Concerns about intranasal corticosteroids for over-the-counter use: position statement of the Joint Task Force for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Review of evidence supporting the use of nasal corticosteroid irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze published reports on the efficacy and safety of CSI in CRS and evaluate the clinical implications of current gaps in evidence. Corticosteroid irrigation (CSI) is commonly used for management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps; however, such use is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

DATA SOURCES

Publications were obtained through PubMed searches through January 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Searches were conducted using 2 terms: "chronic rhinosinusitis" or "nasal polyps" as the first term and "corticosteroid irrigation," "steroid nasal lavage," or "sinus rinse" as the second term. We reviewed relevant, peer-reviewed literature (19 original research [9 controlled, 10 uncontrolled trials], 7 reviews, and 1 meta-analysis) reporting safety and efficacy of CSI in patients with CRS.

RESULTS

Studies were difficult to compare because they used a variety of solution volumes (60 mL to 125 mL per nostril), corticosteroid agents (budesonide, betamethasone, mometasone, or fluticasone), corticosteroid doses, preparation protocols (by compounding pharmacy or by patient), and administration (frequency, time of day, body positioning). It is difficult to determine which parameters might substantially influence clinical effects because studies were generally small, showed marginal benefits, and rarely assessed safety. To date, no studies evaluating CSI have shown statistically significant differences in a type-I error-controlled primary end point over any comparator, possibly owing to small sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

Designing more robust clinical trials may help determine whether CSI is a valid treatment option. Until more evidence supporting CSI use exists, health care professionals should strongly consider choosing FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of CRS.

Is This Medication Safe for My Child? How to Discuss Safety of Commonly Used Medications With Parents

All drugs have potential side effects, but thoughtful use can maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Children should not be considered just small adults regarding drug safety because their growth and development are discordant with their ability to sense and self-report drug side effects. Detecting side effects requires vigilance and education from prescribers to parents, who are tasked with monitoring their child over time. A drug's safety profile is published in the package label after pivotal trials are conducted in relatively small and sometimes narrow segments of the population during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process. Drug safety profiles can change as data from postmarketing reports and long-term monitoring during phase IV trials emerge. As such, prescribers are obligated to maintain current understanding of any changes to drug labels. Discussing potential side effects, monitoring, and when to report concerns can be a time-consuming process during patient encounters. This review offers current information regarding potential side effects of some of the most commonly used medications for allergic conditions, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. This information and discussion will hopefully assist clinicians in their conversations with parents, including advice surrounding prescribing medication to minimize adverse effects, parental monitoring, and documentation.

Contemporary Incremental Healthcare Costs for Allergic Rhinitis in the United States

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Describe contemporary changes in healthcare expenditure and utilization associated with allergic rhinitis (AR) over the past decade.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

METHODS

Patients reporting a diagnosis of AR were extracted from the 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and linked to the consolidated expenditures file. AR patients were then compared to non-AR patients to demonstrate differences in healthcare utilization for office visits, emergency facility visits, and prescriptions. In addition, differences in total healthcare costs, office-based costs, and prescription costs were calculated, using demographic- and comorbidity-adjusted multivariate models. Results were compared to those obtained in 2007.

RESULTS

In 2018, an estimated 1.94 ± 0.2 million adult patients reported AR (0.8% of the US population receiving medical care), a 90% decrease from the 17.8 ± 0.7 million patients seen in a formal healthcare setting for AR in 2007 (7.9%). AR patients still formally seen in 2018 had an average of 4.4 ± 1.3 more office visits (P = .001) and 9.7 ± 2.2 more prescription fills (P < .001) than non-AR patients. In contrast to the 2007 findings, there was no difference in total health care expenditure per person with AR per year. When comparing total healthcare expenditure between 2018 and 2007, there was a net decrease of $1,176 per person with AR per year (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reporting AR in a formal healthcare encounter fell significantly over the past decade, and per-person expenditure associated with an AR diagnosis also decreased significantly. The transition of nasal corticosteroids to over-the-counter was potentially a key driver behind these changes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Safety and Adverse Effects in Children

OBJECTIVES

To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and non-FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the pediatric population.

