Nasal-Ocular Reflexes and Their Role in the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis With Intranasal Steroids

A Clinical Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of MP-AzeFlu Nasal Spray in Comparison to Commercially Available Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Sprays in Chinese Volunteers with Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu nasal spray in comparison to commercially available azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate sprays in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

We conducted a 14-day multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active controlled prospective clinical study in adult and adolescent patients with AR, who had moderate-to-severe symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in combined 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (morning [AM] + afternoon [PM]). The safety profile of the study medications was assessed through the recording, reporting, and analysis of baseline medical conditions, adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and focused nasal examination. Three hundred patients per treatment group were randomized, which led to a total sample size estimation of 900 patients.

RESULTS

MP-AzeFlu group showed significantly higher symptom reduction for the entire 2-week treatment period in rTNSS when compared with the AZE group (LS mean difference: - 1.96; 95% CI: - 2.53, - 1.39; p < 0.0001), or the FLU group (LS mean difference: - 0.98; 95% CI: - 1.55, - 0.41; p = 0.0007). The results of adult RQLQ showed improvement in QoL in all treatment groups. Except for dysgeusia (bitter taste) that was reported by more patients (13 [4.3%]) in the MP-AzeFlu group, the incidence of all other TEAEs in the MP-AzeFlu group was comparable or even lower than in other treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu, when administered as one spray per nostril twice daily for 14 days, alleviated AR symptoms in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe AR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03599791, Registered June 29, 2018, retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03599791 .

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor stimulation: A new approach for stimulating tear secretion in dry eye disease

Tear secretion is regulated by the lacrimal functional unit consisting of afferent and efferent nerve innervation. The afferent arm consists of trigeminal nociceptors on the ocular surface and nasal mucosa. When stimulated by agonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on nerve endings in the nose initiate a reflex arc resulting in instantaneous tear secretion. Pharmacologic nasal neural stimulation to increase endogenous tear production is a novel approach to treating dry eye disease.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray (GSP301) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = - 0.99; [95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.79]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTNSS (MD = - 1.05; [95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), rTOSS (MD = - 0.50; [95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.29]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTOSS (MD = - 0.64; [95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.26]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), PNSS (MD = - 1.01; [95% CI - 1.32 to - 0.69]; P < 0.01; I² = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = - 0.43; [95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.30]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43-2.45]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run.

Naso-ocular neuropeptide interactions in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis

Background

Ocular as well as nasal symptoms contribute to allergic response but remain poorly characterized. The aim of this study was to analyze the levels of substance P (SP), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in tears and nasal secretions of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC), allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis, while exploring possible mechanisms of naso-ocular interactions.

Methods

A total of 21 patients with ARC, 17 with allergic rhinitis, 13 with allergic conjunctivitis, and 15 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Nasal secretions and tears were collected. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were recorded and levels of substance P, VIP, and CGRP were measured.

Results

SP levels in nasal secretions and tears were significantly higher in the ARC, AR, and AC groups. Similar results were obtained for VIP levels. CGRP levels in tears were also significantly higher in the 3 patient groups. The level of SP was significantly higher in the nasal secretions than in the tears of the ARC, AR, and AC patient groups. The level of VIP was significantly higher in the nasal secretions than in the tears in the ARC and AR groups. The level of CGRP was significantly higher in the nasal secretions than in the tears in the ARC and AC groups. Finally, both of the nasal and tear levels of SP and VIP but not CGRP were positively correlated with the visual analog scale (VAS) score in the patients with ARC.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggested that SP, VIP, and CGRP play important roles in the mechanism of ARC and that nasal neurotransmitters and neuropeptides might have more important roles than those of ocular origin.

Itch in Organs Beyond the Skin

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to explore mechanisms, causes, and therapies of itchy conditions involving organs beyond the skin including the eyes, ears, nose, and genital region.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conditions which cause itch in these locations vary from skin diseases that extend to these areas (i.e., atopic dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, and psoriasis) to allergic conditions (i.e., allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis) and to neuropathic conditions that relate to afferent nerve fiber damage (i.e., lumbosacral radiculopathies in genital disease) as well as some psychological components. Similar to the skin, itch in these locations involves a complex interaction between epithelial cells, unmyelinated C nerve fibers, and cytokines. There is also a significant component of neural sensitization phenomena. Mechanisms of itch beyond the skin are currently an understudied topic that affects millions of patients. Future research should be done in order to further understand the pathophysiology of itch in these body sites.

