Montelukast for treating fall allergic rhinitis: effect of pollen exposure in 3 studies

Satellite-based phenology products and in-situ pollen dynamics: A comparative assessment

Ongoing climate variability and change is impacting pollen exposure dynamics among sensitive populations. However, pollen data that can provide beneficial information to allergy experts and patients alike remains elusive. The lack of high spatial resolution pollen data has resulted in a growing interest in using phenology information that is derived using satellite observations to infer key pollen events including start of pollen season (SPS), timing of peak pollen season (PPS), and length of pollen season (LPS). However, it remains unclear if the agreement between satellite-based phenology information (e.g. start of season: SOS) and the in-situ pollen dynamics vary based on the type of satellite product itself or the processing methods used. To address this, we investigated the relationship between vegetation phenology indicator (SOS) derived from two separate sensor/satellite observations (MODIS, Landsat), and two different processing methods (double logistic regression (DLM) vs hybrid piecewise logistic regression (HPLM)) with in-situ pollen season dynamics (SPS, PPS, LPS) for three dominant allergenic tree pollen species (birch, oak, and poplar) that dominate the springtime allergy season in North America. Our results showed that irrespective of the data processing method (i.e. DLM vs HPLM), the MODIS-based SOS to be more closely aligned with the in-situ SPS, and PPS while upscaled Landsat based SOS had a better precision. The data products obtained using DLM processing methods tended to perform better than the HPLM based methods. We further showed that MODIS based phenology information along with temperature and latitude can be used to infer in-situ pollen dynamic for tree pollen during spring time. Our findings suggest that satellite-based phenology information may be useful in the development of early warning systems for allergic diseases.

Treatment Effect of the Tree Pollen SLIT-Tablet on Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis During Oak Pollen Season

BACKGROUND

Birch, alder, hazel, and oak are members of the birch homologous group based on cross-reactivity toward the birch pollen allergen Betula verrucosa 1. Theoretically, allergy to these tree pollens may be treated by immunotherapy with one representative allergen extract.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate post hoc whether treatment of birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with a standardized tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet containing birch pollen extract reduces symptoms and symptom-relieving medication use during the oak pollen season (OPS).

METHODS

In a randomized, multinational, double-blind trial (EudraCT-2015-004821-15), 634 participants (ages 12-65 years) received daily tree SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-Bet) or placebo before and during tree pollen season (alder/hazel plus birch pollen season [BPS]). Symptom-relieving medication was allowed. The primary end point was the average total combined score (sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score and daily medication score) during BPS. Outcomes during the OPS (excluding overlapping BPS days) were analyzed post hoc.

RESULTS

Relative improvements in average total combined score, daily symptom score, and daily medication score with the tree SLIT-tablet versus placebo during the OPS were 25%, 22%, and 32%, respectively (all P < .001). Significant correlations were observed between birch and oak serum immunoglobulin E (sIgE) at baseline (r = 0.86) and between birch and oak IgG₄ after treatment (r = 0.72). Oak sIgE and IgG₄ kinetics in response to tree SLIT-tablet treatment were similar to birch.

CONCLUSIONS

The tree SLIT-tablet leads to significant improvement of rhinoconjunctivitis outcomes during the OPS, supporting the clinical relevance of immunological cross-reactivity toward birch and oak allergens.

Allergy to oak pollen in North America

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

Evaluation of Montelukast for the Treatment of Children With Japanese Cedar Pollinosis Using an Artificial Exposure Chamber (OHIO Chamber)

Background

This study evaluated the efficacy of montelukast in reducing seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in Japanese children with Japanese cedar (JC) pollinosis induced in an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO Chamber).

Methods

Pediatric patients aged 10 to 15 years sensitive to JC pollen entered a randomized, double-blind, single-site, crossover study. After confirmation of an allergic response to a JC pollen exposure for 3 hours in the OHIO Chamber during the screening period, subjects received either montelukast 5 mg chewable tablets or placebo for a 7-day treatment period, followed by a 3-hour pollen exposure in the chamber. After a 7-day washout period, subjects crossed over to the other treatment. Subjects were instructed to self-assess their nasal symptoms using 5-point scale for every 30 minutes. The primary end point was the change from baseline (just before entering the exposure chamber for each exposure) in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; the sum of nasal congestion, nasal discharge, and sneezing scores) over 3 hours of pollen exposure. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated throughout the study.

Results

A total of 220 subjects (median age, 12 years) received treatment. For TNSS, the between-group difference in the change (95% confidence interval) was −0.01 (−0.11 to 0.10); the change between placebo and montelukast 5 mg was not significant. TNSS in the screening and treatment periods after receiving placebo for 7 days was 1.58 and 1.31, respectively, suggesting a placebo response. On account of high placebo response, a post hoc analysis was conducted. The analysis in a subgroup of subjects who did not show placebo response demonstrated a difference in the efficacy between montelukast and placebo (nominal P < .037). The most common AE was positive urine protein (4.6% with montelukast vs 7.8% with placebo).

Conclusions

Although montelukast was well tolerated, this study did not demonstrate a treatment difference between active drug and placebo in Japanese children exposed to JC pollen in the OHIO Chamber.

Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01852812

Montelukast Effectively Treats the Nighttime Impact of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Nighttime problems constitute a significant burden on the quality of life of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of montelukast on nighttime AR symptoms.

