A study of the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis from mountain cedar pollen

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Mountain cedar allergy: A review of current available literature

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature related to mountain cedar in terms of allergic disease and societal impact.

DATA SOURCES

English-language articles obtained through PubMed searches with relevance to mountain cedar allergies.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Articles with the following search terms were included: mountain cedar, Juniperus ashei, juniper, allergy, pollen, cedar fever, Jun a 1, and San Antonio.

RESULTS

A total of 61 relevant articles were selected regarding mountain cedar and its distribution, phylogenetics, allergens, potency, cross-reactivity, pollen counting and monitoring, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and future research.

CONCLUSION

Mountain cedar remains a major cause of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in the south central United States during the winter months. Key treatment strategies involve a combination of allergen avoidance, pharmacologic therapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy. Allergists can help affected patients in their management of "cedar fever."

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.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) by providing direct delivery of medication to the nasal mucosa, reducing the potential for systemic adverse effects, decreasing burden of disease, and improving quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review currently available intranasal sprays indicated for maintenance therapy of AR in the United States: intranasal antihistamines (INAH); intranasal corticosteroids (INCS); and MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of the INAH, azelastine hydrochloride, and the INCS, fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

MEDLINE searches were conducted to identify placebo-controlled studies of commercially available prescription nasal sprays at U.S.-approved doses and indications, and published after an earlier systematic review of AR treatment. Inclusion criteria were ≥20 subjects; duration of ≥2 weeks for seasonal (or episodic) AR, ≥4 weeks for perennial (or persistent) AR, and reporting a total nasal symptom score as a primary or secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 pediatric, 16 adult/adolescent. There were 4 perennial AR studies (381 children, 1607 adults) and 16 seasonal AR trials (3081 children, 6548 adults). In these studies, 2451 subjects (481 children, 1970 adults) received an INCS, 3001 (1116 children, 1885 adults) received an INAH, and 346 adult subjects received MP-AzeFlu. All active treatments were well tolerated and effective as measured by the reduction in nasal symptoms. Head-to-head comparisons were only available for MP-AzeFlu versus the individual active agent components. MP-AzeFlu provided significantly greater symptom relief than either azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone and with an onset starting at 30 minutes after the dose.

CONCLUSION

The most recent addition to intranasal sprays for the maintenance therapy of AR is MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system. Analysis of clinical data showed this to be the first new intranasal medication that provides greater clinical benefit than an INCS in treating AR.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

New therapies for allergic rhinitis

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

Chapter 15: Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis affects 60 million of the U.S. population, 1.4 billion of the global population, and its prevalence appears to be increasing. The duration and severity of allergic rhinitis symptoms place a substantial burden on patient's quality of life, sleep, work productivity, and activity. The health impact of allergic rhinitis is compounded by associated complications and comorbidities including asthma, otitis media, sinusitis, and nasal polyps. Allergic rhinitis symptoms result from a complex, allergen-driven mucosal inflammatory process, modulated by immunoglobulin E (IgE), and caused by interplay between resident and infiltrating inflammatory cells and a number of vasoactive and proinflammatory mediators, including cytokines. This allergic response may be characterized as three phases: IgE sensitization, allergen challenge, and elicitation of symptoms. A thorough allergic history is the best tool for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, the establishment of which is achieved by correlating the patient's history and physical exam with an assessment for the presence of specific IgE antibodies to relevant aeroallergens determined by skin testing or by in vitro assay. Management of allergic rhinitis includes modifying environmental exposures, implementing pharmacotherapy, and, in select cases, administering allergen-specific immunotherapy. Intranasal therapeutic options include antihistamines, anticholinergic agents, corticosteroids (aqueous or aerosol), mast cell stabilizers, saline, and brief courses of decongestants. Selection of pharmacotherapy is based on the severity and chronicity of symptoms with the most effective medications being intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines, which can be used in combination (separately or in fixed dose) for more difficult to control allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy, safety, and optimal dose selection of beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults

OBJECTIVE

Some patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) may prefer nonaqueous intranasal corticosteroid aerosols because of unwanted attributes of aqueous formulations. The mandatory removal of chlorofluorocarbon-propelled nonaqueous aerosols from the market limited available treatment options. To fulfill this unmet need, a nonaqueous, hydrofluoroalkane-propelled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol was developed and approved for treatment of AR nasal symptoms. As part of the development program, this dose-ranging study evaluated three doses of BDP nasal aerosol to determine the optimally safe and effective dose for adolescent and adult patients (≥12 years old) with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

