Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

Efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum and Lactobacillus plantarum (NVP-1703) in Children With Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that probiotics are effective in treating allergic rhinitis (AR), while some controversies remain. This study was performed to evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of a mixture of Bifidobacterium longum and Lactobacillus plantarum (NVP-1703) in children with AR.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, children aged 6 to 19 years with perennial AR were treated with NVP-1703 at a dose of 1 × 1010 CFU/day or placebo once a day for 4 weeks. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nasal symptom duration score (NSDS), quality of life (QoL), allergic inflammatory markers, and safety parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of treatment, the TNSS in the NVP-1703 group significantly decreased compared to that in the placebo group (P = 0.011), both in the morning and the evening (P = 0.031 and P = 0.004, respectively). The NSDS also significantly decreased in the NVP-1703 group compared to that in the placebo group (P = 0.018). QoL scores, particularly those related to mouth breathing and itchy nose, showed a significant improvement in the NVP-1703 group compared to the placebo group. The ratios of interleukin (IL)-4/IL-22 and IL-5/IL-22 were significantly reduced in the NVP-1703 group after the treatment compared to the baseline values. No notable adverse events were reported in the NVP-1703 group.

CONCLUSION

Oral administration of a mixture of B. longum and L. plantarum (NVP-1703) improved both AR symptoms and QoL in children with perennial AR, accompanied by decreases in the ratios of T helper 2 cytokines to IL-22.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0002661.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.

The management of paediatric rhinosinusitis

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

The efficacy and safety of ciclesonide for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disease which affects 1 out of 6 individuals. Perennial allergic rhinitis accounts for 40% of AR cases. Ciclesonide is one of the relatively new intranasal steroid for allergic rhinitis.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Scientific Citation Index, Embase, Clinical Trial Registries for randomized controlled trials and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find out the randomized controlled Trial comparing ciclesonide with placebo for PAR.

Results

Eight studies were included. In comparison with placebo groups, ciclesonide groups significantly decreased Reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD = −0.56; 95% CI −0.72 to 0.39, p < 0.00001) with heterogeneity (p = 0.19, I² = 24%), Instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD = −0.57; 95% CI −0.75 to −0.39, p < 0.00001) with heterogeneity (p = 0.34, I² = 11%). A significant effect for Reflective Nasal Symptom Score Subtotal (MD = −0.15; 95% CI −0.18 to −0.13, p < 0.00001) with heterogeneity (p = 0.12, I² = 24%) was also demonstrated. Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire score (RQLQs) (MD = −0.27; 95% CI −0.39 to −0.15, p < 0.00001) with heterogeneity (p = 0.58, I² = 0%) in the treatment of ciclesonide was also significantly reduced. In addition, the difference in Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events between the two groups was not significant.

Conclusion

Ciclesonide can improve perennial allergic rhinitis without increasing adverse events. Ciclesonide may be another valuable choice for perennial allergic rhinitis in the future.

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.

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

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

Nasal allergies in the Middle Eastern population: results from the "Allergies in Middle East Survey"

BACKGROUND

Chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) are a major public health problem in developing countries including those in the Middle East. However, to date, there is a paucity of information related to physician-diagnosed AR in this region. The Allergies in Middle East Survey was undertaken to help clarify and broaden the understanding of physician-diagnosed AR across Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The survey explores the frequency of physician-diagnosed AR, prevalence and types of associated symptoms, the impact on quality of life (QOL), current treatment practices, and therapy expectations.

METHODS

In total, 7411 households in five countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) were screened to identify individuals that were ≥4 years old with a physician diagnosis of AR and either symptoms and/or treatment in the past 12 months. A total of 501 respondents from the five countries completed the survey. Standardized questionnaires were used to make comparisons across the regions; however, the data collection procedures were tailored for each country. The sample was probability based to ensure valid statistical inference to the population.