Ocular symptoms improvement from intranasal triamcinolone compared with placebo and intranasal fluticasone propionate: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a prevalent disease, which can be classed as seasonal (SAR) or perennial. In addition to nasal symptoms, up to 75% of sufferers experience itching, redness, and tearing of the eyes. Intranasal corticosteroids are effective in controlling the allergic nasal symptoms, and increasing evidence suggests that they also can relieve some of the allergic ocular symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the magnitude of efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) compared with placebo or fluticasone propionate (FP) on ocular symptom improvement in patients with SAR.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of summary data from 8 randomized, double- or single-blind trials, assessing mean change in total or individual (tearing, redness, and itching) eye symptoms was conducted. Trials that administered a daily dose of 220 μg TAA vs placebo or 200 μg FP over at least 2 weeks' duration, in patients aged 12 years or older with SAR, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Total eye symptom reduction after 2 weeks was greater with TAA than placebo, with a mean treatment difference of -0.32 (95% CI, -0.444 to -0.203). In addition, significant reductions in tearing, but not itching or redness, were observed after TAA treatment compared with placebo. No significant treatment difference was seen between TAA and FP in total ocular symptoms at any of the time points measured (weeks 1, 2, 3, and overall). All treatments exhibited similar safety profiles and were deemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis demonstrated the positive clinical improvements TAA has on total ocular allergy symptoms, especially tearing, in addition to its recognized nasal symptom efficacy in SAR.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily and once-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 25 μg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 50 μg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 μg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 μg or once-daily 50 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 μg), mometasone (25 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Local allergic rhinitis: Implications for management

A significant proportion of rhinitis patients without systemic IgE-sensitisation tested by skin prick test and serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) display nasal reactivity upon nasal allergen provocation test (NAPT). This disease phenotype has been termed local allergic rhinitis (LAR). LAR is an underdiagnosed entity affecting children and adults from different parts of the world, with moderate-to-severe symptoms, impairment of quality of life and rapid progression to symptom worsening. LAR is a stable phenotype and not merely an initial state of AR. Allergic rhinitis and LAR share many clinical features including a positive NAPT response, markers of type 2 nasal inflammation including sIgE in nasal secretions and a significant rate of asthma development. LAR should be considered as a differential diagnosis in those subjects of any age with symptoms suggestive of AR but no evidence of systemic atopy. Although LAR pathophysiology is partially unknown, in some patients sIgE can be demonstrated directly in the nasal secretions and/or indirectly via positive responses in basophil activation test (BAT). LAR can coexist with other rhinitis phenotypes, especially AR. The diagnosis currently relies on the positivity of NAPT to a single or multiple allergens. NAPT has high sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility, and it is considered the gold standard. BAT and the measurement of nasal sIgE can also contribute to LAR diagnosis. LAR patients benefit from the same therapeutic strategies than AR individuals, including the avoidance of allergen exposure and the pharmacotherapy. Moreover, several recent studies support the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy for LAR, which opens a window of treatment opportunity in these patients.

Formulation Development and Evaluation of Diphenhydramine Nasal Nano-Emulgel

The aim of present study is to formulate diphenhydramine nasal nano-emulgels, having lipophilic nano-sized interior droplets, with better penetration for targeted controlled delivery to mucous membrane. Different diphenhydramine (DPH) nasal nano-emulgels were developed having propylene glycol and olive oil (as permeation enhancers) by using RSM for optimization and then evaluated for physico-chemical characteristics and thermal stability. In-vitro drug release through cellophane membrane was conducted and results were analyzed statistically. Further, gelation, mucoadhesive stress, and ex-vivo and histopathological studies were performed on optimized formulation by using goat nasal membrane. Among all formulations, E2 showed maximum DPH release at higher concentration olive oil (4%) and lower concentration propylene glycol (PG) (25%) within 4 h. All formulations have followed first-order kinetics and drug release mechanism was Fickian diffusion. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) were used to compare results among formulations and 3D surface plots were constructed also. Optimized formulation showed immediate prolong gelation in artificial nasal mucosa and excellent mucoadhesive property (72.5 ± 1.5 dynes/cm²). Approximately 97.1% optimized formulation was permeated through membrane within 4 h, having a high flux rate (33.19 ± 0.897 μg/cm²/min) with diffusion coefficient (0.000786 ± 4.56 × 10^-5 cm²/min) while drug contents remained on mucosal membrane for 24 h. Histopathologically, change on intra-mucosal surface of excised membrane was observed due to passage of drug through it. In summary, combination of PG and olive oil in nasal DPH nano-emulgel can be utilized successfully for targeted controlled delivery. The optimized formulation has excellent permeability and prolonged residence time on mucosal surface, which prove its good anti-histaminic activity in case of allergic rhinitis.

