Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis when used as needed (prn)

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Fluticasone Propionate with Azelastine Versus Standalone Fluticasone Propionate as Nasal Spray in Allergic Rhinitis: A Prospective Comparative Study in a Rural Population of Northern India

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a symptomatic condition of the nose, caused by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the nasal membranes. Allergic rhinitis is further split into two categories, based on the duration of symptoms: intermittent (IAR) or persistent (PER) disease. Oral or topical antihistamines and topical nasal steroids are the most popular and efficient treatments for allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The present prospective comparative study was done between December 2021 to November 2022, with 64 subjects of PER divided into groups A and B. Group A patients received Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) combined with Azelastine (140 mcg) nasal spray, whereas Group B patients received standalone Fluticasone propionate (50 mcg) nasal spray.

RESULTS

In both groups, the difference in mean TSS between the beginning and end of the 4-week study period was statistically significant (p for both < 0.05). After 4 weeks of treatment, Group A had a TSS of 2.02 ± 0.83 and Group B was at 3.80 ± 1.49; the difference between them was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to results obtained from the current study, while both fluticasone propionate with azelastine nasal spray and standalone fluticasone propionate nasal spray are widely used for control of symptoms in PER, the former offers better results with significant reduction of symptoms when compared to the latter.

Global expert views on the diagnosis, classification and pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis in clinical practice using a modified Delphi panel technique

Background

Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) varies considerably despite the availability of treatment guidelines.

Objectives

We aimed to carry out a two-part modified Delphi panel study to elucidate global expert management of AR in real life.

Methods

The modified Delphi panel study was composed of two ten-minute online questionnaires sent to global AR experts, aiming to identify areas of consensus (defined as >75% respondent agreement) on aspects of their real-world daily practice related to AR diagnosis, classification, and pharmacotherapy. A workshop discussion with respondents held after the first-round questionnaire informed the development of the second-round questionnaire.

Results

Eighteen experts (from 7 countries across 3 continents) completed both questionnaires in September-October 2021 and January 2022, respectively. The majority of respondents agreed that diagnosis of AR is best confirmed using a mixture of observation and testing (n = 15) and collaborating with colleagues across other specialties (n = 14). Experts agreed that severity (n = 18), upper/lower respiratory tract involvement (n = 15) and symptom frequency (n = 14) are important factors when classifying AR, however consensus was not reached on which classification tool should be used. Although there were mixed opinions on the preferred pharmacotherapy treatment in the presented case studies, respondents largely agreed on which treatments require less monitoring (intranasal corticosteroid therapies [INCS]) and when treatments should be stepped down (≤3 months). Although opinions varied across respondents, some respondents considered as-needed INCS treatment and surgery to be viable treatment options.

Conclusion

We identified clear differences between real-world practice and treatment guidelines related to the management of AR. Furthermore, we recognized differences among physicians concerning their clinical practice in the pharmacological treatment of AR. These findings highlight the need for greater research into the management of AR and further indicate there is still a major gap between treatment guidelines and daily practice, even among specialists, suggesting a need for local guideline adaptation and implementation plans.

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

The Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Approach of Value-Added Medicines: As-Needed Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis

Drug repurposing is a major field of value-added medicine. It involves investigating and evaluating existing drugs for new therapeutic purposes that address unmet healthcare needs. Several unmet needs in allergic rhinitis could be improved by drug repurposing. This could be game-changing for disease management. Current medications for allergic rhinitis are centered on continuous long-term treatment, and medication registration is based on randomized controlled trials carried out for a minimum of 14 days with adherence of 70% or greater. A new way of treating allergic rhinitis is to propose as-needed treatment depending on symptoms, rather than classical continuous treatment. This rostrum will discuss existing clinical trials on as-needed treatment for allergic rhinitis and real-world data obtained by the mobile health app MASK-air, which focuses on digitally-enabled, patient-centered care pathways.

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray (INCS) is commonly used by patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have suboptimal symptom control. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of as-needed INCS for treating AR.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials studying the effects of as-needed INCS compared to regular INCS, as-needed antihistamine, or placebo were performed. Primary outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and disease-specific quality of life (DSQoL).

RESULTS

Eight studies (882 participants) met the criteria. Regular use of INCS showed greater improvements than as-needed INCS in TNSS, DSQoL, nasal peak inspiratory flow, sneezing, and nasal congestion scores with small effect sizes. There were no differences between regular and as-needed INCS usage for ocular symptoms, symptom-free days, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea scores. As-needed INCS was superior to as-needed antihistamine and placebo with medium effect sizes. There were no differences in risk of adverse events between the groups in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of INCS improved total nasal symptoms score and DSQoL better than as-needed INCS. However, as-needed INCS improved TNSS better than as-needed antihistamine and placebo. The effects of as-needed INCS were closer to regular INCS usage than to placebo or as-needed AH usage.

