A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis

The Use of Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate in the Management of Allergic Rhinitis in Asia: A Review

The incidence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Asia and the world is steadily rising. Patients experience incomplete symptom relief despite existing treatment options, which warrants the need for new therapeutic regimes. Azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu), a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate has been indicated in the treatment of AR. The current review discusses the effects of MP-AzeFlu versus conventional therapies in achieving superior clinical improvement with a very rapid onset of action (5 minutes). The superiority of MP-AzeFlu in offering complete symptom control with sustained relief in patients with AR compared to the existing therapeutic options is also discussed. MP-AzeFlu has been shown to improve the quality of life for patients with AR, thereby enhancing patient adherence to therapy and establishing its preference for the treatment of AR. Currently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines recommend the use of a combination of intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines as first-line treatment in patients with persistent AR with visual analog scores ≥5 or when prior treatment with single agents has been ineffective. Widely published data on the efficacy and safety of its prolonged use in adults and children have validated that effective treatment of AR can be achieved with MP-AzeFlu.

Cytological Study of Topical Effect of Azelastine Hydrochloride on the Nasal Mucous Membrane Cells in Various Nasal Rhinitis Types

Previous reports on the benefits of using local therapy with azelastine in rhinitis focus on the assessment of clinical symptoms and the analysis of nasal lavage for the presence of inflammatory cells and the expression of adhesion molecules. Little attention has been paid to studies assessing the effect of azelastine on individual cytotypes of the nasal mucosa, especially epithelial cells, also in the context of inducing morphological changes. The aim of this study was the cytological analysis of swabs taken from the surface of the nasal mucosa of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic/vasomotor rhinitis (NAR/VMR) who were subjected to 4 weeks of therapy with azelastine and then comparing the obtained results with the pre-treatment condition. The technique of obtaining materials for cytoanalysis included sampling, staining of smears, microscopic analysis, and preparation of cytograms. Our studies confirmed the therapeutic benefits of azelastine in both study groups. Significant changes were demonstrated, confirming the regeneration of ciliated cells and the induction of autophagy and apoptosis in epithelial cells. Such changes indicate new mechanisms of action of azelastine, which play a significant role in restoring homeostasis in the nasal mucosa. The presented research also results in a detailed description of cytological changes in both studied rhinitis types, which complements the knowledge regarding prognostic indicators.

The Multidirectional Effect of Azelastine Hydrochloride on Cervical Cancer Cells

A major cause of cancer cell resistance to chemotherapeutics is the blocking of apoptosis and induction of autophagy in the context of cell adaptation and survival. Therefore, new compounds are being sought, also among drugs that are commonly used in other therapies. Due to the involvement of histamine in the regulation of processes occurring during the development of many types of cancer, antihistamines are now receiving special attention. Our study concerned the identification of new mechanisms of action of azelastine hydrochloride, used in antiallergic treatment. The study was performed on HeLa cells treated with different concentrations of azelastine (15-90 µM). Cell cycle, level of autophagy (LC3 protein activity) and apoptosis (annexin V assay), activity of caspase 3/7, anti-apoptotic protein of Bcl-2 family, ROS concentration, measurement of mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm), and level of phosphorylated H2A.X in response to DSB were evaluated by cytometric method. Cellular changes were also demonstrated at the level of transmission electron microscopy and optical and fluorescence microscopy. Lysosomal enzyme activities-cathepsin D and L and cell viability (MTT assay) were assessed spectrophotometrically. Results: Azelastine in concentrations of 15-25 µM induced degradation processes, vacuolization, increase in cathepsin D and L activity, and LC3 protein activation. By increasing ROS, it also caused DNA damage and blocked cells in the S phase of the cell cycle. At the concentrations of 45-90 µM, azelastine clearly promoted apoptosis by activation of caspase 3/7 and inactivation of Bcl-2 protein. Fragmentation of cell nucleus was confirmed by DAPI staining. Changes were also found in the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, whose damage was confirmed by staining with rhodamine 123 and in the MTT test. Azelastine decreased the mitotic index and induced mitotic catastrophe. Studies demonstrated the multidirectional effects of azelastine on HeLa cells, including anti-proliferative, cytotoxic, autophagic, and apoptotic properties, which were the predominant mechanism of death. The revealed novel properties of azelastine may be practically used in anti-cancer therapy in the future.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Utility of Environmental Exposure Unit Challenge Protocols for the Study of Allergic Rhinitis Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper explores how the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) experimental model can be used to further our understanding of pharmacotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