RESULTS

Ten percent of the Middle East population surveyed had a physician diagnosis of AR, with 65% of respondents stating that their allergies were intermittent in nature. An otolaryngologist or allergist diagnosed the majority of the individuals surveyed. Runny nose, nasal and throat itching, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion or stuffed up nose were the most common and bothersome symptoms of AR. The majority of survey participants (58% of the overall survey population) with AR reported that the condition had an impact on their daily private and professional life. Seventy-two percent of adults reported that their AR symptoms limited their work/school activities and 35% reported that their AR interfered with and caused them to miss work or school within the past 12 months. One factor, in addition to the outward AR symptoms, that could have contributed to these function impairments may have been sleep disturbances. Although a secondary symptom to AR, sleep disturbances (difficulty getting to sleep, waking up during the night or lack of a good night's sleep) were shown in this survey to be extremely troubling in ∼15% of AR sufferers. In the past year >90% of patients reported taking a medication of any type for their AR, with nearly a 4:1 ratio of patients taking a prescription medication versus an over-the-counter (OTC) medication in the past 4 weeks. Over 75% of survey respondents reported taking an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) in the last 4 weeks and the satisfaction rate of INCS medications was similar to that reported for OTC medications. The most common reasons cited for dissatisfaction with INCS medications were inadequate effectiveness, bothersome side effects (e.g., unpleasant taste and retrograde drainage into the pharynx), decreased effectiveness with chronic use, and failure to provide 24-hour relief.

CONCLUSION

These data show that AR is common in the Middle East region as elsewhere in the world. Many patients with AR in Middle East region suffer from their symptoms (e.g., runny nose, nasal itching, nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and other symptoms) on all or most days during the times of the year that their allergies are worst. These symptoms have been shown to reduce QOL and performance at work/school to a significant degree. Additionally, the survey data underscore a considerable treatment gap with current therapies for AR and that many AR patients still have not found adequate effectiveness with currently available medications. Thus, through identification of disease impact on the Middle East population and highlighting treatment gaps, clinicians in the Middle East may better understand and treat AR, leading to improvements in overall patient satisfaction and QOL.

Current and future directions in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common pediatric problem that significantly affects sleep, learning, performance, and quality of life. In addition, it is associated with significant comorbidities and complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an update on the epidemiology, comorbidities, pathophysiology, current treatment, and future direction of pediatric AR.

METHODS

Literature reviews in each of these areas were conducted, and the results were incorporated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AR is increasing in the pediatric population and is associated with significant morbidity, comorbidities, and complications. The mainstay of current treatment strategies includes allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen specific immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, diagnosis will be improved by microarrayed recombinant allergen testing and therapy will be expanded to include emerging treatments such as sublingual immunotherapy and combination products.

A 26-week tolerability study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A new, hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide (CIC-HFA) delivered via a metered dose inhaler is currently in clinical development for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To study tolerability and quality of life following administration of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses once-daily compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) over 26 weeks.

METHODS

Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2 year history of PAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 μg, 148 μg, or placebo QD AM for 26 weeks. Safety was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Quality of life was assessed by using a rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire with standardized activities (RQLQ[S]) in patients with baseline RQLQ ≥3.00. Reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (iTNSS) over 26 weeks were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In this study, 1111 patients were randomized. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the treatment groups. Treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses showed improvements in RQLQ[S] [least squares (LS) mean change 0.40 and 0.37, respectively from baseline, p < 0.01 versus placebo for both], rTNSS (LS mean change 0.65 and 0.52, respectively from baseline; p ≤ 0.01 versus placebo for both), and iTNSS (LS mean change 0.51 and 0.42, respectively from baseline; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both) from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses over 26 weeks was well tolerated with comparable incidence of TEAEs between the treatment groups.

The burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Canada: perspectives of physicians and patients

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common problem and we sought to examine the burden of disease and its management in Canada from the perspectives of patients and physicians.

Methods

Two parallel, Canadawide structured telephone interviews surveyed 1,001 AR patients and 160 physicians in July 2006.