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.

Safety of Intranasal Steroids: an Updated Perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intranasal corticosteroid sprays have been available as over-the-counter (OTC) medications since 2013. As such, clinicians need to be up-to-date with the risks and the safety of INS, as patients may have concerns and detailed questions. The following is a review of the recent medical literature regarding the safety profile, adverse reactions, and special populations using INS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest research on intranasal steroid sprays (INS) continue to confirm that INS rarely have significant local side effects, such as severe and persistent epistaxis. Recent studies looking at systemic side effects such as hypothalamic pituitary axis suppression, growth effects, and ocular effects do not indicate any new concerns nor have found significant differences from the past literature. The use of combination INS and topical antihistamine medications did not reveal any new safety issues. Use of INS with topical decongestants found some limited effects of tachyphylaxis and rebound congestion. Studies continue to support the use of newer INS for children and continued monitoring of growth in this population. The HIV population should avoid use of INS with the prescription of ritonavir, given demonstration of adrenal suppression. This updated perspective has found that newer generation INS should be used at the lowest effective dose for the selected population, that clinicians can inform patients using the OTC INS preparations that there are very few safety concerns, and that regular follow-up visits can provide further reassurance with physical examinations and address patient's questions. Future research regarding the safety of INS should study newer preparations when developed and if used in combination with other topical agents.

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.

Symptomatic treatment of pollen-related allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

About 12% of children are affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). Although the main symptomatic treatments are intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) (daily or on demand) and oral antihistamines, it remains unclear which treatment provides the best relief of symptoms. Therefore, this study examines whether daily use of INCS is superior to on-demand use or to oral antihistamines on demand.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial in children (aged 6-18 years) with pollen-related AR. Patients received either INCS daily (fluticasone propionate), INCS on demand (fluticasone propionate) or oral antihistamine on demand (levocetirizine) for 3 months during the grass pollen season. A daily online symptom diary on both nose and eye symptoms was completed. The primary outcome was the percentage of symptom-free days.

RESULTS

A total of 150 children were randomized. The percentage symptom-free days was in favour of INCS on demand (30%) compared with INCS daily (22%), that is 8% difference (95% CI -5 to +21%; not significant). The antihistamine on-demand group had 15% symptom-free days, that is 7% difference compared to INCS daily (95% CI -6 to +19%;, not significant). Patients in the INCS on-demand group used on average 61% less fluticasone than patients in the INCS daily group during the study period (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial with three parallel treatment groups shows that INCS daily was not superior to INCS on demand or to antihistamine on demand regarding the number of symptom-free days. An on-demand INCS strategy has the advantage of a lower overall corticosteroid exposure and less costs.

Allergic Rhinitis: Mechanisms and Treatment

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has been estimated at 10% to 40%, and its economic burden is substantial. AR patients develop specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody responses to indoor and outdoor environmental allergens with exposure over time. These specific IgE antibodies bind to high-affinity IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils. Key outcome measures of therapeutic interventions include rhinitis symptom control, rescue medication requirements, and quality-of-life measures. A comprehensive multiple modality treatment plan customized to the individual patient can optimize outcomes.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

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

PURPOSE

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

ACTION STATEMENTS

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

Decision-making analysis for allergen immunotherapy versus nasal steroids in the treatment of nasal steroid-responsive allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to determine the age at which initiation of specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) becomes more cost-effective than continued lifetime intranasal steroid (NS) therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, with the use of a decision analysis model.

METHODS

A Markov decision analysis model was created for this study. Economic analyses were performed to identify "break-even" points in the treatment of allergic rhinitis with the use of SCIT and NS. Efficacy rates for therapy and cost data were collected from the published literature. Models in which there was only incomplete improvement while receiving SCIT were also evaluated for economic break-even points. The primary perspective of the study was societal.

RESULTS

Multiple break-even point curves were obtained corresponding to various clinical scenarios. For patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis requiring NS (i.e., fluticasone) 6 months per year, the age at which initiation of SCIT provides long-term direct cost advantage is less than 41 years. For patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms requiring year-round NS, the cut-off age for SCIT cost-effectiveness increases to 60 years. Hypothetical subjects who require continued NS treatment (50% reduction of previous dosage) while receiving SCIT also display break-even points, whereby it is economically advantageous to consider allergy referral and SCIT, dependent on the cost of the NS prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The age at which SCIT provides economic advantages over NS in the treatment of allergic rhinitis depends on multiple clinical factors. Decision analysis models can assist the physician in accounting for these factors and customize patient counseling with regard to treatment options.

