Patient preferences for sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids and willingness to adhere to prescribed therapy for allergic rhinitis: a conjoint analysis

Predicting Adherence to Topical Medications in Chronic Rhinologic Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors of medical adherence and describe strategies to increase adherence in patients with chronic rhinologic disease.

DATA SOURCES

PubMED, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review of 4 databases (PubMED, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane) from inception of databases to September 1, 2022 to identify studies that evaluated factors related to and affected by medical adherence in patients with chronic rhinologic disease.

RESULTS

Of 1491 studies screened, 25 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 7 studies described how sensory attributes of intranasal sprays affect adherence, including odor, taste, aftertaste, and side effects. Five studies described record keeping diaries/notification systems to improve adherence, with demonstration of web-based platforms to send reminders as well as keep record of medication usage to improve adherence. Eight studies described patient-specific risk factors to nonadherence, with demonstration of increased age and conscientious personalities correlating with medical adherence. Five studies looked at pediatric patients specifically, with adherence rates in children parallelling that of adults. Additionally, nonadherence in children may have greater implications for school performance.

CONCLUSION

Overall, adherence to topical medical therapy in patients with chronic rhinologic disease is affected by patient-related and medication-specific factors which should be considered when counseling patients. Web-based diary or notification systems may help increase adherence. Additionally, children are equally adherent to topical medical therapy as adults and nonadherence may have negative implications for school performance.

Development and validation of a product acceptability questionnaire for intranasal Q-Griffithsin COVID-19 prophylaxis (SPRAY PAL)

OBJECTIVES

Patient experiences are critical when determining the acceptability of novel interventional pharmaceuticals. Here, we report the development and validation of a product acceptability questionnaire (SPRAY PAL) assessing feasibility, acceptability and tolerability of an intranasal Q-Griffithsin (Q-GRFT) drug product designed for COVID-19 prophylaxis.

DESIGN

SPRAY PAL validation was undertaken as part of an ongoing phase 1 clinical trial designed to test the safety, pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intranasally administered Q-GRFT for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SETTING

The phase 1 clinical trial took place at a University Outpatient Clinical Trials Unit from November 2021 to September 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

The initial SPRAY PAL questionnaire was piloted among healthy volunteers ages 25 to 55 in phase 1a of the clinical trial (N=18) and revised for administration in phase 1b for participants ages 24-59 (N=22).

RESULTS

Spearman correlations tested convergent and discriminant validity. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients of responses collected from three repeated questionnaire administrations. The initial version demonstrated excellent internal consistency. The revised version demonstrated very good internal consistency after removal of one item (alpha=0.739). Excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient=0.927) and adequate convergent (r's=0.208-0.774) and discriminant (r's=0.123-0.392) validity were achieved. Subscales adequately distinguished between the constructs of acceptability, feasibility and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPRAY PAL product acceptability questionnaire is a valid and reliable patient-reported outcomes measure that can be considered a credible tool for assessing patient-reported information about product acceptability, feasibility of use, tolerability of product and side effects and cost of product for novel intranasal drug formulations. The SPRAY PAL is generalisable, and items may be readily adapted to assess other intranasal formulations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT05122260 and NCT05437029.

Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments of Olopatadine Hydrochloride/Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate and Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate for Allergic Rhinitis in Australia - An Observational Real-World Clinical Study

PURPOSE

Combination intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine sprays are a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR), of which Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray (AZE/FLU; Dymista^®), and Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate nasal spray (OLO/MOM; Ryaltris^®) are currently registered in Australia. As it is not known how patients value treatment attributes of current combination nasal sprays, this observational, real-world clinical study aimed to understand patients' satisfaction with, and importance of, treatment attributes of OLO/MOM and AZE/FLU using an Anchored Best-Worst Scaling (ABWS) exercise.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and twenty-six adults in Australia with moderate to severe AR using either OLO/MOM or AZE/FLU completed an online survey incorporating an ABWS with 11 domains: 7 sensory (immediate taste of medication, aftertaste of medication, smell of medication, irritation to your nose, urge to sneeze, dripping out your nose/down your throat, dryness of your nose/throat) and 4 treatment-related (convenience, fast acting, duration of effect, and AR symptom control). The ABWS involved rescaling individual BWS scores using anchored ratings (0-10) for most and least satisfied/important domains to create a total satisfaction index (TSI) (0-100) to be compared across groups. Statistical comparisons were completed using ANOVA (TSI) and MANOVA (individual domains).

