Formulation considerations of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Screening for Neuroprotective and Rapid Antidepressant-like Effects of 20 Essential Oils

Depression is a serious psychiatric disorder with high prevalence, and the delayed onset of antidepressant effects remains a limitation in the treatment of depression. This study aimed to screen essential oils that have the potential for rapid-acting antidepressant development. PC12 and BV2 cells were used to identify essential oils with neuroprotective effects at doses of 0.1 and 1 µg/mL. The resulting candidates were treated intranasally (25 mg/kg) to ICR mice, followed by a tail suspension test (TST) and an elevated plus maze (EPM) after 30 min. In each effective essential oil, five main compounds were computationally analyzed, targeting glutamate receptor subunits. As a result, 19 essential oils significantly abolished corticosterone (CORT)-induced cell death and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leakage, and 13 reduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6). From in vivo experiments, six essential oils decreased the immobility time of mice in the TST, in which Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. and Myristica fragrans Houtt. also increased time and entries into the open arms of the EPM. Four compounds including atractylon, α-curcumene, α-farnesene, and selina-4(14),7(11)-dien-8-one had an affinity toward GluN1, GluN2B, and Glu2A receptor subunits surpassed that of the reference compound ketamine. Overall, Atractylodes lancea (Thunb.) DC and Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat essential oils are worthy of further research for fast-acting antidepressants through interactions with glutamate receptors, and their main compounds (atractylon, α-curcumene, α-farnesene, and selina-4(14),7(11)-dien-8-one) are predicted to underlie the fast-acting effect.

Intranasal Corticosteroids: Topical Potency, Systemic Activity and Therapeutic Index

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

Lack of observed impact of history or concomitant treatment of seasonal allergies or rhinitis on repeated doses of diazepam nasal spray administered per seizure episode in a day, safety, and tolerability: Interim results from a phase 3, open-label, 12-month repeat-dose safety study

Intranasal formulations are commonly used for drug delivery, and the literature has shown that seasonal allergies do not affect nasal administration of some agents. Diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco®) is a proprietary intranasal formulation with n-dodecyl-beta-d-maltoside (Intravail® A3) that is indicated for acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older. The analysis presented here is from an interim cutoff of a phase 3 open-label study evaluating the safety and tolerability of diazepam nasal spray. This analysis assessed whether seasonal allergies alter control of seizures with an intranasal formulation, using administration of a second dose as a surrogate efficacy endpoint. Of 158 evaluated patients with epilepsy having seizures despite a stable anti-seizure regimen, 62 patients had medical histories that included seasonal allergies or rhinitis. The results of this analysis show that seasonal allergies did not appear to influence use of a second dose; the groups of patients with and without a history of seasonal allergies both presented with low rates of seizure episodes for which a second dose was used, which suggests that there is not a major difference in pattern of use. Diazepam nasal spray demonstrated a similar safety and tolerability profile in patients with and without a history of seasonal allergies.

A Scholarly Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Intranasal Corticosteroids Preparations in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scholarly review is to present an update of the efficacy, safety, and distribution of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) in the context of treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review from 1999 to 2020 of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases was performed, using a comprehensive search strategy. Studies reporting on efficacy, safety, and distribution of all INCS formulations, both Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and non-FDA approved, were reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

High-level evidence publications and position papers support the role of INCS in medical treatment for CRS. Significant improvement in disease-specific and general quality of life measures is observed with all formulations of INCS. Overall, the use of both FDA and published non-FDA INCS appears to be safe. Several novel distribution devices might improve penetration to specific areas within the sinuses.

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.

Evaluation of Nasal Decongestants by Literature Review

Over-the-counter drugs are medicines that are available to consumers without a prescription. The most common оver - the-counter preparations in self - medication are nasal decongestants that can be used systemically or locally in the form of drops or nasal sprays. The most common indications for nasal decongest-ants are viral infections and allergic conditions in order to alleviate the symptoms so it is necessary to inform the users about the type of drug, the active substance it contains and the correct dosage regimen. Given their availability and the prevailing safety precaution, these preparations can lead to numerous prolonged conditions and complications. The mechanism of action of nasal decongestants is based on the reduction of blood vessels’ swelling in the nose, which helps the opening of the airway. As a result, most nasal decongestants cause vasoconstriction (narrowing of blood vessels). There are nasal decongestants that block histamine and have a good effect on people who suffer from seasonal allergies.

