Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Budenoside aqueous nasal spray: an updated reappraisal in rhinitis management

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis are prevalent diseases. In western countries, type 2 inflammation usually characterizes these medical conditions and mainly sustains nasal obstruction. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) that has been available since the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps (both as treatment and prevention after surgery). Consolidated evidence confirms its efficacy in treating seasonal and perennial AR, and nonallergic rhinitis. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with AR recommend using INCS as the first line in many situations. In particular, patients may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale. A score ≥5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing patients with type 2 inflammation of the nose.

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.

Intranasal Olopatadine: Mometasone in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal olopatadine hydrochloride-mometasone furoate (OM) combination in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: mometasone + olopatadine, GSP301, mometasone furoate, and olopatadine hydrochloride.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English between January 1987 and August 2022 related to pharmacology, safety, and clinical trials were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2 phase II clinical trials, twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (QDay) intranasal OM demonstrated significant improvements in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and QDay P < 0.001) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001; QDay P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001). In 2 phase III clinical trials, BID OM showed significant improvements in rTNSS vs. placebo (P < 0.001), olopatadine monotherapy (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003), and mometasone monotherapy (P = 0.02 and P = 0.059).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

OM is indicated for treatment of SAR symptoms. Caution with use must be considered for certain high-risk patients, existing tuberculosis; fungal, bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections; or ocular herpes simplex. Due to its quick and sustained onset of action, OM may be an ideal agent for initial treatment of moderate-severe SAR for patients 12 years and older.

CONCLUSION

OM significantly improves SAR symptoms and is a viable treatment option in short-term SAR.

Intranasal Corticosteroids: Topical Potency, Systemic Activity and Therapeutic Index

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

The effect of medical treatment on nasal exhaled nitric oxide (NO) in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis: A randomized control study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the role of nasal nitric oxide (NO) in the management of patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (PER).

METHODS

It was a randomized and comparative study. The study subjects were classified as controls (healthy subjects) or patients with PER based on defined criteria. All clinical, functional and biological data were collected for analyzing. Nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was measured by electroluminescence device. Patients with PER were randomized for treatment with antihistamine (ATH) combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LRA) or only with intranasal steroids (INS).

RESULTS

During two years, 501 subjects were included: 234 control subjects and 267 patients with PER. The levels of nasal NO, total IgE, blood eosinophil counts, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in patients with PER were higher than controls (P < 0.001; P < 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; respectively). There were statistically significant correlations between nasal NO, nasal peak flows, total IgE, and blood eosinophil counts in patients with PER (R = -0.687 and P = 0.0012; R = -0.643 and P = 0.0018; R = 0.432 and P = 0.0024; R = 0.445 and P = 0.002; respectively). After 6 months of treatment, patients treated with INS had greater improvement of clinical symptoms and reduction of nasal NO values than patients treated with ATH + LRA (985 ± 253 vs. 732 ± 298 ppb; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nasal NO measurement is a useful tool for the follow-up of patients with PER. It also helps clinicians to estimate the level of response to treatment in patients with PER.

Intranasal Steroid Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common medical condition in children. It is associated with significant morbidity because symptoms can adversely affect quality of life. The goals of treatment of AR are to provide effective prevention as well as symptom alleviation. Pharmacotherapy is often necessary for the reduction of symptoms and the associated morbidity. Intranasal steroids (INS) are highly effective drugs for treatment of AR and are more efficacious compared to other medications used to treat AR such as antihistamines and leukotriene modifiers. Several formulations of INS are available, all of which have approximately the same efficacy and safety profile. The most common adverse effect is local irritation. Systemic absorption from nasal mucosa is low and thus systemic effects are rare. However, prolonged use of INS, especially in patients who are also using oral or inhaled steroids, can result in hypothalamic-pituitary-axis suppression. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(1):e43-e48.].

Medical Treatment of Nasal Airway Obstruction

Nasal obstruction is a common, and potentially debilitating, problem. It is caused by a combination of structural factors and/or mucosal swelling/inflammation. The medical treatment of nasal obstruction is aimed at decreasing mucosal inflammation and edema and is generally guided by the underlying cause. Several different drug classes are commonly used in the treatment of nasal obstruction, each with different indications, and pros and cons to their use. This article discusses the most commonly used therapies for nasal obstruction. Current evidence on the efficacy and side effect profile of each therapy is reviewed.

