Double-blind trials of azelastine nasal spray monotherapy versus combination therapy with loratadine tablets and beclomethasone nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Rhinitis Study Groups

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.

Combination therapy in allergic rhinitis: What works and what does not work

Allergic rhinitis and other rhinitis subtypes are increasingly becoming some of the most prevalent and expensive medical conditions that affect the U.S.

POPULATION

Both direct health care costs and indirect costs significantly impact the health care system due to delays in diagnosis, lack of treatment, ineffective treatment, poor medication adherence, and associated comorbidities. Many patients who have AR turn to over-the-counter medications for relief but often find themselves dissatisfied with the results. Determining the correct diagnosis, followed by initiation of the most-effective treatment(s), is essential to provide patients with better symptomatic management and quality of life. Although there are many options, currently available combination therapies, e.g., azelastine with fluticasone and intranasal corticosteroids with nasal decongestants, offer distinct advantages for the management of complex rhinitis phenotypes. Further research is required to investigate the pathomechanisms and biomarkers for mixed rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis subtypes that will lead to novel targeted therapies for these conditions.

Optimal Duration of Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines have been published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for the conduct of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) studies. These guidelines have differences regarding the duration of such trials: the FDA suggests 2 weeks for SAR and 4 weeks for PAR but the EMEA suggests 2 to 4 weeks for SAR and 6 to 12 weeks for PAR trials. In the interest of global harmonization, it would be desirable to have a uniform duration of such trials so that investigators, internationally, would be able to readily compare results for various types of treatments based on a single standard. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based review to answer the clinical question, What is the optimal duration for SAR and PAR clinical trials?

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the published literature from 1995 to the present. We used appropriate search terms, such as allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, SAR, and PAR, to identify pertinent articles. These articles were reviewed and graded according to the evidence quality.

RESULTS: After an initial screening of more than 300 articles, 138 articles were analyzed thoroughly. No study specifically addressed the question of the optimal duration of SAR or PAR clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current FDA (draft) guidelines calling for a study length of 2 weeks for the assessment of drug efficacy for SAR and 4 weeks for the study of drug efficacy in PAR are appropriate and that longer study periods are not likely to add meaningfully to the assessment of drug efficacy.

Antihistamines used in addition to 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 and its prevalence among children has significantly increased over the last two decades. Prevalence and severity are related to age, with children of school age most commonly affected.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse event profile of antihistamines (oral or topical) used as an adjunct to 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); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 21 September 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under the age of 18 with a history of allergic rhinitis, with or without allergic conjunctivitis or asthma, comparing topical nasal steroids with antihistamines to topical nasal steroids only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One study including 24 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study compared the administration of topical nasal steroids with oral antihistamines to topical nasal steroids only in children, but it did not provide sufficient data to address the clinical question of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the lack of evidence for the benefit or lack of benefit of antihistamine add-on therapy with topical nasal steroids for children with intermittent or persistent allergic rhinitis, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the adverse effects of antihistamines and the additional costs that may be incurred.

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.

A novel and effective approach to treating rhinitis with nasal antihistamines

OBJECTIVES

To review existing treatments for rhinitis and summarize data available on the use of a nasal antihistamine (azelastine) in treating allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles and references published between 1995 and 2007 regarding the treatment of allergic and vasomotor rhinitis were identified from PubMed, review articles, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

All key relevant articles were reviewed and the most relevant selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

The efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in treating allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis have been determined in a number of U.S. multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In all trials, azelastine was associated with a rapid onset of action and a sustained improvement over time in rhinitis, congestion, and other symptoms. In patients with allergic rhinitis, the combination of azelastine and nasal corticosteroids increased treatment efficacy by more than 40% compared with either product alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal antihistamine therapy represents an effective mode of drug delivery in patients with allergic and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis and is an important option for rhinitis therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required or if congestion is a major symptom. Use of azelastine plus nasal corticosteroids is effective in both allergic rhinitis and vasomotor rhinitis, suggesting that this combination represents an effective treatment strategy for all patients with either allergic or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database.