Availability (free sale) and prolonged use of the decongestant lead to a decrease in the sensitivity of the alpha receptor, which leads to the need to increase the dose at shorter time intervals to achieve the same effect. As a consequence, patients use excessive, uncontrolled doses of nasal decongestants, which is a public problem and warns of the necessity of identification and the taking of measures to prevent their uncontrolled procurement and use.

Intranasal Steroid Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common medical condition in children. It is associated with significant morbidity because symptoms can adversely affect quality of life. The goals of treatment of AR are to provide effective prevention as well as symptom alleviation. Pharmacotherapy is often necessary for the reduction of symptoms and the associated morbidity. Intranasal steroids (INS) are highly effective drugs for treatment of AR and are more efficacious compared to other medications used to treat AR such as antihistamines and leukotriene modifiers. Several formulations of INS are available, all of which have approximately the same efficacy and safety profile. The most common adverse effect is local irritation. Systemic absorption from nasal mucosa is low and thus systemic effects are rare. However, prolonged use of INS, especially in patients who are also using oral or inhaled steroids, can result in hypothalamic-pituitary-axis suppression. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(1):e43-e48.].

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

A Review of the Safety, Efficacy and Mechanisms of Delivery of Nasal Oxytocin in Children: Therapeutic Potential for Autism and Prader-Willi Syndrome, and Recommendations for Future Research

In this article, we conduct a comprehensive review of existing evidence for the safety and therapeutic potential of intranasal oxytocin in pediatric populations. Unique considerations for dosing and delivery of oxytocin to the nasal passageway in pediatric populations and methods to promote adherence are reviewed. Intranasal oxytocin has been administered to 261 children in three open-label studies and eight randomized controlled trials. To date, the only published results in pediatric populations have focused on autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS). Results regarding efficacy for improving social impairment in ASD are equivocal, partially due to mixed methodological designs, dosing regimens, and outcome measures. At present, there is no randomized controlled evidence that oxytocin provides benefit to individuals with PWS. There is no clear evidence of a link between oxytocin administration and any specific adverse event. Adverse events have been assessed using medical interviews, open reports, checklists, and physiological assessments. Adverse events reports have been largely classified as mild (n = 93), with few moderate (n = 9) or severe (n = 3) events reported. There were 35 additional adverse events reported, without severity ratings. Severe events, hyperactivity and irritability, occurred at first administration in both placebo and oxytocin groups, and subsided subsequent to discontinuation. We note that adverse event monitoring is inconsistent and often lacking, and reporting of its relationship to the study drug is poor. Only one study reported adherence data to suggest high adherence. Recommendations are then provided for the delivery of nasal sprays to the nasal passageway, monitoring, and reporting of efficacy, safety, and adherence for oxytocin nasal spray trials in pediatric populations.

Current trends in topical therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis: update and literature review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) affects millions of patients worldwide. The disease is multifactorial with influences including anatomic factors, immunological disturbances, and altered sinonasal microbiome. Although oral medications are effective in controlling some symptoms, they are associated with side effects and long-term use is not ideal. Thus, topical therapies have emerged as an alternative delivery method for localized, high-concentration medication with less side effects. Areas covered: This is a review of the various topical therapies available or under investigation for the management of CRS. Common medications such as saline, steroids, and antimicrobials will be discussed. Furthermore, additives including manuka honey, xylitol, surfactant, N-chlorotaurine, Dead Sea salt, and sodium hyaluronate will be addressed. Innovations in topical therapies, such as drug-eluting biomaterials and photodynamic therapy, will also be reviewed. Expert opinion: Although topical therapies provide a high dose of active substance at the site of disease, their efficacy in CRS is not clear. Topical saline and intranasal steroids appear to consistently demonstrate therapeutic benefits. However, other topical medications require further investigation to determine long-term clinical efficacy and safety. A better understanding of their effects on the sinonasal mucociliary system is needed before they become the standard of care in CRS.