Twenty-Four–hour Duration of Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Clinical Evidence and Relevance

Background

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms are often most severe and/or disruptive during overnight and morning hours, resulting in cognitive/performance impairments and reduced quality of life throughout the following day. Surveys of allergy patients and health care practitioners reveal a common perception that intranasal steroids (INSs), many of which are dosed q.d., fail to adequately relieve symptoms for a full 24 hours. This review assessed whether perceptions of the 24-hour duration of action of INSs correspond with duration of action documented in clinical literature.

Methods

SAR clinical trial literature of the last 5 years was reviewed to identify studies of INSs incorporating morning instantaneous (A.M. NOW) or instantaneous assessments of 24-hour duration of action.

Results

In numerous placebo-controlled trials of INSs in patients with SAR, treatment was associated with significantly greater improvements in A.M. NOW symptoms from baseline versus placebo. For congestion, this is noteworthy, because patients often cite this symptom, especially in the morning, as the most bothersome symptom. Comparison of A.M. NOW and daily scores suggests minimal drop in efficacy at 24 hours postdose. In several studies, INS treatment was found superior to intranasal or oral antihistamines in A.M. NOW symptom improvement.

Conclusion

Once-daily INSs have potential for effective 24-hour symptom relief; however, there is an apparent disconnect between these findings and patient/physician perceptions. This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by less-than-ideal treatment adherence among “real-world” patients versus subjects treated in clinical trials. Proactive counseling can encourage proper INS use and help maximize treatment benefits.

Dose-related effect of intranasal corticosteroids on treatment outcome of persistent allergic rhinitis

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of the self-adjustable dosing regimen and explore potential dose-response relationships of intranasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis.

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Subjects and Methods

Sixty-nine persistent allergic rhinitis patients were treated with 220 mcg of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide for 28 days. Patients with mild, intermittent symptoms were instructed to use the medication only after symptoms occurred once a day. Patients with symptoms that lasted more than 1 day and/or interrupted daily activities/sleep were instructed to continue the morning daily dose until they were symptom-free for 24 hours before stopping usage.

Results

All nasal symptom scores and peak expiratory flow index (PEFI) showed statistically significant improvements after treatment. At 28 days after treatment, the number of puffs and weight of steroids used were positively correlated with percentages of improvement in total symptoms score (TSS) and PEFI (ρ = 0.529, r = 0.571 and ρ = 0.350, r = 0.509 respectively). When at least 1400 mcg or 44 puffs were used, 60% TSS and 10% PEFI improvement were achieved.

Conclusion

A self-adjustable dosing approach proved to be an efficacious approach to controlling allergic rhinitis.

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

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

BSACI guidelines for the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis

This guidance for the management of patients with allergic and non‐allergic rhinitis has been prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI). The guideline is based on evidence as well as on expert opinion and is for use by both adult physicians and paediatricians practicing in allergy. The recommendations are evidence graded. During the development of these guidelines, all BSACI members were included in the consultation process using a web‐based system. Their comments and suggestions were carefully considered by the SOCC. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the experts on the committee. Included in this guideline are clinical classification of rhinitis, aetiology, diagnosis, investigations and management including subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy. There are also special sections for children, co‐morbid associations and pregnancy. Finally, we have made recommendations for potential areas of future research.

Uptake and metabolism of ciclesonide and retention of desisobutyryl-ciclesonide for up to 24 hours in rabbit nasal mucosa

Background

The nasal tissue uptake and metabolism of ciclesonide, a new-generation corticosteroid under investigation for treatment of allergic rhinitis, to its active metabolite, desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC), was evaluated when administered to rabbits in a hypotonic versus an isotonic ciclesonide suspension. Nasal mucosa extracts from normal Japanese white rabbits were evaluated by high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection after a single 143-μg dose of ciclesonide. Retention and formation of fatty acid conjugates of des-CIC were also measured in nasal mucosa extracts postadministration of a hypotonic ciclesonide suspension (143-μg single dose).

Results

Versus an isotonic suspension, the hypotonic suspension achieved higher concentrations of des-CIC (5.6-fold, 11.4-fold, and 13.4-fold; p < 0.05 for all) and ciclesonide (25.3-fold, 34.2-fold [p = not significant], and 16-fold [p < 0.05]) at 30, 120, and 240 min postadministration. Additionally, when administered via a hypotonic suspension, des-CIC was retained up to 24 h postadministration (45.46 pmol/g tissue). Highest concentration of major fatty acid ester conjugate, des-CIC-oleate, was detected in nasal mucosa at 8 h postadministration.

