Onset of action of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NASONEX) in seasonal allergic rhinitis

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Farit NA. The Efficacy of Elonide Nasal Corticosteroids in Managing Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

Background: Mometasone furoate nasal spray is efficacious in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms. The objectives of this study were, firstly, to compare the efficacy of Elonide to Nasonex® and a placebo and secondly, to investigate the side effects of Elonide. Method: This was a prospective, single-centered, double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 163 participants from the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), were randomized into three treatment groups receiving Elonide (n = 56), Nasonex® (n = 54), and placebo (n = 53) nasal sprays using an online randomizer (Random.org). Treatment was administered for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Total Nasal Resistance (TNR), and the secondary outcomes were the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQOLQ) score. Side effects were recorded. Results: There were significant improvements for all groups from baseline. The Elonide group had the greatest mean difference for all primary and secondary outcomes compared to Nasonex® and the placebo (0.77 ± 2.44 vs. 0.35 ± 1.16, p = 1.00 vs. 0.17 ± 0.82, p = 0.01). Elonide is non-inferior to Nasonex (p = 1.00) and superior to the placebo (p < 0.05). The highest side effects reported were for Nasonex (n = 14, 26%), followed by the placebo (n = 8, 16%) and Elonide (n = 6, 12%); headaches (n = 9, 17%) and sore throat (n = 9, 17%) were the most common. Conclusions: Elonide has similar efficacy to Nasonex® when compared to a placebo in the treatment of AR in adults. Elonide is safe and tolerable, with fewer side effects and no adverse side effects.

Drug delivery to the brain via the nasal route of administration: exploration of key targets and major consideration factors

Background

Cranial nerve-related diseases such as brain tumors, Alzheimer's disease, and epilepsy are serious diseases that continue to threaten human. Brain-related diseases are increasing worldwide, including in the United States and Korea, and these increases are closely related to the exposure to harmful substances and excessive stress caused by rapid industrialization and environmental pollution. Drug delivery to the brain is very important for the effective prevention and treatment of brain-related diseases. However, due to the presence of the blood-brain barrier and the extensive first-pass metabolism effect, the general routes of administration such as oral and intravenous routes have limitations in drug delivery to the brain. Therefore, as an alternative, the nasal-brain drug delivery route is attracting attention as a route for effective drug delivery to the brain.

Areas covered

This review includes physiological factors, advantages, limitations, current application status, especially in clinical applications, and the necessary factors for consideration in formulation development related to nasal-brain drug delivery.

Expert opinion

The nasal-brain drug delivery route has the advantage of enhancing drug delivery to the brain locally, mainly through the olfactory route rather than the systemic circulation. The nasal-brain lymphatic system has recently attracted attention, and it has been implied that the delivery of anticancer drugs to the brain nervous system is possible effectively. However, there are limitations such as low drug permeability, as well as nasal mucosa and the mucociliary system, as obstacles in nasal-brain drug delivery. Therefore, to overcome the limitations of nasal-brain drug delivery, the use of nanocarriers and mucoadhesive agents is being attempted. However, very few drugs have been officially approved for clinical application via the nasal-brain drug delivery route. This is probably because the understanding of and related studies on nasal-brain drug delivery are limited. In this review, we tried to explore the major considerations and target factors in drug delivery through the nasal-brain route based on physiological knowledge and formulation research information. This will help to provide a mechanistic understanding of drug delivery through the nasal-brain route and bring us one step closer to developing effective formulations and drugs in consideration of the key factors for nasal-brain drug delivery.

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

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 adult population.

Data Source

Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a 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. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta-analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA-approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.14; P = .007).

Conclusions

Overall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non-FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Onset of Action of Azelastine Nasal Spray Compared with Mometasone Nasal Spray and Placebo in Subjects with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Evaluated in an Environmental Exposure Chamber

Background

The objective of this study was to determine the onset of action of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray compared with placebo and an intranasal steroid, mometasone furoate, in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

Methods

Subjects with a history of SAR and symptomatic while exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC) were randomized to azelastine nasal spray (n = 150), mometasone nasal spray (n = 150), or placebo (n = 150) and recorded total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, nasal pruritus, rhinorrhea, and congestion, during an 8-hour study period.

