Study of montelukast in children with sickle cell disease (SMILES): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Young children with sickle cell anaemia (SCA) often have slowed processing speed associated with reduced brain white matter integrity, low oxygen saturation, and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), related in part to enlarged adenoids and tonsils. Common treatments for SDB include adenotonsillectomy and nocturnal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), but adenotonsillectomy is an invasive surgical procedure, and CPAP is rarely well-tolerated. Further, there is no current consensus on the ability of these treatments to improve cognitive function. Several double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of montelukast, a safe, well-tolerated anti-inflammatory agent, as a treatment for airway obstruction and reducing adenoid size for children who do not have SCA. However, we do not yet know whether montelukast reduces adenoid size and improves cognition function in young children with SCA.

Methods

The Study of Montelukast In Children with Sickle Cell Disease (SMILES) is a 12-week multicentre, double-blind, RCT. SMILES aims to recruit 200 paediatric patients with SCA and SDB aged 3–7.99 years to assess the extent to which montelukast can improve cognitive function (i.e. processing speed) and sleep and reduce adenoidal size and white matter damage compared to placebo. Patients will be randomised to either montelukast or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary objective of the SMILES trial is to assess the effect of montelukast on processing speed in young children with SCA. At baseline and post-treatment, we will administer a cognitive evaluation; caregivers will complete questionnaires (e.g. sleep, pain) and measures of demographics. Laboratory values will be obtained from medical records collected as part of standard care. If a family agrees, patients will undergo brain MRIs for adenoid size and other structural and haemodynamic quantitative measures at baseline and post-treatment, and we will obtain overnight oximetry.

Discussion

Findings from this study will increase our understanding of whether montelukast is an effective treatment for young children with SCA. Using cognitive testing and MRI, the SMILES trial hopes to gain critical knowledge to help develop targeted interventions to improve the outcomes of young children with SCA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04351698. Registered on April 17, 2020. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT No. 2017-004539-36). Registered on May 19, 2020

Individualized treatment for allergic rhinitis based on key nasal clinical manifestations combined with histamine and leukotriene D4 levels

Introduction

The types of allergic rhinitis are roughly classified based on the causative antigens, disease types, predilection time, and symptom severity.

Objective

To examine the clinical typing and individualized treatment approach for allergic rhinitis and to determine the optimal treatment method for this disease using various drug combination therapies.

Methods

A total of 108 participants with allergic rhinitis were divided into three groups based on symptoms. Subsequently, each group was further categorized into four subgroups based on the medications received. The efficacy of the treatments was evaluated using the visual analog scale VAS scores of the total and individual nasal symptoms, decline index of the symptom score, histamine and leukotriene levels, and mRNA and protein expression levels of histamine 1 and cysteinyl leukotriene 1 receptors.

Results

Loratadine + mometasone furoate and loratadine + mometasone furoate + montelukast significantly improved the sneezing symptom and reduced the histamine levels compared with the other combination therapies (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, montelukast + mometasone furoate and montelukast + mometasone furoate + loratadine considerably improved the nasal obstruction symptom and decreased the leukotriene D4 levels compared with the other combination therapies (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Clinical symptom evaluation combined with experimental detection of histamine and leukotriene levels can be an objective and accurate method to clinically classify the allergic rhinitis types. Furthermore, individualized treatment based on allergic rhinitis classification can result in a good treatment efficacy.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

Placebo-controlled study with OHIO chamber of prophylactic pranlukast for children with Japanese cedar pollinosis: TOPIC-J III study

Objective

This double-blind, placebo-controlled comparative study was designed to investigate whether pranlukast dry syrup, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, has a protective effect against priming, controlled pollen exposure, and natural pollen exposure in children with Japanese cedar pollinosis.

