Effects of topical budesonide and levocabastine on nasal symptoms and plasma exudation responses in seasonal allergic rhinitis

Pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy of allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mite, grass, and birch pollen allergens: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral antihistamines (AHs), intranasal antihistamines (INAH) intranasal glucocorticosteroids (INCS), subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR). The authors focused on the division into selected AR's triggers: house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen, and birch pollen.

METHODS

For each drug and allergen class, a meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) was performed. The obtained results were presented as a therapeutic index (TIX-Score).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The best total efficacy was observed for: HDMs for INCS and grass pollen for combination of INCS with INAH in a single device and for INAH. Considering the data that was obtained for birch pollen, SLIT showed statistically significant total efficacy. Summation scores for efficacy and AEs showed highest TIX-Score for combination of INCS and INAH in a single device in grass pollen.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment methods selected for this review may serve as an effective and safe treatment in reducing perennial and seasonal AR's symptoms. However, due to high heterogeneity probably associated with potential confounders existence in control in some cases, results should be interpreted with caution.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

The effect of low-volatile organic compounds, water-based paint on aggravation of allergic disease in schoolchildren

Whether indoor painting aggravates preexisting allergic diseases remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of new classroom painting on aggravation of asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR), and atopic dermatitis (AD) in children. Studied school was previously painted with conventional water-based paint 20 years ago and had natural ventilation system. We identified a total of 172 children aged 10-12 years with allergic diseases in 17 classrooms, which were allocated to newly painted rooms with low-volatile organic compounds (VOC), water-based paint, or existing rooms. After painting, there was no intervention or internal airflow to influence indoor air environment in both classrooms. We prospectively assessed the symptom severity and serious events of allergic diseases between both classrooms at baseline and after one and eight weeks after painting. At one and eight weeks, there were no significant changes in the Childhood Asthma Control Test scores, the fractional nitric oxide levels, lung function in asthmatic children in either classroom. There were also no significant changes in the severity score of AR or AD, or serious events in all allergic diseases. These findings suggest classroom painting with this new paint at the levels encountered in this study might not be a major aggravating factor for school-aged children with allergic diseases.

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.

Biomarkers in asthma and allergic rhinitis

A biological marker (biomarker) is a physical sign or laboratory measurement that can serve as an indicator of biological or pathophysiological processes or as a response to a therapeutic intervention. An applicable biomarker possesses the characteristics of clinical relevance (sensitivity and specificity for the disease) and is responsive to treatment effects, in combination with simplicity, reliability and repeatability of the sampling technique. Presently, there are several biomarkers for asthma and allergic rhinitis that can be obtained by non-invasive or semi-invasive airway sampling methods meeting at least some of these criteria. In clinical practice, such biomarkers can provide complementary information to conventional disease markers, including clinical signs, spirometry and PC(20)methacholine or histamine. Consequently, biomarkers can aid to establish the diagnosis, in staging and monitoring of the disease activity/progression or in predicting or monitoring of a treatment response. Especially in (young) children, reliable, non-invasive biomarkers would be valuable. Apart from diagnostic purposes, biomarkers can also be used as (surrogate) markers to predict a (novel) drug's efficacy in target populations. Therefore, biomarkers are increasingly applied in early drug development. When implementing biomarkers in clinical practice or trials of asthma and allergic rhinitis, it is important to consider the heterogeneous nature of the inflammatory response which should direct the selection of adequate biomarkers. Some biomarker sampling techniques await further development and/or validation, and should therefore be applied as a "back up" of established biomarkers or methods. In addition, some biomarkers or sampling techniques are less suitable for (very young) children. Hence, on a case by case basis, a decision needs to be made what biomarker is adequate for the target population or purpose pursued. Future development of more sophisticated sampling methods and quantification techniques, such as--omics and biomedical imaging, will enable detection of adequate biomarkers for both clinical and research applications.

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.

Caring for patients with allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40 million Americans, with an estimated cost of $2.7 billion per annum. This review discusses several therapeutic options that reduce the symptoms of AR, including allergen avoidance, antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and immunotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

The articles included in this review were retrieved by a search of Medline literature on the subjects of AR, antihistamines, INS, leukotriene antagonists, and immunotherapy, as well as current published guidelines for the treatment of AR.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen avoidance is recommended for all patients prior to pharmacologic therapy. Oral and nasal H(1)-antihistamines are recommended to alleviate the mild and intermittent symptoms of AR, and INS are recommended as the first-line treatment choice for mild persistent and more moderate-to-severe persistent AR.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are a number of different types of therapy for the management of AR; with so many options available, successful tailoring of treatment to suit individual requirements is realistically achievable.

