Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray: a well-tolerated and effective treatment for children with perennial rhinitis

Efficacy and safety of various corticosteroids in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids were recommended as first-line drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) children. A variety of corticosteroids were available for clinical choice; however, which could relieve the clinical symptoms of patients to the greatest extent was currently unknown. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different corticosteroids in treating children with AR, which might provide a basis for more rational clinical treatment decisions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched, and the retrieval time range was the time from their inception to November 2023. The literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias of included studies were completed independently by two reviewers. A frequentist NMA was performed with Stata17.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs covering 10,897 participants were included. In the improvement of reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol presented the best efficacy. Regarding the incidence of adverse reactions, mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFANS) and BDP showed a good safety profile. In terms of the influence of cortisol (urinary free cortisol, plasma cortisol) and growth, no significant difference was observed between the different groups.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that BDP nasal aerosol and FFNS had best efficacy; MFANS and BDP had the best safety profile. However, this conclusion was less convincing because of the limited numbers of patients/controls and study quality.

Intranasal Fluticasone Once Daily Compared with Once-Daily Cetirizine in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis : Results of a Multicentre, Double-Blind Study

The efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, 200µg once daily for 21 days, was compared with cetirizine, 10mg once daily for 21 days, in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study. 237 evaluable patients aged 12 years and above, with seasonal allergic rhinitis (defined as having a positive skin test and a total symptom score of ≥ 6/15), received either fluticasone aqueous nasal spray (n = 119) or cetirizine (n = 118). Improvement in total symptom score was observed in patients from both treatment groups, with the improvement in the fluticasone treatment group being significantly greater (decrease in total symptom score from 9.23 to 2.13) than in the cetirizine treatment group (decrease in total symptom score from 9.36 to 4.31; p < 0.001). There was also a significantly greater improvement in the number of symptom-free days for all symptoms in favour of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray compared with cetirizine (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the percentage of days when patients did not require terfenadine as rescue therapy was significantly greater in the fluticasone group (87%) than in the cetirizine group (80%; p < 0.05). Five adverse events were reported during intranasal fluticasone treatment and 10 adverse events were reported during cetirizine therapy. There were no treatment-related withdrawals from therapy in the fluticasone group, but 5 treatment-related withdrawals were reported in the cetirizine group.This study demonstrated that fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, 200µg once daily, was significantly more effective than cetirizine, 10mg once daily, and had comparable (if not better) tolerability, in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

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.

Compliance with topical nasal medication--an evaluation in children with rhinitis

It is our impression that children with rhinitis often dislike or struggle with the administration of topical nasal sprays and drops. This study aims to investigate children's acceptance of topical nasal sprays/drops, and to identify patient factors that may affect their acceptance. An interview (by WYZI) questionnaire survey was carried out on parents/guardians of children aged 1-15 with rhinitis, where information on the diagnosis and treatment, patients' use and responses to these medications, and their preferred treatment routes were collected. Two hundred questionnaires were completed, of which 194 were valid for analysis. The mean age of patients was 7.54 yr; male to female ratio was 1:1.6, and Chinese made up the majority (62.4%). About one quarter (24.7%) of children disliked the use of topical nasal sprays/drops sufficiently to affect compliance with the medication. Furthermore, of those who could indicate their preferred route of drug administration (n = 75), 73% indicated a preference for oral medication, while only 11% preferred the nasal route. Topical nasal sprays/drops were more acceptable in older children (7-15 yr) compared to the younger ones (1-6 yr) (OR = 2.383, CI 1.223-4.644). The acceptance of nasal sprays/drops was not associated with gender, ethnic group, concurrent use by other family members, length and amount of usage, and the response to therapy. A substantial proportion of children prescribed topical nasal sprays/drops did not find it acceptable. Age played a significant factor to the acceptance of the use of topical nasal sprays/drops.

Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an open-label extension

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the most effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, available INS safety and efficacy data in children younger than 6 years are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To report the first well-controlled study assessing the safety and efficacy of an INS in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR.

