A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of treatment with fluticasone propionate and levocabastine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. FLNCO2 Italian Study Group

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.

Patient preference and sensory perception of three intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the medication preference, sensory perceptions and compliance of allergic rhinitis patients after a single administration of three intranasal corticosteroids.

STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

In this double-blind, comparative, crossover study, 364 patients were randomised to receive fluticasone propionate (FP), mometasone furoate (MF) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) nasal sprays. Patients completed a preference questionnaire including a product preference and compliance evaluation after administration to determine the acceptability of each product.

RESULTS

The results indicate that TAA was judged more comfortable (p = 0.0406), had less odour (p < 0.0001) and had a significantly greater overall liking (p = 0.0008) compared with FP and MF. The nasal spray 'most preferred to be prescribed' was TAA (38.2%), followed by FP (36.8%) and MF (24.9%). Furthermore, 82.3% of the patients indicated that they would 'definitely comply' with a doctor's prescription for TAA, compared with 39.6% for FP and 20.5% for MF.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that TAA is the most favourable nasal spray in terms of preference and sensory perceptions for patients with perennial or seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Clinical course of rhinitis and changes in vivo and in vitro of allergic parameters in elderly patients: a long-term follow-up study

Changes in rhinitis symptom severity tend to decrease with aging, but whether the decrease is associated with allergic skin test reactivity, serum total and specific IgE, and nasal eosinophils or determined only by aging is poorly understood. The aim of the study was to analyze sensitivity in vivo and in vitro some 15 years after primary testing, skin prick test (SPT), serum total and specific IgE, ratio sIgE/tIgE, and nasal eosinophils in order to evaluate changes due to age and changes due to the severity of rhinitis symptoms. One hundred and eight rhinitis patients who had been investigated in 1995 were re-interviewed and their current allergy re-assessed after a follow-up of 15 years. All patients were SPT with eight common allergens in the area of Palermo (Italy). Rhinitis symptoms tended, on average, to have become milder at the follow-up. All parameters examined showed a decreasing trend in older age groups over the period between the two investigations. Rhinitis symptoms tend to become milder and the allergic parameters both in vivo and in vitro usually decrease in the long run; however, the changes in rhinitis symptoms appear to be related to changes in the nasal eosinophils, independently of SPT and serum-specific IgE.

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.

Treatment of congestion in upper respiratory diseases

Congestion, as a symptom of upper respiratory tract diseases including seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis, is principally caused by mucosal inflammation. Though effective pharmacotherapy options exist, no agent is universally efficacious; therapeutic decisions must account for individual patient preferences. Oral H₁-antihistamines, though effective for the common symptoms of allergic rhinitis, have modest decongestant action, as do leukotriene receptor antagonists. Intranasal antihistamines appear to improve congestion better than oral forms. Topical decongestants reduce congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, but local adverse effects make them unsuitable for long-term use. Oral decongestants show some efficacy against congestion in allergic rhinitis and the common cold, and can be combined with oral antihistamines. Intranasal corticosteroids have broad anti-inflammatory activities, are the most potent long-term pharmacologic treatment of congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, and show some congestion relief in rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Immunotherapy and surgery may be used in some cases refractory to pharmacotherapy. Steps in congestion management include (1) diagnosis of the cause(s), (2) patient education and monitoring, (3) avoidance of environmental triggers where possible, (4) pharmacotherapy, and (5) immunotherapy (for patients with allergic rhinitis) or surgery for patients whose condition is otherwise uncontrolled.

Clinical Importance of Eosinophil Count in Nasal Fluid in Patients with Allergic and Non-Allergic Rhinitis

Eosinophil count in nasal fluid (ECNF) was used to differentiate nasal pathologies. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the area under the curve (AUC) were performed to evaluate the ECNF's accuracy in distinguishing allergic rhinitis (AR) from non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). We also evaluated the accuracy of ECNF in recognizing patients with mild and severe symptoms of rhinitis and patients with ineffective and effective clinical responses to antihistamines. 1,170 consecutive adult patients with a clinical history of rhinitis were studied. ECNF's median in AR was 6.0 and 2.0 in NAR and the best cut-off value was > 3.0, AUC = 0.75. ECNF's median in AR with mild nasal symptoms was 3.0 and 7.0 with severe symptoms, and the best cut-off value was 4.0, AUC = 0.90. ECNF's median in NAR with mild nasal symptoms was 2.0 and 8.5 with severe symptoms, and the best cut-off value was > 4.0, AUC = 0.86. ECNF's median in AR with effective clinical response to antihistamines was 4.0 and 8.0 with ineffective response, the best cut-off value was ≤ 5.0, AUC = 0.94. ECNF's median in NAR with an effective clinical response to antihistamines was 1.0 and 2.0 with ineffective response, and the best cut-off value was ≤ 3.0, AUC = 0.64. Our results suggest an interesting practical use of ECNF data as evaluator of the clinical severity both AR and NAR. As predictor of the clinical response to antihistamines, ECNF is accurate only in patients with AR. The ECNF's performance was moderately accurate in distinguish patients with AR and NAR.