Results

44% of patients had experienced nasal symptoms unrelated to a cold and 20% had a physician diagnosis of AR. At screening 27% reported asthma, 15% chronic or recurrent sinusitis and 5% nasal polyps. With attacks nasal congestion and runny nose were the most bothersome symptoms. Other problems experienced were fatigue (46%), poor concentration (32%), and reduced productivity (23%). Most (77%) had not seen a physician in the past year. Physicians estimated they prescribed intranasal cortico steroids (INCS) to most AR patients (77%) consistent with guidelines but only 19% of patients had used one in the last month. Only 48% of patients were very satisfied with their current INCS. 41% of AR patients reported discontinuing their INCS with the most common reason being a perceived lack of long-lasting symptom relief (44%). 52% of patients felt that their current INCS lost effectiveness over 24 h. The most common INCS side effects included dripping down the throat, bad taste, and dryness. Most AR patients reported lifestyle limitations despite treatment (66%). 61% of patients felt that their symptoms were only somewhat controlled or poorly/not controlled during their worst month in the past year.

Conclusions

AR symptoms are common and many patients experience inadequate control. Physicians report they commonly prescribe intranasal corticosteroids, but patient’s perceived loss of efficacy and side effects lead to their discontinuation. Persistent relief of allergic rhinitis symptoms remains a major unmet need. Better treatments and education are required.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

While nasal congestion has been identified as one of the most bothersome and prevalent symptoms of allergic rhinitis, it is underappreciated that many patients find rhinorrhea also to be bothersome. Rhinorrhea as a symptom of allergic rhinitis virtually never occurs alone; about 97% of patients with allergic rhinitis suffer from at least two symptoms, a finding that underscores the advantage of treating a broad range of symptoms with a single medication. Along with sneezing and nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea is a classic acute symptom of allergic rhinitis; it appears as a late-phase symptom as well. In this review, the characterization and epidemiology of rhinorrhea, the pathophysiology of rhinorrhea in allergic rhinitis, the roles played by mediators in early- and late-phase rhinorrhea, the prevalence and impact of this symptom, and the efficacy and safety of available treatment options are all discussed in context of relevant literature. A review of the clinical studies assessing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) for rhinorrhea is presented. Many clinical studies and several meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that, in addition to being safe and well-tolerated, INS are more effective than other agents (including oral and intranasal antihistamines) across the spectrum of AR symptoms, including rhinorrhea and nasal congestion.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol, 80 or 160 μg once daily, for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A hypotonic aqueous nasal spray of ciclesonide is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). A new nasal aerosol formulation of ciclesonide containing a hydrofluoroalkane propellant delivered via a metered-dose inhaler (CIC-HFA) is currently in clinical development as a potential treatment for AR.

OBJECTIVES

To study the efficacy and safety of once-daily administration of CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg compared with placebo in subjects 12 years and older with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

Subjects 12 years and older with a ≥ 2-year history of SAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study to receive CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg or placebo once daily in the morning for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSSs), instantaneous TNSSs (iTNSSs), and reflective total ocular symptom scores (rTOSSs) in subjects with a baseline rTOSS of ≥ 5.00 were evaluated. Treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seven subjects were randomized. From baseline, CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg demonstrated 15.1% and 16.0% reductions in rTNSSs (P < .0001, 3.7% for placebo), 14.3% and 15.4% reductions in iTNSSs (P < .0001, 3.9% for placebo), and 15.7% and 15.0% reductions in rTOSSs (P < .001, 6.8% for placebo). The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low and comparable between the CIC-HFA and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 80 or 160 μg demonstrated statistically significant improvements in nasal and ocular symptoms of SAR. Both doses of active treatment were well tolerated.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

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

Treatment of congestion in upper respiratory diseases

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

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Aerosol-based corticosteroid nasal formulations may be preferred over current aqueous nasal sprays by some patients because they traditionally cause less pharyngeal and anterior nose runoff.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal dose, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