RESULTS

Participants using OLO/MOM (M = 68.26, SE = 1.39) had significantly higher TSI than participants using AZE/FLU (M=62.78, SE = 0.70) (p < 0.001), significantly higher satisfaction on 7 of 11 domains and regarded 8 of 11 domains as significantly more important compared to participants using AZE/FLU (all p < 0.05). Preferred domains were predominantly sensory attributes.

CONCLUSION

Current findings showed that participants using OLO/MOM were more satisfied with their overall treatment compared to participants using AZE/FLU, particularly with sensory attributes, thus highlighting the suitability of OLO/MOM for people with AR who value sensory attributes. Prescribers of AR treatments are encouraged to discuss treatment attributes with patients to facilitate shared decision-making.

Intranasal Steroid Use and Satisfaction in Allergic Rhinitis: A Cross-Sectional Study from an Asian Perspective

BACKGROUND

Intranasal steroid (INS) is the most effective medication class for controlling allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms; however, its effectiveness is limited by patient compliance. Previous studies have explored INS use, compliance, satisfaction, and experience. There is, however, no Asian study on these factors in entirety.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the rate of compliance to usage of INS and explore the reasons for noncompliance in our local population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study on 65 AR patients in a tertiary hospital. Recruited patients were administered a questionnaire to collect data about symptoms, INS use, and concerns they may have. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

The overall compliance rate to INS was 63.1%. Noncompliance was associated with increased frequency of dosing (p = 0.050), presence of sensory attributes (p = 0.041), and forgetfulness (p = 0.049). The top 3 most frequent sensory attributes experienced by patients include throat rundown (29.2%), aftertaste (21.5%), and immediate taste (20.0%). There was a significant difference between brands of INS with regard to sensory attributes experienced (p = 0.003) but no side effects (p = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying risk factors for noncompliance to INS can help health-care providers address difficulties faced by patients and hence increase compliance, allowing better control of AR symptoms.

Safety Concerns of Nasal Corticosteroids Usage in Patients With Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are the first-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe conditions of allergic rhinitis (AR) as per current guidelines. However, patients' knowledge and practice towards the safety of such medications remains ambiguous. Therefore, this study was undertaken to identify the awareness of and knowledge about the safety of nasal corticosteroid usage in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as their adherence to taking the medication.

Materials and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study from June to September 2020 at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University Medical Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Data were collected through questionnaire-based surveys, and a total of 375 patients were enrolled in the study. The eligibility criteria included all adult patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis.

Results

Most of the patients had used intranasal corticosteroids. However, only two-fifths of patients stated these medications were effective and only 27% thought they were safe to use. More than half of the patients expressed concerns about using intranasal corticosteroids; however, there was no difference among the patients when asked if their concerns made them discontinue their medication. The majority of patients (73.3%) did not receive appropriate advice on how to use intranasal corticosteroids, but most were compliant with the therapy regardless of their uncertainty about the medication’s safety (71.5%). Most patients reported a benefit of using intranasal corticosteroids (71.5%). Half of the patients (53.9%) reported being aware of a special technique for how to use a nasal spray, but the nonsmokers were more knowledgeable about the techniques than the smokers (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

The patients' knowledge about, adherence to, and perceptions of intranasal corticosteroid use were found to be suboptimal. Patients’ age, gender, socioeconomic status, education level, and smoking status were recognized as potential barriers to a positive perception of and adherence to the treatment plan. Corrective measures are needed to ensure better health outcomes.

Comparative study of the efficacy and safety of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone furoate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND:

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by nasal itch, sneezing, watery or mucous rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal or pharyngeal irritation. If untreated, AR can impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Azelastine hydrochloride (AH), histamine receptor antagonists, has anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an anti-inflammatory agent with action on mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these medications in AR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients in the study had been clinically diagnosed with AR. In each group, there were 75 randomized patients who were to receive either FF (27.5 μg/spray) or AH (0.10%) intranasally twice daily. Assessment in terms of symptoms (total nasal symptom score), signs (endoscopic staging), QOL, eosinophil count, and sensory attributes was done at baseline, day 7, and day 15. Adverse effects were recorded, and the cost incurred was analyzed. Paired and umpaired t-test were used to compare symptom scores, QOL scores, and absolute eosinophil count within and between the groups, respectively.

RESULTS:

The total number of patients was 150 (76 males and 74 females); the mean age for FF group was 26.23 ± 5.2 years, and 26.96 ± 4.8 years for AH group. By day 7, there was a reduction of all scores in both medications, but the reduction in reduction was highly significant with FF (P = 0.001). There was a significant reduction (P = 0.001) in absolute eosinophil count both in blood and nasal smears by day 15 in both the groups; the reduction was significant (P = 0.001) with fluticasone. Adverse reactions were reported by 33.3% of patients receiving FF and 28% patients receiving AH.

