Intranasal mometasone furoate reduces late-phase inflammation after allergen challenge

Mometasone furoate nasal spray in Italian children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a comprehensive assessment

OBJECTIVE

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is a common disease of childhood and is characterized by type 2 inflammation, bothersome symptoms, and impaired quality of life (QoL). Intranasal corticosteroids are effective medications in managing SAR. In addition, mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is a well-known therapeutic option. However, the literature provided no data about the effects of MFNS in European children with SAR. Thus, this study addressed this unmet requirement.

METHODS

MFNS was compared to isotonic saline. Both treatments were prescribed: one drop of spray per nostril, twice a day, for 3 weeks. Nasal cytology, total symptom score (TSS), visual analogic scale concerning the parental perception of severity of symptoms, and the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) were assessed at baseline, after 7 and 21 days, and 1 month after discontinuation.

RESULTS

MFNS significantly reduced eosinophil and mast cell counts, improved QoL, and relieved symptoms, as assessed by doctors and perceived by parents. These effects persisted over time, even after discontinuation. Both treatments were safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study documented that a 3-week MFNS treatment was able to significantly dampen type 2 inflammation, improve QoL, and reduce severity of symptoms in Italian children with SAR, and was safe.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: the role of personalized and integrated medicine

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a frequent disorder. From a clinical and an immunopathological point of view, different phenotypes and endotypes have been identified. The frequent comorbidity with asthma allowed to pave the way to the use of biological agents for the treatment of CRSwNP. Biological agents are targeted to antagonize IgE, interleukin (IL) 4, IL-5, and IL-13 at present. However, a correct and appropriate workup is mandatory, mainly concerning the exact definition of the specific pheno-endotype. The preliminary outcomes are promising, even though there is a need for well-established indications, criteria of responsiveness, duration, and safety. On the other hand, this personalized medicine could be fruitfully integrated with gold-standard medications, such as intranasal corticosteroids. As CRSwNP is a chronic disorder, treatment should be long-lasting, so complementary anti-inflammatory treatments could be opportunely integrated and/or alternated to steroids. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

Nasal cytology: Methodology with application to clinical practice and research

Nasal cytology is an easy, cheap, non-invasive and point-of-care method to assess nasal inflammation and disease-specific cellular features. By means of nasal cytology, it is possible to distinguish between different inflammatory patterns that are typically associated with specific diseases (ie, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis). Its use is particularly relevant when other clinical information, such as signs, symptoms, time-course and allergic sensitizations, is not enough to recognize which of the different rhinitis phenotypes is involved; for example, it is only by means of nasal cytology that it is possible to distinguish, among the non-allergic rhinitis, those characterized by eosinophilic (NARES), mast cellular (NARMA), mixed eosinophilic-mast cellular (NARESMA) or neutrophilic (NARNE) inflammation. Despite its clinical usefulness, cheapness, non-invasiveness and easiness, nasal cytology is still underused and this is at least partially due to the fact that, as far as now, there is not a consensus or an official recommendation on its methodological issues. We here review the scientific literature about nasal cytology, giving recommendations on how to perform and interpret nasal cytology.

Mometasone Furoate Suppresses PMA-Induced MUC-5AC and MUC-2 Production in Human Airway Epithelial Cells

BACKGROUND

Mucus hypersecretion from airway epithelium is a characteristic feature of airway inflammatory diseases. Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) regulates mucin synthesis. Glucocorticoids including mometasone fuorate (MF) have been used to attenuate airway inflammation. However, effects of MF on mucin production have not been reported.

METHODS

Effects of MF and budesonide (BUD) on the phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA)-induction of mucin and TNF-α in human airway epithelial cells (NCI-H292) were investigated in the present study. Confluent NCI-H292 cells were pretreated with PMA (200 nM) for 2 hours. Subsequently, the cells were stimulated with MF (1-500 ng/mL) or BUD (21.5 ng/mL) for 8 hours. Dexamethasone (1 µg/mL) was used as the positive control. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to determine MUC2 and MUC5AC mRNA levels. The level of total mucin, MUC2, MUC5AC, and TNF-α in culture supernatants were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

MF and BUD significantly suppressed MUC2 and MUC5AC gene expression in PMA-stimulated NCI-H292 cells. The inhibitory effects of the two steroid drugs were also observed in the production of total mucin, MUC2 and MUC5AC proteins, and TNF-α.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that MF and BUD attenuated mucin and TNF-α production in PMA-induced human airway epithelial cells.