Results

Azelastine nasal spray showed a statistically significant improvement in the TNSS at 15 minutes compared with placebo. The effect was durable at each time point during the 8-hour study. Azelastine nasal spray also was significantly more effective than mometasone at each time point.

Conclusion

Azelastine nasal spray has a rapid (15 minute) onset of action. Azelastine nasal spray was superior to both placebo and mometasone nasal spray in reducing nasal symptoms of SAR occurring within 8 hours after an allergen challenge.

Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Background

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy, safety, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of once-daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS), fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS), mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), and triamcinolone aqueous nasal spray (TANS) for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adult patients.

Methods

A MEDLINE search (1966 to January 2004) was conducted to identify potentially relevant English language articles. Pertinent abstracts from recent allergy society meetings were identified also. The medical subject heading search terms included were intranasal corticosteroid (INS), nasal steroid, BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS and AR. Selected studies were randomized, controlled, comparison trials of patients with AR treated with once-daily BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS.

Results

All four INSs administered once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of AR in adult patients, with similar efficacy and adverse event profiles. No differences were seen between INSs in systemic effects, except for significantly lower overnight urinary cortisol levels in healthy volunteers treated with FPNS compared with placebo. Based on sensory attributes, patients preferred BANS and TANS versus MFNS and FPNS. BANS was associated with more days of treatment per prescription at a lower cost per day for adults compared with the other INSs and is the only INS with a pregnancy category B rating.

Conclusion

BANS, FPNS, MFNS, and TANS have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Differences in sensory attributes, documented safety during pregnancy, and cost may contribute to better patient acceptance of one INS versus another and promote better adherence to therapy.

Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses

BACKGROUND

Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 μg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs.

RESULTS

In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.

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.

In vivo investigation of temporal effects and drug delivery induced by transdermal microneedles with optical coherence tomography

Transdermal drug-delivery systems (TDDS) have been a growing field in drug delivery because of their advantages over parenteral and oral administration. Recent studies illustrate that microneedles (MNs) can effectively penetrate through the stratum corneum barrier to facilitate drug delivery. However, the temporal effects on skin and drug diffusion are difficult to investigate in vivo. In this study, we used optical coherence tomography (OCT) to observe the process by which MNs dissolve and to investigate the temporal effects on mouse skin induced by MNs, including the morphological and vascular changes. Moreover, the recovery process of the skin was observed with OCT. Additionally, we proposed a method to observe drug delivery by estimation of cross-correlation relationship between sequential 2D OCT images obtained at the same location, reflecting the variation in the backscattered intensity due to the diffusion of the rhodamine molecules encapsulated in MNs. Our observations supported the hypothesis that the temporal effects on skin due to MNs, the dissolution of MNs, and the drug diffusion process can be quantitatively evaluated with OCT. The results showed that OCT can be a potential tool for in vivo monitoring of effects and outcomes when MNs are used as a TDDS.

Early interventional treatment with intranasal corticosteroids compared with postonset treatment in pollinosis

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of early interventional treatment (EIT) with intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) compared with postonset treatment (POT) has not been clarified.

OBJECTIVES

To study the efficacy and safety of EIT with INSs compared with POT and placebo in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis.

METHODS

We designed a 3-armed, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received mometasone furoate nasal spray (EIT group: n = 25), placebo (n = 25), or 4 weeks of placebo followed by 8 weeks of mometasone (POT group: n = 25) for a 12-week period starting on February 1, 2011. The primary end point was the comparison of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) among the 3 groups. Total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total naso-ocular symptom score (TSS), Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact (ARIA) on Asthma classification, and safety were the main secondary end points.