Methods

In seven multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trials, nighttime problems were assessed as the nighttime symptoms score (NSS), an average of three individual symptom scores: difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakening, and nasal congestion on awakening (each rated 0 = none to 3 = severe). Patients (aged 15–82 years) were randomized to receive montelukast, 10 mg (n = 1751), placebo (n = 1557), or the positive control loratadine, 10 mg (n = 1616).

Results

In a combined analysis, changes from baseline (mean ± SE) in NSS were -0.28 ± 0.01, -0.16 ± 0.01, and —0.24 ± 0.01 for the montelukast, placebo, and loratadine groups, respectively. Difference versus placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline were —0.11 (95% confidence interval, -0.14, -0.08; p ≤ 0.001) for montelukast and -0.09 (-0.12, -0.06; p ≤ 0.001) for loratadine. Strong baseline correlations (R > 0.70; p < 0.001) of NSS and two of its individual symptoms with the sleep domain of the validated Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire support the validity and importance of measuring nighttime morbidity in SAR. Furthermore, a clinically important benefit of montelukast on the nighttime impact of SAR was shown using an analysis anchored on the Patient's Global Evaluation.

Conclusion

These data underscore the importance of nighttime problems in patients with SAR and the need to treat nighttime symptoms. In these studies, montelukast significantly improved the NSS, a clinically relevant and valid measure in patients with SAR.

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.

Position statement of the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology on the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes, and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory sinonasal diseases

Introduction

Inflammatory conditions of the nose and paranasal sinuses are very prevalent in the general population, resulting in marked loss of quality of life in affected patients, as well as significant work, leisure, and social activity losses. These patients require specific and specialized treatment. A wide range of oral medications are available.

Objective

The present document is aimed to clarify, for professionals treating patients with inflammatory sinonasal diseases, both specialists and general practitioners, specific oral therapies in noninfectious nasal inflammatory conditions.

Methods

The methodology used to create this article included the search for the key words: oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, antileukotrienes, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in the last 5 years. Since no relevant article was found for the text on the subject of interest in the last 5 years, the search was extended for another 5 years, and so on, according to the authors’ needs.

Results

Relevant literature was found regarding the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and oral corticosteroids in these conditions. The Brazilian Academy of Rhinology emphasizes, after extensive discussion by the collegiate, key points in the treatment with these drugs.

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for the use of these drugs; however, final considerations about the role of each of them have been made.

Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses

BACKGROUND

Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 μg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs.

RESULTS

In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.

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

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

Physician specialty influences important aspects of pediatric asthma management

BACKGROUND

Physician training influences patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare asthma management and change in the percentage predicted FEV1 among pediatric physician specialties.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of children 6 years of age or older, seen in a multidisciplinary asthma clinic between 2009 and 2010, and followed to 2012, was completed to examine differences in asthma outcomes by specialty (2 pediatricians, 3 pediatric allergists, 5 pediatric respirologists). Univariate analyses compared investigation, including allergy testing (skin prick or RAST), comorbid conditions, and prescription by specialty. Multivariate regression, which controlled for random effect of the individual physician, examined specialty differences for prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and changes in percentage predicted FEV1.

RESULTS

More than 56% of the patients (309/548) were seen by pediatric respirologists, 26% by pediatric allergists, and 18% by pediatricians. Physician specialty influences investigation requested, comorbid diagnoses, treatment, and improvement in FEV1. Pediatric allergists' patients had more allergy tests, were more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and, consequently, were more likely to be prescribed nasal steroids than pediatricians and pediatric respirologists. Pediatricians were less likely to prescribe ICS (odds ratio 0.39 [95% CI, 0.15-0.96]; P < .05) than pediatric allergists, with the greatest difference in ICS prescription among children with a percentage predicted FEV1 ≥ 80%. Improvement in FEV1 among children who received care with pediatric allergists was higher than those seen by pediatricians (13%; P < .001) and pediatric respirologists (8%; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient management domains with the greatest room for discretion (investigations, comorbid diagnoses, and treatment with ICS among children with normal lung function) are most heavily influenced by physician specialty. These results have implications for asthma management at the patient level and in future practice guidelines.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists in allergic eye disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic eye diseases are common and cause significant morbidity. Leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (AC), commonly seen in conjunction with allergic rhinitis, and in vernal keratoconjunctivitis and atopic keratoconjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the available evidence for an effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) on the ocular symptoms of allergic eye diseases.

METHODS

Selected studies, identified with systematic review search methods, were single/double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that compared LTRAs with other common treatments.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials, using the LTRA montelukast (in AC only), were identified. Six studies were suitable for meta-analysis, in patients with seasonal AC [treated over a 2-week period, symptoms scored 0 (mild) to 3 (severe)]. These trials were at low risk of bias without significant heterogeneity. Six trials were analyzed and showed that montelukast improved patients' ocular symptoms to a greater extent than placebo, with a difference in mean change-from-baseline score of -0.10 (95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07; P < .00001). Three trials compared montelukast with oral antihistamine. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = .007), in favor of antihistamines. Two trials compared montelukast and oral antihistamine with placebo. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.38 to -0.21; P < .00001), in favor of combination treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In seasonal AC LTRAs are more efficacious than placebo but less efficacious than oral antihistamines in adult patients. Clinical trials should be conducted to determine whether combination treatment with LTRA and oral antihistamine has a synergistic effect. Further research is required to clarify the role of LTRAs in other allergic eye diseases.