Patients 12 years or older with a history of SAR received ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol to a total dose of 75, 150, or 300 microg or placebo once daily (half dose per nostril) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy assessment was patient-reported average morning and evening reflective (24-hour) total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy assessments included patient-reported average morning and evening instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), patient-reported morning iTNSS, physician-assessed nasal signs and symptom severity, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire responses. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction from baseline in average morning and evening rTNSS (24-hour) vs placebo, with treatment differences as follows: 0.81 (P = .001; 300 microg), 0.90 (P < .001; 150 microg), and 0.66 (P = .01; 75 microg). Improvements in average morning and evening iTNSS and patient-reported morning iTNSS were also significantly improved regardless of dose (P < or = .003 for all ciclesonide groups vs placebo). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (< 1.6% for all) and similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated statistically significant improvements in SAR symptoms vs placebo. On the basis of comparable efficacy and safety profiles observed for all doses, these results suggest that the 75-microg and 150-microg doses of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane appear appropriate for further evaluation of efficacy.

A review of the efficacy of desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine in the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is the most troublesome symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). First-generation and older second-generation antihistamines, while effective against nasal itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea, have limited efficacy in relieving nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

This review included nasal challenge studies and clinical trials that reported the effects on nasal congestion of the newer second-generation antihistamines desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for nasal challenge studies and clinical trials published in English between January 1, 1991, and January 31, 2009, using the following terms, alone or in combination: antihistamines, second-generation antihistamines, allergic rhinitis, intermittent allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, persistent allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, nasal challenge, nasal blockage, and nasal congestion. Studies that were not active or placebo controlled, that did not evaluate change in nasal congestion scores, or that focused on treatments other than desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine for nasal congestion associated with AR were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-six clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. In 11 placebo-controlled trials that included objective assessment of nasal congestion, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine were associated with reductions in the severity of nasal congestion through maintenance of nasal airflow. The mean AUC for nasal airflow over 6 hours was significantly greater with desloratadine compared with placebo in 3 studies (P < 0.05); placebo-controlled trials of fexofenadine and levocetirizine had similar results. In 25 placebo- and active-controlled trials that reported subject-rated symptom scores, the 3 newer antihistamines were efficacious in the treatment of nasal congestion associated with AR. In 10 trials that reported objective and/or subjective measures, desloratadine was associated with significant improvements in nasal congestion compared with placebo (P < or = 0.05), beginning as early as the first 2 hours after allergen challenge. Fexofenadine was associated with significantly lower nasal congestion scores compared with placebo in 4 studies (P <- 0.05); nasal congestion scores were significantly reduced with levocetirizine in 3 placebo-controlled trials (P < or = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In the studies reviewed, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine were effective in relieving the nasal congestion associated with AR compared with placebo. This effect began as early as day 2 and was consistent and progressive throughout treatment. Desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine are appropriate options for the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with AR.

Intranasal ciclesonide for allergic rhinitis

Ciclesonide is a novel corticosteroid which is optimized for topical use. It is a pro-drug which is activated locally in the airway mucosa, lipid-conjugated for local retention, and has very high protein binding in circulation leading to low systemic bioavailability. These characteristics should lead to highly selective activity with reduced local and systemic side effects. It has been established as an inhaled medication for asthma and has also been shown in double-blind trials to be efficacious for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. However no data have yet demonstrated superiority over existing nasal topical corticosteroids, either in terms of efficacy or adverse effects, and trials have not yet clearly shown efficacy in rhinitis in children. Therefore the place of ciclesonide in the treatment of allergic rhinitis relative to other existing products remains unclear.

Ciclesonide nasal spray: in allergic rhinitis

Ciclesonide nasal spray delivers the corticosteroid ciclesonide as a hypotonic spray via a metered-dose manual pump. Systemic exposure to ciclesonide and its active metabolite desisobutyryl-ciclesonide is low after intranasal administration. High protein binding (approximately 99%) and rapid first-pass clearance further reduce systemic exposure to the drug. In well designed trials, intranasal ciclesonide 200 microg once daily for 2-4 weeks was more effective than placebo in terms of improving nasal symptoms in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. Quality of life measures were statistically significantly improved in ciclesonide relative to placebo recipients during the first 2 weeks of therapy. Similarly, in adolescents and adults with moderately severe perennial allergic rhinitis, ciclesonide 200 microg once daily was more effective than placebo in terms of reducing nasal symptoms in well designed trials of 6 weeks' and 1 year's duration. Improvements relative to placebo in quality of life measures were not considered clinically relevant. Ciclesonide nasal spray was generally well tolerated in these clinical trials; most adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity.