WITHDRAWN: Topical steroids for nasal polyps

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

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

Quality by design approach for development of suspension nasal spray products: a case study on budesonide nasal suspension

The objective of this study was to provide quality by design (QbD) approach for development of suspension type nasal spray products. Quality target product profile (QTPP) of test product budesonide nasal suspension (B-NS) was defined and critical quality attributes (CQAs) were identified. Critical formulation, process and delivery device variables were recognized. Risk assessment was performed by using failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) methodology. Selected variables were further assessed using a Plackett Burman screening study. A response surface design consisting of the critical factors was used to study the interactions between the study variables. Formulation variable X2: median particle size of budesonide (D50) (µ) has strikingly influenced dissolution (%) (Y1), while D50 droplet size distribution (µm) (Y2) was significantly impacted by formulation variable X1: Avicel RC 591 (%) and process variable X4: homogenization speed (rpm). A design space plot within which the CQAs remained unchanged was established at lab scale. A comprehensive approach for development of B-NS product based on the QbD methodology has been demonstrated. The accuracy and robustness of the model were confirmed by comparability of the predicted value generated by model with the observed value.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Intranasal corticosteroids topical characteristics: side effects, formulation, and volume

BACKGROUND

Guidelines from throughout the world recommend intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as first-line treatment for most patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis. In general, limited comparative studies between different INSs have not indicated that one particular steroid moiety is more effective than another in controlling symptoms of allergic rhinitis. However, there are numerous formulations available with different ingredients that may influence a patient's adherence to treatment.

METHODS

This article looks at topical features with these agents, specifically, formulations, vehicles (aqueous vs aerosol), and side effects such as epistaxis and nasal septal perforation.

RESULTS

Topical side effects are minimal with INSs with the exception of epistaxis. There are major differences in formulations, volumes, and vehicles between INSs, which could affect adherence.

CONCLUSION

Physicians need to be aware of the different INS attributes to try to match patients' preferences in order to achieve better adherence and improve outcomes in sufferers of allergic rhinitis.

Brazilian Academy of Rhinology position paper on topical intranasal therapy

This documents aims at educating those who treat sinonasal diseases - both general practitioners and specialists - about topical nasal treatments. By means of scientific evidence reviews, the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology provides its practical and updated guidelines on the most utilized topical nasal medication, except for the drugs that have topical antibiotics in their formulas.

Comparison of sensory attributes and immediate efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives:

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) are the most effective modality for treating allergic rhinitis and their sensory attributes are important in patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the sensory attributes (scent, immediate taste, aftertaste, run down to throat, nose run off, soothing feel, nasal irritation, and urge to sneeze) and immediate response to the new intranasal steroid, ciclesonide (CIC), with fluticasone propionate (FLP) in allergic rhinitis.

Materials and Methods:

A randomized, double blind, single dose, crossover study was done with 74 patients presenting with acute allergic rhinitis. Eligible subjects were randomized in 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment sequences – CIC followed by FLP or vice versa. Sensory attributes were assessed using a questionnaire to score each item on a seven-point Likert scale, immediately and 2 min after dosing. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) was calculated to evaluate immediate efficacy 10 min after first drug administration. Overall preference was recorded 10 min after the second drug administration. Patients were queried about treatment emergent adverse events following study drug administration and also 24 h later over the phone.

Results:

Patients (58% males; pooled median age 32 years [Interquartile range, IQR, 25–41]; pooled median symptom duration 24 months [IQR 12–72]) preferred FLP over CIC nasal spray overall (55.41% vs. 25.68%, P = 0.007) and also with respect to attributes of scent, soothing feel, and nasal irritation. There was no statistically significant difference in immediate efficacy. Two patients reported mild headache following CIC first, while three felt mild headache, one dizziness, and one nasal congestion following FLP first administration. There were no delayed adverse events.