Clinical efficacy and pharmacokinetic profiles of intranasal and oral cetirizine in a repeated allergen challenge model of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal and oral antihistamines are effective in treating allergic rhinitis. Studies comparing these routes of administration of an antihistamine regarding efficacy and pharmacokinetic profile are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare topical and oral routes of administration of cetirizine regarding efficacy, plasma exudation, and systemic drug levels in a repeated allergen challenge model of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Oral cetirizine dihydrochloride, 10 mg once daily, and topical cetirizine dinitrate in a dose corresponding to 4.4 mg of the dihydrochloride salt twice daily were given to grass pollen-sensitive individuals for 12 days in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design. Timothy grass pollen allergen challenges were given once daily for 7 days using a nasal spray device. Nasal symptoms and peak inspiratory flow were recorded in the morning, 10 minutes after allergen challenge, and in the evening. The pharmacokinetics of the treatments was monitored in 8 patients. The remaining 28 patients were challenged topically with histamine 12 and 24 hours after the final topical and oral cetirizine doses, respectively. Nasal lavage levels of alpha2-macroglobulin were determined to evaluate histamine-induced mucosal plasma exudation.

RESULTS

During the last 3 days of the repeated allergen challenge model, chronic symptoms were established. Both treatments reduced symptoms 10 minutes after allergen challenge (P < .001 vs placebo). Neither treatment reduced morning and evening symptoms or nasal peak inspiratory flow. Topical, but not oral, cetirizine reduced histamine-induced plasma exudation (P < .01 vs placebo) when systemic drug levels were similar in the 2 treatment regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical and oral cetirizine reduced acute nasal symptoms produced by allergen challenges in patients with established chronic symptoms. There were also antihistaminic effects of topical cetirizine not related to systemic drug levels.

Glucocorticosteroids in allergic inflammation: clinical benefits in allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media

Allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are among the most common health problems encountered in general practice. Although frequently trivialized, they affect the quality of life, represent a significant socioeconomic burden, and are associated with some serious complications. In addition, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are often considered as comorbidities. These disorders involve an inflammatory process of the respiratory mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses, or middle ear. Because of their well-known anti-inflammatory effects, the role of glucocorticosteroids in the management of these three disorders has been questioned, evaluated, and, in some cases, established.

Evaluation of nasal barrier dysfunction at acute- and late-phase reactions in a guinea pig model of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common disease characterized by the symptoms of pruritus, sneezing, hypersecretion and nasal blockage. Increased mucosal barrier permeability has been suggested to be an indicator for the severity of allergic rhinitis. This study investigates the passage of radiolabelled albumin from the nasal mucosal circulation into the lumen in guinea pigs intraperitoneally sensitized and intranasally challenged with antigen. In order to characterize the allergic rhinitis model, we evaluated a number of potential influencing factors in nasal plasma exudation, including antigen doses, volumes of antigen solution used, and animal position during the nasal lavage, and the conditions of nasal lavage. The number of eosinophils and levels of histamine and leukotriene B4 in the nasal lavage and eosinophils in the nasal mucosa were determined at the early and late phases after antigen challenge. We also compared the effects of topical nasal treatments for allergic rhinitis on nasal inflammatory responses. Our results demonstrate that, in the guinea pig nasal mucosa, topical challenge with antigens induces plasma exudation and histamine release at the acute-phase reaction, and plasma exudation and eosinophil infiltration at the late-phase reaction. These changes are similar to those reported in human allergic rhinitis. Alterations of nasal plasma exudation, histamine release and eosinophil influx were dependent upon the concentrations and volumes of antigens. An antihistamine inhibited the acute-phase reaction partially, whereas budesonide inhibited effects at the late-phase reaction. We suggest that this model of guinea pig allergic rhinitis with the early and late responses may be useful for high-throughout screening of new drugs.

Treatment of nasal inflammation decreases the ability of subjects with asthma to condition inspired air

We previously showed that individuals with seasonal allergy have a reduced ability to condition air, which was improved by nasal inflammation. We also showed that subjects with asthma have a reduced ability to condition air. Because individuals with asthma usually have inflammation in the nose, we hypothesized that treatment with an intranasal steroid would reduce nasal inflammation and further decrease nasal conditioning capacity. We performed a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study on 20 subjects with asthma comparing the effect of treatment with intranasal budesonide for 2 weeks on nasal conditioning. Treatment with budesonide caused no significant effect on nasal conditioning as compared with placebo. When we evaluated the subgroup of nonsmoking subjects, budesonide caused a significant reduction in nasal conditioning. We speculate that nasal inflammation in nonsmoking individuals with asthma increases the conditioning capacity and reducing it with an intranasal steroid worsens the ability of the nose to condition air. In addition, smoking causes an increase in nasal conditioning capacity by non-steroid-dependent factors. These observations help us understand the pathophysiology of nasal conditioning, but do not negate the positive clinical benefits of budesonide on treating nasal inflammation.

