Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Second-Generation Antihistamine 1 Receptor Blockers and Japanese Kampo Shoseiryuto for Treating Perennial Allergic Rhinitis in Outpatient Settings in Japan

Objectives: Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is common in Japan. Second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) are commonly used for its treatment; however, it remains unclear which SGA is the most cost-effective. Additionally, the pharmacoeconomics of Japanese Kampo shoseiryuto (which was traditionally prescribed to treat PAR in Japan) remains poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of various SGAs and shoseiryuto for the treatment of PAR in Japanese outpatients, from the healthcare payer's perspective. Methods: The most cost- and clinically effective SGAs were determined from a list of 6 SGAs (bepotastine, 10 mg; cetirizine, 10 mg; ebastine, 10 mg; epinastine, 20 mg; loratadine, 10 mg; and olopatadine, 5 mg) together with shoseiryuto, using the overall improvement rate through a model-based analysis. The time horizon was 28 days. Costs were determined based on the Medical Fee Index in 2020. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address the uncertainty of the base-case results. Results: Overall, bepotastine (10 mg) and ebastine (10 mg) were cost-effective. Shoseiryuto was less cost-effective than ebastine (10 mg) (dominated). Ebastine (10 mg) was the most cost-effective option based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Ebastine (10 mg) was the most cost-effective treatment strategy for PAR among the agents evaluated in this study. This insight could aid in establishing an appropriate formulary for treating PAR in hospitals and communities.

Efficacy of Topical Azelastine and Fluticasone Dipropionate Combination in Children With Adenoid Hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE

Adenoid hypertrophy (AH) is one of the common childhood diseases. Surgical and non-surgical treatment of AH in children is planned according to the severity of symptoms and associated complications. In recent years, treatment methods with intranasal sprays have been reported quite frequently in uncomplicated cases. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a new combination of azelastine - fluticasone (AZE-FLU) (137mcg azelastine and 50mcg fluticasone) nasal spray in children with uncomplicated AH.

METHODS

Sixty-five children diagnosed with AH were included in the study. The mean age of the children was 7.42 ± 2.26 (4-13 years). The cohort consisted of 29 males and 36 females. All children were evaluated clinically and endoscopically. AZE-FLU nasal spray was applied to both nostrils twice a day for three months. Adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores were evaluated before treatment and at the end of the 12th week.

RESULTS

At the end of 24 weeks of AZE-FLU application, there was a statistically significant decrease in both adenoid/choana ratio and symptom scores. While the initial adenoid/choana (A/C) score was 3.57 ± 0.58, it decreased to 1.74 ± 0.61 following treatment. A dramatic decrease in total symptom scores was observed. The total symptom score average was 15.63 ± 1.28 before treatment, while it was 2.31 ± 1.4 after the treatment with the difference being statistically significant (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the effectiveness of AZE-FLU nasal spray on AH was investigated for the first time. This treatment provides an effective alternative to the surgical approach in children with uncomplicated adenoid hypertrophy. Using this protocol, 96% of patients were removed from the surgery list.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

is IV.

[Complications and side effects of conservative treatment of rhinological diseases]

BACKGROUND

The spectrum of rhinological diseases is wide, as is that of their drug-based treatment. Only 1272 compounds coded R01 (nasal preparations) are listed in the ATC group (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification). Conservative therapy of rhinological diseases additionally includes systemic (often oral) application of corticosteroids, antibiotics and immunomodulators.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to outline possible complications of medication (subdivided into classes of ingredients) commonly used to treat rhinological diseases in hospitals. Useful therapeutic and preventive measures will be presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the expert information in the current pharmacological drug index (ATC) for the R01 group as well as literature research in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases, medication used for the treatment of rhinological diseases was analysed in terms of side effects and their frequency.

RESULTS

Common side effects of intranasally applied medication are local irritations, burning, dryness and epistaxis. Orally or intravenously applied rhinological medication can affect the organs and lead to side effects such as cardiac dysrhythmia or alterations of the blood count. It is recommended that the therapeutic be selected on an individual basis and that the patient be thoroughly informed about possible side effects.

CONCLUSION

Particularly when treating children or pregnant or breastfeeding women, the indications of all nasal preparations should be checked carefully. The huge variety of rhinologicals enables an optimal individual selection on the basis of consideration of known side effects.

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.