Evaluation of serum s-IgE/total IgE ratio in predicting clinical response to allergen-specific immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

To date, no predictive tests for the clinical response to allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASI) are available. Therefore an in vivo or in vitro test would be of great value.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate pretreatment parameters used in diagnosing allergic rhinitis and determining serum specific IgE (s-IgE) levels, serum total IgE (t-IgE) levels, and blood eosinophil counts and to identify whether can be used to predict clinical improvement in monosensitized patients with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma treated with immunotherapy.

METHODS

We analyzed 279 patients who had undergone 4 years of ASI administered either by means of the subcutaneous immunotherapy (76 patients) or sublingual immunotherapy (203 patients) routes. Serum t-IgE and s-IgE levels, blood eosinophil counts, and serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratios were calculated and tested for correlation with clinical response to ASI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were determined. Predicted probabilities and predictive areas under the curve were calculated.

RESULTS

The clinical response to ASI was effective in 145 (52.0%) of 279 total patients, 42 (55.2%) of 76 patients treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy, and 103 (50.7%) of 203 patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy. A significant correlation was found between the serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratio and the clinical response to ASI, with high ratios (>16.2) associated with an effective response. The sensitivity and specificity of the area under the curve of the ratio were higher than those of serum s-IgE and t-IgE alone.

CONCLUSION

The calculation of the serum s-IgE/t-IgE ratio for predicting the clinical response to ASI offers an advantage over measuring t-IgE and s-IgE levels in monosensitized patients for the following allergens: grass, Parietaria judaica, Olea europea, and house dust mite.

Diagnosis and management of nasal congestion: the role of intranasal corticosteroids

Nasal congestion is considered the most bothersome of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and can significantly impair ability to function at work, home, and school. Effective management of AR-related nasal congestion depends on accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Many individuals with AR and AR-related congestion remain undiagnosed and do not receive prescription medication. However, new tools intended to improve the diagnosis of nasal congestion have been developed and validated. Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AR and also when nasal congestion is a prominent symptom. Double blind, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated greater efficacy of INSs versus placebo, antihistamines, or montelukast for relief of all nasal symptoms, especially congestion. Patient adherence to treatment also affects outcomes, and this may be influenced by patient preferences for the sensory attributes of an individual drug. Increased awareness of the effects of AR-related nasal congestion, the efficacy and safety of available pharmacotherapies, and barriers to adherence may improve clinical outcomes.

Evolving paradigm in the management of allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms: role of intranasal corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Along with nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms such as itching, tearing, and redness are common, bothersome components of the allergic rhinitis (AR) profile. Treatment of the patient with ocular allergy symptoms should take into account a variety of factors, including severity of symptoms, convenience/compliance issues, and patient preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To review from the primary care perspective the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of ocular symptoms associated with AR, and to evaluate the emerging role of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs).

FINDINGS

A search of the PubMed database identified clinical trials that assessed efficacy of agents in reducing ocular allergy symptoms. Internet searches identified further information including data on over-the-counter agents for treatment of ocular symptoms. Searches were conducted using search terms such as pathophysiology, epidemiology, ocular allergy, quality of life, drug class, and drug names. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for patients with seasonal AR (SAR) or perennial AR (PAR) symptoms. Ocular allergy associated with SAR and PAR (seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis, respectively) is characterized by both early- and late-phase reactions, with symptoms often persisting long after allergen exposure. Non-pharmacologic measures such as allergen avoidance, use of artificial tears, and cool compresses are pertinent for all ocular allergy sufferers, but may not afford adequate symptom control. Pharmacotherapy options have traditionally included topical ophthalmic products for cases of isolated ocular symptoms, and oral antihistamines for patients with both nasal and ocular symptoms. However, this paradigm is changing with new evidence regarding the efficacy of INSs in reducing ocular symptoms. A number of meta-analyses and individual studies, most of which studied ocular symptoms as secondary variables, have demonstrated the ocular effects of INSs versus topical and oral antihistamines. Additional prospective studies on this topic are encouraged to provide further evidence for these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of their well-established efficacy in reducing nasal allergy symptoms, INSs offer a comprehensive treatment option in patients with nasal and ocular symptoms. Oral antihistamines and/or topical eye drops may also be necessary depending on symptom control.