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis affects millions of Americans and the numbers continue to increase. Fortunately, there exists a wide array of pharmacotherapeutic options with relatively safe side effect profiles for the management of the varying subtypes. Additionally, there are newer agents on the horizon. The efficacies of intranasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, combination topical therapy, leukotriene inhibitors, mast cell stabilizers, anticholinergics, mucolytics, decongestants, and anti-IgE are reviewed.

Quality of life of Japanese seasonal allergic rhinitis patients is related to timing of pollen dispersal - multicenter analysis

CONCLUSION

Both the symptoms score and quality of life (QOL) score increased in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis as pollen dispersed, and nasal congestion, which had a strong effect on sleep, had the largest effect on the decrease in 'total QOL' in all the groups of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess QOL scores in patients with Japanese cedar (JC) pollinosis in relationship to timing of pollen dispersal.

METHODS

A multicenter, inter-group, cross-sectional study was conducted in 905 adult symptomatic patients with JC pollinosis to investigate the Japanese Allergic Rhinitis Standard QOL Questionnaire (JRQLQ). The subjects were divided into five groups based on the timing of their responses to the questionnaire. JRQLQ scores were analyzed and compared among the patient groups.

RESULTS

Both the symptoms score and JRQLQ score increased in patients as pollen dispersed. Among the symptoms of pollinosis, nasal congestion had the largest effect on the decrease in QOL, and had a strong effect on sleep, which may influence daytime activities and reduce QOL.

Montelukast in the treatment of asthma and beyond

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting over 300 million people worldwide. The common association with allergic rhinitis and the presence of proinflammatory cells and mediators in the circulation of patients qualify asthma as a systemic disease. This characteristic and the fact that the gold-standard therapy for persistent asthma, inhaled corticosteroids, cannot suppress all components of airway inflammation and fail to adequately penetrate into the small airways, warrant the quest for effective systemic anti-asthma therapies. This review describes the most important controlled studies of montelukast, a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, in asthma and allergic rhinitis in both adults and children. Montelukast is a systemically active drug with a targeted, dual mechanism of action, acting both as a bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory. In patients of all ages, montelukast has shown a favorable safety profile and was well-tolerated. Both as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, montelukast produced clinically relevant improvements in asthma-related parameters, including symptoms, lung function parameters, quality of life and the number of asthma exacerbations. Furthermore, bronchoprotective effects have been reported both against specific and nonspecific bronchoactive stimuli. Similarly, in patients with allergic rhinitis, montelukast produced substantial improvements in symptoms and quality of life. Long-term studies aimed to determine its effects on airway remodeling are still lacking.

Montelukast in the treatment of asthma as a systemic disease

Asthma affects 300 million people worldwide. The common association of asthma with allergic rhinitis and the presence of proinflammatory mediators in the circulation of patients provide strong evidence for the need to treat asthma as a systemic disease. The leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast is a disease-specific oral medication that has dual effects on airway smooth muscle cells and inflammatory processes. This review describes recent randomized, controlled studies of montelukast in asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children as young as 3 months old. Montelukast treatment consistently produced significant reductions in asthma exacerbations. While many patients may benefit from montelukast as monotheray, combination treatment for chronic asthma with inhaled corticosteroids is advocated as being rational. Significant improvements in symptoms and quality of life were observed in allergic rhinitis patients. Montelukast is well tolerated in patients of all ages. Long-term studies are underway to determine its effects on airway remodeling.

Clinical studies of combination montelukast and loratadine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Concomitant use of montelukast and loratadine may improve symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) more than treatment with either drug alone.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of this combination versus placebo, nasal beclomethasone, montelukast, and loratadine in study 1 and versus placebo, montelukast, and loratadine in study 2.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with intranasal beclomethasone 200 mu g/twice daily (study 1 only), placebo, montelukast 10 mg+loratadine 10 mg, montelukast 10 mg, or loratadine 10 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the Composite Symptom Score (CSS): average of daily diary scores for Daytime Nasal Symptoms and Nighttime Symptoms.

RESULTS

In study 1, improvements in the change from baseline in CSS were seen for montelukast+loratadine (least-squares means [95% CI] = -0.43 [-0.51, -0.35]), beclomethasone (-0.57 [-0.64, -0.49]), montelukast, and loratadine. All treatments were significantly better than placebo; montelukast+loratadine had a significantly greater effect on CSS than montelukast alone but no difference compared to loratadine was detected. Beclomethasone provided significantly greater improvement versus montelukast+loratadine on the primary and secondary endpoints except for the rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life score. In study 2, the combination treatment was similar to montelukast, loratadine, and placebo for the primary and secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSION

In study 1, montelukast+loratadine had a significantly greater effect on CSS than placebo and montelukast alone; however, in all comparisons, nasal beclomethasone had a greater effect on daily symptoms. In contrast, the combination of montelukast+loratadine in study 2 did not provide greater improvement compared with placebo, montelukast, or loratadine monotherapy, perhaps due to a large placebo effect.

Montelukast: Pharmacology, Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are common disorders effecting large percentages of the population of Western countries. There are multiple treatment options available for allergic rhinitis and asthma and stepwise approaches to therapy have been recommended. Montelukast is a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist that has been found to be effective both in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. This paper will describe the pharmacology, safety, efficacy and tolerability of montelukast. It will examine the comparative efficacy of montelukast to other medications for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, as well as discuss the recent studies of combination therapy.

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.

The efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in pediatric patients with persistent asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of montelukast on asthma during the allergy season in children with persistent asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity.

