Fast effectiveness of a solubilized low-dose budesonide nasal spray in 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.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Strategies to Improve Drug Strength in Nasal Preparations for Brain Delivery of Low Aqueous Solubility Drugs

Intranasal administration is a promising route for brain drug delivery. However, it can be difficult to formulate drugs that have low water solubility into high strength intranasal solutions. Hence, the purpose of this work was to review the strategies that have been used to increase drug strength in intranasal liquid formulations. Three main groups of strategies are: the use of solubilizers (change in pH, complexation and the use cosolvents/surfactants); incorporation of the drugs into a carrier nanosystem; modifications of the molecules themselves (use of salts or hydrophilic prodrugs). The use of high amounts of cosolvents and/or surfactants and pH decrease below 4 usually lead to local adverse effects, such as nasal and upper respiratory tract irritation. Cyclodextrins and (many) different carrier nanosystems, on the other hand, could be safer for intranasal administration at reasonably high concentrations, depending on selected excipients and their dose. While added attributes such as enhanced permeation, sustained delivery, or increased direct brain transport could be achieved, a great effort of optimization will be required. On the other hand, hydrophilic prodrugs, whether co-administered with a converting enzyme or not, can be used at very high concentrations, and have resulted in a fast prodrug to parent drug conversion and led to high brain drug levels. Nevertheless, the choice of which strategy to use will always depend on the characteristics of the drug and must be a case-by-case approach.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2020 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

While 2020 will be remembered for the global coronavirus pandemic, there were also important advances in the field of allergy. In this review article, we summarize key findings reported in Clinical and Experimental Allergy during 2020. We hope this provides readers with an accessible snapshot of the work published in our journal during this time.

Fast effectiveness of a solubilized low-dose budesonide nasal spray in allergic rhinitis

Background

Budesonide, a poorly water‐soluble corticosteroid, is currently marketed as a suspension. Budesolv is a novel aqueous formulation containing dissolved budesonide showing increased local availability in preclinical models. Budesolv contains ~85% less corticosteroid than the marketed comparator.

Objective

The study (EudraCT:2018‐001324‐19) was designed to assess non‐inferiority of Budesolv compared to Rhinocort® Aqua 64 (RA) and early onset of action.

Methods

In a three‐way cross‐over double‐blinded randomized trial, Budesolv 10 was compared to RA and placebo in grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis volunteers (n = 83 (ITT); n = 75 (PP)). On day 1, participants entered the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) for 6 hours; first treatment took place at 1:45 hours after entry. Participants treated themselves for further 6 days; on day 8, the last treatment was applied before entering the VCC. Subjective symptom scores, nasal airflow and nasal secretion were measured regularly during allergen challenge.

Results

Budesolv 10 was equally effective compared to RA with respect to TNSS and nasal airflow after eight days of treatment with a strongly reduced dose (more than 80% reduction). After first dose, only Budesolv 10 showed a significant reduction of nasal and respiratory symptoms starting 90 minutes (P < .05) and 15 minutes (P < .05) after application onwards, respectively, demonstrating an early onset of efficacy. A clinically significant 1 point reduction in nasal symptom score was reached at 195 minutes (P < .05) after application.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

The novel preservative‐free, aqueous low‐dose budesonide formulation is highly efficacious even after an initial single treatment. Thus, Budesolv 10 appears to be an effective acute treatment for allergic rhinitis as well as for AR comorbidities like mild asthma and conjunctivitis.