Conclusion

These data suggest that a hypotonic ciclesonide suspension provides higher intracellular concentrations of des-CIC up to 24 h, thereby providing a rationale for investigation of ciclesonide as a convenient once-daily nasal spray for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

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

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults and adolescents with at least a 2-year history of PAR received intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Patient-evaluated total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs), physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity scores, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient baseline characteristics were similar in the ciclesonide (n = 238) and placebo (n = 233) groups and were consistent with moderate PAR severity. Ciclesonide therapy significantly reduced average morning and evening reflective TNSSs compared with placebo (P < .001) and significantly reduced average morning and evening instantaneous TNSSs (P = .001) over 6 weeks of treatment. At the end point, a greater decrease from baseline was observed in physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity for the ciclesonide group compared with the placebo group (P = .051). An appreciable improvement in combined Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores at the end point was also observed in the ciclesonide group (P = .01 vs placebo). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, intranasal ciclesonide treatment was associated with significant reductions in nasal symptoms and appreciable improvements in health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with PAR. Ciclesonide was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo.

Topical nasal steroids for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a very common chronic illness affecting 10% to 40% of children worldwide. There has been a significant increase in prevalence among children over the last two decades and this increase has been accompanied by a parallel increase in comorbid illnesses such as asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and adverse event profiles of topical nasal steroids for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 onwards) and EMBASE (1974 onwards) on 5(th) September 2005. CINAHL, mRCT(a meta-database of controlled trials), NRR (the National Research Register), LILACS, MedCarib, KOREAMED, IndMed, Samed, Panteleimon, Zetoc, ISI Proceedings, the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trials Database and the websites of AstraZeneca, Schering Plough and Aventis were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing topical nasal steroid preparations against each other or placebo, prescribed for allergic rhinitis in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included trials. The limited and variable quality of reported data precluded any pooling of results and only a descriptive summary is presented.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials involving a total of 79 participants were included. All three trials, which compared topical nasal steroids against placebo for perennial rhinitis, provided some, albeit limited data, relevant to our primary outcomes; but in two of the trials the data analysis was flawed and in the third trial it was incomprehensible. None of the trials provided data relevant to our secondary outcomes. There were no adverse events reported from any of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three included trials provided some weak and unreliable evidence for the effectiveness of Beconase(R) and flunisolide used topically intranasally for the treatment of intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children. The reduction of severity in symptoms as assessed by the trialists could not be confirmed with the data provided and decisions on the use of these medications should, until such time as more robust evidence is available, be guided by the physician's clinical experience and patients' individual circumstances and preferences.

Effectiveness of ciclesonide nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is an investigational corticosteroid under development for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ciclesonide is converted to active metabolite, desisobutyryl-ciclesonide (des-CIC), by upper and lower airway esterases. In vitro studies in human nasal epithelial cells and bronchial epithelial cells have demonstrated a long duration of anti-inflammatory activity of des-CIC.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dose-dependent efficacy and safety of a hypotonic intranasal formulation of ciclesonide in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

This was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults (n = approximately 145 per treatment group) with a minimum 2-year history of SAR received placebo or ciclesonide (25, 50, 100, or 200 microg/d) for 14 days. The primary end point was change in the sum of morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) over 2 weeks. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Ciclesonide, 100 microg/d (P = .04) and 200 microg/d (P = .003), significantly improved the sum of morning and evening reflective TNSS vs placebo at more than 2 weeks of treatment. Baseline values for morning and evening reflective TNSS ranged from 17.80 to 18.82 across treatment groups. The average change from baseline in reflective TNSS was -4.2 for placebo and -4.8, -4.8, -5.3, and -5.8 for ciclesonide, 25, 50, 100, and 200 microg/d, respectively. There were no dose-related differences in the incidence of adverse events among treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study indicate that 100-microg and 200-microg daily doses of ciclesonide are effective in the treatment of SAR. Ciclesonide, 200 microg/d, appears to be the optimal dose studied for reducing the symptoms of SAR while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

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.

Atopic diseases of childhood

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of atopic diseases, including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and asthma, has increased in developed countries over the past several decades. These diseases comprise a large component of general pediatric practice. This review will highlight some of the recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis and natural history of these diseases, as well as the current approaches to the treatment of children with atopic diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have identified multiple risk factors for the development and progression of atopic diseases. As a result, much research is focused on identifying therapies that can be initiated at a young age to prevent disease progression. New treatment options have become available in recent years, such as topical immunomodulators for atopic dermatitis, leukotriene antagonists for seasonal allergic rhinitis, and alpha-immunoglobulin E therapy for asthma. The importance of viewing allergic rhinitis and asthma as disorders of a single airway has been emphasized. Finally, an update on the national asthma guidelines was recently released in an effort to promote optimal asthma care.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes many of the recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of atopic diseases in children. Although not intended to be a comprehensive review of this broad field, it provides a framework for appreciating the complexity of these diseases and for effectively managing them.