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.

Does oxymetazoline increase the efficacy of nasal steroids in treating nasal polyposis?

BACKGROUND

Although nasal steroids are the mainstay treatments in nasal polyposis, up to one-half of patients do not respond and need surgical treatment. This study aimed to evaluate whether oxymetazoline administration produces any additive effect on nasal steroid therapy and whether rebound congestion develops after oxymetazoline treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with nasal polyposis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oxymetazoline plus mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) or placebo plus MFNS, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, with an interval of 5 minutes between each medication for 4 weeks. All the patients were then treated with MFNS, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. The nasal symptoms score, peak inspiratory flow index, nasal mucociliary clearance time (NMCCT), and total nasal polyps score were used to evaluate treatment outcomes. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed, and a worst case sensitivity analysis was applied to missing cases.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were allocated to the oxymetazoline-MFNS group, and 34 to the placebo-MFNS group. One patient in each group was lost to last-visit follow-up. At 4 weeks after beginning treatment, the oxymetazoline-MFNS group showed significantly greater improvement in blocked nose, hyposmia, peak flow, NMCCT, and total nasal polyps score than the placebo-MFNS group. During the nasal steroid phase, both groups showed continuing improvement in all outcome variables. However, the oxymetazoline-MFNS group still showed significantly greater improvement in blocked nose, hyposmia, NMCCT, and total nasal polyps score, but not peak flow, than the placebo-MFNS group at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

The use of nasal steroids with oxymetazoline was more effective over 6 weeks than nasal steroids alone in improving blocked nose, hyposmia, nasal mucociliary clearance, and polyp size in treatment of nasal polyposis. There was no evidence of rebound congestion after 4 weeks of oxymetazoline treatment.

Medications for Allergic Rhinitis

Objectives Adherence to the allergic rhinitis clinical practice guideline is being considered as a potential focus for national performance metrics. To help inform this discussion, we assessed patient- and clinician-reported medication administration among nationally representative populations of patients with allergic rhinitis. Study Design Cross-sectional analyses. Setting and Subjects Home health assessments, ambulatory visits. Methods Participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were assessed. The primary outcomes were the percentage of patients reporting receipt of antihistamines and/or nasal steroids among those with allergy-related symptoms and the percentage for whom a clinician administered these medications when diagnosing allergic rhinitis. Secondary outcomes included assessments of those with worse quality of life, confirmatory allergy testing, and leukotriene receptor antagonist use. Results Within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 29.2 million patients were diagnosed with "hay fever," while 92.2 million were diagnosed with "allergies." Patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis reported that antihistamines or nasal steroids were prescribed in 21.1% to 24.0% of cases. Leukotriene receptor antagonists were given to 1.7% of those without asthma or use of other allergy medications. Within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, observations representing 149.5 million visits for allergic rhinitis demonstrated that nasal steroids were administered in 29.6% of cases, while nonsedating and sedating antihistamines were given in 22.4% and 17.2%, respectively. Conclusions Despite a high prevalence of allergic rhinitis, per patient report and clinician entry, a substantial number of affected patients do not receive antihistamines and nasal steroids.

A patient preference study that evaluated fluticasone furoate and mometasone furoate nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis

Background:

Corticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment.

Objective:

This study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Methods:

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes).

Results:

Overall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of “less drip down the throat” (p < 0.001), “less run out of the nose” (p < 0.05), “more soothing” (p < 0.05), and “less irritating” (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), and “run out of the nose” (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), “run out of the nose” (p < 0.01), “presence of aftertaste” (p < 0.01), and “no nasal irritation” (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Patients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including “less drip down the throat,” “less run out of the nose,” and “less irritating.” Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a common respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction and airway hyperresponsiveness and symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness. Allergic rhinitis is a common comorbidity in asthma and glucocorticoids are the key stone in the treatment of both diseases. Mometasone furoate is a potent synthetic steroid with a very high receptor affinity and a low bioavailability and shown to be superior compared to other inhaled corticosteroids. It is not clear whether the use of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is associated with an improvement in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

This current paper reviews the current knowledge on the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of asthma and includes clinical trials in which both subjective and objective outcomes are assessed.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, only few clinical studies have investigated the effect of nasal steroids in the treatment of asthma. The studies investigating the effect of MFNS report contradicting results, although the most well-designed study to answer this question finds no improvement in asthma control. Thus, it seems unlikely that asthma guidelines will be influenced by the current knowledge on the effect of MFNS in the treatment of asthma.