RECENT FINDINGS

EEUs are used increasingly for the study of combination therapies, immunotherapies, and novel AR treatments. A combined antihistamine/corticosteroid nasal spray formulation was seen to have a faster onset of action relative to the therapies individually in the Environmental Exposure Chamber. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets are both safe and efficacious as evaluated by the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The Kingston EEU found that a novel peptide-based immunotherapy approach to be effective in reducing grass pollen-induced AR. Lastly, nasal filters were determined to reduce seasonal AR symptoms, given out-of-season in the Denmark Environmental Exposure Unit. EEUs are controlled, replicable models that provide valuable insight into the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and dose-related impacts of AR therapeutics, with direct clinical relevance.

Lack of effect of Timothy grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet on birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND

Timothy grass pollen allergen extract tablets (Grastek) are standardized sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis. Many grass allergic patients are also cosensitized to birch pollen. Whether Timothy grass SLIT-T can confer symptomatic benefits for birch pollen-induced AR symptoms is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the treatment effect of Timothy grass SLIT-T for birch pollen-induced AR in participants sensitized to both grass and birch pollen using an environmental exposure unit (EEU).

METHODS

This study was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that enrolled participants aged 18 to 65 years allergic to both timothy grass and birch pollen. After a baseline EEU birch pollen challenge, in which a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 6 of 12 was required for enrollment, participants were randomized to receive Timothy grass SLIT-T or placebo taken once daily for 4 months. No confirmatory grass pollen challenge was performed. The primary end point was the change in TNSS averaged from assessments from hours 2 to 5 during the posttreatment birch pollen challenge compared with baseline. The secondary and exploratory end points included temporally identical changes in total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), and individual symptom scores.

RESULTS

The difference in TNSS reduction after 4 months of therapy between the Timothy grass SLIT-T and placebo group was not significant (P = .83). Reductions in TOSS (P = .19) and TRSS (P = .67) were also comparable between groups. Findings between groups for individual symptom scores were similar (all P > .40), except for watery eyes, in which symptom reduction was slightly better in the placebo arm (P = .01). Timothy grass SLIT-T was well tolerated, and no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

A bystander effect of grass SLIT-T on birch pollen-induced AR symptoms was not detected. Symptomatic benefits of grass SLIT-T are likely allergen specific.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02394600.

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber

BACKGROUND

A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP).

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP.

CONCLUSION

MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

Onset of action for loratadine tablets for the symptomatic control of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults challenged with ragweed pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit: a post hoc analysis of total symptom score

Background

Loratadine is a second-generation, non-sedating antihistamine used for the relief of allergic rhinitis symptoms. Previous studies reported that when loratadine was encapsulated, the onset of action for symptom relief was 180 min. However, unmodified loratadine tablets were not evaluated at that time. Using data from a previously published Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) study comparing azelastine nasal spray with loratadine tablets, cetirizine tablets, and placebo, this post hoc analysis determines the onset of action of loratadine tablets (i.e. unmodified) by analyzing the total symptom score for the relief of nasal and ocular seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms.

Methods

A Phase IV, randomized, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, four-way crossover study was conducted in the EEU. Seventy participants were randomized sequentially into one of the four treatments during ragweed pollen exposure. Nasal and ocular symptom scores were self-reported by the participants and recorded. The original study analysis was carried out by evaluating the nasal symptom scores only. For this post hoc analysis, both nasal and ocular data from the loratadine and placebo treatment arms were analyzed. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the onset of action of loratadine as measured by the change in total symptom score (TSS) from baseline in comparison to placebo. The onset of ocular symptom relief using the total ocular symptom score (TOSS) was also reported.