Onset of Action of Ciclesonide Once Daily in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the time to onset of action of ciclesonide 200 μg once daily in 502 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis of at least 2 years’ duration. To trigger immunologic priming, patients underwent between one and five priming sessions with exposure to 3,500 grains/m3 (±500) of ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber. The criteria for a successful priming session was a patient-assessed instantaneous total nasal symptom score of at least 6 (of a possible 12) and a nasal congestion or rhinorrhea score of at least 2 (of a possible 3) 90 minutes after allergen exposure during at least two consecutive priming sessions. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive either a single dose of ciclesonide 200 μg (n = 251) or placebo (n = 251) administered intranasally. The difference in the change from baseline total nasal symptom scores in the two groups was assessed hourly for 12 hours after administration. Onset of action was determined to have taken place the first time that the effects of ciclesonide, as reflected in the total nasal symptom score, were significantly greater than those of placebo at a particular hourly assessment, provided that the subsequent hourly assessment also showed a statistically significant difference. The onset of action of ciclesonide occurred within 1 hour of administration (p = 0.01 vs. placebo), and the significant difference in total nasal symptom scores between ciclesonide and placebo was maintained through post-treatment hour 12 (p ≤ 0.018).

New treatment options in allergic rhinitis: patient considerations and the role of ciclesonide

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammatory respiratory disease affecting 5%-50% of the worldwide population and its prevalence is increasing (Herman 2007). In addition, AR is associated with asthma and other co-morbidities such as conjunctivitis and sinusitis. The main symptoms are nasal congestion, rhinorrea, sneezing, itching, and post-nasal drainage induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. AR is not a life-threatening disease, but it has been shown to have a significant impact on quality of life. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines propose a classification of AR in intermittent and persistent, each graded as mild or moderate-severe, and provide a stepwise approach to the treatment. Inhaled steroids and antihistamine are the main tools in AR therapy but more safe and effective drugs are, however, needed. Inhaled steroid ciclesonide appears to be safe and effective.

Corticosteroids (inhaled and/or intranasal) in the treatment of respiratory allergy in children: safety vs. efficacy

BACKGROUND

Topical administration of Corticosteroids (CS) can reduce the total dose of CS required to treat the patient and minimize side effects. Topical CS is extremely effective and has an excellent safety profile. Nonetheless, care must be taken when multiple sites such as lungs, nose and skin are being treated. CS mechanisms of action on the inflammatory process are complex. The aim of this study is to review such mechanisms and the adverse events secondary to it.

METHODS

Review English database (Embase, PubMed, Scielo) searching words: CS, adverse events, inhaled CS, intranasal CS, and children.

RESULTS

There is a classic mechanism involving a genomic effect of CS and a non-genomic effect, independently of gene transcription process. This mechanism acts by reducing mucosal blood flow in the asthmatic airways. Second-generation topical CS is the treatment of choice in allergic diseases control because of their good anti-inflammatory activity, poor absorption and first-pass hepatic metabolism. When comparing different CS, it is important to compare therapeutically equivalent doses. Although topical CS reduces systemic side effects, local and even systemic side effects can occur. Many factors affect the amount of drug that reaches the lung, including inhaler technique and inhaler type, fine particle dose and particle distribution.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with allergic diseases respond to CS treatment, but there is a small subset of them whose response is unsatisfactory even with high doses of CS. They are classified as corticosteroid-resistant asthmatics. Pro-inflammatory cytokines appear to up regulate the expression of GRb that has been associated with CS resistance.