DESIGN

This 3-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter study compared daily montelukast 5 mg chewable tablets and placebo in patients 6-14 years of age with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) > or = 60 and < or = 85% predicted, persistent asthma that is also active during allergy season, and documented sensitivity to seasonal allergens. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use was permitted in up to 40% of enrolled patients. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in FEV(1) over 3 weeks of treatment. Additional endpoints included the percentage change from baseline in beta-agonist use, average changes in daytime and nighttime symptom score, AM and PM peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), investigator's global asthma evaluation, and parent/guardian global asthma evaluation at the end of the treatment period. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected to assess safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 421 patients were randomized to montelukast (N = 203) or placebo (N = 218). For the primary endpoint, the percentage change from baseline FEV(1), montelukast was not significantly different from placebo (least squares mean 9.53% vs. 9.15%, respectively; p = 0.810). Compared with placebo, montelukast was associated with significantly lower (better) investigator's global asthma evaluation (LS mean 2.71 vs. 2.98; p < 0.05) and parent/guardian global asthma evaluation (LS mean: 2.63 vs. 2.90; p < 0.05) scores. There were no significant differences between treatment groups for the other efficacy evaluations. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences observed in AE rates.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast did not significantly improve FEV(1) compared with placebo over three weeks of treatment during the allergy season in pediatric patients with seasonal allergen sensitivity. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00289874).

Rates of asthma attacks in patients with previously inadequately controlled mild asthma treated in clinical practice with combination drug therapy: an exploratory post-hoc analysis

Background

Differences could exist in the likelihood of asthma attacks in patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), and montelukast (MON) (ICS/LABA/MON) and patients treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and montelukast (MON) (ICS/MON).

Methods

This was a post-hoc analysis of a pretest-posttest retrospective cohort study. Patients with mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, who were taking an ICS either alone or in combination with a LABA, started concomitant MON treatment as part of their routine care. Rates of asthma- and allergic rhinitis-related medical resource use in the 12-months after the initial (index) MON prescription were compared in the ICS/MON and ICS/LABA/MON groups. An asthma attack was defined as an asthma-related hospitalization, ER visit, or use of an oral corticosteroid.

Results

Of the total of 344 patients, 181 (53%) received ICS/MON and 163 (47%) received ICS/LABA/MON in the post-index period for means of 10.5 and 11.4 months, respectively, (P < 0.05). Short-acting beta-agonists were used by 74.6% in the ICS/MON and 71.8% in the ICS/LABA/MON groups (P > 0.05). An asthma attack occurred in 4.4% of the ICS/MON group and 6.8% of the ICS/LABA/MON group (P > 0.05). The adjusted odds of an asthma attack in the post-index period in the ICS/LABA/MON group relative to the ICS/MON group was 1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.35–4.44.

Conclusion

In this observational study of combination drug treatment of mild persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, no difference was observed between LABA/ICS/MON combination therapy and the ICS/MON combination without LABA use, for the rate of asthma attacks over one year.

A double-blind non-inferiority clinical study of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 1 antagonist, compared with pranlukast in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

During the course of development of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 1 antagonist, for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, a double-blind, non-inferiority study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of montelukast 5mg and 10mg compared with pranlukast 450mg, which has a similar mechanism of action.

METHODS

Montelukast 5mg, 10mg or pranlukast 450mg and the corresponding placebo were orally administered to patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis three times a day for 2 weeks. Non-inferior efficacy of montelukast 5mg and 10mg to pranlukast 450mg was investigated by the change from the baseline in the composite nasal symptoms scores over the 2-week treatment period.

RESULTS

Montelukast 5mg, 10mg once daily and the pranlukast 450mg/day showed significant improvements in the change from the baseline in the composite, daytime and nighttime nasal symptom scores, and the improvement lasted for 2 weeks. Montelukast 5mg and 10mg were non-inferior to pranlukast 450mg in the change from the baseline in the composite nasal symptoms scores. The incidence rates of adverse experiences and drug-related adverse experiences were not significantly different among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that administration of montelukast 5mg and 10mg once daily are potent alternatives for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and demonstrated that the efficacy and the safety profiles are comparable with pranlukast 450mg/day.

The pathophysiology, clinical impact, and management of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is a cardinal symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). It is difficult to treat and is associated with decreased quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the clinical features of nasal congestion, its complex pathophysiology in the context of AR, its clinical impact, and the strengths and weaknesses of available treatments.

METHODS

Primary studies and reviews in the peer-reviewed, English-language literature were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-2008) and the Cochrane Library (1996-2008) using the terms nasal congestion, allergic rhinitis, pathophysiology, quality of life, and burden. Additional references were obtained by searching the reference lists of the identified articles. Abstracts from the 2006 and 2007 meetings of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology were also searched. Pertinent articles were included in the review if they were recently published and patient-focused, and if their authors were recognized leaders in the field.

RESULTS

A survey of 2355 patients with AR or their guardians found that almost half of respondents rated nasal congestion the most bothersome symptom; in a survey of 2500 adults with AR, 78% rated nasal congestion either extremely or moderately bothersome. Histamine and leukotrienes are major mediators of the allergic inflammation associated with nasal congestion, as indicated by reductions in nasal cross-sectional area in response to histamine challenge (P<0.001) and increases in nasal airway resistance in response to leukotriene challenge (P<0.05).Therapy for nasal congestion in AR is often hampered by limitations associated with the individual agents; for example, decongestants are effective in the control of nasal congestion, but their use is restricted by their adverse-event profiles. A meta-analysis of 16 controlled studies involving 2267 patients with AR found that intranasal corticosteroids provided significantly greater relief of nasal congestion than oral antihistamines (95% CI for combined standardized mean difference, -0.73 to -0.53). The results of several clinical trials have suggested that leukotriene-receptor antagonists may be associated with reduced nasal congestion; however, no agents in this class are currently approved for the treatment of nasal congestion in AR.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for therapies that are well tolerated and effective in relieving nasal congestion in AR.