Intranasal corticosteroids reduce ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: Clinical data and recent guidelines support the positive effects of intranasal corticosteroids on allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms. This article reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of ocular allergy symptoms and efficacy, tolerability, and potenti mechanisms of action of intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of this condition.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database.

REVIEW METHODS: A search of pertinent literature identified in vitro, preclinical, and clinical data that involve intranasal corticosteroids in ocular-related studies. Searches that used epidemiology, pathophysiology, drug class and specific agents, and other appropriate search terms were conducted.

RESULTS: Ocular symptoms, common in patients with allergic rhinitis, are associated with reduced quality of life and substantial economic costs. In the conjunctival epithelium, an early, type-1 hypersensitivity reaction occurs after direct allergen exposure. Progression to late-phase response, with recurrence of symptoms and infiltration of inflammatory cells, may occur 4 to 8 hours later and appears to be dose-related. Alteration of nasal ocular reflex pathways may also contribute to ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis. Clinical data indicate that intranasal corticosteroids significantly reduce total and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with allergic rhinitis. Meta-analyses have found that oral/topical antihistamines are not superior to intranasal corticosteroids in reducing ocular allergy symptoms. Ocular adverse events from intranasal corticosteroids are rare.

CONCLUSION: Intranasal corticosteroids are effective and well-tolerated in the treatment of ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. Additional studies are needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of intranasal corticosteroids on ocular symptoms.

Determinants of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in subjects with rhinitis

Subjects with rhinitis but without asthma may have coexisting bronchial hyperresponsiveness, although the reasons for this are uncertain. To evaluate the factors that determine BHR in rhinitis we examined 410 patients with symptomatic rhinitis with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)>or=80% of the predicted value. In all subjects a skin prick test (SPT) was performed, a determination of total serum IgE and an eosinophils count in the blood. Of the 410 subjects we found that 161 (39.3%) exhibited a methacholine PD20 of 800 mg or less (Group A), whereas 249 (60.7%) had a methacholine PD20 more of 800 mg (Group B). Despite the matched mean values for FEV1 and FVC, compared with Group B, Group A had a lower predicted forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75%(FEF25%-75%) (86.7 +/- 12.0 vs. 93.7 +/- 7.3, P < 0.0001). A great portion of the subjects of the Group Ain respect to subjects of the Group B were exposed to passive smoke (37.8% vs. 22.0%, P = 0.0008), reported having mothers with asthma (34.1% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.0001), presented a positive skin prick test (93.7% vs. 67.0%, P < 0.0001), had higher levels of total serum IgE (geometric mean of Log10 2.46 +/- 0.27 kU/L vs. 2.06 +/- 0.38 kU/L, P < 0.0001) and higher blood eosinophil counts (geometric mean of Log10 2.67 +/- 0.07 x 10(-3) mL vs. 2.57 +/- 0.09 x 10(-3) mL, P < 0.0001), and reported increased nasal obstruction (2.0 (95% CI 1.8 to 2.2) vs. 0.6 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.7), P < 0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrates that nasal obstruction (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.80) and the presence of positive SPT (OR 6.15, 95% CI 2.42 to 15.61) were the most available predictors to discriminate between subjects with BHR and subjects without BHR. In addition, BHR was positively related to blood eosinophil counts (OR= 2.80, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.07), FEF25%-75% values (OR= 2.72, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.99) and familiarity (mother) for asthma (OR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.46). Whereas passive smoke and total serum IgE were not positively related to BHR. Increased nasal obstruction and the presence of positive SPT were the most available predictors to discriminate between subjects with and without BHR. Finally, BHR was positively related to blood eosinophil counts, FEF25%-75% values and to familiarity (mother) for asthma.

Randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in mono-therapy, fluticasone plus cetirizine, fluticasone plus montelukast and cetirizine plus montelukast for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are considered to be particularly effective in reducing nasal congestion and are therefore recommended as first-line treatment in allergic rhinitis patients with moderate to severe and/or persistent symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200 microg given once daily, administered in mono-therapy or combined therapy with a H1 receptor antagonist (cetirizine, CTZ) or with a leukotriene antagonist (montelukast, MSK), and the combined therapy of CTZ plus MSK in the treatment of patients affected by allergic rhinitis to Parietaria during natural pollen exposure. In addition, we examined the effect of the treatment on eosinophil counts and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in nasal lavage performed at beginning of season, during season and at the end of the season.