RESULTS

The placebo and POT groups, but not the EIT group, had a significant exacerbation of TNSS and TOSS soon after the start of pollen counts being high on consecutive days. The 12-week mean TSS in the EIT group (score, 2.3) was significantly lower than in the placebo (5.0; P < .01) and POT (3.9; P = .03) groups. All patients in the placebo and POT groups were classified as having persistent rhinitis, whereas 80% of the EIT group met the ARIA classification criteria (P = .03). The quality-of-life score and nasal eosinophil cationic protein levels were lower in the EIT and POT groups compared with the placebo group. Daytime sleepiness, smell disturbance, and the mean dose of loratadine taken as the rescue medication were similar. Treatment with mometasone was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

EIT with INSs is superior to POT in controlling pollinosis.

Effects of intranasal mometasone furoate on itchy ear and palate in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal steroids relieve nasal symptoms and ocular itch in allergic rhinitis. Itchy ear and palate are also common and bothersome symptoms but have received little attention in clinical trials of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray in alleviating itchy ear and palate in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mometasone furoate nasal spray, 200 μg/d. Participants rated ear and palate itching from baseline through treatment day 15 as follows: 0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; and 3, severe.

RESULTS

A total of 962 study participants received mometasone furoate nasal spray or placebo. Baseline least squares mean itchy ear and palate score was 1.81 for participants receiving mometasone furoate nasal spray (n = 480) and 1.85 for participants receiving placebo (n = 482). Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a greater decrease in itchy and ear palate score vs placebo during the 15-day study period (least squares mean change, -0.73 vs -0.45; P < .001). The difference reached significance on day 2 and persisted through day 15 (P ≤ .01 for each day). Results were similar in a subgroup of patients (n = 305) with moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline. Adverse events with mometasone furoate nasal spray were similar to those observed in other studies of intranasal steroid therapy.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings suggest that mometasone furoate nasal spray effectively treats itchy ear and palate in individuals with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Itchy ear and palate is a relevant end point for future clinical trials of allergic rhinitis.

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.

Effectiveness of twice daily azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Azelastine nasal spray (Allergodil^®, Lastin^®, Afluon^®; Meda AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is a fast-acting, efficacious and well-tolerated H1-receptor antagonist for the treatment of rhinitis. In addition it also has mast-cell stabilizing and anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the concentration of leukotrienes, kinins and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo, as well as inflammatory cell migration in rhinitis patients. Well-controlled studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial rhinitis (PR) or vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) confirm that azelastine nasal spray has a rapid onset of action, and improves nasal symptoms associated with rhinitis such as nasal congestion and post-nasal drip. Azelastine nasal spray is effective at the lower dose of 1 spray as well at a dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, but with an improved tolerability profile compared to the 2-spray per nostril twice daily regimen. Compared with intranasal corticosteroids, azelastine nasal spray has a faster onset of action and a better safety profile, showing at least comparable efficacy with fluticasone propionate (Flonase^®; GSK, USA), and a superior efficacy to mometasone furoate (Nasonex^®; Schering Plough, USA). In combination with fluticasone propionate, azelastine nasal spray exhibits greater efficacy than either agent used alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with difficult to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. In addition, azelastine nasal spray can be used on an as-needed basis without compromising clinical efficacy. Compared with oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray also demonstrates superior efficacy and a more rapid onset of action, and is effective even in patients who did not respond to previous oral antihistamine therapy. Unlike most oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray is effective in alleviating nasal congestion, a particularly bothersome symptom for rhinitis sufferers. Azelastine nasal spray is well tolerated in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis. Bitter taste which seems to be associated with incorrect dosing technique is the most common side effect reported by patients, but this problem can be minimized by correct dosing technique.

To treat snoring with nasal steroids - effects on more than one level?

CONCLUSION

An inflammatory swelling in the uvula and nose due to vibration might be a contributing factor in snoring. The presence of corticosteroid receptors in the uvula indicates the possibility for treatment with local steroids. Use of mometasone furoate (MF) for 3 months reduced snoring and related symptoms in some patients.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a nasal steroid, MF, on snoring and related discomfort.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In the first part of the study, uvular and nasal biopsies from six patients with social snoring were examined using immunohistochemistry to evaluate whether corticosteroid receptors were present. Then 100 snoring patients were invited to participate in the second part of the study. In all, 72 men and 22 women with a mean age of 47 years and BMI 27 answered a questionnaire about symptoms, had ENT status assessed and reported sleep and related variables for a 7 day period. After randomization to placebo or MF, they used a nasal spray for 3 months at a dosage of 200 microg. Thereafter the procedure was repeated.