PATIENTS

Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46).

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.

Allergic rhinitis: treatment based on patient profiles

Allergic rhinitis is a common medical condition characterized by nasal, throat, and ocular itching; rhinorrhea; sneezing; nasal congestion; and, less frequently, cough. The treatment of allergic rhinitis should control these symptoms without adversely affecting daily activities or cognitive performance and should prevent sequelae such as asthma exacerbation or sinusitis. This review describes a stepwise approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis derived from a synthesis of clinical trial results, patient preferences, and real-world tolerability data. Key clinical considerations include frequency and intensity of symptoms, patient age, comorbidities, compliance with treatment regimens (influenced by formulation, route and frequency of administration), and effects on quality of life. Oral second-generation antihistamines, versus first-generation agents and inhaled corticosteroids, should be considered first-line treatment because they provide rapid relief of most allergic rhinitis symptoms without safety and tolerability issues. Additional therapeutic agents can then be added or substituted based on individual symptom response.

Chronic upper airway cough syndrome secondary to rhinosinus diseases (previously referred to as postnasal drip syndrome): ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on postnasal drip syndrome (PNDS)-induced cough and the various causes of PNDS. Hereafter, PNDS will be referred to as upper airway cough syndrome (UACS).

METHODS

MEDLINE search (through May 2004) for studies published in the English language since 1980 on human subjects using the medical subject heading terms "cough," "causes of cough," "etiology of cough," "postnasal drip," "allergic rhinitis," "vasomotor rhinitis," and "chronic sinusitis." Case series and prospective descriptive clinical trials were selected for review. Also, any references from these studies that were pertinent to the topic were obtained.

RESULTS

In multiple prospective, descriptive studies of adults, PNDS due to a variety of upper respiratory conditions has been shown either singly or in combination with other conditions, to be the most common cause of chronic cough. The symptoms and signs of PNDS are nonspecific, and a definitive diagnosis of PND-induced cough cannot be made from the medical history and physical examination findings alone. Furthermore, the absence of any of the usual clinical findings does not rule out a response to treatment that is usually effective for PND-induced cough. The differential diagnosis of PNDS-induced cough includes allergic rhinitis, perennial nonallergic rhinitis, postinfectious rhinitis, bacterial sinusitis, allergic fungal sinusitis, rhinitis due to anatomic abnormalities, rhinitis due to physical or chemical irritants, occupational rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa, and rhinitis of pregnancy. Because of a high prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), GERD may occasionally mimic PNDS. A crucial unanswered question is whether the conditions listed above actually produce cough through a final common pathway of PND or whether, in fact, in some circumstances they cause irritation or inflammation of upper airway structures that directly stimulate cough receptors and produce cough independently of or in addition to any associated PND.

CONCLUSION

PNDS (ie, UACS) secondary to a variety of rhinosinus conditions is the most common cause of chronic cough. Because it is unclear whether the mechanisms of cough are the PND itself or the direct irritation or inflammation of the cough receptors located in the upper airway, the guideline committee has decided that, pending further data that address this difficult question, the committee unanimously recommends that the term upper airway cough syndrome be used in preference to postnasal drip syndrome when discussing cough associated with upper airway conditions.

An intranasal Syk-kinase inhibitor (R112) improves the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis in a park environment

BACKGROUND

R112 inhibits Syk kinase, a transducer of signaling through the Fcepsilon receptor of mast cells, blocking mast cell responses to allergic stimuli.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the efficacy and safety of intranasal R112 in volunteers with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with a placebo in a park setting.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 319 volunteers with seasonal allergic rhinitis, 160 were randomized to intranasal R112 and 159 to a vehicle control during 2 days at 2 separate locations in spring 2004. Subjects were evaluated for symptoms of allergic rhinitis (i.e., sneezes, runny nose/sniffles, itchy nose, stuffy nose) on the basis of a possible maximum score of 32 for the Global Symptom Complex (GSC) scale. The primary outcome evaluated was the difference in the reduction in GSC (area under the curve over a period of 8 hours) from baseline between R112 and vehicle placebo.