No mucosal atrophy and reduced inflammatory cells: active-controlled trial with yearlong fluticasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) are well tolerated and more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Effects of FFNS on the nasal histology have not been previously reported. This study examines the effects of FFNS and MFNS, administered daily for 1 year, on the nasal mucosa in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized 1:1 to q.d., open-label treatment with FFNS, 110 μg, or MFNS, 200 μg, for 1 year. These groups and a healthy control group that did not receive study medication underwent nasal biopsies at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

The nasal biopsy population comprised 96 participants (37 using FFNS, 42 using MFNS, and 17 healthy controls). Epithelial thickness did not change appreciably from baseline to week 52 in any of the groups and mean change from baseline did not differ between FFNS and MFNS (least square mean difference, -0.001 mm, 95% confidence interval, -0.007, 0.006). Although not tested for significance, improvements over baseline were observed in epithelial histology in the FFNS group with more epithelium including intact columnar and ciliated epithelial cells. No appreciable change in the percentage of goblet cells was established. FFNS and MFNS were associated with decreases in epithelial and subepithelial nasal mucosal eosinophils and basophils from baseline to week 52. The percentage of subjects with no inflammatory cells at week 52 was 49 and 33% for eosinophils and 46 and 24% for basophils, for FFNS and MFNS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Yearlong therapy with either FFNS or MFNS showed no changes in epithelial thickness or the percentage of goblet cells as well as a reduction in inflammatory cell infiltrate. FFNS was associated with improvements in epithelial histology. These data support the long-term safety of FFNS in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Early interventional treatment with intranasal mometasone furoate in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety and effectiveness of early interventional treatment (EIT) with intranasal corticosteroids for seasonal allergic rhinitis. We designed a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week trial of EIT with mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis (JCCP).

METHODS

A total of 50 JCCP patients received MFNS (200μg once daily: n = 25) or placebo (n = 25) starting on February 1, 2010. Treatments continued until the end of April. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) between the MFNS and placebo groups. The secondary endpoints included comparisons of QOL, daytime sleepiness, nasal ECP levels, and safety.

RESULTS

Continuous dispersion of Japanese cedar pollen began on February 22. Although the placebo group showed a significant worsening of symptoms after the start of the continuous dispersion, no worsening occurred in the MFNS group. A significant difference in the TNSS between the two groups was seen starting at 4 weeks after the treatment. Similar results were seen for QOL and sleepiness. Nasal ECP levels in March were significantly lower in the MFNS group. A total of 56% of the MFNS group progressed to a persistent allergic rhinitis state in accordance with the ARIA classification, as opposed to 84% of the placebo group. MFNS was well tolerated, and the plasma cortisol concentrations were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EIT with MFNS for JCCP is both safe and effective. This treatment can potentially lessen symptoms and help pollinosis patients remain in the intermittent state.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

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

Comparison of nasal cytology and symptom scores in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, before and after treatment

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate symptom scores and nasal smear cytology findings in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients, before and after treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-nine consecutive adult patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were evaluated prospectively. They received mometasone furoate nasal spray and cetirizine for 21 days. Nasal and ocular symptom scores were recorded before and after treatment. Nasal cytology was also assessed as a means of determining treatment.

RESULTS

The combined use of an intranasal corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine caused a significant improvement in nasal and ocular symptom scores. Cytological evaluation revealed significant reduction in nasal eosinophil, neutrophil and goblet cell counts after three weeks' treatment.

CONCLUSION

Symptom scoring systems are widely used for the evaluation of drug efficacy in allergic rhinitis treatment. When investigating the disease and evaluating treatment efficacy, objective as well as subjective methods are needed. Nasal cytological assessment is a simple, objective method which provides valuable information about the nasal mucosa.