RESULTS

Corticosteroid receptors were present in the mucous membranes and around the blood vessels in all uvulas examined. A total of 84 patients were evaluated. No decrease in 'mean snoring score' was seen. Daytime sleepiness showed a slight improvement in the MF group and partners were less disturbed. Minor side effects were equal for both groups.

Efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray in children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of children by age 6 years. Perennial AR (PAR) causes sleep disturbance, diminishes concentration in school, impairs psychosocial functioning, and reduces quality of life. This study evaluated efficacy and long-term safety of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in children with PAR.

METHODS

This study comprised a double-blind, 4-week efficacy and safety period followed by a 6-month, open-label safety period. Primary efficacy variable during the double-blind period was mean change in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 15. Other efficacy variables during this phase included subject-evaluated TNSS, individual nasal symptoms, and total symptom score (TSS, nasal and non-nasal symptoms, summed). Physician-evaluated improvement in overall condition of PAR was assessed during the open-label period. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Subjects aged 3-11 years with PAR (n = 381) were randomized to MFNS 100 microg (n = 190) or placebo (n = 191) daily for 4 weeks; 357 subjects continued into the open-label period, receiving MFNS only. Between baseline and day 15, significantly greater mean changes were seen with MFNS-treated patients than placebo in physician-evaluated TNSS (-2.8, -39%, vs. -2.2, -32%; p = 0.02). Statistically significant improvements in MFNS versus placebo were reported for subject-evaluated TNSS, TSS, and individual nasal symptom scores (p < or = 0.03 for all). Improvement continued through the open-label period. Subjects treated with MFNS in both periods experienced a 45% further reduction in TSS in this study phase, while those who switched from placebo to MFNS saw a further 49% decrease. MFNS was well-tolerated in both periods. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs during the double-blind period for MFNS and placebo, respectively, were epistaxis, seven (4%) and nine (5%); sneezing, five (3%) and seven (4%); headache, six (3%) and five (3%). During the open-label period, the AEs reported most often were epistaxis 37 (10%), headache nine (3%), and rhinitis 12 (3%).

LIMITATIONS

Studies in children present unique challenges because subjects are too young to grasp subjective concepts such as symptom severity, especially as rated on a numbered scale. In addition, the 6-month extension of the placebo-controlled phase used a single agent. It is also possible that subjects' symptoms could have abated independent of mometasone furoate treatment.

CONCLUSION

MFNS 100 microg/day effectively reduces TNSS, TSS (including ocular symptoms), and individual symptoms associated with PAR and is well-tolerated for up to 6 months in children aged 3-11 years with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

METHODS

Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis: a multicenter open-label study

CONCLUSION

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) can reduce the symptoms and improve quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of MF on symptoms and quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe AR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a multicenter and open-label study, 500 patients with moderate to severe AR were enrolled and received MFNS 200 microg once daily. We visited the patients four times (at baseline, and week 1, 2, and 4) to record symptom scores and the influence of AR on daytime activities and quality of sleep. The Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (Mini-RQLQ) and the Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (NRQLQ) were used in this study.

RESULTS

Compared with the baseline, MFNS significantly reduced the total and individual symptom scores and nocturnal sleep and daytime activities scores at week 1, 2, and 4 according to the Mini-RQLQ and NRQLQ.

Daily versus self-adjusted dosing of topical mometasone furoate nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis: randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with allergic rhinitis are reluctant to use daily intranasal steroids for prolonged periods. A self-adjusted regimen which delivers reasonable control of allergic rhinitis may be more acceptable to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of daily use of mometasone furoate nasal spray, versus a self-adjusted regimen, in patients with chronic allergic rhinitis, in terms of symptom control and nasal volume change.