After a 7 to 21 day placebo run-in period, eligible patients with SAR were randomly assigned to once-daily BDP nasal aerosol 80 µg, 160 µg, 320 µg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in average a.m. and p.m. patient-reported reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS) over 2 weeks. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. A potential study limitation could be lack of objective assessment of AR symptoms.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were seen in average a.m. and p.m. rTNSS (least squares [LS] mean treatment difference, -0.63; 95% CI: -1.13, -0.13; p = 0.013) as well as in average a.m. and p.m. instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS; LS mean treatment difference, -0.60; 95% CI: -1.09, -0.11; p = 0.016) with BDP nasal aerosol 320 µg/day compared with placebo. Although there were numerical improvements from baseline in patient-reported rTNSS and iTNSS with BDP nasal aerosol 80 µg and 160 µg, these doses did not achieve statistical significance compared with placebo. BDP nonaqueous nasal aerosol was well tolerated at all doses tested, with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that 320 µg/day of BDP nasal aerosol is the optimally safe and effective dose for the treatment of SAR in adolescent and adult patients. Trial registration NCT: #NCT00854360.

New therapeutic options for allergic rhinitis: back to the future with intranasal corticosteroid aerosols

BACKGROUND

Under current guidelines, intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are considered the most effective first-line therapy to improve allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and burden of disease. In the late 1980s-1990s, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled corticosteroid aerosol nasal sprays formed the standard of care for the treatment of AR. Because of environmental concerns, CFC aerosols were gradually phased out, and aqueous INS formulations of nasal sprays became the standard of care. Although many aqueous INS sprays are available, specific product-related factors can reduce patient adherence to an INS and subsequently reduce treatment efficacy. The purpose of this paper was to review the evolution of AR therapeutics and drug devices and how it may have an effect on patient adherence/compliance and patient satisfaction with current available therapies and show the unmet need to improve INS delivery systems.

METHODS

Although aqueous INSs are effective and well tolerated, use in some patients may be compromised because of patient sensory perception and device preference. A historical review of the evolution of intranasal delivery of INSs was undertaken to provide further insight into improving treatment options for patients with AR.

RESULTS

Although the various approved INSs appear to be equivalent in terms of reducing AR disease burden, the method in which an INS is delivered to a patient has significant bearing on the overall success of each specific drug product.

CONCLUSION

Hydrofluoroalkane-propelled INS drug products offer a back-to-the-future delivery approach that may be further tailored to the individual patient's needs. Past experiences and the development of new devices are paving the way toward further therapy choices, ultimately affording health care providers access to the most effective treatments for patients with AR.

The mountain cedar model in clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis use the mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) season as the predominate model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical trials of rhinoconjunctivitis using mountain cedar, to present analysis of pollen counts during 18 seasons, and to discuss the model.

METHODS

The medical literature was searched for clinical trials performed using mountain cedar either in or out of season. Pollen counts were recorded and analyzed for the duration of 18 seasons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were identified. Of these, 1 evaluated onset of allergy, 8 were immunotherapy trials, 28 were pharmaceutical clinical trials, and 1 studied symptoms elicited in a pollen challenge chamber trial. Many generic equivalency trials are unreported. In the 18 years of counts in the Texas Hill Country, a dependable and intense pollen density was present in every season. The combination of dependable seasons without confounding pollens, the large number of allergic patients, and the ability to concentrate resources in one geographic area has made mountain cedar allergy a mainstay for therapeutic trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Mountain cedar allergy presents a dependable and durable model of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

A 26-week tolerability study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A new, hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide (CIC-HFA) delivered via a metered dose inhaler is currently in clinical development for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To study tolerability and quality of life following administration of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses once-daily compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) over 26 weeks.

METHODS

Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2 year history of PAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 μg, 148 μg, or placebo QD AM for 26 weeks. Safety was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Quality of life was assessed by using a rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire with standardized activities (RQLQ[S]) in patients with baseline RQLQ ≥3.00. Reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (iTNSS) over 26 weeks were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In this study, 1111 patients were randomized. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the treatment groups. Treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses showed improvements in RQLQ[S] [least squares (LS) mean change 0.40 and 0.37, respectively from baseline, p < 0.01 versus placebo for both], rTNSS (LS mean change 0.65 and 0.52, respectively from baseline; p ≤ 0.01 versus placebo for both), and iTNSS (LS mean change 0.51 and 0.42, respectively from baseline; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both) from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses over 26 weeks was well tolerated with comparable incidence of TEAEs between the treatment groups.