Objective improvement in nasal congestion and nasal hyperreactivity with use of nasal steroids in persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the action of topical nasal steroid in nasal congestion and nasal hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with persistent allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Twenty atopic children and adolescents (6 to 18 years) with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR) were treated with mometasone furoate (100 microg once a day) for 21 days. At the beginning and end of treatment, the following were recorded: a) nasal symptoms score; b) several parameters of nasal congestion measured by acoustic rhinometry (SRE 2000 Rhinometrics); c) degree of nasal hyper-reactivity to histamine (concentration of histamine necessary to induce at least 100% increase in total nasal resistance during nasal provocation test). Data were compared with those from 20 controls.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, PAR patients had significantly higher score of symptoms, as well as higher degree of nasal hyper-reactivity and lower nasal volumes. After treatment, there was a significant decrease in the mean nasal symptoms score (8.0 versus 3.8; p < 0.001) and in the nasal hyper-reactivity (histamine concentration: 0.72 mg/ml versus 2.60 mg/ml; p < 0.001). Congestion improvement was observed by the increase in all acoustic rhinometry parameters. Among all studied volumes, the volume in the segment between 2 and 5 cm showed the highest mean increase (19.8%).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with topical nasal steroid objectively reduced nasal congestion and nasal histamine hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with PAR.

Minimal persistent inflammation in allergic rhinitis: implications for current treatment strategies

Patients with allergic rhinitis have traditionally been placed into 'seasonal' and 'perennial' categories, which do not account for the subclinical inflammatory state that exists in many patients. In subjects with seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, even subthreshold doses of allergen have been found to cause inflammatory cell infiltration in the nasal mucosa, including increases in expression of cellular adhesion molecules, nasal and conjunctival eosinophilia, and other markers of inflammation, which do not result in overt allergy symptoms. This state - which has been termed 'minimal persistent inflammation'- may contribute to hyperreactivity and increased susceptibility to development of clinical symptoms as well as common co-morbidities of allergic rhinitis, such as asthma. Treating overt allergy symptoms as well as this underlying inflammatory state requires agents that have well-established clinical efficacy, convenient administration, potent anti-inflammatory effects and proven long-term safety, so that long-term continuous administration is feasible. Of the three major classes of commonly used allergic rhinitis medications - intranasal corticosteroids, anti-histamines, and anti-leukotrienes - intranasal corticosteroids appear to represent the most reasonable therapeutic option in patients who would benefit from continuous inhibition of persistent inflammation.

Mechanisms and clinical implications of glucocorticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common airway disease characterized by hypersensitivity, exudation, hypersecretion, inflammatory cell infiltration and remodelling. Intranasal glucocorticosteroids are the most effective drugs for controlling the inflammation caused by allergic rhinitis. Glucocorticosteroids exert anti-inflammatory effects through at least two pathways: the transactivation pathway and the transrepression pathway. Glucocorticosteroids also exert regulatory functions by inducing regulatory cytokines and forkhead box P3 (FoxP3(+)) regulatory T cells. Evidence suggests that intranasal glucocorticosteroids control not only nasal symptoms but also ocular symptoms. In contrast to sedating H1 receptor antagonists, intranasal glucocorticosteroids can improve impaired performance symptoms, such as daytime sleepiness, associated with allergic rhinitis. Recent studies suggest that intranasal glucocorticosteroids might also be useful for the prophylactic treatment of pollinosis; this possibility is supported by the molecular mechanism of the anti-inflammatory action of glucocorticosteroids. These findings suggest that intranasal glucocorticosteroids might be positioned as first-line drugs for the treatment of both perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Mometasone furoate: a review of its intranasal use in allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate (Nasonex) is a high-potency intranasal corticosteroid available for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of the nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). In the EU, it is approved for use in patients aged > or =6 years and, in the US, it is approved as a treatment in patients aged > or =2 years and as prophylaxis in those > or =12 years of age.Extensive experience in both clinical trials and the clinical practice setting has firmly established the efficacy and good tolerability profile of intranasal mometasone furoate in children and adults with PAR or SAR. Thus, intranasal mometasone furoate is a useful first-line option for the treatment and prophylactic management of these conditions, including in children as young as 2 years of age in some countries and 6 years of age in others.

Efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials

RATIONALE

Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) thus allowing for a meta-analysis to determine the overall treatment effect.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, LILACS, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases up to 31 October, 2007 was carried out. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MFNS in patients with AR compared to placebo were included. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), individual nasal symptoms, total non-nasal symptom scores (TNNSS) and nasal airflow were analysed as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Meta-analysis was performed with the random or the fixed effect models depending on heterogeneity, by using revman 5 software.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Sixteen of the 113 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. For MFNS efficacy on TNSS, 2998 participants were analysed: 1534 received MFNS and 1464 placebo. Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a significant reduction in TNSS (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.38; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 50.1%). A significant effect on SMD for nasal stuffiness/congestion (-0.41; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.27), rhinorrhoea (-0.44; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), sneezing (-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.23) and nasal itching (-0.39; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.25) was also demonstrated. Mometasone furoate nasal spray treated subjects also showed a significant reduction in TNNSS (-0.30; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.18). The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar for MFNS and placebo (0.99; 95% CI: 0.81-1.20; P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides a level Ia evidence for the efficacy of MFSN in the treatment of AR vs placebo. Adverse events frequency was similar in both groups.