Allergy, Histamine and Antihistamines

This chapter concentrates on the role in allergic disease of histamine acting on H₁-receptors. It is clear that allergy has its roots in the primary parasite rejection response in which mast cell-derived histamine creates an immediate hostile environment and eosinophils are recruited for killing. This pattern is seen in allergic rhinitis where the early events of mucus production and nasal itching are primarily histamine mediated whereas nasal blockage is secondary to eosinophil infiltration and activation. In asthma, the role of histamine is less clear. Urticaria is characterized by mast cell driven pruritic wheal and flare-type skin reactions that usually persist for less than 24 h. Although the events leading to mast cell degranulation have been unclear for many years, it is now becoming evident that urticaria has an autoimmune basis. Finally, the properties of first- and second-generation H₁-antihistamines and their role in allergic is discussed.

Nasal and ocular responses after specific and nonspecific nasal challenges in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Different nasal challenges induce neural and immune response leading to nasal and ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The release of neural mediators from nasal mucosa and conjunctiva after no-specific challenges in patients with SAR remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the release of mediators from the nose and conjunctiva with symptoms after different nasal challenges in patients with SAR.

METHODS

Three types of consecutive nasal challenges were performed outside the pollen season in 25 patients with SAR. Challenges consisted of 500 biological units (BU) of allergen, 80 μg of histamine, and 1 mL of 2% hypertonic saline per nostril, within 24-hour and 72-hour intervals, respectively. Before and 15 minutes after challenges, evaluation of symptoms was performed with a visual analog scale. Concentrations of tryptase, eosinophil cationic protein in nasal lavages after 15 minutes, and substance P in tears after 5 minutes were measured with enzyme immunoassays.

RESULTS

Concentrations of substance P in tears were significantly higher after nonspecific challenges. Substance P concentration in tears significantly correlated with eye itchiness after histamine and hypertonic saline and with tearing after allergen. Ocular symptoms correlated significantly with tryptase concentration in nasal lavage collected 15 minutes after allergen challenge. There is a significant correlation in tear volume comparing different nasal challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal challenges with allergen, histamine, or irritants outside the pollen season induce a significant increase in nasal and ocular symptoms in patients with SAR. Interaction of the early-phase response and neurogenic inflammation define the pattern and severity of eye symptoms.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

The anatomical and functional relationship between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis

There are numerous anatomic connections between the allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis. The most obvious reason is the physical connection via the nasolacrimal apparatus. However, a closer look at innervation, circulatory, lymphatic, and neurogenic systems reveals much more than a physical connection. The eye is richly innervated by parasympathetic nerves that enter the eyes after traveling in conjunction with the parasympathetic input to the nasal cavity. Parasympathetic innervation governing the tear film and nasal secretion can intersect at the pterygopalatine ganglion. Neurogenic inflammation affects both the eye and the nose as evidenced by the presence of the same neurogenic factors. Venous flow is in the SOV area connecting the eye and the nose, once thought to be without valves. In the past, this thinking is the basis for concern about the danger triangle of the face. Recent literature has shown otherwise. Although valves are present, there are still pathways where bidirectional flow exists and a venous connection is made. The most likely area for venous communication is the pterygoid plexus and cavernous sinus. The venous flow and connections also offers a pathway for allergic shiners. Understanding the mutual connections between the nasal mucosa and the ocular surface can also affect treatment strategies.