Onset of action of ciclesonide once daily in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Environmental exposure unit simulates natural seasonal birch pollen exposures while maximizing change in allergic symptoms

BACKGROUND

Birch pollen is a prevalent aeroallergen during the springtime allergy season. In field studies, variable allergen exposure and environmental factors can affect data quality while environmental exposure units (EEUs) deliver controlled, standardized, and reproducible allergen exposures.

OBJECTIVE

To inform study design for EEU trials evaluating antiallergic therapies.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 76 participants with birch allergy experienced 3 exposures to birch pollen: (1) an out-of-season EEU challenge (two 3-hour sessions on consecutive days); (2) a natural seasonal exposure; and (3) an in-season EEU challenge (3-hour exposure for 2 weeks after birch pollen season initiation).

RESULTS

The total nasal symptom score, total ocular symptom score, and total symptom score (TSS = total nasal symptom score plus total ocular symptom score) were assessed every 30 minutes and daily during EEU and natural exposures. A high association between TSSs and day 2 of the out-of-season and in-season EEU challenges was noted, with a good association between the maximum TSS during the natural and in-season EEU challenges, and natural season and day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (P < .001 for all). Participants had higher maximum change from the baseline TSS during day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (12.4) vs the following: (1) first day (9.8); (2) in-season EEU challenge (8.4); and (3) natural seasonal exposure (7.6) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSION

A strong association was seen between the presence of allergy symptoms and exposure to birch pollen in the EEU (maximum change in symptom scores during day 2) and in the field. A hybrid trial design may be useful to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of novel antiallergic therapies requiring fewer participants and shorter timelines and expediting treatment availability.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Safety and Adverse Effects in Adults

Objectives

To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population.

Data Source

Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.

Review Methods

A structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta-analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA-approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.14; P = .007).

Conclusions

Overall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non-FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

Validation of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN) chamber for trials in allergy: Innovation of a mobile allergen exposure chamber

BACKGROUND

Field clinical trials of pollen allergy are affected by the impossibility of predicting and determining individual allergen exposure because of many factors (eg, pollen season, atmospheric variations, pollutants, and lifestyles). Environmental exposure chambers, delivering a fixed amount of allergen in a controlled environmental setting, can overcome these limitations. Environmental exposure chambers are currently already used in phase 2, 3, and even 4 trials. Unfortunately, few chambers exist in the world, and this makes it difficult to perform large, multicenter clinical trials. The new Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) mobile exposure chamber is a step forward because the mobility of the chamber makes it convenient for patients to participate in clinical testing.

OBJECTIVE

This study was made to validate the reproducibility, sensitivity, and specificity of the results obtained in the new GA²LEN chamber.

METHODS

Seventy-two adult patients (19-61 years old) with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma caused by grass pollen were included in different clinical validation tests. Total symptom scores and total nasal symptom scores were recorded at time zero (0) and every 10 minutes during exposures, along with nasal and respiratory parameters.

RESULTS

Exposure tests confirmed the reproducibility between subsequent runs and the sensitivity (P < .00001 vs patients exposed to placebo) and specificity (very low score in nonallergic subjects) in the GA²LEN chamber. No adverse reactions were recorded during the tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The mobility of the GA²LEN chamber provides a new, potentially effective, and safe way of generating reliable data in allergy multicenter clinical trials.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of new recombinant hypoallergenic Bet v 1 in an environmental exposure chamber

BACKGROUND

Recombinant allergens offer a tool for improving specific immunotherapy (SIT).

OBJECTIVE

To find the optimal dose of a new hypoallergenic folding variant of recombinant Bet v 1 (rBet v 1-FV) as SIT for patients with birch pollen allergy.

METHODS

Before SIT, thirty-seven adult patients were exposed for eight hours in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC) to birch pollen at an average concentration of 3500 ± 500 grains/m(3) , then randomized to four maintenance dose groups of rBet v 1-FV and one placebo group: 20 μg (n = 7), 80 μg (n = 8), 160 μg (n = 7), 320 μg (n = 8), and placebo (n = 7). Patients were treated for 10 weeks with weekly injections and then re-exposed in the EEC. The optimal dose for SIT was assessed using efficacy results from the EEC, IgG responses, and tolerability.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The total symptom score significantly decreased in all active groups compared with placebo (-18.8% for placebo patients; -71.9%, P = 0.0022 for 20 μg; -75.6%, P = 0.0007 for 80 μg; -81.8%, P = 0.0009 for 160 μg; -78.3%, P = 0.0003 for 320 μg). IgG1 increased significantly in all active groups compared to placebo. All four active doses were well tolerated, no serious adverse event occurred; two Grade II reactions, according to EAACI classification, were observed, one in each of the 160- and 320-μg groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering efficacy, immunological response, and tolerability, a maintenance dose of 80 μg of rBet v 1-FV appears to be the ideal dose for allergen immunotherapy in birch pollen allergic patients.

Ciclesonide for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is considered one of the most common afflictions of humans, affecting up to 30% of the world's population, and is increasing in incidence. Primary symptoms, comorbid conditions and complications of this disorder exact a significant toll, resulting in an enormous physical, social and economic impact on society. Single-season allergic rhinitis accounts for approximately 20% of cases of allergic rhinitis with another 40% having mixed seasonal-perennial presentations. Management of this disorder encompasses several treatment options, with intranasal corticosteroids recommended as first-line treatment in moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in current practice parameters. Ciclesonide is the most recently approved product in this category for the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis and is the subject of this article.