Efficacy comparison of levocetirizine vs montelukast in ragweed sensitized patients

BACKGROUND

To date, no adequate data are available on direct comparison of the efficacy of levocetirizine, a recently approved histamine1-antihistamine, with that of a leukotriene antagonist in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of therapeutic doses of 5 mg of levocetirizine and 10 mg of montelukast in ragweed sensitized patients.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted between July and October 2006. Symptomatic patients with SAR were exposed to ragweed pollen under controlled conditions in an environmental exposure chamber for 4 to 5 hours after treatment with 5 mg of levocetirizine, 10 mg of montelukast, or matched placebo on 2 consecutive days. The mean change from baseline in pollen-induced rhinitis symptoms, expressed as a major symptoms complex (MSC) score (sum of scores for rhinorrhea, itchy nose, sniffles, nose blows, sneezes, and watery eyes), in period 1 (first 5 hours after first drug intake) was the primary efficacy outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 611 patients were screened, of whom 403 were randomized to receive treatment (102 placebo, 152 levocetirizine, and 149 montelukast). The MSC score in period 1 was progressively decreased to a significantly greater extent in the levocetirizine group compared with the montelukast and placebo groups (adjusted mean differences, -2.18 [95% confidence interval, -3.35 to -1.01; P < .001] and -2.22 [95% confidence interval, -3.51 to -0.92; P < .001] for levocetirizine vs montelukast and vs placebo, respectively). The effect of 10 mg of montelukast was not significantly different compared with placebo. Levocetirizine also achieved a significantly faster onset of action within 2.5 hours of administration. Both products were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study in an environmental exposure chamber confirms the therapeutic efficacy of 5 mg of levocetirizine in improving symptoms of SAR, which was superior to 10 mg of montelukast.

Therapeutic effect of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 1 antagonist, on Japanese patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Secretion of nasal discharge was enhanced and airway-resistance in the nasal cavity was augmented, resulting in nasal congestion, when leukotrienes were administered to the nasal mucosa. These results indicate that leukotrienes play an important role in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A double-blind clinical study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 1 antagonist, 5 mg, 10 mg or placebo orally administered once daily at bedtime for 2 weeks, to Japanese patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The composite nasal symptom scores (average over the 2-week treatment period) were compared among the montelukast 5 mg and 10 mg groups with the placebo group.

RESULTS

The composite nasal symptom score significantly improved in the montelukast 5 mg and 10 mg groups compared with the placebo group. The administration of montelukast 5 mg or 10 mg once daily was well tolerated and the safety profiles were similar to those of the placebo. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse experience or drug-related adverse experience among the montelukast 5 mg, 10 mg groups and the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both montelukast 5 mg and 10 mg doses show clinically meaningful efficacy for the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and the safety profiles of those are comparable to that of the placebo.

The link between allergic rhinitis and asthma: a role for antileukotrienes?

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are both chronic heterogeneous disorders, with an overlapping epidemiology of prevalence, health care costs and social costs in quality of life. Both are inflammatory disorders with a similar pathophysiology, and both share some treatment approaches. However, each disorder has an array of treatments used separately in controlling these atopic disorders, from inhaled corticosteroids, beta(2)-agonists and antihistamines to newer monoclonal antibody-based treatments. The present article reviews the shared components of allergic rhinitis and asthma, and examines recent evidence supporting antileukotrienes as effective agents in reducing the symptoms of both diseases.

Leukotriene D4 increases the excitability of capsaicin-sensitive nasal sensory nerves to electrical and chemical stimuli

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Clinical studies have demonstrated significant reductions in allergen-induced nasal symptoms of atopic rhinitis subjects by CysLT1 antagonists, including neuronally mediated symptoms such as sneeze, itch and reflex hypersecretion. Here, we test the hypothesis that cysteinyl leukotrienes activate and/or alter the activity of nasal nociceptive (capsaicin-sensitive) sensory neurones.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Using retrograde tracer (DiI), we labelled guinea-pig trigeminal sensory neurones that projected fibres to the nasal mucosa. Single-neurone reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was used to evaluate CysLT receptor gene expression. The effect of cysteinyl leukotrienes on individual nasal sensory nerve activity was assessed in Ca2+ assays and whole-cell gramicidin-perforated patch-clamp studies.

KEY RESULTS

Nasal C-fibre neurones express CysLT1 but not CysLT2 mRNA. LTD4 and LTC4 increased intracellular [Ca2+]free in a population of capsaicin-sensitive trigeminal nerves, an effect blocked by the CysLT1 antagonist ICI198615. In current clamp mode, LTD4 had no effect on resting membrane potential. However, LTD4 significantly increased electrical excitability (action potential discharge during current pulses) threefold in capsaicin-sensitive nasal neurones, which was inhibited by CysLT1 antagonists ICI198615 and montelukast. LTD4 had no effect on electrical excitability in capsaicin-insensitive neurones. Finally, LTD4 significantly augmented histamine-induced responses in capsaicin-sensitive neurones as measured by increased action potential discharge, peak frequency and membrane depolarization.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

LTD4, likely through CysLT1 receptors, directly increases the excitability of capsaicin-sensitive guinea-pig nasal trigeminal neurones, demonstrating a novel mechanism for the actions of cysteinyl leukotrienes and potentially explains the effectiveness of CysLT1 antagonists in treating nasal allergen-induced neuronal symptoms.