DATA SOURCE

Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using comprehensive search strategy, including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.

REVIEW METHODS

A structured literature search was conducted. Extracted data included age, population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and growth velocity adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as nasal sprays and drops. There were no persistent abnormalities noted in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Growth velocity reduction was reported in 3 of 10 randomized trials. Meta-analysis of epistaxis and headache showed no significant difference in the incidence of headache or epistaxis when FDA-approved INCSs were compared to placebo, with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.77-1.63; P = .56) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.18; P = .32), respectively. Meta-analysis was not performed for growth velocity, HPA axis suppression, and ocular change.

CONCLUSIONS

INCSs in FDA-approved routes of administration are generally safe to use in the pediatric population. Use of non-FDA-approved INCS drops may increase risk of iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome. Growth velocity reduction, HPA axis suppression, and visual changes due to INCS are uncommon.

A Randomized Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability of Fluticasone Propionate Delivered via Xhance Exhalation Delivery System Versus Flonase Nasal Spray and Flovent HFA Inhalational Aerosol

PURPOSE

The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (Xhance®) has been shown to deliver drug substantially more broadly in the nasal cavity (particularly into superior/posterior regions), with less off-target loss of drug to drip-out and swallowing, than conventional nasal sprays. This open-label study evaluated the systemic bioavailability of Xhance® by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of a single dose of fluticasone from 3 products administering the drug using 3 different devices: Xhance®, Flonase® (fluticasone propionate inhalational nasal spray), and Flovent® HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalational aerosol).

METHODS

This open-label study was conducted in 2 parts. Study part 1 compared systemic exposure with a single dose of Xhance® 186 or 372 μg versus Flonase® 400 μg (3-way, 3-treatment, 3-sequence, randomized crossover in healthy subjects; n = 90). A separate study, part 2, under the same umbrella protocol, compared systemic exposure with Xhance® 372 μg versus Flovent® HFA 440 μg (2-way, 2-treatment, 2-sequence, randomized crossover in patients with mild to moderate asthma; n = 30).

FINDINGS

With Xhance® 186 μg, the geometric least squares mean (LSM) C_max was higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (16.02 vs 11.66 pg/mL, respectively; geometric mean ratio [GMR], 137.42%) and the geometric LSM AUC_0-∞ values were similar (97.30 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL; GMR, 97.78%). With Xhance® 372 μg, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ were higher than with Flonase® 400 μg (C_max, 23.50 vs 11.66 pg/mL [GMR, 201.53%]; AUC_0-∞, 146.61 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL [GMR, 147.19%]). In part 2, the geometric LSM C_max and AUC_0-∞ values were lower with Xhance® 372 μg than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg (C_max, 25.28 vs 40.02 pg/mL [GMR, 63.18%]; AUC_0-∞, 205.78 vs 415.16 pg · h/mL [GMR, 49.57%]).

IMPLICATIONS

Similar intranasal doses of Xhance® (372 μg) and Flonase® (400 μg) are clearly not bioequivalent. Systemic exposure is very low with all products. Systemic exposure is higher with Xhance® than with Flonase® and substantially lower than with Flovent® HFA 440 μg and, based on dose normalization, Flovent® HFA 220 μg. ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02266927.

Strategies to facilitate or block nose-to-brain drug delivery

Nose-to-brain delivery has gained significant interest over the past several decades. This has resulted in numerous strategies described to improve the delivery of drugs to the brain directly through the olfactory epithelium of the nasal cavity. In some cases, intranasal administration may be more effective than other routes of administration in treating central nervous system and related disorders. Here, we briefly review the strategies that have been used to facilitate nose-to-brain delivery as well as approaches to block the delivery of drugs from the nose to the brain. Even though numerous strategies have already been used to increase nose-to-brain delivery, the research for strategies inhibitory of nose-to-brain delivery seems to be scarce.