Results

Loratadine tablets demonstrated a significant and durable improvement in both TSS (P = .005) and TOSS (P = .013) at 75 min post-treatment administration compared to placebo. The mean proportion of participants reporting none or mild for all component symptoms of TSS and TOSS at 75 min and thereafter was significantly higher in the loratadine (TSS, P = .0005; TOSS, P ≤ .0001) vs. placebo treatment arm.

Conclusions

The onset of action of loratadine tablets was 75 min for the relief of nasal and ocular symptoms in adults with SAR. These results suggest a faster onset of action for loratadine tablets (75 min) compared to previously reported studies which were conducted with modified (i.e. gelatin-encapsulated) loratadine tablets (180 min).

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00561717

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13223-017-0227-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of nasal fluid β-defensin 2 levels in children with allergic rhinitis

AIM

Knowledge about the role of the innate immune system in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases has been expanding in recent years. Defensins are antimicrobial peptides that are components of the innate immune system. Defensins have strong efficacy against bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Moreover, they have regulatory functions in many physiologic processes such as antitumoral immunity, chemotaxis, inflammation, and wound healing. In this study, we aimed to investigate β-defensin 2 levels in the nasal fluids of children with allergic rhinitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study and control groups consisted of 28 patients with newly diagnosed allergic rhinitis who were not taking any medication, and 23 healthy children. Skin prick tests were performed on patients with allergic rhinitis and disease severity was assessed using the total symptom score. Nasal fluid samples were obtained using a modified polyurethane sponge absorption method from patients and control subjects. Nasal fluid β-defensin 2 levels were determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

RESULTS

The median value of nasal fluid β-defensin 2 levels were 173.8 pg/mL (interquartile range; 54.8-205.9 pg/mL) in allergic rhinitis group and 241.6 pg/mL (163.5-315.2 pg/mL) in the control group. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.01). Moreover, nasal fluid β-defensin 2 levels showed a significant negative correlation with total symptom scores (rho= -0.78, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with allergic rhinitis have reduced nasal fluid β-defensin 2 levels compared with controls, and β-defensin 2 levels were negatively correlated with disease severity. A more definite understanding of the roles of defensins and other antimicrobial peptides in allergic inflammation can open up new horizons in the management and treatment of these common diseases.

A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Focusing on Different Allergic Rhinitis Medications

This study is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of 4 allergic rhinitis (AR) drugs (loratadine, cetirizine, montelukast, and desloratadine) in reducing functional problems in patients, as indicated by rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. After an exhaustive search of electronic databases containing published scientific literature, high-quality randomized controlled trials relevant to our study were selected based on a stringent predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA 2.0) software. The literature search broadly identified 386 studies, and after a multistep screening and elimination process, a total of 13 randomized controlled trials contributed to this network meta-analysis. These 13 high-quality studies contained a combined total of 6867 patients with AR on 4 different medications. The results of network meta-analysis revealed that, compared with placebo, all 4 mediations treated AR effectively [cetirizine: mean: -0.62, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = -0.90 to -0.34, P < 0.001; loratadine: mean: -0.32, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.097, P = 0.005; montelukast: mean: -0.28, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.023, P = 0.033; desloratadine: mean: -0.39, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.18, P < 0.001]. A comparison of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of these 4 interventions clearly showed that cetirizine is the most optimal medication for AR treatment. In conclusion, this network meta-analysis provides the first evidence that cetirizine is the most efficacious treatment for AR compared with loratadine, montelukast, and desloratadine, significantly reducing the functional problems in patients with AR.