METHODS

In a 4-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to receive triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (TAA AQ), 110 microg once daily, or placebo. A subset of children continued into a 6-month, open-label phase. Efficacy end points included total nasal symptom scores. Safety measures included reports of adverse events, morning serum cortisol levels before and after cosyntropin infusion, and growth as measured using office stadiometry.

RESULTS

A total of 474 patients were randomized to receive TAA AQ (n = 236) or placebo (n = 238); 436 entered the open-label extension phase. Adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline during the double-blind period in instantaneous and reflective total nasal symptom scores were -2.28 (0.16) and -2.31 (0.15), respectively, in the TAA AQ group (P = .09) vs -1.92 (0.16) and -1.87 (0.15) in the placebo group (P = .03). Adverse event rates were comparable between treatment groups. There was no significant change from baseline in serum cortisol levels after cosyntropin infusion at study end. The distribution of children by stature-for-age percentile remained stable during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of TAA AQ, 110 microg once daily, for up to 6 months offers a favorable efficacy to safety ratio in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR.

HPA axis safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray once daily in children with perennial allergic rhinitis

The effects of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis should be assessed for any to be marketed INS. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) on cortisol production (as a measure of HPA axis function) following 6 wk of treatment with FFNS 110 microg once daily (QD) compared with placebo in pediatric patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). In this double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (n = 112) aged 2-11 yr with a 1-yr history of PAR (6 months for patients aged 2-3 yr) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either placebo or FFNS. Serum cortisol (SC) concentrations and urinary cortisol (UC) excretion were measured over a 24-h period at the randomization (baseline) and final treatment (week 6) visits for HPA axis evaluation in a domiciled environment (overnight in the clinic). Plasma samples were collected for FFNS at several time points over the 24 h after the final dose for pharmacokinetic analyses. FFNS was non-inferior to placebo with respect to change from baseline (expressed as a ratio) in 24-h SC weighted mean. The lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment ratio was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.8 (treatment ratio = 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07). UC excretion over 24 h at baseline and end of treatment was similar between treatment groups; no patients had 24-h excretion levels below normal range after 6 wk of treatment. Plasma concentrations of FFNS were generally non-quantifiable (<10 pg/ml). Results of the current study indicate that FFNS 110 microg QD has no significant effect on HPA axis function in 2- to 11-yr-old pediatric patients with PAR.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray is safe and effective for 1-year treatment of children with perennial allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) affects children at a young age. Current guidelines recommend intranasal corticosteroids as the first-line treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe or persistent disease or in those who have congestion. In this study, the long-term safety and efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) were assessed in children with PAR.

METHODS

In this multicenter, active-controlled, evaluator-blind, 12-month study, 255 children aged 6-11 years with a >or=1-year history of PAR were randomized to receive once-daily MFNS 100 microg (n=166) or the active comparator beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 microg (n=85). Changes from baseline in overall PAR symptoms and response to treatment were rated at each visit. Cosyntropin stimulation testing, as well as tonometry and slit lamp procedures, were performed. Safety variables were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 137 subjects in the MFNS group and 68 in the BDP group completed treatment. The mean reductions in physician- and subject-rated overall condition of PAR at week 52 were -42.1% and -39.7%, respectively, for MFNS, compared with -44.0% and -39.0%, respectively, for BDP. A total of 94% and 100% of MFNS and BDP subjects, respectively, reported adverse events (AEs), which were mostly mild or moderate. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs in both groups were epistaxis, headache, and pharyngitis. Response to cosyntropin was normal and no posterior subcapsular cataracts were observed in either group. Although no significant changes in intraocular pressure were observed with MFNS, one subject receiving BDP demonstrated this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with MFNS 100 microg once daily for 1 year was well tolerated in children 6-11 years old, with negligible systemic exposure and no evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis or ocular changes.