[Nasally delivered drugs (corticosteroids and vaccines), ultra long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled therapies in an animal model]

Inhaled therapies are widely prescribed. Several aspects of these treatments were considered during the 4th meeting of the aerosol therapy workgroup (GAT) of the French-speaking respiratory society (Société de pneumologie de langue française [SPLF]). In this report, will be detailed the medications delivered by the nasal route, particularly corticosteroids and vaccines as well as the ultra long-acting beta2-agonists, and inhaled therapies for asthma due to allergy to cat dander.

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.

Systemic effects and safety of triamcinolone-impregnated nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Steroid-infused absorbable nasal dressings after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) have been used to improve wound healing and to reduce the recurrence of polyps. However, their systemic effects are not well known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the systemic effects and safety of steroid-impregnated absorbable nasal packing after ESS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent bilateral ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis were recruited and randomized into two groups. Ten patients in the triamcinolone (TA) group received a TA (20 mg)-soaked bioabsorbable dressing in both nasal cavities while 10 patients in the control group took saline-impregnated dressing in both nasal cavities. Nasal dressings were not removed until postoperative day 10. Serum cortisol, 12-hour urine cortisol, serum adrenal-corticotropic hormone (ACTH), and serum osteocalcin were measured preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 10. Serum cortisol levels were checked 1 day after surgery additionally, while urine cortisol levels were not checked at postoperative day 10.

RESULTS

All 20 patients completed this study. The serum cortisol levels were significantly suppressed at postoperative days 1 and 2 in the TA group. Serum ACTH and 12-hour urine cortisol levels were lower 2 days after surgery in the TA group, although these changes were not statistically significant. There were no differences in all other parameters between the TA and control groups on postoperative day 10.

CONCLUSIONS

TA-impregnated nasal dressings suppress serum cortisol levels during the early postoperative period. This systemic effect was recovered gradually and normalized 10 days after the operation.

Comparison of sensory attributes and immediate efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives:

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) are the most effective modality for treating allergic rhinitis and their sensory attributes are important in patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the sensory attributes (scent, immediate taste, aftertaste, run down to throat, nose run off, soothing feel, nasal irritation, and urge to sneeze) and immediate response to the new intranasal steroid, ciclesonide (CIC), with fluticasone propionate (FLP) in allergic rhinitis.

Materials and Methods:

A randomized, double blind, single dose, crossover study was done with 74 patients presenting with acute allergic rhinitis. Eligible subjects were randomized in 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment sequences – CIC followed by FLP or vice versa. Sensory attributes were assessed using a questionnaire to score each item on a seven-point Likert scale, immediately and 2 min after dosing. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) was calculated to evaluate immediate efficacy 10 min after first drug administration. Overall preference was recorded 10 min after the second drug administration. Patients were queried about treatment emergent adverse events following study drug administration and also 24 h later over the phone.

Results:

Patients (58% males; pooled median age 32 years [Interquartile range, IQR, 25–41]; pooled median symptom duration 24 months [IQR 12–72]) preferred FLP over CIC nasal spray overall (55.41% vs. 25.68%, P = 0.007) and also with respect to attributes of scent, soothing feel, and nasal irritation. There was no statistically significant difference in immediate efficacy. Two patients reported mild headache following CIC first, while three felt mild headache, one dizziness, and one nasal congestion following FLP first administration. There were no delayed adverse events.

Conclusions:

There was no difference in immediate outcome following use of either of the two INCs. FLP was preferred over CIC with respect to scent, soothing feel and nasal irritation, and also overall. There were no significant adverse events.

The effects of systemic, topical, and intralesional steroid treatments on apoptosis level of nasal polyps

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the apoptotic responses to systemic, topical, and intrapolyp injection of glucocorticoid with no treatment in nasal polyps.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized controlled study.