An algorithm recommendation for the pharmacological management of allergic rhinitis in the UK: a consensus statement from an expert panel

Allergic rhinitis is a frequent presenting problem in primary care in the UK, and has increased in prevalence over the last 30 years. When symptomatic, patients report significant reduction in their quality of life and impairment in school and work performance. Achieving adequate symptom control is pivotal to successful allergic rhinitis management, and relies mostly on pharmacotherapy. While it is recognised that most mild-moderate allergic rhinitis symptoms can be managed successfully in primary care, important gaps in general practitioner training in relation to allergic rhinitis have been identified. With the availability of new effective combination therapies, such as the novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single device (Dymista®; Meda), the majority of allergic rhinitis symptoms can be treated in the primary care setting. The primary objective of this consensus statement is to improve diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in primary care, and offer guidance on appropriate referral of difficult-to-treat patients into secondary care. The guidance provided herein outlines a sequential treatment pathway for allergic rhinitis in primary care that incorporates a considered approach to improve the management of allergic rhinitis symptoms and improve compliance and patient satisfaction with therapy. Adherence with this care pathway has the potential to limit the cost of providing effective allergic rhinitis management in the UK by avoiding unnecessary treatments and investigations, and avoiding the need for costly referrals to secondary care in the majority of allergic rhinitis cases. The fundamentals presented in this consensus article should apply in most health-care settings.

Clinical validation of controlled exposure to birch pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU)

BACKGROUND

The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada is a controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) that has been previously clinically validated for the use of ragweed and grass pollen in clinical studies. In this study we aim to validate the use of birch pollen to challenge allergic participants.

METHODS

A total of 59 volunteers were screened and 38 birch allergic participants and ten non-allergics completed the study, outside of tree pollen season. Participants had to have a minimum of 2-year history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the typical tree pollen season and have a positive skin prick test to birch allergen ≥5 mm from the control. Qualified participants were exposed to birch (Betula pendula) pollen for 4 h in the EEU and recorded their symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itch which comprised the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), as well as itchy/watery eyes, red/burning eyes and itching of ears/palate/throat which along with the TNSS comprised the total rhinoconjunctival symptom score (TRSS) along with Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) at baseline and at 30 min intervals for the duration of exposure, then hourly for up to 12 h from the start of exposure.

RESULTS

Allergic participants reported a gradual rise in TNSS and TRSS, reaching a mean and standard error of the mean of 7.08 ± 0.45 and 11.58 ± 0.93 respectively by 180 min from the start of exposure. Symptoms gradually declined to near baseline values following departing from the unit, reaching 1.9 and 2.7 by 450 min. Allergic participants reported significantly higher TNSS than non-allergics starting from 30 min (p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections), maintaining maximum significance from 60 to 300 min (p < 0.0001) and losing significance by 420 min. TRSS and PNIF followed similar trends as those seen with TNSS. Participants were phenotyped using previously published definitions using the TNSS into Early Phase Responders (EPR, 57.8 %), protracted EPR (pEPR, 39.5 %), and Dual Phase Responders (DPR, 2.7 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The EEU can competently challenge birch allergic participants and achieve statistically significant changes in symptoms and nasal airflow, while such changes are not reported in non-allergic controls. Trial registration NCT02351830 clinicaltrials.gov.

Quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis: a clinical trial comparing the use of bilastine versus loratadine

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in health-related quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis treated with bilastine 20 mg compared to those treated with loratadine 10 mg.

DESIGN

This was a prospective randomised double-blinded study.

SETTING

Otolaryngology outpatient clinics in Criciúma, state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-three patients, aged between 18 and 63 years, of whom 36 were treated with loratadine 10 mg and 37 with bilastine 20 mg with medication administered once a day for 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was quality of life as assessed by the modified Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQm), which was applied at baseline and after 10 days of treatment.

RESULTS

The use of bilastine 20 mg or loratadine 10 mg significantly reduced RQLQm scores after 10 days of treatment (P < 0.001); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Health-related quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis improved significantly after 10 days of treatment with loratadine and bilastine, and the effectiveness of both was equivalent.