Effect of nasal antihistamine on secretory IgA in nasal lavage of rats

The humoral IgA is an immunoglobulin which plays a defensive role for organisms on mucosal surfaces. Today, intranasal antihistamines are effectively used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In our study, the effect of azelastine hydrochloride-a nasal antihistaminic-on humoral IgA of the nasal mucosa has been reviewed empirically. Twenty-four female Sprague-Dawley rats were included in our study. The rats were divided into three groups randomly. Group 1(azelastine hydrochloride): rats in this group had nasal azelastine hydrochloride (0.05%) applied for 30 days at 10 µl/nostril dosage. Group 2 (saline): saline (0.09%) was applied to the rats in this group for 30 days at 10 µl/nostril dosage. Group 3 (control): no application was made throughout the study. The chemicals applied in Groups 1 and 2 were applied to both nostrils by mounting a flexible micropipette to the end of an insulin injector. At the beginning of the study, nasal lavage was performed to both nostrils of the rats in every group on the 15th and 30th day to aspirate irrigation solution (distilled water). The aspirated liquids were kept at - 80° temperature and reviewed together at the end of study. Within-group comparisons: in Group 1 (azelastine hydrochloride), the humoral IgA value on the 15th day was significantly higher than the basal value (p = 0.037). There is a significant difference between humoral IgA value on the 30th day and humoral IgA value on the 15th day (p = 0.045). In Group 2 (saline), no significant difference is available between basal, 15th day and 30th day humoral IgA values (p = 0.265). In Group 3 (control), no significant difference is available between basal, 15th day and 30th day humoral IgA values (p = 0.374). Between-group comparison: there is no significant difference in between-group humoral IgA basal values (p = 0.714). On days 15 and 30, Humoral IgA value of Group 1 was significantly higher than that of Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.013, p = 0.024, respectively). According to the results we achieved in our study, nasal antihistaminic (azelastine hydrochloride) significantly increases the level of humoral IgA. Our study is the first one in the literature to reveal a relation between nasal antihistaminic and humoral IgA and there is a further need for clinical, randomized and prospective studies.

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis is a mainstay of treatment for patients with mild to severe nasal allergy symptoms. A wide array of medical treatment options is available for both episodic relief and prevention of symptoms. Treatment regimens can be tailored to individual patients based on nasal symptoms, severity, and associated atopic disorders. The purposes of this review are to identify available pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis, to discuss the benefits and limitations of each treatment option, and to help guide practitioners in providing optimal medical treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis was performed using a PubMed search. Secondary sources within indexed studies were also compiled to review current medication options for patients with allergic rhinitis. The benefits and limitations of each class of allergy medication were reviewed to provide information on selecting the optimal treatment regimen for patients with allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis that are currently used in clinical practice include antihistamines, corticosteroids, leukotriene modifiers, mast cell stabilizers, expectorants, and decongestants. Symptoms of nasal congestion, itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea can be targeted with specific therapies that modulate the acute-phase or late-phase allergic reactions. Associated atopic disorders, including conjunctivitis and asthma, can help guide medication selection.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis offer numerous options that are safe, effective, and readily available to target specific nasal symptoms. Symptom-based selection of allergy medications can result in optimal treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.

Clinical practice. Allergic rhinitis

A 35-year-old woman has a history of nasal congestion on most days of the year, dating back to her late teens. She has chronic nasal drainage, which is clear and thick. Her congestion is worst in the late summer and early fall and again in the early spring; at these times, she also has sneezing, nasal itching, and cough. Five years ago, she had an episode of shortness of breath with wheezing on a day when her nasal symptoms were severe, but this episode resolved spontaneously and has not recurred. Her eyes do not bother her. Over-the-counter oral antihistamines help her symptoms a little, as do nasal decongestants, which she uses occasionally. Her 6-year-old son has similar symptoms. How should this case be managed?

Current and future directions in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common pediatric problem that significantly affects sleep, learning, performance, and quality of life. In addition, it is associated with significant comorbidities and complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an update on the epidemiology, comorbidities, pathophysiology, current treatment, and future direction of pediatric AR.

METHODS

Literature reviews in each of these areas were conducted, and the results were incorporated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AR is increasing in the pediatric population and is associated with significant morbidity, comorbidities, and complications. The mainstay of current treatment strategies includes allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen specific immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, diagnosis will be improved by microarrayed recombinant allergen testing and therapy will be expanded to include emerging treatments such as sublingual immunotherapy and combination products.

Radiographic distribution of drops and sprays within the sinonasal cavities

BACKGROUND

Topical nasal sprays are commonly prescribed for sinonasal disease. Nasal drops applied in a head-down position are described alternatively to sprays. Multiple research methods have investigated the deposition pattern of intranasal medications, each with limitations. This pilot study analyzed the use of a conebeam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner to study deposition patterns of intranasal sprays and drops using radiopaque contrast solution.

METHODS

Nine volunteers participated in this two-trial study. In trial 1, participants instilled 3 sprays of contrast into each nostril. After 3 minutes a CBCT scan was performed. In trial 2, 3 drops of contrast were instilled into the participants' nostrils in the "vertex-to-floor" position. Again, after 3 minutes a CBCT scan was performed. Two otolaryngologists and a neuroradiologist reviewed the images and scored 21 sites within the sinonasal cavity for the presence of contrast.