Research design and methods

Thirty children aged 12–15 years with Japanese cedar pollinosis (positive skin test for Japanese cedar pollen), who had suffered from pollinosis for at least 2 years and developed severe nasal obstruction when exposed to Japanese cedar pollen, were enrolled in this study. They were randomly allocated to treatment with pranlukast or placebo orally after breakfast and dinner for 8 weeks during the Japanese cedar pollen season. Soon after the start of the pollen season, all subjects underwent a challenge by exposure for 3 h to Japanese cedar pollen (8000 grains/m³) in an artificial exposure chamber (OHIO chamber).

Clinical trial registration

The University Hospital Medical Information Network in Japan (UMIN000009840).

Main outcome measures

The effect of pranlukast was evaluated using self-rating of nasal symptoms by the subjects and measurement of eosinophil cationic protein in nasal discharge specimens.

Results

Scores for the symptoms of pollinosis were lower in the pranlukast group than in the placebo group during treatment in the priming state, as well as after controlled pollen exposure and natural pollen exposure. Pranlukast significantly improved the score for nasal obstruction, compared with placebo. A correlation was found between changes of the scores for symptoms of pollinosis and changes of the eosinophil cationic protein level.

Conclusions

These results confirm a protective effect of pranlukast against both priming and challenge (controlled and natural) with Japanese cedar pollen. The present findings suggested that pranlukast dry syrup may be useful for prophylaxis against pollinosis in children.

Asthma symptoms and nasal congestion as independent risk factors for insomnia in a general population: results from the GA(2)LEN survey

BACKGROUND

Asthma and rhinitis have been related to insomnia. The aim of this study was to further analyse the association between asthma, nasal symptoms and insomnia and to identify risk factors for sleep disturbance among patients with asthma, in a large population-based set of material.

METHOD

In 2008, a postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 45 000 adults in four Swedish cities. The questionnaire included questions on insomnia, asthma, rhinitis, weight, height, tobacco use and physical activity.

RESULTS

Twenty-five thousand six hundred and ten subjects participated. Asthma was defined as either current medication for asthma or at least one attack of asthma during the last 12 months, and 1830 subjects (7.15%) were defined as asthmatics. The prevalence of insomnia symptoms was significantly higher among asthmatics than non-asthmatics (47.3% vs 37.2%, <0.0001). In the subgroup reporting both asthma and nasal congestion, 55.8% had insomnia symptoms compared with 35.3% in subjects without both asthma and nasal congestion. The risk of insomnia increased with the severity of asthma, and the adjusted OR for insomnia was 2.65 in asthmatics with three symptoms compared with asthmatics without symptoms. Nasal congestion (OR 1.50), obesity (OR 1.54) and smoking (OR 1.71) also increased the risk of insomnia.

CONCLUSION

Insomnia remains a common problem among asthmatics. Uncontrolled asthma and nasal congestion are important, treatable risk factors for insomnia. Lifestyle factors, such as smoking and obesity, are also risk factors for insomnia among asthmatics.

Delay of onset of symptoms of Japanese cedar pollinosis by treatment with a leukotriene receptor antagonist

BACKGROUND

Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are effective for prophylactic treatment of pollinosis based on studies showing that administration of LTRAs prior to or at the start of the pollen season reduces symptoms and QOL disturbance at the peak of pollen dispersal. Two goals of prophylactic treatment of pollinosis are use of fewer types of drugs and delay of onset of symptoms and impairement of QOL. Therefore, this study was performed to determine if pranlukast, a LTRA, met these goals in treatment of pollinosis.

METHODS

Pranlukast or placebo was administered to patients who visited our hospital immediately before the start of Japanese cedar pollen dispersal. The study was performed for 4 weeks as a double blind randomized trial. Subsequently, all patients were given pranlukast for a further 4 weeks from the peak until the end of pollen dispersal. The incidence of symptoms and use of concomitant drugs were investigated from daily nasal allergy records kept by patients. QOL was evaluated using the JRQLQ questionnaire.