Efficacy and safety of using a warming needle for persistent allergic rhinitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Many previous studies have shown the potential therapeutic effect of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis. Most of these studies, however, were limited by the short duration of observations and lack of sham acupuncture as the control group. Our preliminary experiments showed that the use of a warm needling achieved a much more persistent effect in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) compared with simple acupuncture therapy. Hence, we have designed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which the first-line medication loratadine will be used as the control group, and the effect of warm needling therapy will be evaluated through long-term observation.

Methods/design

The trial is designed as a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, single-blinded (outcome assessors), non-inferiority trial. A total of 98 patients with persistent AR will be randomly assigned into two groups. Patients in the treatment group will be treated with warm needling at GV14 and acupuncture at EX-HN3, ST2, LI20, EX-HN8, GV23, LU7, LU5 and LI4 three times a week, for a total of 4 weeks. Patients in the control group will be treated with oral loratadine 10 mg/day for 4 weeks. The primary outcome will be the change in the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) from baseline to that at 6 months after treatment during the follow-up period. The secondary outcomes will include the Total Non-nasal Symptom Score and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, changes in the TNSS from baseline to that at 2 and 4 weeks during treatment, and 3 months after treatment during the follow-up period. Outcomes will be measured at 2 and 4 weeks, and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Any side effects of treatment will be observed and recorded.

Discussion

We expect that the study results will provide evidence to determine the effects of warm needling compared with loratadine. Our final goal of the study is to evaluate the difference in the short-term and long-term effects between the two therapeutic methods, especially the long-term effect of warm needling.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02339714. Registered on 14 January 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1432-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nasal fluid secretory immunoglobulin A levels in children with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

There is growing knowledge about the immunoregulatory and possibly preventative roles of immunoglobulin A (IgA) in allergic diseases. This study aimed to investigate secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) levels in the nasal fluid of children who were either being treated for their allergic rhinitis (AR) with intranasal mometasone furoate or were not receiving treatment.

METHODS

The study population contained 55 children with persistent AR. Group I included 27 newly diagnosed AR patients not taking any medication and group II included 28 patients treated with intranasal steroids for at least 6 months. 27 healthy control subjects were also enrolled in the study. Total symptom scores (TSS) were calculated for each patient. Nasal secretions were obtained using a new modified polyurethane sponge absorption method, and samples were analysed by ELISA.

RESULTS

The median value for nasal fluid SIgA level in each group was 127.2μg/ml (interquartile range; 67.3-149.6) in group I, 133.9μg/ml (102.1-177.8) in group II and 299.8μg/ml (144.5-414.0) in the control group. Groups I and II both had statistically significant reductions in nasal fluid SIgA levels compared to the control group (p<0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups I and II (p=0.35). A statistically significant and negative correlation also existed between TSS and nasal fluid SIgA levels in both groups I and II (p=0.006, rho=-0.512 and p=0.01, rho=-0.481, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

SIgA levels in the nasal fluid are significantly reduced in children with AR independent of treatment and are negatively correlated with the TSS.

Recent pharmacological developments in the treatment of perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a major negative impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and carries a high socio economic burden. This is particularly the case for patients who experience symptoms for extended periods of time (i.e. those with perennial (PAR) or persistent AR (PER), depending on the classification system used). This review covers available pharmacological advances and recent developments in the treatment of PAR or PER.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacological AR treatment is used to reduce symptom burden and help restore patients' normal daily routine. Traditionally, non-sedating antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) were the two drug classes recommended for use first line. These, along with antileukotrienes, decongestants, mast cell stabilizers and anticholinergics, constituted the bulk of the AR treatment arsenal. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the most recent addition to that arsenal. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered in a single spray and has surpassed available therapies in terms of symptom control and treatment response. Other relatively new treatments for PAR or PER include H3 antihistamines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, cellulose powders and micro-emulsions, novel biomolecular formulations and omalizumab. Each of these new additions is reviewed here.

EXPERT OPINION

A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.