SETTING

Tertiary training hospital.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The study was performed on 48 patients with nasal polyposis in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology between 2008 and 2009. Patients were assigned to 1 of 4 groups of 12 patients. Group A was treated with oral methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg/d, and the dose was tapered gradually. Group B received 0.3 mL triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg/mL), which was injected into polyp tissue. Group C was treated with topical 55 µg triamcinolone acetonide 2 times daily for 1 month. Group D received no medication. Samples were collected endoscopically after the seventh day for groups A and B, the first month for group C, and the first visit for group D. Apoptotic indexes were determined using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling method.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in apoptotic index were found between each steroid-medicated group and the control group (P (D-A) = .0001; P (D-B) = .003; P (D-C) = .026) and between groups A and C (P (A-C) = .012). Group B did not differ significantly from either group A or C (P (A-B) = .11; P (B-C) = .75).

CONCLUSIONS

The apoptotic index in nasal polyps treated with systemic, topical, and intrapolyp injection forms of glucocorticoids was higher than that in the control group. Systemic steroid treatment induced the most apoptosis.

Psychometric validation of the experience with allergic rhinitis nasal spray questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Patient experience and preference are critical factors influencing compliance in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) receiving intranasal corticosteroids. The Experience with Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray Questionnaire (EARNS-Q) was developed to measure subject experiences with and preferences for nasal sprays.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the psychometric validation of the EARNS-Q modules.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with subjects aged 18-65 years with physician-diagnosed vasomotor, seasonal, and/or perennial allergic rhinitis who were using a prescription nasal spray. Subjects completed the experience module of the EARNS-Q and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire with Medication (TSQM) at baseline and after 2 weeks. Further validation analyses were conducted in a 3-week, randomized, single-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical study in which subjects ≥18 years of age with documented seasonal AR received flunisolide and beclomethasone and completed the EARNS-Q experience module on days 1 and 8, the EARNS-Q preference module on day 22, and the TSQM on days 8 and 22.

RESULTS

The observational and clinical studies were completed by 121 and 89 subjects, respectively. Both modules demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.72 experience module; α = 0.93 preference module global scores) and validity (intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC 0.64 to 0.82 test-retest validity). Correlations among the experience and preference modules were moderate (r = 0.39 to 0.79) and within internal consistency reliability estimates, indicating measurement of distinct constructs.

CONCLUSION

The EARNS-Q is a patient-reported outcomes measure that enables reliable and valid measurement of subject experience with, and preference for, prescription intranasal corticosteroid sprays for allergic rhinitis.

Determination of triamcinolone in human plasma by a sensitive HPLC-ESI-MS/MS method: application for a pharmacokinetic study using nasal spray formulation

A liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-MS/MS) method for the quantitation of triamcinolone in human plasma after nasal spray application was developed and validated. Betamethasone was used as internal standard (IS). The analytes were extracted by a liquid-liquid procedure and separated on a Zorbax Eclipse XDB C(18) column with a mobile phase composed of 2 mM aqueous ammonium acetate pH 3.2 and acetonitrile (55:45). Selected reaction monitoring was performed using the transitions m/z 435 → 415 and m/z 393 → 373 to quantify triamcinolone acetonide and betamethasone, respectively. Calibration curve was constructed over the range of 20-2000 pg/ml for triamcinolone acetonide. The lower limit of quantitation was 20 pg/ml. The mean RSD values were 4.6% and 5.7% for the intra-run and inter-run precision, respectively. The mean accuracy value was 98.5% and a recovery rate corresponding to 97.5% was achieved. No matrix effect was detected in the samples. The validated method was successfully applied to determine the plasma concentrations of triamcinolone acetonide in healthy volunteers, in a pharmacokinetic study with nasal spray formulation.

Intranasal Mometasone Furoate for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic nasal disease that affects the upper respiratory tract. This disorder is characterized by inflammation of the mucous membranes and it manifests with several nasal symptoms accompanied sometimes by non-nasal symptoms. Best therapy aims to prevent and improve the AR-clinical picture. Steroids have an important role in the treatment of AR. The development of steroids administrated directly on nasal mucosa has much reduced the systemic adverse affects associated with oral steroids therapy. Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray is a synthetic steroid assessed for intranasal use in the therapy of adults and children affected by AR. Such topical nasal steroid is an effective molecule improving clinical picture of AR and it is also approved as prophylactic therapy. In this article, apart from a careful description of its successful clinical use the authors review pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of such steroid molecule.