Rhinosinusitis and Allergies in Elderly Patients

The sinonasal tract plays important roles in respiration, olfaction, and defense against external pathogens. Like many organ systems, the nose and sinuses undergo several changes with advancing age that can play a role in the development of disease. This article discusses the physiology of the aging sinonasal tract and reviews the common diseases affecting older patients, such as rhinitis and rhinosinusitis.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis in the Elderly

Recent studies suggest that allergic rhinitis is highly prevalent in the elderly population, but is underdiagnosed and undertreated. This review article briefly introduces allergic rhinitis in the elderly (epidemiology and pathophysiology) and identifies the main goals of treatment in these patients with respect to age-related physiological factors, comorbid conditions and polypharmacy. The primary focus of the article is a narrative review of the literature concerning the different types of treatment options in elderly patients aged 60+ years (pharmacological therapy and allergen-specific immunotherapy). The main management trend for allergic rhinitis in elderly patients is the same as the trend in young patients. Second-generation antihistamines and nasal glucocorticosteroids are also the first-line therapies in seniors. In a few trials, allergen-specific immunotherapy for grass pollen or house dust mites has been shown to be effective and safe in patients aged 60 years or older with allergic rhinitis. In conclusion, undertreatment of allergic rhinitis in the elderly is a reality. Pharmacological treatment is quite similar in both older and younger patients with allergic rhinitis.

Recurrent Central Serous Chorioretinopathy with Dexamethasone Eye Drop used Nasally for Rhinitis

Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is characterized by serous retinal detachment at the posterior pole. Several factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis, and endogenous or exogenous corticosteroids are thought to play a major role. Here we present a case of a 35-year-old male with complaints of a dark circle in front of his right eye. Fundus examination, optical coherence tomography and fundus fluorescein angiography were performed. The patient was diagnosed with CSC. CSC resolved completely within seven weeks. Four weeks later the CSC recurred and spontaneously resolved over eight weeks. Overall, the patient had three additional recurrences of CSC in the same eye over the next year. A detailed history taking revealed the patient was using 0.1% dexamethasone eye drops nasally for recurrent rhinitis for few days prior to each episode of CSC. This indicates the strong correlation between steroids given by any route and the pathogenesis of CSC.

Current and future directions in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common pediatric problem that significantly affects sleep, learning, performance, and quality of life. In addition, it is associated with significant comorbidities and complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an update on the epidemiology, comorbidities, pathophysiology, current treatment, and future direction of pediatric AR.

METHODS

Literature reviews in each of these areas were conducted, and the results were incorporated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AR is increasing in the pediatric population and is associated with significant morbidity, comorbidities, and complications. The mainstay of current treatment strategies includes allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen specific immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, diagnosis will be improved by microarrayed recombinant allergen testing and therapy will be expanded to include emerging treatments such as sublingual immunotherapy and combination products.

New horizons: Current and potential future self-treatments for acute upper respiratory tract conditions

Acute upper respiratory tract conditions (URTCs), including the common cold, allergic rhinitis (AR), and acute sinusitis, are among the most common afflictions worldwide, affecting millions of individuals annually in the United States alone. A common theme among these conditions is that they share similar symptomatology and are often inadequately treated. These conditions typically cause mild, albeit bothersome, symptoms for a typical duration of 7 to 10 days in the case of the common cold, ≥ 2 weeks for AR exacerbations, and > 4 weeks for acute sinusitis. The common cold and AR elicit localized (upper airway) and systemic inflammatory cascades responsible for symptoms such as cough, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, watery eyes, sneezing, headache, and general malaise. Acute sinusitis typically occurs because of a secondary bacterial or fungal infection of mucus-clogged nasal and sinus cavities and has symptoms similar to those previously listed, with the addition of increased facial and ear pressure/pain. Acute URTC symptoms are frequently managed with over-the-counter (OTC) products. Currently available OTC options can have limited efficacy in treating the broad array of symptoms associated with acute URTCs, and some have unwanted side effects. There is an unmet need for OTC therapies that have broad clinical activity, can reduce the severity and duration of illness when taken at the first sign of symptoms, and/or provide prophylaxis. This review article examines the available evidence supporting emerging and potentially new OTC pharmacologic, nutraceutical, and nonpharmacologic therapies on the horizon for the treatment of acute URTCs. This review is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of all potential URTC therapies, and the approvability of many of the agents discussed for OTC use in the United States may be subject to debate.