Histamine and leukotriene receptor antagonism in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an update

Allergic rhinitis represents a global health burden. The disease can seriously affect quality of life and is associated with multiple co-morbidities. Histamine and leukotrienes are important pro-inflammatory mediators in nasal allergic inflammation. Their actions on target cells are mediated through specific receptors and, consequently, molecules that block the binding of histamine and leukotrienes to their receptors have been important areas of pharmacological research. The published literature of the pathophysiology of histamine and leukotrienes, and the effects of histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists (H(1) antihistamines) and leukotriene antagonists in monotherapy or in combination therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis was reviewed. The presented results are based on the best available evidence. The efficacy of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists (montelukast in particular) in allergic rhinitis has been established in numerous randomised placebo-controlled trials. Results from meta-analyses indicate that H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists are equally effective in improving symptoms of allergic rhinitis and quality of life, but that both drugs are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids. Data on the combination of H(1) antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in allergic rhinitis are limited. The available evidence shows that a combined mediator inhibition has additional benefits over the use of each agent alone, but is still inferior to intranasal corticosteroids. More well designed studies are needed to fully understand the benefits of a concomitant use of these agents.

Differential responses to various classes of drugs in a model of allergic rhinitis in guinea pigs

Different drugs from various pharmacological classes were compared for their ability to protect against the nasal effects of acute allergen challenge in a guinea pig model. In the model, sneezing and nose rubbing were recorded after an initial allergen challenge in guinea pigs previously sensitized to egg albumin. Four days later the same guinea pigs were re-challenged a second time when anesthetised. In these anaesthetized animals, nasal airway pressure, pulmonary inflation pressure and cellular infiltration into nasal lavage fluid were measured. The drug tested were autacoid antagonists (mepyramine--3mg/kg, cetirizine--3mg/kg and montelukast--10mg/kg), L-NAME (10 or 20mg/kg), heparin (20mg/kg) and dexamethasone (20mg/kg) given either intraperitoneally or intravenously; all were given shortly before challenge. Sneezing induced by allergen challenge was statistically significantly reduced by mepyramine, cetirizine and dexamethasone whereas only cetirizine reduced nose rubbing. Changes in nasal airway pressure due to allergen exposure were reduced by cetirizine, montelukast, L-NAME, and heparin, but not by mepyramine, nor dexamethasone. In the presence of L-NAME, nasal airway pressure actually changed in the opposite direction. Cellular infiltration, as assessed by cytometry in nasal lavage fluid 60min after acute allergen challenge, was reduced by montelukast and heparin but not by antihistamines, L-NAME nor dexamethasone. This pattern of effects of the drugs, given by doses and routes previously described in the literature as being effective was not completely consistent with expected responses. The lack of effect of dexamethasone probably reflects the fact that it was given acutely whereas in the clinic chronic administration is used. The two antihistamines were not identical in their actions, presumably reflecting the fact that cetirizine has therapeutic actions not entirely confined to blockade of H1 receptors. Montelukast has not been reported to have major effects on sneezing and itching in the clinic but reduces nasal obstruction (lower nasal airway pressure or nasal patency). Montelukast's effects on cellular infiltration indicate the possible involvement of leukotrienes. Heparin has actions on inflammatory cell infiltration. This could explain its profile of reducing both cellular infiltration, and increased nasal airway pressure.

Update on montelukast and its role in the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

Montelukast sodium (Singulair, Merck and Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) is a selective and orally-active leukotriene receptor antagonist with demonstrated effectiveness for treating allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children as young as 12 months of age for allergic asthma and 6 months of age for allergic rhinitis. It was recently approved in the US for prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients who are > or = 15 years of age. This paper updates a prior review of the data on the clinical efficacy of montelukast published in this journal.

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.

Montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based review

Cysteinyl-leukotrienes (CysLTs) are endogenous mediators of inflammation and play an important role in allergic airway disease by stimulating bronchoconstriction, mucus production, mucosal oedema and inflammation, airway infiltration by eosinophils, and dendritic cell maturation that prepares for future allergic response. Montelukast inhibits these actions by blocking type 1 CysLT receptors found on immunocytes, smooth muscle and endothelium in the respiratory mucosa. Initially developed as a treatment for asthma, montelukast has more recently found use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic review of studies that have evaluated montelukast in the treatment of seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR), with and without concomitant asthma. Primary consideration was given to large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which AR endpoints were assessed and the use of concurrent treatments for AR was excluded. Eight such studies were found in the literature. The primary endpoint in these was daytime nasal symptom severity represented by a composite score derived from individual self-ratings of nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, nasal pruritus and sneezing. Secondary endpoints have included these individual nasal symptom scores, additional scores for eye, ear and throat symptoms, the impact of rhinitis on quality of sleep, global evaluations of outcome by patients and physicians, and measures of the severity of concomitant asthma. A general outcome was that patients treated with montelukast had significantly greater improvements in their symptoms of SAR and PAR than did patients who were given a placebo. As monotherapy, montelukast exhibited efficacy similar to that of loratadine, but less than that of the intranasally administered corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. The use of montelukast in combination with antihistamines such as loratadine or cetirizine has generally resulted in greater efficacy than when these agents were used alone, and in some studies has produced results comparable with intranasally applied corticosteroids. In patients with AR comorbid with asthma, montelukast treatment has resulted in significant improvements in both, compared with placebo. Montelukast is well tolerated and has a favourable safety profile; adverse events have occurred at similar frequencies in patients taking either montelukast or placebo. Montelukast provides an effective and well tolerated oral treatment for allergic airway inflammation in patients with SAR or PAR without asthma, and in patients in whom AR is comorbid with asthma.