SETTING

Ambulatory visits in an office setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with chronic allergic rhinitis were randomised: 30 were prescribed mometasone furoate nasal spray once daily for six weeks, while 30 were prescribed the same spray daily for one week, every alternate day for one week and then on a self-adjusted regimen for four weeks. Patients kept a symptom diary documenting sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage and nasal itching. Acoustic rhinometry was used to measure the total nasal cavity volume at the first visit and at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

The total nasal score on treatment days showed an improvement in both groups, compared with baseline measurements. There was no significant difference in total nasal scores between the two groups, except on days 10 (p = 0.043), 20 (p = 0.008), 23 (p = 0.19), 30 (p = 0.008) and 37 (p = 0.000), when the daily group's total nasal score was significantly lower than the self-adjusted group's total nasal score, and on day 8 (p = 0.004), when the self-adjusted group's total nasal score was significantly lower than the daily group's total nasal score. Total nasal cavity volume significantly increased in both groups (p = 0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-adjusted dosage of mometasone furoate nasal spray gives reasonable control of allergic rhinitis (albeit with some 'breakthrough' symptoms). Patients should learn how to control these symptoms with the least number of steroid doses.

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.

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

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

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

RATIONALE

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

METHODS

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Onset of symptomatic effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for treatment of nasal polyposis was demonstrated in 2 large clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the onset of MFNS symptomatic effect, data from the 2 trials were pooled and analyzed to determine the first day subjects experienced significant symptom relief.

METHODS

Subjects with nasal polyposis randomized to MFNS 200 microg twice daily or placebo scored symptoms on a 3-point scale (0 = none; 3 = severe) and measured peak nasal inspiratory flow immediately before the morning dose. Onset of symptomatic effect was defined as the first day a statistically significant (P < .05) lasting response was observed for MFNS compared with placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 447 subjects with bilateral nasal polyps and clinically significant nasal congestion/obstruction were analyzed. Compared with placebo, MFNS 200 microg twice daily demonstrated statistically significant (P < .05) relief of anterior rhinorrhea by day 2 (-10.9% vs +5.7%), nasal congestion by day 3 (-15.1% vs -7.6%), postnasal drip by day 5 (+1.1% vs +4.6%), and sense of smell by day 13 (-9.6% vs -5.6%). Significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow was seen by day 2 (increase of 6.22 L/min vs 1.48 L/min for placebo; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Mometasone furoate nasal spray 200 microg twice daily rapidly improves the symptoms of nasal polyposis, leading to lasting relief of most major symptoms within 2 (24 hours after the first dose) to 5 days of initiating therapy.

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.

Solid state characterization of mometasone furoate anhydrous and monohydrate forms

Mometasone furoate is a potent glucocorticoid anti-inflammatory agent. Its anhydrous Form 1 and monohydrate form were characterized by X-ray crystallography, X-ray powder diffraction at ambient and elevated temperature, thermal analysis, FT-IR, and dynamic moisture adsorption. In Form 1, mometasone furoate molecules pack tightly with molecules interlocked in a space group of P2(1)2(1)2(1). The monohydrate form crystallizes in space group P1. The unit cell of the monohydrate contains one water molecule and one mometasone furoate molecule. The water molecules form channels along the a axis and mometasone furoate molecules pack in layers in the same direction. Dehydration was observed between 60 and 100 degrees C by thermogravimetric analysis with a heating rate of 10 degrees C/min. It corresponds to a broad endotherm over the same temperature range in the differential scanning calorimetry with the same heating rate. Variable temperature X-ray powder diffraction reveals that a new anhydrous form (Form 2) was fully produced above 90 degrees C. This crystalline form was converted to Form 1 after being heated above 150 degrees C; and was totally converted to the monohydrate after 1 day at 23 degrees C, 45% RH.

Nasal allergies and beyond: a clinical review of the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of mometasone furoate

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex, Schering-Plough Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) is an effective and well-tolerated intranasal corticosteroid approved for the prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. MFNS is a potent molecule with a rapid onset of action and excellent safety and efficacy profiles. Having recently received approval for the treatment of nasal polyposis, data indicate that MFNS may also be effective in rhinosinusitis.