Optimising the management of allergic rhinitis: an Australian perspective

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most prevalent medical conditions. It has significant effects on quality of life and can have considerable socioeconomic effects. The traditional classification of perennial and seasonal rhinitis does not distinguish between provoking factors, nor does it indicate the most appropriate treatment. A more useful classification is based on symptoms, which may be intermittent or persistent, and vary widely in severity. The goal of management is to achieve optimal symptom control. Therapeutic options include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy. Antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have become the cornerstones of therapy. A variety of effective treatments are available for consumers to self-select, without the advice of a doctor or pharmacist. INCS are widely recognised as the most effective pharmacotherapy for AR, in both adults and children. The efficacy of various preparations is similar, but those with low systemic bioavailability are preferred for children and for patients who are also receiving inhaled, topical or systemic corticosteroids.

Perennial rhinitis in the under 4s: a difficult problem to treat safely and effectively? A comparison of intranasal fluticasone propionate and ketotifen in the treatment of 2-4-year-old children with perennial rhinitis

To compare the safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) and oral ketotifen in children aged 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, double dummy, placebo-controlled study. Paediatric patients between the ages of 2-4 years with perennial rhinitis. Rhinitis symptoms score (parent-rated), clinical evaluation of symptoms (investigator-rated) and adverse event profiles during the treatment period. Patients treated with FPANS had a significant reduction in both the total night-time rhinitis symptom assessment for weeks 4-6 (p-value 0.036), and the total daytime rhinitis symptom score over the same period (p-value 0.049). Generally, except for nasal itching/rubbing over weeks 1-3, the patients taking FPANS had lower recorded symptom scores for all individual symptoms measured. Nasal blockage, in particular, was significantly reduced over the 4-6 week period (p-value 0.027). The overall investigator-rated clinical evaluation showed substantial improvement or improvement in nine of 12 of the children taking FPANS compared with four of 14 taking ketotifen. Finally, there were no reports of serious adverse events, the incidence of drug-related adverse events was low and there was no statistical difference between the groups. FPANS may be an appropriate treatment to control the symptoms of rhinitis in children between 2 and 4 years old.

Lack of effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in 2- and 3-year-old patients

OBJECTIVE

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP) at the highest recommended doses does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function in adults or older children, but its potential effects in children younger than 4 years have not been previously studied. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effects of FP on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol levels in children 2 to 3 years of age.

METHODS

Patients ages 2 to 3 years with symptoms of allergic rhinitis were administered FP 200 microg/day (FP200 QD) or vehicle placebo for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The FP200 QD group (n = 33) was equivalent to the placebo group (n = 32) in mean change from baseline in the primary safety measure of 12-hour creatinine-corrected urinary-free cortisol concentration (geometric mean difference [standard error; SE] for placebo-FP200 QD = 0.96 [1.20]; 95% confidence interval 0.66, 1.39) at the end of the treatment period. The adjusted geometric mean change from baseline value was 0.98 for FP200 QD (SE = 1.14) and 0.94 for placebo (SE = 1.15); a value of 1.0 reflects no change from baseline. Cough and fever were the most common adverse events reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

FP200 QD was equivalent to placebo with respect to effects on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol in 2- and 3-year-old patients. FP200 QD was well-tolerated in these very young children with allergic rhinitis.

Episodic viral wheeze in preschool children: effect of topical nasal corticosteroid prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The effect of prophylactic nasal corticosteroids on wheezing episodes associated with colds was investigated in a 12 week parallel group, double blind, randomised controlled trial in preschool children.

METHODS

Data were collected from 50 children aged 12-54 months with a history of at least three episodes of wheeze associated with colds over the previous winter, but few or no interval symptoms; 24 were given one dose of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray (50 micro g) into each nostril twice daily and 26 received an indistinguishable placebo spray. Episodes of lower respiratory illness occurring within 2 days of the onset of a cold were identified from daily symptom diaries. The main outcome was nocturnal symptom score during the first 7 days of an episode.