Ciclesonide for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is considered one of the most common afflictions of humans, affecting up to 30% of the world's population, and is increasing in incidence. Primary symptoms, comorbid conditions and complications of this disorder exact a significant toll, resulting in an enormous physical, social and economic impact on society. Single-season allergic rhinitis accounts for approximately 20% of cases of allergic rhinitis with another 40% having mixed seasonal-perennial presentations. Management of this disorder encompasses several treatment options, with intranasal corticosteroids recommended as first-line treatment in moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in current practice parameters. Ciclesonide is the most recently approved product in this category for the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis and is the subject of this article.

Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a costly disease associated with significant morbidity. It impacts the quality of life of millions of individuals, particularly in industrialized nations, and it is on the rise. Lost productivity and total healthcare expenditure exceeds several billion dollars annually in the United States, with an estimate of >$6 billion spent on prescription medications alone. It is also associated with asthma and other atopic conditions, sinusitis, otitis media, and sleep apnea. Primary care physicians should be well adept at recognizing and initiating empiric first-line therapy for chronic rhinitis. Allergen avoidance, topical nasal steroids, and antihistamines may be sufficient for some patients. In most cases, referral to a board-certified allergy specialist for skin testing and targeted management is indicated. It is essential to make sure that patients abstain from using antihistamines at least 1 week prior to reporting to the allergist for skin testing in order to avoid false-negative results. Traditional subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, when performed by an experienced allergist, affords relief in >75% of cases. The growing armament of treatment options for refractory allergic rhinitis includes oral and sublingual immunotherapy, recombinant allergens, conjugated DNA vaccines, and anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody.

Lack of ocular side effects after 2 years of topical steroids for allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate ocular side effects in children with allergic rhinitis taking chronic intermittent nasal corticosteroids.

METHODS

The study group included 150 children who had used intermittent intranasal budesonide for more than 2 years for allergic rhinitis. Ninety patients who were newly diagnosed as having allergic rhinitis without any treatment comprised the control group. Central corneal thickness, Schirmer test results, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, cataract formation, keratometry, and tear break-up time were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

The ages of the 150 study patients (85 boys) were between 8 and 15 years. The average age (± standard error of the mean [SEM]) was 11.7 ± 0.7 years and the mean (± SEM) steroid dosage used was 93.3 ± 7.0 μg daily with 42.2 ± 3.2 g total steroid use during treatment. The ages of the 90 control patients (54 boys) were between 7 and 15 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the study and control groups according to ocular findings (P > .05). Eye functions including cataract formation, corneal ectasia, ocular hypertension or glaucoma, and dry eye were not observed in any of the patients in the study group and were not correlated with total steroid dosage (r = 0.125, P = .447).

CONCLUSION

A 2-year treatment of children with allergic rhinitis prescribed intermittent intranasal budesonide at an average daily dose of approximately 100 μg is not associated with ocular side effects such as cataract, glaucoma, corneal ectasia, and abnormal tear function.

Bilateral central serous chorioretinopathy caused by intranasal corticosteroids: a case report and review of the literature

The relationship between systemic corticosteroids and central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) has been well established; however, there also appears to be an association with intranasal corticosteroids. A search of the English literature revealed only three reported cases of CSCR linked to intranasal corticosteroid use, and in each, clinical improvement was observed after cessation of the steroid agent. We present an additional case of bilateral CSCR resulting from intranasal corticosteroid use and review the literature regarding this uncommon side effect. Otolaryngologists, as frequent prescribers of these medications, should be aware of their myriad side effects, including ophthalmologic conditions such as CSCR.

