Safety and efficacy of once-daily treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis

Sublingual Tablet Immunotherapy Improves Quality of Life in Adults With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis can negatively impact many aspects of quality of life (QoL). The efficacy and safety of standardized quality (SQ) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been confirmed across large clinical trials in adults with grass, tree, ragweed, and house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

This pooled analysis investigates whether the reduction in symptom burden found across the clinical trials is supported by improvements in QoL.

METHODS

A total of 11 phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trials across the SQ grass, tree, ragweed, and HDM SLIT tablets (grass: N = 3179; ragweed: N = 767; tree: N = 634; HDM: N = 2221) were included. QoL was assessed using the standardized Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), with the exception of 3 grass trials, which used the nonstandardized version. The overall RQLQ scores were expressed as a mean of 7 domains. In the pooled analysis, treatment was used as fixed effect; and the trial, and the interaction between region/country and trial as random effects.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis showed consistent and statistically significant improvements in overall RQLQ scores across all 4 SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo (pooled estimate [95% CI], P value-grass: -0.20 [-0.28 to -0.12], P < .001; tree: -0.42 [-0.58 to -0.26], P < .001; ragweed: -0.36 [-0.55 to -0.17], P < .001; HDM: -0.28 [-0.39 to -0.17], P < .001). Furthermore, significant improvements versus placebo for all 4 SQ SLIT tablets were seen across the 7 individual domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The proven efficacy of SQ SLIT tablets to reduce symptoms across 4 of the most common respiratory allergens is supported by concurrent significant improvements in RQLQ scores overall and for all 7 domains.

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.

Effect of Body Weight on Response to Nasal Glucocorticoid Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is among the most common chronic diseases in the world. Obesity can lead to a chronic systemic inflammatory process. In this study, we evaluated the effects of body weight on the response to treatment of allergic rhinitis with nasal corticosteroids. Two groups of patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis were compared: one composed of obese patients and one composed of normal weight patients. Nasal endoscopy, peak nasal inspiratory flow, quality of life, the VAS, SNOT22, and NOSE-5 questionnaires, and the concentration of nasal cytokines (INF-γ, TNF-ᾳ, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, and IL-10) through nasal brushing were evaluated before and after treatment with 400 mcg/day nasal beclomethasone. No differences were identified between the groups in nasal endoscopy, peak nasal inspiratory flow, the VAS, SNOT22, and NOSE-5 questionnaires, or in the cytokines INF-γ, TNF-ᾳ, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, and IL-10 prior to nasal corticosteroid treatment. Both groups showed improvement in the VAS, SNOT-22, and NOSE-5 questionnaires and an increase in peak nasal inspiratory volumes after treatment. In the eutrophic group, there was an increase in INF-γ and IL-5 after treatment. When comparing the variation in cytokines before and after treatment between groups, IL-10 was the cytokine that showed altered behavior dependent on weight. Obesity did not seem to impact nasal symptoms and physiology and presented a similar clinical response to treatment with nasal corticosteroids to normal weight patients. However, obese patients had an impaired anti-inflammatory response during treatment with nasal corticosteroids.

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.

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.

Safety and pharmacodynamics of intranasal GSK2245035, a TLR7 agonist for allergic rhinitis: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) stimulation in the airways may reduce responses to aeroallergens by induction of type 1 interferons (IFNs). GSK2245035 is a novel selective TLR7 agonist in pharmaceutical development.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of safety, pharmacodynamics and nasal allergic reactivity following repeated weekly intranasal (i.n.) GSK2245035.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (TL7116958) was conducted over two pollen seasons (2013-2014) and follow-up study (204509) conducted 1 year later. Participants with allergic rhinitis (n=42) were randomized to receive eight weekly doses of i.n. GSK2245035 (20 ng [2014 Cohort; n=14] or 80 ng [2013 Cohort; n=14]) or placebo (n=14). Adverse events (AEs) including cytokine release syndrome AEs (CytoRS-AEs) and nasal symptoms were assessed. Nasal and serum IFN-inducible protein 10 (IP-10) were measured after doses 1 and 8, then 1 (follow-up visit [FUV] 1) and 3 (FUV2) weeks after final dose. Nasal allergen challenges (NACs) and allergic biomarker assessment (nasal, serum) were conducted at baseline, FUV1, FUV2 and at a FUV 1 year after final dose (FUV3; 2014 Cohort only). A Bayesian framework enabled probability statements for mean effect sizes.

RESULTS

GSK2245035 induced CytoRS-AEs (most commonly headache, median duration <1 day) in 93% of participants at 80 ng, while AE incidence at 20 ng was similar to placebo. There was no evidence of nasal inflammation. Dose-related increases in nasal and serum IP-10 were observed 24 hours after doses 1 and 8 (>95% certainty). Both doses showed a trend in reducing total nasal symptom score 15 minutes post-NAC at FUV1 and FUV2, but there was no reduction evident at FUV3. Nasal levels of selected allergic biomarkers demonstrated trends for reductions at FUV1, FUV2 and FUV3.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Weekly i.n. GSK2245035 20 ng was well tolerated and reduced allergic reactivity to nasal challenge for 3 weeks post-treatment.

Beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common respiratory disease, and its prevalence is increasing all over the world, both in adults and in children. Patients experience symptoms that may negatively impact on physical, social and psychological well-being. Hence, if left untreated, allergic rhinitis may significantly affect quality of life. Under current guidelines, intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective drugs and they are recommended as first-line therapy. Among the several corticosteroid intranasal sprays available, beclomethasone dipropionate is one of the most prescribed. Recently, new intranasal hydrofluoroalkane-propelled formulations with little or no impact on the ozone layer have been developed for the treatment of AR. The use of these devices might improve patients' adherence to treatment, avoiding some of the most common side effects associated with aqueous formulations. This review provides the most recent evidence for the efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

No hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function effect with beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol, based on 24-hour serum cortisol in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Their potential to suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis should be evaluated, especially after long-term daily use in children.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of treatment with non-aqueous beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function in children with perennial AR.

METHODS

In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients (6-11 years old) with perennial AR were randomized (2:1) to BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day (n = 67) or placebo (n = 32). The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour serum cortisol (SC) weighted mean for BDP nasal aerosol and placebo after 6 weeks of treatment, which was analyzed in the per-protocol population.

RESULTS

The per-protocol population included 97 patients (BDP nasal aerosol, n = 66; placebo, n = 31). Baseline geometric mean SC weighted mean values were similar in the 80-μg/day BDP nasal aerosol and placebo groups (5.97 and 6.47 μg/dL, respectively). After 6 weeks' treatment, geometric mean values were 6.19 and 7.13 μg/dL, respectively, with no decrease from baseline in either group. Geometric mean SC ratio of BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day to placebo was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.81-1.03), indicating predefined noninferiority. SC concentration-time profiles were similar for the placebo and 80-μg/day BDP nasal aerosol groups at baseline and week 6. BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In pediatric patients with perennial AR, 24-hour SC profiles were comparable for BDP nasal aerosol and placebo, indicating that once-daily BDP nasal aerosol treatment did not significantly affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01697956.

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.

Efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol in children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol (non-aqueous) is approved for management of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) in adolescents and adults.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day in children with PAR.

METHODS

This 12-week, phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study randomized 547 children (4-11 years old) with PAR to once-daily BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day or placebo. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) during the first 6 weeks of treatment in patients 6 to 11 years old. Changes from baseline in average morning and evening instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS) in children 6 to 11 years old and average rTNSS and iTNSS in children 4 to 11 years old were assessed during the first 6 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Improvements were significantly greater with BDP nasal aerosol than with placebo during the first 6 weeks of treatment in children 6 to 11 years old in average morning and evening rTNSS and iTNSS (mean treatment difference -0.66 [P = .002] and -0.58 [P = .004], respectively). Improvements in average morning and evening rTNSS and iTNSS also were significantly greater in patients 4 to 11 years receiving BDP nasal aerosol than with placebo during the first 6 weeks of treatment (P = .002 and P = .004, respectively). Similar improvements were seen during 12 weeks of treatment. The safety profile of BDP nasal aerosol was comparable to that of placebo.

CONCLUSION

The BDP nasal aerosol at 80 μg/day in children 4 to 11 years old was well tolerated and effective in controlling nasal symptoms of PAR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01783548.

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids topical characteristics: side effects, formulation, and volume

BACKGROUND

Guidelines from throughout the world recommend intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as first-line treatment for most patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis. In general, limited comparative studies between different INSs have not indicated that one particular steroid moiety is more effective than another in controlling symptoms of allergic rhinitis. However, there are numerous formulations available with different ingredients that may influence a patient's adherence to treatment.

METHODS

This article looks at topical features with these agents, specifically, formulations, vehicles (aqueous vs aerosol), and side effects such as epistaxis and nasal septal perforation.

RESULTS

Topical side effects are minimal with INSs with the exception of epistaxis. There are major differences in formulations, volumes, and vehicles between INSs, which could affect adherence.

CONCLUSION

Physicians need to be aware of the different INS attributes to try to match patients' preferences in order to achieve better adherence and improve outcomes in sufferers of allergic rhinitis.

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.

Advances in pediatric pharmacology, therapeutics, and toxicology

In the United States, passage of the FDASIA legislation made BPCA and PREA permanent, no longer requiring reauthorization every 5 years. This landmark legislation also stressed the importance of performing clinical trials in neonates when appropriate. In Europe the Pediatric Regulation, which went into effect in early 2007, also provides a framework for expanding pediatric clinical research. Although much work remains, as a result of greater regulatory guidance more pediatric data are reaching product labels.

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.

The impact and treatment of allergic rhinitis in the Middle East: a comparison with the landmark allergy surveys from other worldwide regions

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a global health problem that significantly affects quality of life. It is associated with illness, disability, health care costs, and comorbidities such as asthma.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2011, a series of patient surveys were conducted covering the United States, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East. This article compares data regarding disease burden, treatment patterns, and patient expectations in Middle Eastern countries with those from other regions.