Conclusions:

There was no difference in immediate outcome following use of either of the two INCs. FLP was preferred over CIC with respect to scent, soothing feel and nasal irritation, and also overall. There were no significant adverse events.

Topical steroids for nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) represents inflammatory changes throughout the nose and sinuses from a group of disorders which all lead to swelling and overgrowth of the nasal mucosa. Topical corticosteroids have been the most widely used treatment, with each clinician using different regimes, at different doses, in different settings and with or without sinus surgery. CRSwNP requires ongoing medical management to prevent recurrence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical corticosteroids on CRSwNP and to analyse various subgroups, including patients who had sinus surgery immediately prior to the delivery of the corticosteroids, surgery any time prior to the topical corticosteroids or patients who had never had previous surgery. Also to assess the most effective dose and delivery methods for topical corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials studying topical corticosteroids for patients with CRSwNP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Forty studies (3624 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The trials were at low (21 trials), medium (13 trials) and high (six trials) risk of bias. The primary outcomes were sino-nasal symptoms, polyp size and polyp recurrence after surgery. When compared to placebo, topical corticosteroids improved overall symptom scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.27, P < 0.00001; seven trials, n = 445) and had a higher proportion of patients whose symptoms improved (responders) (risk ratio (RR) 1.71; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.26, P = 0.0002; four trials, n = 234). Topical corticosteroids also decreased the polyp score (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.00 to -0.46, P < 0.00001; three trials, n = 237) and had a greater proportion of patients with a reduction in polyp size (responders) (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.65 to 2.64, P < 0.00001; eight trials, n = 785) when compared to placebo. Topical corticosteroids also prevented polyp recurrence after surgery (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79, P = 0.0004; six trials, n = 437). Subgroup analyses by sinus surgery status revealed a greater benefit in reduction of polyp score when topical steroid was administered any time after sinus surgery (SMD -1.19; 95% CI -1.54 to -0.83) compared to patients who had never had surgery (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.28, P < 0.00001). There was no difference between groups in terms of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical corticosteroids are a beneficial treatment for CRSwNP and the adverse effects are minor, with benefits outweighing the risks. They improve symptoms, reduce polyp size and prevent polyp recurrence after surgery. Patients having sinus surgery may have a greater response to topical corticosteroids but further research is required.

Surfactants: their critical role in enhancing drug delivery to the lungs

For local lung conditions and diseases, pulmonary drug delivery has been widely used for more than 50 years now. A more recent trend involves the pulmonary route as a systemic drug-delivery target. Advantages such as avoidance of the gastrointestinal environment, different enzyme content compared with the intestine, and avoidance of first-pass metabolism make the lung an alternative route for the systemic delivery of actives. However, the lung offers barriers to absorption such as a surfactant layer, epithelial surface lining fluid, epithelial monolayer, interstitium and basement membrane, and capillary endothelium. Many delivery strategies have been developed in order to overcome these limitations. The use of surfactants is one of these approaches and their role in enhancing pulmonary drug delivery is reviewed in this article. A systematic review of the literature relating to the effect of surfactants on formulations for pulmonary delivery was conducted. Specifically, research reporting enhancement of in vivo performance was focused on. The effect of the addition of surfactants such as phospholipids, bile salts, non-ionic, fatty acids, and liposomes as phospholipid-containing carriers on the enhancement of therapeutic outcomes of drugs for pulmonary delivery was compiled. The main use attributed to surfactants in pulmonary drug delivery is as absorption enhancers by mechanisms of action not yet fully understood. Furthermore, surfactants have been used to improve the delivery of inhaled drugs in various additional strategies discussed herein.

Intranasal ketorolac tromethamine (SPRIX®) containing 6% of lidocaine (ROX-828) for acute treatment of migraine: Safety and efficacy data from a phase II clinical trial

Objective

Ketorolac is a non-triptan, non-opioid, mixed cyclooxygenase (COX)1/2-inhibitor for short-term management of moderate-to-severe acute pain. This trial evaluated an intranasal formulation of ketorolac tromethamine (SPRIX®) containing 6% lidocaine (ROX-828) for the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura as defined by the International Headache Society.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-treat with intranasal ROX-828 (31.5 mg ketorolac tromethamine/200 µL, containing 6% of lidocaine) or placebo (with 6% lidocaine) within four hours of a new migraine attack rated ≥ moderate in pain intensity. Assessments included headache intensity and associated migraine symptoms (nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, photophobia) measured at baseline and at regular intervals through 48 hours post-dosing, and global impression of efficacy (seven-point scale) measured at two hours.