RESULTS

At baseline, the combined GSC was approximately 18/32 and equal between treatment groups. After 8 hours (dosing 3 mg/nostril every 4 hours x 2), R112 significantly reduced the GSC compared with placebo (7 vs 5.4 units, respectively; P = .0005). Each individual symptom combined to form the GSC was also significantly improved in the R112 group compared with control ( P < .05). As early as 45 minutes after dosing, R112 showed a significant improvement in symptoms over placebo, and the duration of action exceeded 4 hours. Adverse effects were indistinguishable between the groups and clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal R112 was effective in this park study and is a promising new treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Olopatadine ophthalmic solution adjunctive to loratadine compared with loratadine alone in patients with active seasonal allergic conjunctivitis symptoms

BACKGROUND

Olopatadine ophthalmic solution 0.1% (Patanol, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Woth, TX) is approved for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. Loratadine 10 mg (Claritin, Schering-Plough, Madison, NJ) is a nonsedating oral antihistamine approved for the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of olopatadine used adjunctively with loratadine versus loratadine alone in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This three-center, observer-masked, treatment-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study involved patients aged 7 to 74 years with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were treated for 7 days with either olopatadine twice daily adjunctive to loratadine once daily or only loratadine once daily. Efficacy variables (ocular itching and redness, physician's impression, patient's impression, patient diary ratings of ocular redness and itching), and safety parameters were evaluated during the screening visit and on days 0, 3, and 7. Patients completed the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire on days 0 and 7.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients received study drug. Patients receiving olopatadine twice daily in addition to loratadine once daily exhibited less ocular itching (P = 0.0436) and rated their ocular condition as more improved compared with those receiving loratadine alone (P < 0.0022). Twenty minutes after initial dosing, olopatadine plus loratadine relieved ocular itching and redness significantly better than loratadine alone (P = 0.001). Both treatment groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in overall quality of life in all but one of the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire domains. Overall, and in most domains, olopatadine plus loratadine also provided significantly better (P < 0.05) quality of life than loratadine alone at day 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with loratadine alone, olopatadine adjunctive to loratadine provides greater relief of ocular itching and redness, a better quality of life, and is well tolerated in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Effect of topical nasal azelastine on the symptoms of rhinitis, sleep, and daytime somnolence in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that daytime somnolence in patients with allergic rhinitis was secondary to disrupted sleep caused by nasal congestion. Medications, which decreased congestion, would be expected to improve sleep and daytime somnolence. Previously, we demonstrated that nasal steroids improved all three symptoms. The effect of topical nasal antihistamines on these symptoms has yet to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine whether topical nasal azelastine was effective at decreasing congestion, daytime somnolence, and improving sleep.

METHODS

We recruited 24 subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis and randomized them in a double-blinded, crossover fashion, to receive placebo or azelastine two sprays BID, using Balaam's design. Questionnaires, daily diary, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale were used as tools. The last 2 weeks of each 4-week treatment period were summarized, scored, and compared by PROC MIXED in SAS.

RESULTS

The analysis of the Rhinitis Severity Score showed significant improvement only of rhinorrhea in the azelastine group (P = .03). The symptom severity of nasal congestion and daytime somnolence was not significantly different between placebo and azelastine. Subjects considered azelastine effective at improving their sleep (P = .04), but daytime somnolence (P = .06) and congestion (P = .09) were not statistically improved.

CONCLUSION

Azelastine is effective in reducing rhinorrhea and improving sleep quality. We were unable to demonstrate that azelastine can significantly reduce the severity of congestion or daytime somnolence.