Allergy assessment of foods or ingredients derived from biotechnology, gene-modified organisms, or novel foods

The introduction of novel proteins into foods carries a risk of eliciting allergic reactions in individuals sensitive to the introduced protein and a risk of sensitizing susceptible individuals. No single predictive test exists to perform a hazard assessment in relation to allergenic properties of newly expressed proteins in gene-modified organisms (GMOs). Instead, performance of a weighted risk analysis based on the decision tree approach has been suggested. The individual steps of this analysis comprise sequence homology to known allergens, specific or targeted serum screens for immunoglobulin E (IgE) cross-reactions to known allergens, digestability studies of the proteins in simulated gastric and/or intestinal fluids, and animal studies. These steps are discussed and five examples of risk evaluation of GMOs or novel foods are presented. These include ice-structuring protein derived from fish, microbial transglutaminase, GMO-soybeans, amylase and the Nangai nut.

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.

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

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

A Prospective Study on the Efficacy of Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate Aqueous Nasal Spray on Chinese Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE: We undertook a prospective study of the efficacy of a new intranasal steroid, mometasone furoate nasal spray (Nasonex; Schering-Plough Corp, Kenilworth, NJ).

STUDY DESIGN: Chinese patients with allergic rhinitis were recruited. The patients were assessed by a questionnaire that included demographic data and a Rhinitis Symptoms Score. Objective assessments of the nasal passages were performed with a 2.7-mm 30-degree rigid nasoendoscope and scored according to the modified Lund and Kennedy sinusitis staging and scoring for endoscopic appearances of the nasal cavity in rhinosinusitis. Patients were assessed before treatment, and then 200 μg/d MFNS was prescribed. Patients were reevaluated after 8 and 16 weeks of commencement of MFNS. A total of 51 patients completed the 16-week study.

RESULTS: There were significant reductions in mean Rhinitis Symptoms Score from 6.19 to 3.8 ( P < 0.001) and mean Endoscopic Appearance Score from 4.6 to 3.58 ( P = 0.046). Analysis showed that there were reductions in the severity of all 3 aspects of rhinitis symptoms: rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal obstruction.

CONCLUSION: Mometasone furoate nasal spray was effective in controlling allergic rhinitis and was well tolerated by patients.

Divergent effect of mometasone on human eosinophil and neutrophil apoptosis

Mometasone is a potent synthetic glucocorticoid, which is under development as an inhaled preparation for the treatment of asthma. Previous studies have suggested that glucocorticoids have direct effects on human eosinophil and neutrophil apoptosis. The present study was designed to characterize the effects of mometasone on constitutive apoptosis and cytokine-afforded survival in isolated human eosinophils and neutrophils. The isolated eosinophils or neutrophils were cultured in vitro, and apoptosis was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of relative DNA content, by annexin-V binding and morphological analysis. Mometasone enhanced constitutive human eosinophil apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner. The maximal enhancement of eosinophil apoptosis was 2.1-fold with an EC(50) value of 5.63 +/- 2.33 nM. This enhancing effect was reversed by the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist, mifepristone. In the presence of added cytokines, mometasone reversed tumor necrosis factor -alpha-induced eosinophil survival but not that afforded by interleukin -5. In contrast, mometasone inhibited human neutrophil apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner. The maximal inhibition of neutrophil apoptosis was 50% with an EC(50) value of 0.17 +/- 0.03 nM. The inhibitory effect was partly reversed by mifepristone. In the presence of added cytokines, mometasone further enhanced neutrophil survival induced by the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and leukotriene B(4). The present data suggests that mometasone has opposite effects on apoptosis of human eosinophils and neutrophils at clinically relevant drug concentrations via an effect on glucocorticoid receptor.