Allergic rhinitis in school-aged children with asthma - still under-diagnosed and under-treated? A retrospective study in a children's hospital

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma can be considered as manifestations of the same disease entity. The treatment of AR may improve also asthma symptoms. The aim of the study was to evaluate, how often AR is diagnosed and treated in patients with asthma. A retrospective chart review in the allergy and asthma unit of a secondary paediatric hospital. From 903 eligible 7- to 15-year-old children with doctor-diagnosed asthma, 372 were randomly included in the study. In all, 229 patients (61.6%, 95% CI: 56.5-66.4%) had symptoms presumptive for AR. The diagnosis of AR was recorded in the patient records only for 87 patients (23.4%, 95% CI: 19.4-28.0). There was evidence that children with AR or nasal symptoms had more severe asthma; 35% of the patients with AR, 23% with nasal symptoms without AR diagnosis and 12% without nasal symptoms required inhaled steroids and long-acting beta-agonists for asthma (p = 0.035). AR was both under-diagnosed and under-treated in school-aged children with doctor-diagnosed asthma.

Therapeutic management of allergic diseases

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

Intranasal corticosteroids: do they improve ocular allergy?

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a commonallergic condition associated with high financial costs and decreased quality of life. Medical treatment options are extensive and include oral, ophthalmic, and intranasal agents. Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) have traditionally been used for chronic management of nasal symptoms, but have also demonstrated an impact on decreasing ocular symptoms of itching, tearing, and redness. Study design, including the method and timing of scoring ocular symptoms, is an important factor affecting whether changes in ocular symptoms are detected in INS clinical trials. INS are thought to exert their influence on the eye through the naso-ocular reflex, and to date their impact on ocular symptoms appears to be a class effect.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray is safe and effective for 1-year treatment of children with perennial allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) affects children at a young age. Current guidelines recommend intranasal corticosteroids as the first-line treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe or persistent disease or in those who have congestion. In this study, the long-term safety and efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) were assessed in children with PAR.

METHODS

In this multicenter, active-controlled, evaluator-blind, 12-month study, 255 children aged 6-11 years with a >or=1-year history of PAR were randomized to receive once-daily MFNS 100 microg (n=166) or the active comparator beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 microg (n=85). Changes from baseline in overall PAR symptoms and response to treatment were rated at each visit. Cosyntropin stimulation testing, as well as tonometry and slit lamp procedures, were performed. Safety variables were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 137 subjects in the MFNS group and 68 in the BDP group completed treatment. The mean reductions in physician- and subject-rated overall condition of PAR at week 52 were -42.1% and -39.7%, respectively, for MFNS, compared with -44.0% and -39.0%, respectively, for BDP. A total of 94% and 100% of MFNS and BDP subjects, respectively, reported adverse events (AEs), which were mostly mild or moderate. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs in both groups were epistaxis, headache, and pharyngitis. Response to cosyntropin was normal and no posterior subcapsular cataracts were observed in either group. Although no significant changes in intraocular pressure were observed with MFNS, one subject receiving BDP demonstrated this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with MFNS 100 microg once daily for 1 year was well tolerated in children 6-11 years old, with negligible systemic exposure and no evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis or ocular changes.

Complexities of diagnosis and treatment of allergic respiratory disease in the elderly

Atopic diseases such as rhinitis and asthma are relatively common in children and young adults. However, many patients aged >65 years are also affected by these disorders. Indeed, the literature suggests that between 3-12% and 4-13% of individuals in this age range have allergic rhinitis and asthma, respectively. However, these numbers are most likely underestimates because atopic diseases are frequently not considered in older patients. The diagnosis of both allergic rhinitis and asthma in older patients is more difficult than in younger patients because of a wide differential diagnosis of other diseases that can produce similar symptoms and must be excluded. Furthermore, treatment of these disorders is complicated by the potential for drug interactions, concern about the adverse effects of medications, in particular corticosteroids, and the lack of drug trials specifically targeting treatment of older patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Comparative safety and efficacy of 2 formulations of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are few data on the clinical equivalence of different nasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis (AR). Studies measuring plasma concentrations after a single dose may not predict relative systemic bioactivity at steady state.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a test formulation of fluticasone propionate with the innovator using a noninferiority design.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with persistent AR were randomized to completion in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover manner to receive the formulations at 200 microg/d for 4 weeks, with baselines measured after 2-week run-in and washout periods. The primary outcome measure was the Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) score.