RESULTS

In the double blind period of the study, the percentage of patients who used concomitant drugs for nasal symptoms was significantly lower in the pranlukast group compared to the placebo group. Development of nasal symptoms (sneezing, runny nose and nasal congestion) and disturbance of daily activities were significantly delayed in the pranlukast group. No serious adverse reactions occurred in the pranlukast group and no patient withdrew from treatment with pranlukast.

CONCLUSIONS

Pranlukast is effective for prophylactic treatment of pollinosis.

A subgroup analysis of the MONICA study: a 12-month, open-label study of add-on montelukast treatment in asthma patients

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS+long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) regimens over a period of 1 year to explore the therapeutic effects on asthma patients in patient subgroups.

METHODS

The majority of patients enrolled in this 12-month, open-label study were ≥18 years of age (n = 1681) with mild to moderate asthma insufficiently controlled by ICS or ICS+LABA. Patients received montelukast 10 mg qd as add-on therapy and were evaluated at Months 3, 6, 9, and 12. Asthma Control Test (ACT) score in the overall population was the primary endpoint; ACT score categories range from <16 (uncontrolled) to 25 (completely controlled). A post hoc secondary analysis of the following subgroups was conducted. age (< 30 years, 30-50 years, >50 years), gender, presence of allergic rhinitis, duration of asthma (< 5 years, ≥5 years), and the use of ICS or ICS+LABA.

RESULTS

Over 12 months of therapy, mean ACT scores improved by 5.7 units (p < .0001); at baseline, the mean (SD) ACT score for all patients was 14.6 (4.6) and at Month 12, the mean (SD) ACT score was 20.3 (4.2). The subgroups of patients who had allergic rhinitis and those who were <30 years of age demonstrated numerically better ACT scores compared with those who did not have allergic rhinitis or who were >30 years of age. Additional evaluation of the ACT score categories also demonstrated better control among patients who had duration of asthma <5 years and were treated with ICS without LABA.

CONCLUSION

Add-on montelukast demonstrated significant improvement in asthma symptoms over 12 months in all patients in the study. Asthma control was improved in all patient subgroups, but comorbid allergic rhinitis, younger age, shorter duration of asthma, and treatment with only ICS and not ICS+LABA were indicators of better control with add-on montelukast. These observations may likely be shared with other antiasthmatic medications and should be further explored.

Exercise-Induced Asthma Symptoms and Nighttime Asthma: Are They Similar to AHR?

Background. Asthma experienced during exercise and during the night is based on the presence of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). The aim of the present study was to examine whether AHR is a predictor of exercise-induced asthma (EIA) and nighttime symptoms. Material. We included 793 asthmatics subjects with symptoms and a positive asthma test. Results. Mean (SD) FEV1 was 93% (15), 71% had rhinitis, and 62% had atopy. Both EIA and nighttime symptoms were associated with AHR; however, when including other factors of importance in a multivariate analysis, logRDR was eliminated, whereas FEV1% pred (P < .001), smoking (P < .05), atopy (P < .001), sex (P < .001), and treatment (P < .01) were associated with having EIA while dyspnoea (P < .001), cough (P < .001), and eosinophils (P < .01) were associated with frequent night symptoms. The risk of having nighttime awakenings due to asthma was more than twofold higher among those with EIA symptoms than among those without symptoms (OR (CI95%) 2.77 (2.0–3.8) (P < .001)). In Conclusion. EIA and night symptoms are associated with AHR, but other factors of importance eliminated this close association. Night asthma is more closely associated with airway inflammation than AHR.

Use of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of congestion and sleep disturbance in pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis affects a large number of children and exerts a considerable socioeconomic impact. It is underdiagnosed and inadequately treated, which predisposes children to potentially serious comorbidities. Allergic rhinitis symptoms may create nighttime breathing problems and sleep disturbances and have a negative effect on a child's ability to learn in the classroom. Although antihistamines have shown efficacy in relieving many symptoms, they have little effect on nasal congestion. This article summarizes the advantages of intranasal corticosteroids, including their effectiveness against congestion and excellent safety profile. Intranasal corticosteroids with minimal systemic bioavailability provide topical drug delivery that minimizes the potential for systemic side-effects.