A randomized comparison of the effects of budesonide and mometasone furoate aqueous nasal sprays on nasal peak flow rate and symptoms in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Using conventional methods, it has been difficult to show differences in efficacy between intranasal corticosteroids in perennial rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of budesonide and mometasone on nasal symptoms and nasal airflow in perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-eight patients (age > 18 years old) were randomized to budesonide, 256 microg or 128 microg, mometasone furoate 200 microg, or placebo, once daily for 4 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by nasal index score (NIS; the sum of scores for blocked nose, runny nose, and itchy nose/sneezing) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF).

RESULTS

All three active treatments significantly reduced the NIS compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between the treatments, although the effect of budesonide, 256 microg, tended to be greater than that of the other regimens. PNIF was significantly improved with all three active treatments: the effect of budesonide 256 microg on morning and evening PNIF was significantly greater than that of mometasone furoate and 128 microg budesonide. Budesonide had a rapid onset of action, showing a significantly greater effect on evening PNIF than mometasone furoate during the first 10 days. For all active treatments, significant improvements in NIS were seen within 4 hours of the first dose. All three treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The objective parameter PNIF was capable of demonstrating greater efficacy of budesonide 256 microg compared with budesonide 128 microg and mometasone furoate 200 microg, whereas the combined nasal symptom score could only distinguish active treatment from placebo.

Health-related quality of life assessment in young adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In health-related quality of life (HRQL) studies on allergic rhinitis, both disease-specific and generic questionnaires have been extensively used. Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) has been studied mainly by focusing on symptomatology. The present study aimed to evaluate the SAR-HRQL by means of two questionnaires, the Medical Outcome Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and a new instrument examining satisfaction in 32 aspects of daily life: the Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P).

METHODS

Thirty-three patients with SAR (aged 33.5+/-8.5 years; 12 men, 21 women) were evaluated during and 2 months after the pollen season. Data were compared with reference samples by t-test, and baseline and follow-up HRQL scores were compared by a matched-pair test.

RESULTS

Patients' HRQL scores collected during the pollen season were significantly lower than reference sample data in many SF-36 scores and in one SAT-P item. No differences emerged between SF-36 and SAT-P scores collected outside the pollen season and reference sample scores. Compared to baseline, outside the pollen season, patients reported significantly higher scores in the following SF-36 scales: physical functioning (P=0.002), physical role (P=0.00001), bodily pain (P=0.01), and vitality (P=0.008); and significantly higher scores in only two SAT-P items (physical well-being [P=0.009] and resistance to stress [P=0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the utility of using symptomatologic and health-status questionnaires in evaluating the HRQL of SAR patients. More general quality of life questionnaires may prevent the symptomatologic and functional problems from being adequately recognized and managed. SAT-P can be a fruitful additional tool in HRQL evaluation.

Paediatric issues relating to the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis in children has risen significantly over the last two decades. Important comorbidities like asthma have grown in parallel due to a complex mix of environmental and genetic factors. These conditions have similar allergic inflammatory mechanisms, which raises the possibility of treating both conditions by targeting shared inflammatory mediators pharmacologically. The first line treatment for paediatric allergic rhinitis is a topical nasal corticosteroid or a non-sedating antihistamine. Available intranasal corticosteroids show superior symptom control to second-generation antihistamines. However, most topical steroids and non-sedating antihistamines have equivalent clinical efficacy within their respective classes, so the choice of agent depends on safety and tolerability. Ideally, topical nasal steroids should exhibit high local receptor binding affinity and low systemic bioavailability, allied with a lack of long-term growth suppression in children and adolescents. Regular use of topical steroids is advisable, but intermittent and prophylactic use is also effective. Second-generation antihistamines are effective and some have no adverse cardiac or sedative effects. Non-sedating antihistamine treatment can ameliorate rhinitis-induced decrements in learning. alpha-Adrenergic nasal decongestants provide short-term benefit, but topical agents can cause rebound symptoms. Prophylactic treatment with chromones is safe and effective, but multiple daily dosing is needed. Ipratroprium bromide nasal spray is useful as an intermittent therapy for mild disease or as add-on treatment, but its effect is limited to the control of rhinorrhoea. Children with allergic rhinitis should receive pharmacotherapy if allergen avoidance measures are ineffective, ideally with a topical intranasal steroid or a second-generation antihistamine.