METHODS

One hundred patients aged 12-50 years (mean+/-SD 31.8+/-9.6) with a history of moderate to severe Parietaria pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis were selected. A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, placebo (PLA)-controlled, parallel-group study design was used. Patients were treated FPANS 200 microg once daily (n=20) or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus CTZ (10 mg) in the morning (n=20), or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus MSK (10 mg) in the evening (n=20) or with CTZ (10 mg) in the morning plus MSK in the evening (n=20) or matched PLA (n=20). Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on eosinophil counts and ECP in nasal lavage.

RESULTS

All treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA in terms of total symptom, rhinorrhea, sneezing and nasal itching scores. Concerning nasal congestion on waking and daily only the groups treated with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy showed significant differences compared with PLA. Comparing the group treated with FPANS alone and the groups treated with FPANS plus CTZ, we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003). The comparison between FPANS plus CTZ and FPANS plus MSK showed significant difference for nasal itching (P=0.003). Finally, there were significant differences between the group treated with FPANS and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK for total symptom score (P=0.009), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and nasal congestion daily (P<0.001). Also the comparisons between the group treated with FPANS plus CTZ and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK demonstrated significant differences (P<0.001) for total symptom, for nasal congestion on waking and for nasal congestion on daily, for rhinorrhea (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003) scores. Concerning the comparison between the group treated with FPANS plus MSK and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.005), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and for nasal congestion on daily (P<0.001). No other differences were observed between the groups. Concerning blood eosinophil counts, significant differences were found between the treatments with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy with PLA group during and at the end of the season (P=0.0003 and P<0.0001, respectively). Concerning eosinophils and ECP in nasal lavage, all treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA. Besides, there were significant differences (P<0.001) between the groups treated with FPANS alone or in combined therapy and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK.

CONCLUSION

The results of this comparative study demonstrate that FPANS is highly effective for treating patients affected by allergic rhinitis, with efficacy exceeding that of CTZ plus MSK in combined therapy. In addition, the regular combined therapy of FPANS plus CTZ or plus MSK would not seem to offer substantial advantage with respect to FPANS in mono-therapy in patients affected by seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials

For several years there has been discussion of whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids. No well documented, clinically relevant differences seem to exist for individual nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Likewise, the current body of literature does not seem to favor any specific intranasal corticosteroid. When comparing efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, present data favor intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not support antihistamines as superior in treating conjunctivitis associated with allergic rhinitis. Safety data from comparative studies in allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide additional beneficial effects to intranasal corticosteroids alone. Considering present data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis, when compared with antihistamines.

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids versus topical H1 receptor antagonists for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids offered an advantage over topical antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched for studies using MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahi, and Cochrane databases, pharmaceutical companies, and references of included trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Criteria for considering trials included: 1) published randomized controlled trials; 2) single- or double-blind studies; and 3) presence of one of the following clinical outcomes: nasal symptoms, eye symptoms, global symptoms evaluation of quality of life and side effects.

RESULTS

Nine studies including 648 subjects (mean age 30.4 years, range 13 to 73) with allergic rhinitis were selected. Intranasal corticosteroids produced significantly greater reduction of total nasal symptoms (standardized mean difference -0.36, 95% confidence interval -0.57 to -0.14), sneezing (-0.41, -0.57 to -0.24), rhinorrhea (-0.47, -0.64 to -0.29), itching (-0.38, -0.56 to -0.19), and nasal blockage (-0.86, -1.07 to -0.64) than did topical antihistamines. There was no significant difference between treatments for ocular symptoms (-0.07, -0.27 to 0.12). The effects on sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, and ocular symptoms were significantly heterogeneous between studies. Other outcomes (total nasal symptom score and nasal blockage) were homogeneous between studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis suggested that most of the heterogeneity of outcomes could be explained on the basis of the methodologic quality of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal corticosteroids produced greater relief of nasal symptoms than did topical antihistamines (topical H1 receptor antagonists). However, there was no difference in the relief of the ocular symptoms.

In vitro effects of fluticasone propionate on IL-13 production by mitogen-stimulated lymphocytes

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid administration produces multiple immunomodulatory effects, including down-regulation of cytokine production by CD4 T lymphocytes. Fluticasone propionate (FP) (Glaxo Smith&Kline, Greenford, UK), a highly lipophilic topical corticosteroid, has been shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of asthma and of both seasonal and perennial rhinitis.

AIMS

To gain insight into the mechanisms of FP therapeutic effects, we evaluated interleukin (IL)-13 (a type 2 cytokine that seemingly plays a pivotal role in allergic mechanisms) production by mitogen-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (MNC) in vitro, treated or not with FP.