Efficacy of nasal corticosteroids alone or combined with antihistamines or montelukast in treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Topical corticosteroids are recommended as initial therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. We investigated clinical efficacy of monotherapy with topical steroid and combined therapy in AR patients.

METHODS

Ninety-five AR patients sensitive to grass pollens according to skin prick test results were enrolled in this placebo-controlled and open study. Patients were divided to four groups. Group-1 received only intranasal mometasone furoate (MF) 200microg (n=25), group-2 received intranasal MF and oral desloratadine (DLR) 5mg (n=25), group-3 received intranasal MF and oral montelukast (MSK) 10mg (n=25), group-4 received only placebo (n=20). Efficacy was assessed on the basis of total nasal symptom scores, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores and nasal inspiratory peak flow rates.

RESULTS

All groups that received treatment had better results when compared to the placebo group. Significant improvement in total nasal symptom scores was first evident at the end of the 2nd week in group-2. Group-3 had better results than those of the other groups at the end of the 1st month (p<0.05). Quality of life scores were significantly better in group-2 and -3 when compared to those in group-1 (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment in allergic rhinitis, montelukast may be considered as an additional agent especially in treatment of patients with impaired quality of life and it may be used to reduce nasal symptom scores.

Update on montelukast and its role in the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

Montelukast sodium (Singulair, Merck and Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) is a selective and orally-active leukotriene receptor antagonist with demonstrated effectiveness for treating allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children as young as 12 months of age for allergic asthma and 6 months of age for allergic rhinitis. It was recently approved in the US for prevention of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients who are > or = 15 years of age. This paper updates a prior review of the data on the clinical efficacy of montelukast published in this journal.

Montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based review

Cysteinyl-leukotrienes (CysLTs) are endogenous mediators of inflammation and play an important role in allergic airway disease by stimulating bronchoconstriction, mucus production, mucosal oedema and inflammation, airway infiltration by eosinophils, and dendritic cell maturation that prepares for future allergic response. Montelukast inhibits these actions by blocking type 1 CysLT receptors found on immunocytes, smooth muscle and endothelium in the respiratory mucosa. Initially developed as a treatment for asthma, montelukast has more recently found use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic review of studies that have evaluated montelukast in the treatment of seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR), with and without concomitant asthma. Primary consideration was given to large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which AR endpoints were assessed and the use of concurrent treatments for AR was excluded. Eight such studies were found in the literature. The primary endpoint in these was daytime nasal symptom severity represented by a composite score derived from individual self-ratings of nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, nasal pruritus and sneezing. Secondary endpoints have included these individual nasal symptom scores, additional scores for eye, ear and throat symptoms, the impact of rhinitis on quality of sleep, global evaluations of outcome by patients and physicians, and measures of the severity of concomitant asthma. A general outcome was that patients treated with montelukast had significantly greater improvements in their symptoms of SAR and PAR than did patients who were given a placebo. As monotherapy, montelukast exhibited efficacy similar to that of loratadine, but less than that of the intranasally administered corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. The use of montelukast in combination with antihistamines such as loratadine or cetirizine has generally resulted in greater efficacy than when these agents were used alone, and in some studies has produced results comparable with intranasally applied corticosteroids. In patients with AR comorbid with asthma, montelukast treatment has resulted in significant improvements in both, compared with placebo. Montelukast is well tolerated and has a favourable safety profile; adverse events have occurred at similar frequencies in patients taking either montelukast or placebo. Montelukast provides an effective and well tolerated oral treatment for allergic airway inflammation in patients with SAR or PAR without asthma, and in patients in whom AR is comorbid with asthma.