Allergen specific nasal challenge to latex in children with latex allergy: clinical and immunological evaluation

There are no data concerning the significance of allergen specific nasal challenge to latex (ASNCL) in the pediatric population and the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), topic corticosteroid exerting a potent anti-inflammatory activity in children with latex allergic rhinitis. The aims of this study are: to investigate the clinical and immune pathological effects of ASNCL in children with latex allergy; to study the effects of MFNS pre-medication on the clinical and immune pathological effects of ASNCL in children with latex allergy. Thirteen children: 6 male and 7 female, mean (SD) age 9.6 (2.9) years, with latex allergy and seven children: 3 male and 4 female, mean (SD) age 9.9 (3.8) years, without latex allergy underwent ASNCL. Nasal symptoms were recorded, nasal lavage fluid was collected to measure tryptase, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), interleukin-5, interferon-gamma levels, and spirometric test was performed for each patient without or with premedication with MFNS. ASNCL induced a clinical allergic response and increased tryptase levels only in children with latex allergy. No serious adverse events occurred after ASNCL. MFNS premedication reduced both tryptase and ECP levels only in children with latex allergy. ASNCL is a simple, reliable and useful tool to make or confirm the diagnosis of nasal symptoms due to latex; it allows us to study both clinical symptoms and local immunological changes. MFNS premedication before an ASNCL may prevent some immunological responses induced by ASNCL without clinical allergic modifications.

Topical corticosteroid inhibits interleukin-4, -5 and -13 in nasal secretions following allergen challenge

BACKGROUND

Cytokines and chemokines produced by allergen-reactive T-helper type 2 (Th2) cells may be pivotal to the pathophysiology of allergic disorders.

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to assess the effect of 7 days of topical corticosteroid on nasal allergen challenge (NAC) in terms of eosinophils, cytokines and chemokines obtained by nasal lavage and filter paper methods.

METHODS

Patients with grass pollen seasonal-allergic rhinitis (n = 13) out of season received nasal challenge following matched placebo (twice daily into each nostril for 7 days) and fluticasone propionate (100 microg twice daily into each nostril for 7 days). Chemokine and cytokine levels were analysed using a sensitive automated bead immunoassay system at intervals up to 8 h after NAC.

RESULTS

Levels of cytokines and chemokines from filter paper were generally higher than from nasal lavage. Fluticasone propionate caused a reduction in symptoms, total leukocyte counts and eosinophils, and abrogation of IL-4, IL-5, IL-6 and IL-13 responses in the filter paper taken in the late phase (P < 0.05 for IL-4 and IL-13, P < 0.01 for IL-5 and IL-6). Levels of chemokines (eotaxin, RANTES, MCP-1, MIP-1alpha, IL-8 and IP-10) were also reduced in the late phase (P < 0.01 at 8 h). However, levels of IL-2, IL-3, IL-7, IL-12 (p40 and p70), -15, TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma and GM-CSF were not affected.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone propionate has selective inhibitory effects on Th2 cytokine synthesis following nasal challenge, while also decreasing release of chemokines, but not affecting levels of Th1 cytokines.

Association between response to decongestion testing and sensitizations and allergic inflammation

BACKGROUND

Rhinomanometry is used to measure nasal airflow, which is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis (AR). Decongestion testing consists of spraying an intranasal vasoconstrictor drug to evaluate recovery of nasal airflow.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationships among type and number of sensitizations, nasal airflow recovery after topical vasoconstrictor drug use, and allergic inflammation.

METHODS

A total of 123 patients (112 men and 11 women; mean +/- SD age, 22.9 +/- 5.7 years) were studied: 40 with perennial AR (PAR), 43 with mixed AR (MAR), and 40 with seasonal AR (SAR). Patients with anatomic nasal defects were excluded. Total symptom scores (including nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal obstruction), sensitizations, nasal eosinophils, and cytokines (including interleukin 4 [IL-4], IL-5, and interferon-gamma) were evaluated. Electronic rhinomanometry and decongestion testing were performed in all the patients.