METHODS

MNC from 10 healthy subjects and 10 asthmatic atopic patients with Parietaria allergy were stimulated v/v with phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) (50 gamma/ml) or with complete medium alone as a control. Culture supernatants, in vitro treated or not with 10(-7) or 10(-8) M FP, were collected after 48 or 72 h incubation. IL-13 production was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In random selected samples, after 4 or 24 h of cell cultures, RNA was extracted and IL-4 and IL-5 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) products analyzed.

RESULTS

At 48 h, there were no differences in IL-13 concentration in PHA-stimulated cultures between healthy subjects and asthmatic patients (93.6 +/- 18.9 versus 111.0 +/- 25.1 pg/ml). At 72 h, similar results were obtained (63.9 +/- 3.0 versus 73.3 +/- 2.5 pg/ml, respectively). At this time, however, IL-13 concentrations were significantly decreased versus 48 h both in asthmatics (p < 0.001) and in controls (p < 0.001). Treatment with 10(-7) M FP significantly reduced IL-13 production in healthy subjects and asthmatic patients both at 48 h (93.6 +/- 18.9 versus 50.50 +/- 10.6 pg/ml, p < 0.001, and 111.0 +/- 25.1 versus 59.3 +/- 13.6 pg/ml, p < 0.001, respectively) and at 72 h (63.9 +/- 9.6 versus 35.5 +/- 4.4 pg/ml, p < 0.001, and 73.3 +/- 8.0 versus 40.7 +/- 4.5 pg/ml, p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were obtained with 10(-8) M FP at 48 and 72 h. Accordingly, evaluation of RT-PCR products from selected cell samples showed a FP dosage-dependent inhibition of IL-4 and IL-5 mRNA production both for healthy subjects and asthmatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

FP in vitro impairs IL-13 production by PHA-stimulated MNC from asthmatic and control subjects. This strengthens previous suggestions that IL-13 inhibition by steroids may, at least in part, account for their therapeutic effects.

Efficacy of leukotriene receptor antagonist in chronic urticaria. A double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of treatment with montelukast and cetirizine in patients with chronic urticaria with intolerance to food additive and/or acetylsalicylic acid

BACKGROUND

The cause and pathogenesis of chronic urticaria are still poorly understood. IgE-independent reactions, are common in adult patients with chronic urticaria, who have daily spontaneous occurrence of weals. H(1)-receptor antagonists (antihistamines) are the major class of therapeutic agents used in the management of urticaria and angioedema. Nevertheless, chronic urticaria is often difficult to treat and may not be controlled by antihistamines alone. It has been postulated that mediators other than histamine, such as kinins, prostaglandin and leukotrienes, may be responsible for some of the symptoms in urticaria which are not controlled by antihistamines. In this study, which was randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, we compare the clinical efficacy and safety of montelukast (MT) 10 mg given once a day and cetirizine (CET) 10 mg given once a day with placebo (PLA), in the treatment of patients with chronic urticaria who have positive challenge to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and/or food additives.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A group of 51 patients, ranging in age from 15 to 71 years, with chronic urticaria and positive challenge to food additives and/or ASA, participated in this study for a period of 4 weeks, starting from a 3-day run-in. The assessment of the efficacy was based on scores of daily urticaria symptoms.

RESULTS

MT significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for hive and itch. Analysis of frequency distribution of urticaria scores for each symptom gave similar results (MT vs. CET and MT vs. PLA, P < 0.001). The interference with sleep due to their skin condition was also lower in the group treated with MT (P < 0.001). In addition, the median number of days without the rescue medication was significantly higher in the MT group (24 days) than both the CET and the PLA groups (18 days, P < 0.001, and 20 days, P < 0.001, respectively). Finally, a low incidence of adverse events was observed in this study.

CONCLUSION

The results of this comparative study demonstrate that montelukast orally administered once a day is very effective for the treatment of cutaneous symptoms in patients with chronic urticaria due to food additives and/or ASA.

A comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of intranasal fluticasone propionate and antihistamines in the treatment of rhinitis

Adequate management of allergic rhinitis is needed to avoid its considerable adverse social, clinical, and economic impact. Both topical intranasal steroids and oral or topical antihistamines are recognised as effective treatments for this condition. In comparative studies, however, intranasal steroids and, in particular, fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS), have afforded consistently better symptomatic relief, and have a greater beneficial effect on quality of life. Furthermore, the addition of an antihistamine to FPANS therapy has generally produced little further benefit. Intranasal administration is associated with a low systemic absorption of fluticasone propionate and, following regular use of FPANS, placebo, or an oral antihistamine, no significant differences were seen between treatment groups in plasma or urinary cortisol. Overall, therefore, the data indicate that FPANS is superior to second-generation antihistamines in the management of allergic rhinitis.