RESULTS

Both formulations produced significant improvements in MiniRQLQ scores as change from baseline (P < .001), with a nonsignificant mean difference (test vs innovator) of -0.06 U (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to 0.52 U) and the lower bound of the 95% CI being above the predefined noninferiority limit of -0.7 U. Both formulations produced significant improvements in peak nasal inspiratory flow rates as change from baseline (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.5 L x min(-1) (95% CI, 9.8 to 10.8 L x min(-1)). There were also significant reductions in total nasal symptom scores (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.4 U (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.1 U). No significant suppression of the 10-hour overnight urinary cortisol to creatinine ratio was seen with either formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The test formulation was noninferior to the innovator for the primary outcome of MiniRQLQ score. The secondary efficacy and safety end points also support the interchangeability of the 2 formulations.

Intranasally administered corticosteroids and neuropsychiatric disturbances: a review of the international pharmacovigilance programme of the World Health Organization

BACKGROUND

The systemic use of corticosteroids is connected with a variety of psychiatric and neurologic effects. Corticosteroids for intranasal administration (INCs) are considered to act locally and to exert minimal systemic effects. An unexpected cluster of case reports of neuropsychiatric disorders during intranasal corticosteroid use was reported to the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the possible connection between intranasal corticosteroid use and the development of neuropsychiatric disorders, as reported to the International Pharmacovigilance Programme.

METHODS

All reports containing adverse event terms indicating neuropsychiatric disturbances in suspected connection with intranasal corticosteroids were retrieved from Vigibase and evaluated (April 2006). The case reports are heterogeneous and vary regarding source, documentation quality, and relationship likelihood.

RESULTS

A total of 429 reports were received from 16 countries (1980-April 2006), of neuropsychiatric events occurring in patients using INCs, representing 7.6% of the total of reports regarding these drugs in the same period. Frequently reported events were nervousness, anxiety, agitation, insomnia, emotional lability, depression, somnolence, confusion, convulsions, and migraine. Most reports concerned fluticasone propionate, beclometasone dipropionate, mometasone furoate, or budesonide. In 370 reports (86.2%), the INC was the sole suspect drug and in 220 (51.3%) it was the only drug used. In 97 of 108 patients who had discontinued use of the intranasal corticosteroid, the reaction abated. Of 41 patients, 32 had a relapse when the drug was reintroduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The data collected by the International Pharmacovigilance Programme suggest that the intranasal use of corticosteroids can be complicated by neuropsychiatric adverse reactions. Further study is needed to confirm the connection and to determine the frequency and risk factors of such reactions.

Corticosteroids (inhaled and/or intranasal) in the treatment of respiratory allergy in children: safety vs. efficacy

BACKGROUND

Topical administration of Corticosteroids (CS) can reduce the total dose of CS required to treat the patient and minimize side effects. Topical CS is extremely effective and has an excellent safety profile. Nonetheless, care must be taken when multiple sites such as lungs, nose and skin are being treated. CS mechanisms of action on the inflammatory process are complex. The aim of this study is to review such mechanisms and the adverse events secondary to it.

METHODS

Review English database (Embase, PubMed, Scielo) searching words: CS, adverse events, inhaled CS, intranasal CS, and children.

RESULTS

There is a classic mechanism involving a genomic effect of CS and a non-genomic effect, independently of gene transcription process. This mechanism acts by reducing mucosal blood flow in the asthmatic airways. Second-generation topical CS is the treatment of choice in allergic diseases control because of their good anti-inflammatory activity, poor absorption and first-pass hepatic metabolism. When comparing different CS, it is important to compare therapeutically equivalent doses. Although topical CS reduces systemic side effects, local and even systemic side effects can occur. Many factors affect the amount of drug that reaches the lung, including inhaler technique and inhaler type, fine particle dose and particle distribution.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with allergic diseases respond to CS treatment, but there is a small subset of them whose response is unsatisfactory even with high doses of CS. They are classified as corticosteroid-resistant asthmatics. Pro-inflammatory cytokines appear to up regulate the expression of GRb that has been associated with CS resistance.