CONCLUSION:

Fluticasone furoate produced sustained relief of symptoms, signs, and sensory attributes with a greater reduction in eosinophil count in comparison with AH in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Evaluation of Intranasal Corticosteroid Sensory Attributes and Patient Preference for Fluticasone Furoate for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

PURPOSE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent disease, affecting the quality of life of millions of Americans. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) are widely recommended as first-line therapy for moderate to severe AR. Although these drugs exhibit similar safety and efficacy, a potentially differentiating factor within this class is the varying sensory attributes associated with each INC. The objective of this literature review was to evaluate product characteristics, sensory attributes, and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate intranasal spray (FFNS) compared with other INCs.

METHODS

A narrative literature search for studies evaluating FFNS was performed in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. Key terms included "allergic rhinitis," "anti-allergic agents," "intranasal administration," "fluticasone furoate," and "patient preference." Studies published from 2007 to present were included. Nine trials met the search criteria, each evaluating FFNS versus placebo or other INCs for efficacy, safety, and/or preference, and were included. Approximately 2400 patients with AR were enrolled across varying study protocols.

FINDINGS

In 4 placebo-controlled trials, FFNS showed significant efficacy in relieving symptoms of AR and a tolerable safety profile. Three trials evaluating FFNS and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) found that FFNS was significantly preferred over FPNS regarding scent, aftertaste, and leakage down the throat/nose. The results of 2 trials found that FFNS was preferred overall over mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS).

IMPLICATIONS

INCs are effective first-line treatments for AR and show significant reduction in nasal and ocular symptoms. Patients preferred the scent, aftertaste, and mist gentleness of FFNS ∼2:1 over the same sensory attributes of FPNS. Patients experienced less negative sensory characteristics with FFNS compared with MFNS, preferring FFNS to MFNS overall. Selecting an INC with favorable attributes in accordance with patient preferences could potentially improve adherence, therapeutic outcomes, and health care costs.

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.].

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

How can we improve medical adherence to intranasal corticosteroids in children?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the factors which may be related to nonadherence to intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in children.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on children with AR diagnosis in a tertiary referral hospital. All participants were provided with mometasone furoate nasal sprays for 30 days after the diagnosis. Caregivers were called back when the therapy was over and completed a questionnaire about the factors that may influence the adherence to the treatment. Afterwards each caregiver completed the Turkish language validated Morisky Medical Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) form. Each factor was evaluated according to MMAS-8 score and all variables were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

A total number of 76 children with a mean age of 7.82 years were included in the study. The mean overall MMAS-8 score was 2.80. There was only one factor significantly related to low adherence; the number of dependent children to the caregiver (p = 0.011). Besides this 71.51% of the answers to MMAS-8 scale were compatible with good adherence.

CONCLUSION

The clinician must consider the factors which may lead to non-adherence while setting up a treatment plan. The demographic and sociocultural factors must be taken into consideration and treatment schedule should be made in respect of daily activities of the children. Moreover the father can be involved in the therapy plan and back up the mother as they are usually the responsible parent for children's medical therapy.

Medical adherence to intranasal corticosteroids in adult patients

Introduction

The adherence to medical treatment in allergic rhinitis is poorly evaluated in clinical practice.

Objectives

To evaluate adherence to intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis patients.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted on adult patients who were admitted to the outpatient clinic of the otolaryngology department tertiary hospital. Patients diagnosed with moderate to severe persistent AR and who had not used any nasal sprays were enrolled in the study. The patients were provided with mometasone furoate nasal sprays. On the 30th day, all participants filled out a questionnaire regarding the factors that may have influenced their adherence to the treatment. Afterwards, each patient filled out the Turkish-language-validated Morisky Medical Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) form. Each factor that may have affected adherence to the prescribed medication was evaluated according to the MMAS-8 score and all variables were analyzed statistically.

Results

Fifty-nine adult patients with a mean age of 32.5 years (range 21–52 years) were included in the study. The mean overall MMAS-8 score was 3.64. Two factors were significantly related to low adherence: number of dependent children (p = 0.001) and benefit from the medication (p = 0.001). In addition, patients with higher education levels seemed to be more adherent than the rest of the group.

Conclusion

Clinicians must keep in mind the factors related to non-adherence in order to achieve better treatment outcomes. Therefore, based on our results, patients must be informed that medications should be taken properly regardless of the benefit, and the treatment should be scheduled with respect to daily activities, particularly for patients caring for more than two children.