RESULTS

After administration of a topical nasal vasoconstrictor agent, mean nasal airflow significantly increased from 471 to 580 mL/s (P < .001). In 12 patients (3 with PAR, 3 with MAR, and 6 with SAR), no increase was shown. Changes from baseline were different in the PAR, MAR, and SAR populations (PAR vs MAR, P < .001; PAR vs SAR, P < .001; and MAR vs SAR, P = .25). Type of sensitization (MAR, PAR, or SAR), concentration of eosinophils, and levels of IL-4, IL-5, and interferon-gamma were associated with nasal airflow recovery of at least 120 mL/s.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first evidence of a different response to decongestion testing taking into consideration the type of AR.

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.

Single dose topical corticosteroid inhibits IL-5 and IL-13 in nasal lavage following grass pollen challenge

BACKGROUND

Nasal lavage is a noninvasive method of obtaining inflammatory exudates following nasal allergen challenge (NAC), and permits cells and released mediators to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of a single dose of topical steroid on eosinophils and levels of chemokines and cytokines in nasal lavage fluid following NAC in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Patients with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinitis (n = 32) out of the allergy season received either nasal budesonide (100 microg per nostril) or matched placebo before allergen challenge in a double blind two-way crossover design. A semi-automated mixed bead array system was employed to measure multiple chemokines and cytokines in small volumes (50 microl) of nasal lavage supernatants.

RESULTS

Following NAC there was a rapid onset of nasal symptoms together with nasal eosinophilia, and the appearance of IL-5 and IL-13 in lavages between 4 and 8 h. Elevated levels of eotaxin, RANTES, IL-8 and MCP-1 were also detected following allergen challenge. A single dose of nasal budesonide caused a decrease in symptoms (P < 0.05) and nasal eosinophils (P < 0.05) with selective abrogation of IL-5 and IL-13 responses (P < 0.05), but a lack of effect on levels of eotaxin, RANTES, IL-8 and MCP-1.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a single dose of nasal steroid has the capacity to selectively abolish IL-5 and IL-13 responses following NAC. This model should be convenient for testing novel anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory agents intended for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Techniques of intranasal steroid use

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of topical intranasal steroids (INS) sprays for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis may be limited by lack of instruction in the optimal spray technique. To determine whether the technique used affects the efficacy and safety of the product, this review of evidence had the goal of identifying and establishing a preferred method of applying INS sprays.

STUDY DESIGN

A MEDLINE search of pertinent literature on 7 INS and 1 intranasal antihistamine spray preparations conducted with the use of appropriate search terms, yielded an initial 121 articles, 29 of which were identified as appropriate for review and grading for quality of evidence.

RESULTS

The analysis provided no definitive evidence regarding how best to instruct patients to use INS or antihistamine spray devices.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a lack of clear evidence regarding instructions to maximize efficacy and safety of these drugs, the panel recommended a 7-step standard technique.

Randomized, double-masked comparison of olopatadine ophthalmic solution, mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray, and fexofenadine hydrochloride tablets using the conjunctival and nasal allergen challenge models

BACKGROUND

It is presumed that exposure to allergens in the environment occurs through both the eyes and the nose. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is typically treated with a nasal spray or systemic antihistamine, neither of which may provide adequate relief of the ocular component of the disease.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to gain a better understanding of the physiologic interaction between the conjunctival and nasal mucosa and thus help establish a profile for the most effective ocular treatment in patients whose allergies have both an ocular and a nasal component.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, double-masked clinical study using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) and nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models. It compared the clinical signs and symptoms induced by CAC and NAC, the effects of drugs administered by 3 different routes, and the movement of fluorescein after instillation into the eye and nose (Jones test), and assessed levels of of inflammatory mediators in tears and nasal secretions. At visit l, subjects previously identified as CAC responders underwent NAC to determine the dose of allergen necessary to elicit a sufficient positive reaction. At visit 2, which took place 1 week later, subjects with a positive reaction at visit 1 were randomized to group A (CAC) or group B (NAC), and underwent challenge to confirm the allergen dose necessary to produce a positive reaction. Subjects who qualified were randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: olopatadine 0.1% ophthalmic solution, placebo nasal spray, and placebo tablets; mometasone furoate monohydrate 50-microg nasal spray, placebo topical solution, and placebo tablets; or fexofenadine hydrochloride 180-mg tablets, placebo topical solution, and placebo nasal spray. All study medications were administered according to their approved labeling: drops were administered twice daily in the eyes, and the nasal sprays and tablets were administered once daily. At visit 3, which took place 1 week after visit 2, subjects received study medication and 15 minutes later underwent CAC or NAC as before. The primary efficacy variables were ocular itching, ocular redness, and overall nasal symptoms (sneezing, rhino rrhea/postnasal drip, nasal pruritus, palatal pruritus, and nasal congestion) rated on standard scales. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured at each visit, and the Jones test was performed at visits 1 and 3. At baseline and after challenge at visits 2 and 3, tear and nasal lavage samples were collected from a subset of randomly selected subjects for analysis of eosinophil cationic protein and tryptase.