Healthcare utilisation and costs associated with adding montelukast to current therapy in patients with mild to moderate asthma and co-morbid allergic rhinitis: PRAACTICAL study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the healthcare resource use and costs associated with adding montelukast to therapy in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma and co-morbid seasonal allergic rhinitis whose asthma is inadequately controlled by their current asthma therapy.

METHODS

A multicentre, pre-post retrospective cohort study was conducted in three European countries (Italy, Poland and Spain). Consecutive patients who were receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy with long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists) and who started concomitant treatment with montelukast between January 1999 and December 2002 were identified from clinical charts. Asthma/seasonal allergic rhinitis-related concomitant medications and asthma-related outpatient care, ED visits and hospitalisations for the periods 12 months before and 12 months after montelukast initiation were recorded from patient charts and combined with country-specific published unit costs (adjusted to 2004 values). The analysis was performed from a third-party-payer perspective and thus direct healthcare resource utilisation due to asthma/seasonal allergic rhinitis and associated costs for each country were estimated.

RESULTS

A total of 98 physicians provided data for 696 asthmatic patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (Italy: n = 158; Poland: n = 334; and Spain: n = 204). The mean age of patients was 32.7 years, 57.5% were female and patients had asthma that was considered either mild-persistent (54.5%) or moderate-persistent (45.5%) according to the Global Initiative for Asthma classifications. The introduction of montelukast (10 mg/day daily cost range euro0.8-1.68) was associated with increases in the total annual mean healthcare cost per patient of 11.9%, 60.4% and 5.5% for Italy, Poland and Spain, respectively. However, mean annual costs for asthma-related outpatient care, ED visits and hospitalisations dropped significantly in all three countries (Italy: from euro805.00 to euro281.60 [p < 0.01]; Poland: from euro127.10 to euro99.00 [p < 0.01]; and Spain: from euro463.40 to euro119.70 [p < 0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of montelukast to therapy in patients with mild to moderate asthma and concomitant seasonal allergic rhinitis whose asthma was inadequately controlled by current asthma therapy significantly reduced the use of concomitant asthma-allergy medications, ED visits, outpatient care visits and hospitalisation. The total direct healthcare cost obtained after the addition of montelukast increased only as a result of the montelukast treatment cost.

Montelukast in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Allergic rhinitis is common. This systematic review outlines the evidence regarding montelukast in allergic rhinitis and provides a meta-analysis of its efficacy. The evidence suggests that montelukast does reduce nasal symptom score by 3.4% (95% CI: 2.5% to 4.2%) when compared with placebo. Montelukast is not as effective as topical nasal steroids or antihistamines and should therefore be regarded as second line therapy. When used, montelukast should be used in combination with an antihistamine.

Pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatment of allergic rhinitis ARIA update (in collaboration with GA2LEN)

The pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis proposed by ARIA is an evidence-based and step-wise approach based on the classification of the symptoms. The ARIA workshop, held in December 1999, published a report in 2001 and new information has subsequently been published. The initial ARIA document lacked some important information on several issues. This document updates the ARIA sections on the pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatments of allergic rhinitis. Literature published between January 2000 and December 2004 has been included. Only a few studies assessing nasal and non-nasal symptoms are presented as these will be discussed in a separate document.

Efficacy and safety of montelukast in adults with asthma and allergic rhinitis

Several clinical studies have confirmed the effectiveness of montelukast 10mg orally in adults with both asthma and allergic rhinitis. The objective of this phase IV study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of montelukast 10mg in adults with both asthma and allergic rhinitis in a real-life setting. Data from 5855 patients (mean age: 42.8+/-15.4 years) were collected and analyzed following treatment for 4-6 weeks. Efficacy was analyzed by comparing baseline values of: general, day- and night-time improvement in asthma symptoms, need for rescue medication or inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), general and specific improvement in allergic rhinitis symptoms, reduction in rhinitis medication use, and general and specific quality of life (QoL) improvement with values collected at the end of the observation period of 4-6 weeks. Following treatment with 10mg montelukast 86.5% (n=4547) of patients reported a strong or marked improvement in day-time asthma symptoms and 88.5% (n=4367) reported improvement in night-time symptoms. A similarly high proportion of patients had a strong or marked improvement in all symptoms of allergic rhinitis (i.e. sneezing/itching (84%), rhinorrhea (81.7%), nasal congestion (79.3%), watery eyes (78.4%) and red or burning eyes (77.7%). The use of asthma and rhinitis medication was also reduced. 92.3% (n=5685) of all patients intended to continue montelukast therapy. Overall QoL was "very good" or "good" in 85.2% of patients (n=4991) and a "strong" or "marked" improvement in each of the four domains of sleep, work, everyday life and physical activity. Montelukast was well tolerated. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 14 out of 6158 patients. None of the adverse events was serious. Accordingly, montelukast 10mg is a safe and effective treatment for patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis.