RESULTS

The groups were well balanced on entry except that the treatment group had a history of more prolonged episodes. During the trial there was no significant difference in the number of episodes in the treatment and control groups (27 and 37, respectively), in the severity of nocturnal symptoms (mean score 1.33 and 1.22, respectively, confidence interval of difference -0.24 to +0.47) or in daytime symptoms, activity or total scores during episodes. Compliance was estimated to be over 50% in 43 of the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal corticosteroid treatment does not prevent acute wheezy episodes associated with upper respiratory infections (common colds) in preschool children.

Comparison of once daily fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray with once daily budesonide reservoir powder device in patients with perennial rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing the corticosteroids fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD) in both perennial and seasonal rhinitis have shown no consistent difference between treatments. However, the therapeutic outcomes may have been influenced by study design.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of FP aqueous nasal spray (ANS; 200 microg/day) with BUD reservoir powder device (RPD; 200 microg/day) on rhinitis symptoms, productivity loss and device preference in patients with perennial rhinitis.

METHODS

After a 2-week run-in period, 440 patients were randomized to receive either FPANS, BUD RPD or matched placebo (ANS or RPD) for 8 weeks, followed by an open-label 4-week follow-up treatment with FPANS. Patients completed diary card visual analogue scores for nasal symptoms, and questionnaires on satisfaction with the treatment and preferred choice of device.

RESULTS

During weeks 1-4, the visual analogue total nasal symptom scores (VATNS) in the FPANS group were significantly lower than scores in the BUD RPD group (mean difference = -17.8; 95% CI = -34.4, -1.3; P = 0.036). FPANS also significantly reduced the VATNS compared with the ANS placebo at all time-points assessed (P < or = 0.005). BUD RPD did not significantly differ from the RPD placebo at weeks 5-8 (P = 0.167), or the ANS placebo at any time-point (P < or = 0.151). Over the 8-week treatment period FPANS was significantly more effective than BUD RPD at reducing sneezing (mean difference = -4.4; 95% CI = -8.6, -0.3; P = 0.036) and nasal itching (mean difference = -5.3; 95% CI = -9.9, -0.8; P = 0.022), and was significantly superior to the ANS placebo for all symptoms assessed at weeks 1-4 and 1-8 (P < 0.016). At the same time-points BUD RPD was no better at alleviating nasal itching than the RPD placebo (P < or = 0.306), and compared with the ANS placebo, significantly reduced only one symptom; nasal blockage (P < or = 0.016). After 8 weeks of treatment, patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD (P < 0.001), and at 12 weeks a significantly greater number of patients were satisfied with FPANS treatment compared with BUD RPD (P = 0.0019) or the respective placebos (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

FPANS and BUD RPD are effective therapies with a good safety profile for the treatment of perennial rhinitis but, in this direct placebo-controlled comparison, FPANS was more efficacious than BUD RPD, and the patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD.

Intranasal fluticasone propionate for chronic eosinophilic rhinitis in patients with aspirin-induced asthma

We performed a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study on the effect of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment on chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis in 15 patients with aspirin-induced asthma (AIA). There were 10 women and five men aged 32-60 years; average: 45 years. After a 10-day run-in period, patients underwent two 4-week treatment courses (FP vs placebo), separated by a 2-week washout interval. Clinical activity of FP was evaluated by daily measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and a scoring system of subjective symptoms. Nasal challenges with E-lysine aspirin, using active anterior rhinomanometry, were performed at the entry and on the last day of each treatment period. Weekly mean values of symptom scores were generally lower and PNIF measurements higher during treatment with FP than with placebo. This difference was statistically significant for most recorded parameters for the whole 4-week FP treatment. On average, the reactions evoked by aspirin nasal challenge were significantly shorter and milder after treatment with FP than with placebo. In 8/13 patients, FP completely prevented aspirin-precipitated nasal reaction, whereas protection after placebo was observed in only 2/12 subjects (P = 0.004). We conclude that intranasal FP is an effective therapy for chronic eosinophilic rhinitis in patients with AIA.