RESULTS

Seventy-three subjects (42 women, 31 men; mean age, 45.26 years [range, 21-73 years]) were screened, and all were randomized to treatment. Two subjects did not complete the study. CAC induced clinically significant (>1 unit difference) ocular and nasal signs and symptoms, whereas NAC induced clinically significant nasal signs and symptoms only. In group A, there was a greater reduction in ocular itching with olopatadine compared with mometasone and fexofenadine at 3 minutes (P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) and 5 minutes (P = 0.007 and P = 0.013) after challenge. Although the difference was not statistically significant, overall relief of conjunctival redness (average of 3 vessel beds) was greatest in the olopatadine group, followed by fexofenadine. In group B, prevention of total nasal symptoms was significantly greater with mometasone compared with fexofenadine at 20 minutes (P = 0.006) and 30 minutes (P = 0.014) after challenge. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in nasal symptom scores at any time point after CAC. There were also no significant differences in PNIF between treatment groups. Fluorescein was present in nasal secretions within 5 minutes of being instilled into the eye; no fluorescein was detected in the eye after instillation into the nose.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, exposure of the nasal mucosa to allergen resulted in allergic rhinitis, and exposure of the ocular the ocular surface to allergen resulted in conjunctivitis with a secondary effect in the nose. These results suggest movement of allergens, their mediators, and antiallergy drugs from the ocular surfaces into the nasal cavity, with no meaningful movement from the nasal cavity to the ocular surface. In this controlled model, both the systemic agent and the nasal spray failed to control ocular symptoms. The topical ophthalmic solution provided the most effective management of allergic ocular signs and symptoms, and the nasal spray was most effective for nasal symptoms. Combined use of a nasal spray and topical ophthalmic solution may provide maximal relief in patients whose allergies have both ocular and nasal components.

Features of mometasone furoate nasal spray and its utility in the management of allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (NS; Nasonex, Schering Corporation), is a synthetic corticosteroid approved for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) in patients >or= 12 years of age, and for the treatment of SAR and PAR in children as young as 2 years of age. Studies demonstrate that mometasone furoate NS is a potent, clinically effective and well-tolerated intranasal corticosteroid with negligible systemic activity and which offers the convenience of once-daily dosing.

Inhibitory effects of glucocorticoids on rat eosinophil superoxide generation and chemotaxis

Eosinophil infiltration into inflammatory tissues and the subsequent release of inflammatory mediators are the hallmarks of several inflammatory allergic diseases. Although there have been a considerable number of publications on anti-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids, little is known about whether glucocorticoids affect the activation of eosinophils directly. We studied the effects of three glucocorticoids, mometasone furoate, dexamethasone and beclomethasone dipropionate, on superoxide generation and the chemotaxis of rat eosinophils. Highly purified rat eosinophils were treated for 6 h with mometasone furoate, dexamethasone or beclomethasone dipropionate. Eosinophils were stimulated with phorbol myristate acetate (PMA) for superoxide generation, while for induction of chemotaxis, platelet-activating factor (PAF) or leukotriene B(4) (LTB(4)) was used. None of the glucocorticoids used in the present study caused significant suppressive effects on superoxide generation induced by PMA. On the other hand, both PAF- and LTB(4)-induced migration of rat eosinophils were inhibited in a concentration-dependent manner by glucocorticoids. Mometasone furoate showed a significant effect at concentrations higher than 10(-11) M. Dexamethasone and beclomethasone dipropionate also caused a significant inhibition at concentrations higher than 10(-8) and 10(-7) M, respectively. These results indicated that the anti-inflammatory effects of glucocorticoids were mediated by direct inhibition of eosinophil migration. Furthermore, mometasone furoate was suggested to be more useful than the other drugs in the treatment of allergic diseases responsible for eosinophil chemotaxis.