Management of allergic rhinitis in the era of effective over-the-counter treatments

Allergic rhinitis (AR) may be regarded as a trivial issue unworthy of the doctor's time, and with the availability of many different over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, up to two thirds of patients self-manage AR before seeking medical care. Yet, AR can have a significant impact on health-related quality of life and is associated with a greater detriment to work productivity than other chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. For many patients, the impact on quality of life is greater than suggested by reported symptoms and should also be a focus of treatment. Although many patients can effectively manage AR symptoms independently, a significant percentage will need direction from a physician to obtain optimal results. The availability of several different classes of treatment - including decongestants, sedating and non-sedating antihistamines, and more recently intranasal corticosteroids (INS) - has increased the complexity of self-management, leaving patients confused about the best approach to treatment. Treatment guidelines universally classify INS as the most effective medical agents available for use in the OTC and primary care settings. Many patients are unaware that INS are available OTC and that they are more effective than other therapies. Patients may have negative perceptions about the safety of INS and may have experienced unpleasant taste, scent, and feel with nasal sprays. Unless a patient volunteers the information, healthcare professionals (HCPs) may be unaware that the patient has significant AR and is using one or more OTC AR therapies. To address this gap in communication, HCPs must be proactive in identifying, assessing, and advising patients with AR, including best strategies to assess allergen trigger symptoms, which treatments are appropriate, and when and how to use them. Proper use of delivery devices is especially important. This article reviews the primary care management of AR in the context of the availability of effective OTC medicines.

Overcoming barriers to intranasal corticosteroid use in patients with uncontrolled allergic rhinitis

Patients suffering from allergic rhinitis often attempt to self-manage their symptoms and may seek advice from pharmacists about nonprescription product choices. Several drug classes, both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC), are available, including intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs); oral, intranasal, and ocular antihistamines; leukotriene antagonists; and topical and systemic decongestants, as well as immunotherapies. Selection of the optimal treatment approach depends on the temporal pattern, frequency, and severity of symptoms as well as the patient’s age. Nasal congestion is typically the most bothersome symptom, although rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and ocular symptoms are also problematic. Together, these symptoms may adversely impact the quality of life, work productivity, sleep quality, and the ability to perform daily activities, particularly when uncontrolled. Practice guidelines recognize that INCSs are the most effective medications for controlling allergic rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion. Available INCS products have comparable safety and efficacy profiles, but they differ in formulation characteristics and sensory attributes. Several barriers can impede the use of INCSs, including concerns about safety, misperceptions regarding the loss of response from frequent use, and undesirable sensations associated with intranasal administration. Given the increasing number of INCSs available OTC, pharmacists can help allay these concerns by discussing treatment expectations, recommending INCS products with favorable formulation characteristics, and reviewing proper use and technique for the administration of the selected product. These steps can help to foster a collaborative relationship between the patient and the pharmacist in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

A patient preference study that evaluated fluticasone furoate and mometasone furoate nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis

Background:

Corticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment.

Objective:

This study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Methods:

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes).

Results:

Overall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of “less drip down the throat” (p < 0.001), “less run out of the nose” (p < 0.05), “more soothing” (p < 0.05), and “less irritating” (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), and “run out of the nose” (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), “run out of the nose” (p < 0.01), “presence of aftertaste” (p < 0.01), and “no nasal irritation” (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Patients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including “less drip down the throat,” “less run out of the nose,” and “less irritating.” Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.

Occupational Rhinitis Revisited: Emphasis on the Risk Factors in Saudi Industry

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force defines occupational rhinitis (OR) as "an inflammatory disease of the nose, which is characterized by intermittent or persistent symptoms (i.e., nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrea, itching), and/or variable nasal airflow limitation and/or hypersecretion arising out of causes and conditions attributable to a particular work environment and not to stimuli encountered outside the workplace." The objectives of this review are to highlight the causes of OR in industrial settings in Saudi Arabia in order to alert primary healthcare physicians and other healthcare providers of the importance of diagnosing and managing OR to prevent further complications and present to the General Organization for Social Insurance (GOSI) evidence of the existence of OR in Saudi industrial sector. The literature search yielded no publications from Saudi Arabia that have investigated the prevalence of OR, but it is expected to be high judging from the high prevalence of allergic rhinitis in the country. The occupational groups that are at risk of developing OR include workers in the petrochemical industry, healthcare personnel, livestock and bird breeders, bakers, farmers, housewives and other occupations all of which are present in Saudi Arabia. Clinic and industry based research within Saudi Arabia is recommended to determine the prevalence of OR and to alert healthcare providers to suspect OR in all symptomatic working adults, including housewives and domestic helpers. Use of EAACI algorithm for the diagnosis and management of this condition will help to manage the condition and prevent the deterioration and further complications. Furthermore, diagnosis using internationally recognized guidelines and the results of the suggested epidemiologic surveys may convince GOSI to recognize OR as an occupational disease.

