative to epithelial cell numbers are altered by topical beclomethasone treatment.

METHODS

Adult volunteers (n=26) with symptoms consistent with allergic rhinitis and positive aeroallergen skin tests were enrolled for treatment with either beclomethasone or placebo nasal spray. Sprays were allocated in a double-blind manner and were prescribed to be administered over a 2-week period. Baseline quality of life, nasal cytograms, and mucosal physical appearance scores were obtained at baseline and at the end of the treatment period. Changes in various nasal leukocytes and epithelial cell types were analyzed for association with active treatment using bivariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Total leukocytes showed greater decreases with beclomethasone treatment than with placebo. Total epithelial cells on the other hand showed an increase with active treatment compared with placebo treatment. In multivariate analysis, the changes in both total leukocytes and total epithelial cells showed independent associations with beclomethasone treatment. Combining these two variables into a single leukocyte per epithelial ratio resulted in variable with values showing a significant decreases associated with beclomethasone treatment compared with placebo treatment (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of topical corticosteroids results in decreases in total leukocytes and this decrease is of enhanced significance when adjusted for the quantities of associated epithelial cells. Further investigation relating to the quantities of total nasal leukocytes in inflammatory nasal diseases may be helpful in gauging disease activity and monitoring treatment modalities.

Fexofenadine: a review of its use in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria

Fexofenadine, the active metabolite of terfenadine, is a selective histamine H1 receptor antagonist that does not cross the blood brain barrier and appears to display some anti-inflammatory properties. Fexofenadine is rapidly absorbed (onset of relief < or = 2 hours) and has a long duration of action, making it suitable for once daily administration. Clinical trials (< or = 2 weeks' duration) have shown fexofenadine 60 mg twice daily and 120 mg once daily to be as effective as loratadine 10 mg once daily, and fexofenadine 120 mg once daily to be as effective as cetirizine 10 mg once daily in the overall reduction of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. When given in combination, fexofenadine and extended release pseudoephedrine had complementary activity. Fexofenadine was effective in relieving the symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhoea, itchy nose palate or throat, and itchy, watery, red eyes in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. There were often small improvements in nasal congestion that were further improved by pseudoephedrine. Fexofenadine produced greater improvements in quality of life than loratadine to an extent considered to be clinically meaningful, and enhanced patients' quality of life when added to pseudoephedrine treatment. Although no comparative data with other H1 antagonists exist, fexofenadine 180 mg once daily was effective in reducing the symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria for up to 6 weeks. Fexofenadine was well tolerated in clinical trials in adults and adolescents and the adverse event profile was similar to placebo in all studies. The most frequently reported adverse event during fexofenadine treatment was headache, which occurred with a similar incidence to that seen in placebo recipients. Fexofenadine does not inhibit cardiac K+ channels and is not associated with prolongation of the corrected QT interval. When given alone or in combination with erythromycin or ketoconazole, it was not associated with any adverse cardiac events in clinical trials. As it does not cross the blood brain barrier, fexofenadine is free of the sedative effects associated with first generation antihistamines, even at dosages of up to 240 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

fexofenadine is clinically effective in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria for which it is a suitable option for first-line therapy. Comparative data suggest that fexofenadine is as effective as loratadine or cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. In those with excessive nasal congestion the combination of fexofenadine plus pseudoephedrine may be useful. In clinical trials fexofenadine is not associated with adverse cardiac or cognitive/psychomotor effects.