RESULTS

The surveys highlighted the relatively low use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs), the current "gold standard" treatment for allergic rhinitis. This may be because of side effects, lack of efficacy, or reduced effectiveness over time. A higher proportion of patients in the Middle East reported bothersome side effects of their prescription nasal sprays, and a higher proportion of these patients strongly agreed that there were no truly effective treatments for allergic rhinitis. This suggests that health care practitioners in the Middle East should be encouraged to explain the use of INCSs in greater depth to their patients.

CONCLUSION

There remains an unmet need in the treatment of nasal allergies worldwide. The allergy surveys highlight the key factors in choosing an INCS: fast, complete, and long-lasting symptom relief. There is opportunity for novel INCS treatments that address these needs while reducing troublesome side effects. Patient education must play a central role in treatment decision making, particularly in the Middle East, to achieve higher patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol in pediatric patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Aerosolized intranasal corticosteroid formulations are desirable for many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), especially children, who wish to avoid the "wet feeling" and "drip down the throat" associated with aqueous formulations. Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol has been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults with AR.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of BDP nasal aerosol in pediatric patients with moderate to severe seasonal AR.

METHODS

In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, children (6-11 years of age) with seasonal AR were randomized to once-daily treatment with BDP nasal aerosol 80 μg (n = 239) or 160 μg (n = 242) or placebo (n = 234). The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score over the 2-week treatment period.

RESULTS

Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol showed significantly greater improvements in average morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score vs placebo (80 μg, -0.71; 160 μg, -0.76; P < .001 for the 2 comparisons). Similarly, significantly greater improvements in average morning and evening instantaneous total nasal symptom score were seen with BDP nasal aerosol vs placebo (80 μg, -0.63; 160 μg, -0.73; P < .001 for the 2 comparisons). The incidence of adverse events from BDP nasal aerosol was comparable to that from placebo.

CONCLUSION

BDP nasal aerosol (80 or 160 μg/d) provided significant and clinically meaningful nasal symptom relief and an established overall safety profile similar to that of placebo, suggesting that it is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for pediatric patients with moderate to severe seasonal AR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT012073190.

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.

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.

Nasal drug delivery devices: characteristics and performance in a clinical perspective-a review

Nasal delivery is the logical choice for topical treatment of local diseases in the nose and paranasal sinuses such as allergic and non-allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The nose is also considered an attractive route for needle-free vaccination and for systemic drug delivery, especially when rapid absorption and effect are desired. In addition, nasal delivery may help address issues related to poor bioavailability, slow absorption, drug degradation, and adverse events in the gastrointestinal tract and avoids the first-pass metabolism in the liver. However, when considering nasal delivery devices and mechanisms, it is important to keep in mind that the prime purpose of the nasal airway is to protect the delicate lungs from hazardous exposures, not to serve as a delivery route for drugs and vaccines. The narrow nasal valve and the complex convoluted nasal geometry with its dynamic cyclic physiological changes provide efficient filtration and conditioning of the inspired air, enhance olfaction, and optimize gas exchange and fluid retention during exhalation. However, the potential hurdles these functional features impose on efficient nasal drug delivery are often ignored. With this background, the advantages and limitations of existing and emerging nasal delivery devices and dispersion technologies are reviewed with focus on their clinical performance. The role and limitations of the in vitro testing in the FDA guidance for nasal spray pumps and pressurized aerosols (pressurized metered-dose inhalers) with local action are discussed. Moreover, the predictive value and clinical utility of nasal cast studies and computer simulations of nasal airflow and deposition with computer fluid dynamics software are briefly discussed. New and emerging delivery technologies and devices with emphasis on Bi-Directional™ delivery, a novel concept for nasal delivery that can be adapted to a variety of dispersion technologies, are described in more depth.

Once-daily treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are effective in controlling allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms; however, chronic administration of corticosteroids may suppress hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis function.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of 6 weeks of treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol on HPA-axis function in subjects with perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study, subjects aged 12 to 45 years were randomized to receive BDP nasal aerosol 320 μg/day (n = 50), placebo (n = 46), or placebo/prednisone (prednisone 10 mg/day for the last 7 days of the treatment period [n = 11]). The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour serum cortisol (SC) weighted mean (expressed as geometric mean ratio [GMR]) in the BDP and placebo group after 6 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Geometric SC-weighted mean values were similar in the BDP and placebo groups at baseline (9.04 and 8.45 μg/dL, respectively) and after 6 weeks (8.18 and 8.01 μg/dL, respectively). After 6 weeks of treatment, BDP was noninferior to placebo with respect to the ratio from baseline in SC-weighted mean (GMR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.87, 1.06]). In contrast, 7 days of prednisone treatment substantially reduced geometric SC-weighted mean values from baseline (approximate 3-fold reduction [from 7.33 to 2.31 μg/dL]) compared with placebo. BDP nasal aerosol was well tolerated, and the safety profile was similar to that of placebo.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol, 320 μg once daily, was not associated with HPA-axis suppression in adolescent and adult subjects with PAR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01133626.