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.

Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data

Nonadherence is a global problem undermining the cost-effectiveness of evidence-based medications. Aligning treatment choices with patient preferences may promote adherent behaviour: eliciting patient treatment preferences may help resolve the problem of nonadherence. As there is no reliable measure of nonadherent behaviour that can be used to derive preferences, stated-preference techniques offer a robust alternative. To understand patient preferences in medication nonadherence, we systematically appraised full-text English studies (from database inception to 24 February 2014) involving participants evaluating hypothetical scenarios to elicit preferences as an explicit means to understand medication nonadherence. Study characteristics (e.g. setting, disease, stated-preference method), attribute type and influence on choice were extracted. Seventeen full-text articles (4,456 patients) were included in the review, which reports stated-preference elicitation studies across a wide range of chronic and acute conditions. All studies were conducted in high-income settings. The influence of drug-related factors was predominant in patients' preferences for treatment. Patients preferred efficacious over safe medications except when considering the duration of therapy, but dosing and cost appeared more important when contemplating adherence. Patient characteristics, particularly medication experience, significantly influenced preferences. A disparity between stated preferences for treatment and adherence was reported. When using stated-preference techniques to understand nonadherence, this manuscript highlights that there is much room for methodological development. Studies outside of high-income settings are needed, particularly in relation to chronic diseases, for which nonadherence poses a substantial economic burden to health systems and patients. To inform the problem of sustaining adherence, prospective research is needed to understand how preferences change with time. The usefulness of stated-preference techniques to inform policy and practice requires a better understanding of how stated preferences relate to actual adherence behaviour.

Motivating patient adherence to allergic rhinitis treatments

Patient nonadherence significantly burdens the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Fewer than half of prescribed doses of intranasal corticosteroid medication are taken. The challenges for immunotherapies are even greater. While sustained treatment for 3 to 5 years is required for full benefit, most patients receiving immunotherapy, either subcutaneous or sublingual, stop treatment within the first year. Although research into interventions to improve AR adherence is lacking, lessons learned from adherence interventions in other chronic health conditions can be applied to AR. Two well-established, overriding models of care-the chronic care model and patient-centered care-can improve adherence. The patient-centered care model includes important lessons for allergy providers in their daily practice, including understanding and targeting modifiable barriers to adherence. Additionally, recent studies have begun to leverage health information and communication technologies to reach out to patients and promote adherence, extending patient-centered interventions initiated by providers during office visits.

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.

Nasal deposition of ciclesonide nasal aerosol and mometasone aqueous nasal spray in allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids, such as rundown to the back of the throat, may influence patient treatment preferences. This study compares the nasal deposition and nasal retention of a radiolabeled solution of ciclesonide nasal aerosol (CIC-hydrofluoroalkane [HFA]) with a radiolabeled suspension of mometasone furoate monohydrate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS) in subjects with either perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) or seasonal AR.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-dose, randomized, crossover scintigraphy study, 14 subjects with symptomatic AR received a single dose of radiolabeled 74-μg CIC-HFA (37 μg/spray, 1 spray/each nostril) via a nasal metered-dose inhaler or a single dose of radiolabeled 200-μg MFNS (50 μg/spray, 2 sprays/each nostril), with a minimum 5-day washout period between treatments. Initial deposition (2 minutes postdose) of radiolabeled CIC-HFA and MFNS in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and on nasal wipes, and retention of radioactivity in the nasal cavity and nasal run-out on nasal wipes at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose were quantified with scintigraphy.

RESULTS

At 2 and 10 minutes postdose, deposition of radiolabeled CIC-HFA was significantly higher in the nasal cavity versus radiolabeled MFNS (99.42% versus 86.50% at 2 minutes, p = 0.0046; and 81.10% versus 54.31% at 10 minutes, p < 0.0001, respectively; p values unadjusted for multiplicity). Deposition of radioactivity on nasal wipes was significantly higher with MFNS versus CIC-HFA at all five time points, and posterior losses of radiolabeled formulation were significantly higher with MFNS at 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose.

CONCLUSION

In this scintigraphic study, significantly higher nasal deposition and retention of radiolabeled aerosol CIC-HFA were observed versus radiolabeled aqueous MFNS in subjects with AR.