Olopatadine nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 6 years and older

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Allergic rhinitis is an IgE-mediated condition that produces inflammation of the mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses and, frequently, of the ocular conjunctiva. Allergic rhinitis causes a significant disease burden in terms of quality of life, lost productivity and medical treatment costs. One of the newest treatments approved by the FDA is Patanase (olopatadine hydrochloride) Nasal Spray, 665 microg/spray (OLO). Olopatadine is an antihistamine with selective H(1)-receptor antagonist activity.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review details the basic and clinical research on the olopatadine molecule and OLO nasal spray from 1996 to the present day.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a better understanding of the pharmacology of OLO nasal spray, the clinical trial data that have established the efficacy of OLO nasal spray and the overall role of OLO nasal spray in the management of allergic rhinitis.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Olopatadine nasal spray is one of the newest treatments approved by the FDA for the management of allergic rhinitis. OLO has a rapid onset of action, efficacy comparable to intranasal steroid sprays and is approved for seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged > or = 6 years.

Comparison of patient preference for sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

To compare preferences for fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays after 1 week of treatment in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR.

METHODS

Patients with seasonal AR were enrolled (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to active treatment (fluticasone furoate, 110 microg, or fluticasone propionate, 200 microg, followed by crossover treatment for 1 week each) or matched placebo sequence with a 1-week washout before crossover dosing. Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate efficacy was measured by change from baseline during 1 week in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) that assessed severity of rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing. Patient preference for fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate was assessed at the end of the study by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty patients from 29 clinical sites in the Unites States were randomized and treated between August 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007. Most patients were white (73%) and female (59%), with a mean age of 38.3 years, and had had seasonal AR for at least 10 years (74%). Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate each reduced the daily rTNSS compared with their respective placebos (least squares mean [SD] difference, -0.8 [0.24], P < .001, and -0.6 [0.24], P = .01, respectively). More patients (P < .001) preferred fluticasone furoate to fluticasone propionate based on attributes of scent or odor (58% vs 27%), aftertaste (60% vs 18%), leaking out of the nose and down the throat (59% vs 21%), and mist gentleness (57% vs 26%). No statistically significant differences were seen in preferences regarding ease of use, delivery method, or device comfort.

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate significantly improved symptoms in adult patients with seasonal AR. Most patients preferred the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate to those of fluticasone propionate after 1 week of treatment.

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.

Pharmacokinetics in special populations

Pharmacokinetics are typically dependent on a variety of physiological variables (e.g., age, ethnicity, or pregnancy) or pathological conditions (e.g., renal and hepatic insufficiency, cardiac dysfunction, obesity, etc.). The influence of some of these conditions has not always been thoroughly assessed in the clinical studies of antiallergic drugs. However, the knowledge of the physiological grounds of the pharmacokinetics can provide some insight for predicting the potential alterations and guiding the initial prescription strategies. It is important to recognize that both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between populations should be considered. The available information on drugs used for the therapy of allergic diseases is reviewed in this chapter.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis: a multicenter open-label study

CONCLUSION

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) can reduce the symptoms and improve quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of MF on symptoms and quality of life in Chinese patients with moderate to severe AR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a multicenter and open-label study, 500 patients with moderate to severe AR were enrolled and received MFNS 200 microg once daily. We visited the patients four times (at baseline, and week 1, 2, and 4) to record symptom scores and the influence of AR on daytime activities and quality of sleep. The Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (Mini-RQLQ) and the Nocturnal Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (NRQLQ) were used in this study.

RESULTS

Compared with the baseline, MFNS significantly reduced the total and individual symptom scores and nocturnal sleep and daytime activities scores at week 1, 2, and 4 according to the Mini-RQLQ and NRQLQ.

Daily versus self-adjusted dosing of topical mometasone furoate nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis: randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients with allergic rhinitis are reluctant to use daily intranasal steroids for prolonged periods. A self-adjusted regimen which delivers reasonable control of allergic rhinitis may be more acceptable to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of daily use of mometasone furoate nasal spray, versus a self-adjusted regimen, in patients with chronic allergic rhinitis, in terms of symptom control and nasal volume change.

