Early patient experiences with montelukast orally disintegrating tablets in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of treatment satisfaction in patients with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Pathogenesis-based application of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis: Current and future perspectives

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is heterogeneous and contains diverse pathogenesis including type 1, type 2, and/or type 3 inflammation. For severe type 2 CRS especially CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), biologics that target inflammatory molecules have recently been applied along with further changes in the treatment algorithm for CRS. Currently, a completed phase 3 clinical trial for biologics for severe CRSwNP with inadequate response to surgery and/or intranasal corticosteroids, including omalizumab (anti-IgE), mepolizumab (anti-IL-5), benralizumab (anti-IL-5Rα), and dupilumab (anti-IL-4Rα), have all shown efficacy. Similar phase 3 clinical trials for tezepelumab (anti-TSLP) and etokimab (anti-IL-33) are now underway and completed, respectively. Further studies need to evaluate how to optimally and cost-effectively use biologics for CRS and determine if any biomarkers are indicative of which biologics should be administered. A definition of complete and/or clinical remission of CRS is also needed to determine when to reduce or discontinue biologics. In addition, more precise basic research on CRS, such as endotyping and genotyping, will need to be undertaken in order to determine novel targets for biologics.

External Auditory Stimulation as a Non-Pharmacological Sleep Aid

The increased demand for well-being has fueled interest in sleep. Research in technology for monitoring sleep ranges from sleep efficiency and sleep stage analysis to sleep disorder detection, centering on wearable devices such as fitness bands, and some techniques have been commercialized and are available to consumers. Recently, as interest in digital therapeutics has increased, the field of sleep engineering demands a technology that helps people obtain quality sleep that goes beyond the level of monitoring. In particular, interest in sleep aids for people with or without insomnia but who cannot fall asleep easily at night is increasing. In this review, we discuss experiments that have tested the sleep-inducing effects of various auditory stimuli currently used for sleep-inducing purposes. The auditory stimulations were divided into (1) colored noises such as white noise and pink noise, (2) autonomous sensory meridian response sounds such as natural sounds such as rain and firewood burning, sounds of whispers, or rubbing various objects with a brush, and (3) classical music or a preferred type of music. For now, the current clinical method of receiving drugs or cognitive behavioral therapy to induce sleep is expected to dominate. However, it is anticipated that devices or applications with proven ability to induce sleep clinically will begin to appear outside the hospital environment in everyday life.

Burden of allergic rhinitis and impact of MP-AzeFlu from the patient perspective: pan European patient survey

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this survey were to (1) assess the burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) from the patient perspective, (2) investigate MP-AzeFlu use in real life and its impact on patients' lives and (3) explore factors associated with treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, quantitative, online, questionnaire-based survey was conducted in seven European countries (March-June 2019). Questions explored AR burden and treatment satisfaction. Satisfaction was assessed using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication 9-item (TSQM-9; max score = 100). Participants (aged ≥18 years) had a doctor/healthcare provider confirmed AR diagnosis and used MP-AzeFlu within the last year.

RESULTS

Pre-MP-AzeFlu treatment, participants (n = 1004) reported an average of 3.3 (SD:3.5) doctor visits/year, 8.1 (SD:11.0) days/year absenteeism and 15.8 (SD:18.9) days/year presenteeism due to AR. Only 48% of participants used MP-AzeFlu twice/day as recommended. Post-MP-AzeFlu 57% of participants reported better QoL, 47% reported fewer doctor visits and 52% discontinued polypharmacy. Absenteeism and presenteeism were reduced by 2.5 (SD 10.0) and 7.3 (SD:16.0) days/year, respectively. 70% of participants were more/much more satisfied with MP-AzeFlu versus previous AR treatment(s), and ≥70% were satisfied/extremely satisfied with its ability to prevent/treat AR, relieve symptoms and with its onset of action. Mean global, effectiveness and convenience TSQM-9 scores were 70.0 (SD:19.8), 68.3 (SD:21.6) and 72.7 (SD:20.4), respectively. Treatment satisfaction and effectiveness were significantly improved when MP-AzeFlu was taken as recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of AR on patients' lives remains high. Real-life use of MP-AzeFlu reduces that impact and is associated with a high level of effectiveness, convenience and global satisfaction.

Assessment of medication adherence and treatment satisfaction in Japanese patients with psoriasis of various severities

Psoriasis is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory keratotic skin disease. To elucidate the medication adherence and treatment satisfaction, we performed a questionnaire survey using the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and nine-item Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9) of 163 psoriatic patients who regularly visited hospitals or clinics. To assess the relationship between the MMAS-8/TSQM-9 outcomes and severity of psoriasis, two different clinical severity indices were used: the Psoriasis Area and the Severity Index (PASI) for disease severity and the Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) for quality of life (QOL) impairment. The MMAS-8 score for oral medication was significantly higher than that for topical medication. The oral and topical MMAS-8 scores were significantly correlated with the PDI score, but not with the PASI score, indicating that QOL impairment lowered treatment motivation. All of the TSQM-9 domain scores (effectiveness, convenience and global satisfaction) were significantly correlated with both the PASI and PDI scores, suggesting that patients whose skin and QOL conditions were under good control had high satisfaction with treatment. Patients treated with biologics had higher satisfaction than those treated with non-biologics.