Experimental models for the evaluation of treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experimental models used for the clinical evaluation of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles were selected from the PubMed database using the following relevant keywords: allergic rhinitis in combination with efficacy, wheal and flare, nasal challenge, park, cat room, or exposure unit. Regulatory guidance documents on allergic rhinitis were also included.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors' knowledge of the field was used to limit references with emphasis on recent randomized and controlled studies. References of historical significance were also included.

RESULTS

Traditional outpatient studies are universally accepted in the evaluation of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Experimental models provide ancillary information on efficacy at different stages of treatment development. Skin histamine and allergen challenge, as well as direct nasal challenge with histamine and allergen, are often used as early steps in assessing drug efficacy. Exposure units, park settings, and cat rooms better approximate real life by drawing on the natural mode of allergen exposure and delivering the sensitizing allergen to allergic individuals in the ambient air. Park studies make use of allergens in the outdoors, whereas cat rooms and exposure units present the sensitizing allergens indoors, with the latter providing consistent predetermined allergen levels. Exposure unit and park studies are acknowledged for the determination of onset of action and are also suited to the measurement of duration of effect and other measures of efficacy. Onset and duration of effect are 2 important pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as determined by the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology workshop group.

CONCLUSIONS

All challenge models serve as important instruments in the evaluation of antiallergic medications and provide additional information to complement traditional studies.

Efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity

BACKGROUND

Montelukast has proven efficacy in the treatment of chronic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis, but it has not been evaluated in the subpopulation of asthmatic patients with seasonal asthma symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of montelukast treatment in improving the control of asthma symptoms during the allergy season in patients with active asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity.

METHODS

Adults with a history of chronic asthma who are also symptomatic during the allergy season and with skin test sensitivity to seasonal aeroallergens were enrolled in a randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by 3 weeks of double-blind treatment during the spring of 2004. After the run-in period, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral montelukast (10 mg) or placebo. Daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, beta-agonist use, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were recorded daily using an electronic diary. The primary end point was mean change from baseline to week 3 in the daytime asthma symptom score.

RESULTS

Of 455 randomized patients, 433 completed the study. Compared with placebo, treatment with montelukast resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in the daytime asthma symptom score (-0.54 vs -0.34; P = .002) and in beta-agonist use, nighttime symptoms, and peak expiratory flow rates. Few patients in the montelukast and placebo groups discontinued study participation because of asthma (1.3% and 3.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity, montelukast treatment provided significant asthma control during the allergy season compared with placebo.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of montelukast for treating perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is a persistent allergic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract due to year-round allergen exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for the treatment of PAR.

METHODS

Protocol 265 was a 2-arm study performed during the winter. After a placebo run-in period, adults with perennial allergen sensitivity and active symptoms of PAR were randomized to receive 10 mg of montelukast (n=1002) or placebo (n=990) once daily during a 6-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. The primary end point was the daytime nasal symptoms score, defined as the average of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing rated daily by patients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in PAR symptoms were seen in patients treated with montelukast. Their daytime nasal symptoms scores were reduced during treatment compared with those of the placebo group: the difference between treatments in least squares mean change from baseline was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001). Montelukast treatment also improved global evaluations of allergic rhinitis by patients and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores: differences vs the placebo group were -0.15 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.04; P < .01) and -0.15 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.06; P < .001), respectively. Other end points that showed statistically significant improvement with montelukast treatment were nighttime symptoms and each of the 4 nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching). The treatment effects of montelukast were stable and persistent during the entire 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast provided statistically significant relief of PAR symptoms during 6 weeks of treatment.

Allergic rhinitis: impact of the disease and considerations for management

AR is a common condition affecting individuals of all ages. Those afflicted with AR often suffer from associated inflammatory conditions of the mucosa,such as AC, rhinosinusitis, asthma, otitis media with effusion, and other atopic conditions, such as eczema and food allergies. Lack of treatment or treatment with suboptimal therapy may result in reduced quality of life and compromise productivity at work or school. Although environmental controls may prove difficult to implement, and not all controls appear adequately to mitigate symptoms of AR, they continue to represent a foundation for treatment. Many different classes of medications are now available, and they have been shown to be effective and safe in a large number of well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Some of the over-the-counter medi-cations have been associated with increased sedation, potentially leading to accidents and fatalities at work or while operating complex machinery, such as automobiles. Only immunotherapy with increasing doses of individually targeted allergens results in sustained changes in the immune system. Although anti-IgE is probably only the first successful immunomodulator commercially available to treat AR, monoclonal antibodies will remain too costly, at least in the near future, to find their way into routine AR treatment.

Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis: Treatment

Allergic rhinitis, an IgE-mediated disease, is the most common chronic childhood condition and is characterized by nasal sneezing, rhinorrhea, palate and eye itchiness, and congestion. Allergic rhinitis should be diagnosed as early as possible to avoid detrimental effects on the quality of life and comorbid disorders. Treatment initially involves avoidance measures and, when necessary, pharmacotherapy or immunotherapy. Pharmacotherapy generally involves antihistamines or nasal corticosteroids, but other medications such as leukotriene antagonists have demonstrated effectiveness in treating allergic rhinitis symptoms. Immunotherapy generally is reserved for patients unresponsive to therapy or unable to take medications.