SETTING

Ambulatory visits in an office setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with chronic allergic rhinitis were randomised: 30 were prescribed mometasone furoate nasal spray once daily for six weeks, while 30 were prescribed the same spray daily for one week, every alternate day for one week and then on a self-adjusted regimen for four weeks. Patients kept a symptom diary documenting sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage and nasal itching. Acoustic rhinometry was used to measure the total nasal cavity volume at the first visit and at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

The total nasal score on treatment days showed an improvement in both groups, compared with baseline measurements. There was no significant difference in total nasal scores between the two groups, except on days 10 (p = 0.043), 20 (p = 0.008), 23 (p = 0.19), 30 (p = 0.008) and 37 (p = 0.000), when the daily group's total nasal score was significantly lower than the self-adjusted group's total nasal score, and on day 8 (p = 0.004), when the self-adjusted group's total nasal score was significantly lower than the daily group's total nasal score. Total nasal cavity volume significantly increased in both groups (p = 0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-adjusted dosage of mometasone furoate nasal spray gives reasonable control of allergic rhinitis (albeit with some 'breakthrough' symptoms). Patients should learn how to control these symptoms with the least number of steroid doses.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF.

CONCLUSION

In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Mometasone furoate: a review of its intranasal use in allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate (Nasonex) is a high-potency intranasal corticosteroid available for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of the nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). In the EU, it is approved for use in patients aged > or =6 years and, in the US, it is approved as a treatment in patients aged > or =2 years and as prophylaxis in those > or =12 years of age.Extensive experience in both clinical trials and the clinical practice setting has firmly established the efficacy and good tolerability profile of intranasal mometasone furoate in children and adults with PAR or SAR. Thus, intranasal mometasone furoate is a useful first-line option for the treatment and prophylactic management of these conditions, including in children as young as 2 years of age in some countries and 6 years of age in others.

Intranasal ciclesonide for allergic rhinitis

Ciclesonide is a novel corticosteroid which is optimized for topical use. It is a pro-drug which is activated locally in the airway mucosa, lipid-conjugated for local retention, and has very high protein binding in circulation leading to low systemic bioavailability. These characteristics should lead to highly selective activity with reduced local and systemic side effects. It has been established as an inhaled medication for asthma and has also been shown in double-blind trials to be efficacious for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. However no data have yet demonstrated superiority over existing nasal topical corticosteroids, either in terms of efficacy or adverse effects, and trials have not yet clearly shown efficacy in rhinitis in children. Therefore the place of ciclesonide in the treatment of allergic rhinitis relative to other existing products remains unclear.

Dose-related effect of intranasal corticosteroids on treatment outcome of persistent allergic rhinitis

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of the self-adjustable dosing regimen and explore potential dose-response relationships of intranasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis.

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Subjects and Methods

Sixty-nine persistent allergic rhinitis patients were treated with 220 mcg of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide for 28 days. Patients with mild, intermittent symptoms were instructed to use the medication only after symptoms occurred once a day. Patients with symptoms that lasted more than 1 day and/or interrupted daily activities/sleep were instructed to continue the morning daily dose until they were symptom-free for 24 hours before stopping usage.

Results

All nasal symptom scores and peak expiratory flow index (PEFI) showed statistically significant improvements after treatment. At 28 days after treatment, the number of puffs and weight of steroids used were positively correlated with percentages of improvement in total symptoms score (TSS) and PEFI (ρ = 0.529, r = 0.571 and ρ = 0.350, r = 0.509 respectively). When at least 1400 mcg or 44 puffs were used, 60% TSS and 10% PEFI improvement were achieved.

Conclusion

A self-adjustable dosing approach proved to be an efficacious approach to controlling allergic rhinitis.

New treatment options in allergic rhinitis: patient considerations and the role of ciclesonide

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammatory respiratory disease affecting 5%-50% of the worldwide population and its prevalence is increasing (Herman 2007). In addition, AR is associated with asthma and other co-morbidities such as conjunctivitis and sinusitis. The main symptoms are nasal congestion, rhinorrea, sneezing, itching, and post-nasal drainage induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. AR is not a life-threatening disease, but it has been shown to have a significant impact on quality of life. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines propose a classification of AR in intermittent and persistent, each graded as mild or moderate-severe, and provide a stepwise approach to the treatment. Inhaled steroids and antihistamine are the main tools in AR therapy but more safe and effective drugs are, however, needed. Inhaled steroid ciclesonide appears to be safe and effective.