Results

Randomized patients who had a migraine attack ( N = 140) were evaluable (ROX-828, N = 68; placebo, N = 72). Patients receiving ROX-828 showed a significant ( p < 0.05) improvement in pain relief at all time points except 0.5 and 24 hours compared with those who received placebo. More patients achieved pain-free status with ROX-828 than with placebo at 1.5, 3, 4, 24 and 48 hours ( p < 0.05); significance at the two-hour time point, which was the primary endpoint, was not met. Patients’ global impression of efficacy showed statistically significantly better results for patients receiving ROX-828 than for those receiving placebo. Associated migraine symptoms were significantly improved ( p < 0.05) with ROX-828 relative to placebo at several time points throughout the observation period. The most frequently reported adverse events in both groups were associated with nasal discomfort.

Conclusion

Self-administered intranasal ROX-828 was well tolerated. While the primary endpoint was not met, the results provide preliminary evidence that ROX-828 improves migraine pain.

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.

The role of nasal corticosteroids in the treatment of rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the first choice for rhinitis pharmacotherapy. This preference is because of their broad range of actions that result in reductions of proinflammatory mediators, cytokines, and cells. Over the past 30 years, INSs have been modified to improve their pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and delivery system properties, with attention to improving characteristics such as receptor binding affinity, lipophilicity, low systemic bioavailability, and patient preference. Clinically, they have been shown to be the most effective class of nasal medications for treating allergic rhinitis and nonallergic rhinopathy, with no clear evidence that any specific INS is superior to others.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease with great morbidity and significant societal and economic burden. Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe disease, especially when nasal congestion is a major component of symptoms. To compare the efficacy and safety profile of different available intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of AR, it is important to understand their different structures and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Knowledge of these drugs has increased tremendously over the last decade. Studies have elucidated mechanisms of action, pharmacologic properties, and the clinical impact of these drugs in allergic respiratory diseases. Although the existing intranasal corticosteroids are already highly efficient, the introduction of further improved formulations with a better efficacy/safety profile is always desired. Fluticasone furoate nasal spray is a new topical corticosteroid, with enhanced-affinity and a unique side-actuated delivery device. As it has high topical potency and low potential for systemic effects, it is a good candidate for rhinitis treatment.

Comparison of patient preference for sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

To compare preferences for fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays after 1 week of treatment in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR.

METHODS

Patients with seasonal AR were enrolled (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to active treatment (fluticasone furoate, 110 microg, or fluticasone propionate, 200 microg, followed by crossover treatment for 1 week each) or matched placebo sequence with a 1-week washout before crossover dosing. Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate efficacy was measured by change from baseline during 1 week in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) that assessed severity of rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing. Patient preference for fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate was assessed at the end of the study by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty patients from 29 clinical sites in the Unites States were randomized and treated between August 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007. Most patients were white (73%) and female (59%), with a mean age of 38.3 years, and had had seasonal AR for at least 10 years (74%). Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate each reduced the daily rTNSS compared with their respective placebos (least squares mean [SD] difference, -0.8 [0.24], P < .001, and -0.6 [0.24], P = .01, respectively). More patients (P < .001) preferred fluticasone furoate to fluticasone propionate based on attributes of scent or odor (58% vs 27%), aftertaste (60% vs 18%), leaking out of the nose and down the throat (59% vs 21%), and mist gentleness (57% vs 26%). No statistically significant differences were seen in preferences regarding ease of use, delivery method, or device comfort.

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate significantly improved symptoms in adult patients with seasonal AR. Most patients preferred the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate to those of fluticasone propionate after 1 week of treatment.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF.

CONCLUSION

In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

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.