Adherence to pharmacological treatment and specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

The term compliance simply indicates how much doses of the prescribed medication are taken, whereas the term adherence implies also an agreement between patient and physician about the therapeutic plan, and it is therefore preferred. Adherence is a main problem in all long-term treatments. Thus, it represents a problem also in the case of rhinitis, expecially concerning specific immunotherapy that must be assumed continuously for several years. Many factors can affect the adherence, depending on patient, on treatment itself and on the healthcare context, and all those factors usually interact. The adherence measured in controlled trials is usually good, but this does not reflect what happens in real life, where adherence should be preferably measured. There are few data on the adherence in real life for pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (e.g. nasal steroids or antihistamines), whereas more data are available for specific immunotherapy. In this latter case, in real life, adherence seems to be far from optimal, for both sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy, although the recent studies agree on the fact that some interventions (i.e. patients' education, strict follow-up, regular contacts) could effectively improve the adherence. In this article, the literature concerning the adherence to pharmacological treatments and immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis was searched and reviewed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Nasal allergies in the Asian-Pacific population: results from the Allergies in Asia-Pacific Survey

BACKGROUND

The Allergies in Asia-Pacific Survey describes the symptoms, impact, and treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) across Australia, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The Allergies in Asia-Pacific Survey was undertaken to further clarify the prevalence of physician-diagnosed nasal allergies (NAs), impact on quality-of-life (QOL), existing treatment paradigms and gaps, and NA medications currently used in treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-three thousand three hundred seventy-eight households were screened for individuals, ≥ 4 years old, with a physician diagnosis of AR or NA and either symptoms or treatment in the past 12 months. Standardized questionnaires were used to make comparisons across regions. A total of 1043 adults and 192 children were included in the survey.

RESULTS

Nine percent of participants were diagnosed with AR with two of three responding that their NAs were seasonal in nature. Nasal congestion was the most common and bothersome symptom of AR. Most participants reported that AR impacted their QOL with nearly one-half citing impairments in school/work performance/productivity. Sleep disturbances, secondary to AR, were also shown to be appreciable. Two-thirds of patients took medication for their AR. Less than one-quarter of survey respondents reported taking an intranasal corticosteroid and the satisfaction rate was similar to that of over-the-counter medications. The most common reasons cited for dissatisfaction were related to inadequate efficacy and bothersome side effects.

CONCLUSION

AR appears to be extremely common across Asia-Pacific nations. Many individuals with AR suffer from symptoms that reduce QOL and treatment gaps exist with current therapies. Through identification of disease impact and highlighting treatment gaps, clinicians may better understand and treat AR, leading to improvements in overall patient satisfaction and QOL.

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.

Development of a questionnaire to assess experience and preference of intranasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis affects 10%-20% of the US population. Its chronic nature, combined with patients' perceptions of safety/efficacy, administration, and sensory attributes of nasal sprays (corticosteroids), impact patient adherence to therapy. The purpose of this study was to develop a measure of experience with and preference for corticosteroid therapy for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Questionnaire development was conducted through qualitative research including concept elicitation and content testing in 153 patients with allergic rhinitis. Patient focus groups (n = 66), in conjunction with content confirmation and saturation in additional groups (n = 87), provided research data. A literature-based conceptual framework was incorporated into the interview guide. An iterative process of data collection, analysis, and theory development yielded the conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Consistent comments from the focus groups combined with those from cognitive debriefing interviews led to the incorporation of 14 finalized attributes into the Experience with Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray Questionnaire (EARNS-Q) items. Between the first and second cognitive debriefing interviews, researchers revised the EARNS-Q for retesting. Face and content validity tests indicated that the items, responses, and instructions were understood by study participants. The EARNS-Q is comprised of two modules that measure patient experience with nasal sprays (experience module), and patient preference for a nasal spray relative to another (preference module).

CONCLUSION

The EARNS-Q accurately measured patient experience with and preference for nasal sprays used in treating allergic rhinitis. A potential application of this questionnaire may be as a patient-reported outcomes endpoint in clinical trials of intranasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Psychometric validation of the experience with allergic rhinitis nasal spray questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Patient experience and preference are critical factors influencing compliance in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) receiving intranasal corticosteroids. The Experience with Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray Questionnaire (EARNS-Q) was developed to measure subject experiences with and preferences for nasal sprays.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the psychometric validation of the EARNS-Q modules.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with subjects aged 18-65 years with physician-diagnosed vasomotor, seasonal, and/or perennial allergic rhinitis who were using a prescription nasal spray. Subjects completed the experience module of the EARNS-Q and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire with Medication (TSQM) at baseline and after 2 weeks. Further validation analyses were conducted in a 3-week, randomized, single-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical study in which subjects ≥18 years of age with documented seasonal AR received flunisolide and beclomethasone and completed the EARNS-Q experience module on days 1 and 8, the EARNS-Q preference module on day 22, and the TSQM on days 8 and 22.