Effectiveness of allergic rhinitis treatments in real-life with a focus on MP-AzeFlu

For any allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment, it is crucial to provide evidence not only of efficacy (assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) but also of effectiveness in real-life. Observational studies provide valuable data on the use and results associated with interventions prescribed in real-life. However, real-life evidence supporting available AR treatment options is sparse with effectiveness only established for oral antihistamines (desloratadine, ebastine), intranasal corticosteroids (mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate (FP)), allergen immunotherapy and omalizumab. A novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and FP in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) shows great promise, with the effectiveness observed in real-life exceeding that noted in RCTs. This review summarises real-life data on MP-AzeFlu, which provides rapid and sustained symptom control irrespective of patient age, AR phenotype or disease severity. We call for high quality real-life research in addition to RCTs to inform future AR treatment guidelines.

Safety evaluation of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate) for allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

As a chronic disease, allergic rhinitis (AR) requires regular use of allergy medications for the effective management of symptoms. It is therefore imperative that AR treatments not only provide adequate symptom control but are also well tolerated.

AREAS COVERED

MP29-02 (Dymista, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the first new class of AR medication (WHO ATC R01AD58) since the introduction of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) almost 50 years ago. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate delivered in a single spray. Here we review all the safety information relevant to MP29-02, from the initial phase I bioavailability and disposition data, to the phase III 14-day and 52-week data and finally to phase IV safety data collected during MP29-02 use in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

MP29-02 is the first real therapeutic advance in AR since the introduction of INS and has the potential to change the way this disease is managed, simplifying AR treatment regimens to a single puff in each nostril twice a day. Patients will benefit from superior symptom relief MP29-02 compared to INS with the added assurance that the safety of MP29-02 has been confirmed in the short term and long term as well as in real life.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

A role for the intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is a very common disease and represents a health problem for both children and adults globally. Rhinitis can be allergic or occur without any IgE-mediated sensitization to aeroallergens. Common symptoms include nasal congestion, postnasal drainage, nasal itching, rhinorrhea and sneezing. The most effective drugs for the treatment of rhinitis are antihistamines and topical glucocorticoids. MP29-02 (Dymista(®)) is a novel intranasal formulation combining the second-generation antihistamine, azelastine hydrochloride, with fluticasone propionate in a single device that has recently been developed. Here, we review the efficacy and safety profile of this intranasal formulation in the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

Clinical validation of controlled grass pollen challenge in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU)

RATIONALE

The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized ragweed pollen. We sought to clinically validate the use of grass pollen in the EEU.

METHODS

Healthy volunteers with a history of AR symptoms during grass pollen season and supportive skin test responses attended the EEU for 3 hrs of rye grass pollen exposure (Lolium Perenne). Non-atopic controls were also recruited. Participants assessed individual rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms to generate Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS; max 12) and Total Symptom Score (TSS; max 24) and recorded Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) q30min while in the EEU. Participants returned the following day for an additional 3 hrs of pollen exposure. Two separate groups allowed for the exploration of lower vs. higher pollen concentrations and subsequent effects on symptoms.

RESULTS

78 participants were screened, of whom 39 were eligible and attended the 2x3h EEU visits, plus 8 non-atopic controls. Mean TSS, TNSS and PNIF values amongst participants in the higher pollen concentration group (target 3500 grains/m3) after the first 3 hr exposure were 18.9, 9.7 and 68 L/min, respectively. In comparison, mean TSS, TNSS and PNIF values in the lower pollen concentration (2500 grains/m3) group were only 13.3, 7.6, and 82 L/min, respectively. The subsequent day of pollen exposure did not appreciably alter the maximal TSS/TNSSs, but rather resulted in a more rapid onset of symptomatology, with higher mean scores at the 30 min, 60 min and 90 min timepoints. The non-atopic controls remained asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides clinical validation of the ability to generate allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms amongst grass-allergic individuals in the EEU.

Current recommendations and emerging options for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases and represents a global health problem, currently affecting up to 30% of the general population, with a continuously increasing prevalence and significant comorbidities and complications. The aim of this review is to provide an update on AR treatment, with a focus on current therapies defined by AR and its impact on asthma guidelines and with a particular emphasis on new and future therapeutic perspectives.