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.

Lung tissue eosinophils may be cleared through luminal entry rather than apoptosis: effects of steroid treatment

Spontaneous or steroid-induced eosinophil apoptosis occurring in vitro has not been demonstrated in lung tissues in vivo. This study examines cell apoptosis in rat lungs using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate (dUTP) nick end labeling (TUNEL) technique and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). After establishing sustained lung edema and eosinophilia by challenge with Sephadex beads intratracheally, budesonide treatment was started intratracheally. Sephadex alone increased the total number of apoptotic cells, which were not efficiently engulfed by macrophages or other cells, in vivo. Yet apoptotic tissue eosinophils were exceedingly rare (1 of 360 TEM-analyzed eosinophils). By contrast, approximately 20% of eosinophils in the airway lumen were apoptotic, and unengulfed. Budesonide promptly inhibited edema but 3 d of steroid treatment were required to reduce the established tissue eosinophilia. Not at any time point did budesonide induce eosinophil apoptosis (0 of 318 TEM-analyzed tissue eosinophils). We conclude that (1) eosinophil apoptosis can occur but is a rare event in vivo in respiratory tract tissues; (2) airway tissue eosinophils, rather than undergoing apoptosis, are eliminated by migration into airway lumen followed by apoptosis and mucociliary clearance; (3) anti-inflammatory steroid treatment may not increase eosinophil apoptosis in vivo nor may it affect the luminal entry of eosinophils; (4) steroids permit elimination of eosinophils into airway lumen and slowly resolve established lung eosinophilia.

Measuring plasma exudation in nasal lavage fluid and in induced sputum as a tool for studying respiratory tract inflammation

We performed nasal lavage (NAL) combined with induced sputum to determine exudative inflammation in the upper and lower airways in patients with chronic sinusitis and in controls. To monitor plasma exudation into the respiratory lumen and loss of size-selectivity of the mucosa, we determined the sample-to-serum ratio of albumin and alpha-2-macroglobulin, Qa1b and Qa2m, and the dilution independent Relative Coefficient of Excretion, RCE=Qa2m/Qa1b. To detect low protein levels in NAL and induced sputum we adapted an ELISA system for alpha-2-macroglobulin described by Out et al. [Clin. Chim. Acta, 165 (1987) 277-288], and modified this into a sensitive ELISA for albumin. Dithiothreitol, added to increase sputum solubility, did not interfere with the analysis, nor did N-ethylmaleimide, added to block dithiothreitol. In this study plasma exudation in induced sputum is significantly increased in patients with chronic sinusitis, compared to controls. Plasma exudation in NAL is also increased in patients, although not significant. The RCE in NAL and sputum is well-correlated in one of the three study visits. There is much variation in sample protein-levels partly due to differences in dilution and the heterogeneity of the studied population. Determination of plasma exudation together with RCE in NAL and induced sputum is a good, non-invasive way to quantify inflammation of airway mucosa.

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

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) is a topically active glucocorticoid which has been successfully used for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Topical levocabastine is a highly selective H1 antagonist which has been proposed as an alternative treatment of SAR. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two topical nasal treatments, FPANS and levocabastine, in the treatment of SAR. Additionally, the effect of treatments on nasal inflammation was examined during natural pollen exposure. A group of 288 adolescent and adult patients with at least a 2-year history of SAR to seasonal pollens participated in a multicenter, doubleblind, double-dummy, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were treated with either FPANS 200 microg, once daily (n = 97), or topical levocabastine, 200 microg, given twice daily (n = 96), or matched placebo (n = 95) for a period of 6 weeks, starting from the expected beginning of the pollen season. Clinically relevant pollens included Parietaria, olive, and grass. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on nasal cytology of nasal lavage. Nasal lavage was performed immediately before, during, and at the end of treatment in 39 patients. FPANS significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for nasal obstruction on waking and during the day, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching. FPANS provided a better control for night and day nasal obstruction (P<0.02 and P<0.01) and rhinorrhea (P<0.01) than levocabas tine. In addition, fewer patients treated with FPANS used rescue medication (P<0.025). The percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage was reduced only during treatment with FPANS. The results of this study indicate that FPANS 200 microg, once daily, provides a better clinical effect than levocabastine 200 microg, twice daily, in patients with SAR. Unlike levocabastine, FPANS significantly attenuates nasal eosinophilia during pollen exposure, a feature which may explain its therapeutic efficacy.