RESULTS

The observational and clinical studies were completed by 121 and 89 subjects, respectively. Both modules demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.72 experience module; α = 0.93 preference module global scores) and validity (intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC 0.64 to 0.82 test-retest validity). Correlations among the experience and preference modules were moderate (r = 0.39 to 0.79) and within internal consistency reliability estimates, indicating measurement of distinct constructs.

CONCLUSION

The EARNS-Q is a patient-reported outcomes measure that enables reliable and valid measurement of subject experience with, and preference for, prescription intranasal corticosteroid sprays for allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal Mometasone Furoate for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic nasal disease that affects the upper respiratory tract. This disorder is characterized by inflammation of the mucous membranes and it manifests with several nasal symptoms accompanied sometimes by non-nasal symptoms. Best therapy aims to prevent and improve the AR-clinical picture. Steroids have an important role in the treatment of AR. The development of steroids administrated directly on nasal mucosa has much reduced the systemic adverse affects associated with oral steroids therapy. Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray is a synthetic steroid assessed for intranasal use in the therapy of adults and children affected by AR. Such topical nasal steroid is an effective molecule improving clinical picture of AR and it is also approved as prophylactic therapy. In this article, apart from a careful description of its successful clinical use the authors review pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of such steroid molecule.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: Profile of an enhanced-affinity corticosteroid in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Of the classes of pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment and are recommended in practice guidelines as first-line pharmacotherapy for rhinitis with prominent nasal congestion. The enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone furoate nasal spray (GW685698X), is one of the newest additions to the armamentarium for allergic rhinitis. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on fluticasone furoate nasal spray and discusses its place in pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Important attributes of fluticasone furoate in seasonal allergic rhinitis include low systemic bioavailability (<0.5%), onset of symptom relief as early as eight hours after initiation of treatment, 24-hour symptom relief with once-daily dosing, comprehensive coverage of both nasal and ocular symptoms, safety and tolerability with daily use, and availability in a side-actuated device that makes medication delivery simple and consistent. With these attributes, fluticasone furoate nasal spray has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction and compliance and reduce the need for polypharmacy in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Therapeutic management of allergic diseases

Allergic diseases are characterized by the activation of inflammatory cells and by a massive release of mediators. The aim of this chapter was to describe succinctly the modes of action, indications, and side effects of the major antiallergic and antiasthmatic drugs. When considering the ideal pharmacokinetic characteristics of a drug, a poorly metabolized drug may confer a lower variability in plasma concentrations and metabolism-based drug interactions, although poorly metabolized drugs may be prone to transporter-based disposition and interactions. The ideal pharmacological properties of a drug include high binding affinity, high selectivity, and appropriate association and dissociation rates. Finally, from a patient perspective, the frequency and route of administration are important considerations for ease of use.

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.

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.

Pediatric allergy medications: review of currently available formulations

BACKGROUND

Allergy affects about 50% of the pediatric population globally. Allergic rhinitis (AR), one form of allergy, causes considerable impairment in quality of life, including disruption of sleep and, in children, interference with school attendance and performance.

SCOPE

Traditional formulations and delivery systems - tablets, capsules, or intranasal sprays - successfully used by adults for treatment of AR may not be as easily administered in children. Liquid oral medications are more readily taken by children but contain sugars and excipients; they can also be inconvenient with less accurate dosing and are associated with dental caries and gastrointestinal upset.

METHODOLOGY

This review evaluated medications for treatment of AR currently available for pediatric patients and identified the attitudes of parents and health care professionals toward these medications. Guidelines from international organizations and governmental websites were reviewed for recommendations and product labeling requirements. A Medline search was conducted using the terms dyes, excipients, palatability, prescribing habits, sugar, among others.

FINDINGS

In recent years, governmental regulatory agencies and professional organizations in Europe and the United States have recommended avoidance of sugar in pediatric medicines and required stricter labeling of their ingredients. Public awareness about the adverse effects of sugar and some excipients has also increased, and parents more frequently express the desire for safer and more convenient medicines for their children. In response, more sugar-free, dye-free liquid medicines and other formulations, such as granules, filmstrips, chewable tablets, fast-dissolving tablets, and drops, are becoming available for pediatric use.

LIMITATIONS

Data from well-designed trials conducted in children for the treatment of AR are lacking. In addition, the possibility of a social response bias may exist for parents and physicians about sugar and other ingredients in children's medications.