RESULTS

Contrast was detected in the nasal vestibule and inferior nasal vault in nearly every trial with the spray and drops. Nasal spray was more diffusely distributed within the nasal cavity and was detected at a greater proportion on the floor of the nose, inferior meatus, anterior inferior nasal cavity, and nasopharynx. Neither spray nor drops were consistently detected in spaces superior to the middle turbinate.

CONCLUSION

Radiopaque contrast delivered by nasal spray and drops were detected by the CBCT scanner, with a significant difference at one subsite. Neither spray nor drops were detected in superior nasal spaces. The CBCT scan provides an alternative to conventional CT scans in future studies using this technique.

Effectiveness of twice daily azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Azelastine nasal spray (Allergodil^®, Lastin^®, Afluon^®; Meda AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is a fast-acting, efficacious and well-tolerated H1-receptor antagonist for the treatment of rhinitis. In addition it also has mast-cell stabilizing and anti-inflammatory properties, reducing the concentration of leukotrienes, kinins and platelet activating factor in vitro and in vivo, as well as inflammatory cell migration in rhinitis patients. Well-controlled studies in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial rhinitis (PR) or vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) confirm that azelastine nasal spray has a rapid onset of action, and improves nasal symptoms associated with rhinitis such as nasal congestion and post-nasal drip. Azelastine nasal spray is effective at the lower dose of 1 spray as well at a dose of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, but with an improved tolerability profile compared to the 2-spray per nostril twice daily regimen. Compared with intranasal corticosteroids, azelastine nasal spray has a faster onset of action and a better safety profile, showing at least comparable efficacy with fluticasone propionate (Flonase^®; GSK, USA), and a superior efficacy to mometasone furoate (Nasonex^®; Schering Plough, USA). In combination with fluticasone propionate, azelastine nasal spray exhibits greater efficacy than either agent used alone, and this combination may provide benefit for patients with difficult to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. In addition, azelastine nasal spray can be used on an as-needed basis without compromising clinical efficacy. Compared with oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray also demonstrates superior efficacy and a more rapid onset of action, and is effective even in patients who did not respond to previous oral antihistamine therapy. Unlike most oral antihistamines, azelastine nasal spray is effective in alleviating nasal congestion, a particularly bothersome symptom for rhinitis sufferers. Azelastine nasal spray is well tolerated in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis. Bitter taste which seems to be associated with incorrect dosing technique is the most common side effect reported by patients, but this problem can be minimized by correct dosing technique.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

Azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

Rhinitis affects millions of people around the world, places a huge burden on the economy and reduces patients' health-related quality of life. Azelastine nasal spray is a second-generation antihistamine, indicated for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis in both adults and children. It offers a rapid onset of action (15 min) and flexibility of both dose (i.e., one or two sprays/nostril twice daily) as well as dosage (i.e., fixed or as needed). Compared with other agents used to treat allergic rhinitis, azelastine nasal spray exhibits superior efficacy to oral antihistamines (e.g., desloratadine and cetirizine), other intranasal antihistamines (e.g., levocabastine) and the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate, and comparable efficacy to the potent intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP). Combination therapy with intranasal FP has the potential to enhance clinical benefit, as the combination of azelastine and FP nasal sprays reduce symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients more than either agent alone. Azelastine nasal spray has an excellent safety profile.

Comparison of Azelastine versus Triamcinolone Nasal Spray in Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis

Background

Intranasal antihistamine has not been thoroughly studied in the treatment of rhinitis of different etiologies. This study was designed to show the comparative efficacy of nasal antihistamine and nasal corticosteroid in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

Methods

A comparison of the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray (AZENS) versus triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray (TANS) on total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (nPIFR), and nasal cytology was studied in a 2-week randomized parallel-group trial. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were also analyzed.

Results

The study group consisted of 132 patients (100 women and 32 men) with a mean age of 33.14 ± 12.52 years. Sixty-nine patients had AR and 63 had NAR. Although TNSS including sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, congestion—but not anosmia—significantly improved in both groups, intranasal azelastine reduced ocular symptoms greatly compared with intranasal triamcinolone (p = 0.05). Patients with NAR seemed to respond more to TANS, whereas AZENS was more useful in AR. The nPIFR improved in AR and NAR, with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Neither intranasal azelastine nor intranasal triamcinolone changed cytology in nasal lavage. Both medications were well tolerated, but AZENS led to more adverse events than TANS (56.9 and 19%, respectively; p = 0.001), mainly because of bitter taste. Scores on each domain of generic HRQoL (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and mini–rhinitis QoL questionnaires, as well as ESS score, significantly improved in both groups, irrespective of rhinitis etiology.

Conclusions

In this first comparative demonstration, AZENS appears to be as effective as triamcinolone in symptom scores, nPIFR, ESS, and HRQoL, equally in AR and NAR.

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.