CONCLUSION

Treatment for AR is often long-term, particularly in persistent AR; therefore, safety, tolerability, convenience, and patient/parental acceptance are important considerations when deciding which medication to prescribe.

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids: the development of a drug delivery device for fluticasone furoate as a potential step toward improved compliance

Devices for the aqueous delivery of intranasal corticosteroids to patients with allergic rhinitis have been available since 1984, so there is a need for new devices to be developed to provide ease of use, efficacy and safety. A novel drug delivery system has been developed for fluticasone furoate (FF; GlaxoSmithKline): a new enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with a scent-free formulation. The FF system was developed, giving attention to patients' unmet needs, in order to promote acceptance and compliance. It demonstrates a number of key features including its ergonomic design, side-actuation system and short delivery nozzle. Exploiting issues with present devices highlighted the need for the FF system. This review reports data from key studies and surveys conducted by GlaxoSmithKline during development, to determine ease of use and acceptance of the FF system. Findings suggest that the FF system should aid in improving attitudes to the use of intranasal corticosteroids amongst physicians and patients.

Caring for patients with allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40 million Americans, with an estimated cost of $2.7 billion per annum. This review discusses several therapeutic options that reduce the symptoms of AR, including allergen avoidance, antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and immunotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

The articles included in this review were retrieved by a search of Medline literature on the subjects of AR, antihistamines, INS, leukotriene antagonists, and immunotherapy, as well as current published guidelines for the treatment of AR.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen avoidance is recommended for all patients prior to pharmacologic therapy. Oral and nasal H(1)-antihistamines are recommended to alleviate the mild and intermittent symptoms of AR, and INS are recommended as the first-line treatment choice for mild persistent and more moderate-to-severe persistent AR.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are a number of different types of therapy for the management of AR; with so many options available, successful tailoring of treatment to suit individual requirements is realistically achievable.

Formulation considerations of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To examine how various aspects of an intranasal corticosteroid (INS) formulation may influence the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INS therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search of the literature was conducted for studies on allergic rhinitis published between January 1977 and January 2006 using the keywords intranasal corticosteroid, preservatives, benzalkonium chloride, and tonicity.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective studies, retrospective studies, and case reports were selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

Currently available INSs are effective first-line treatments for allergic rhinitis. Differences in patient preference for a particular INS are largely attributable to sensory attributes of the nasal spray, which arise from characteristics of the formulation. Additives and preservatives can cause tolerability issues by irritating the mucosal membranes and causing nasal drying, or they can confer an unpleasant odor or taste to an INS formulation. The relative osmotic pressure, or tonicity, of an INS can modulate nasal absorption and retention, thereby potentially influencing the clinical efficacy. Characteristics such as delivery device and spray volume can affect a patient's perception and experience with a particular INS. Newer INSs, such as ciclesonide, are in development for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and consideration of the formulation characteristics of these agents is an important part of the development process.

CONCLUSIONS

INSs are an effective treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis; however, there is room for formulation improvement. Optimization of formulation may increase the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INSs.

An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate preferences for eight medication attributes that women may consider when evaluating prescription osteoporosis medications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The eligible sample consisted of women aged 50 years or older who responded to the 2003 or 2004 Internet-based National Health and Wellness Survey as being diagnosed with osteoporosis, considering themselves at risk, or having a family history of osteoporosis. In this Internet survey (the PREFER survey), respondents were asked to: (1) force-rank order the eight attributes from one to eight according to their preferences and (2) separately rate the importance of each attribute on a Likert-type scale from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important).

RESULTS

We collected 999 responses across 3 days from a sample of 3368 women and stopped compiling responses after achieving sample size targets. Drug effectiveness (e.g., ability to reduce the risk of fractures) was force ranked as the No. 1 preferred osteoporosis medication attribute by 37% of the sample. Side effects were force ranked as the No. 1 preferred medication attribute by 36% of the sample. Dosing frequency, dosing procedure, and formulation (i.e., how the drug is taken) were each force ranked as No. 1 by 2% or less of the sample. Drug effectiveness had the highest percentage of 'extremely important' responses (59%) followed by drug interactions (53%). Drug effectiveness was the highest-rated attribute (mean [S.D.] = 6.1 [1.6], median = 7), while dosing frequency was the lowest-rated attribute (mean [S.D.] = 4.7 [1.8], median = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample of women with a diagnosis of osteoporosis or at risk for osteoporosis, drug effectiveness was the most highly ranked and rated of eight osteoporosis medication attributes. Side effects and drug interactions were also highly ranked and rated. Healthcare providers should consider incorporating patient preferences for key medication attributes into their therapeutic decision-making processes.