Onset of Action of Azelastine Nasal Spray Compared with Mometasone Nasal Spray and Placebo in Subjects with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Evaluated in an Environmental Exposure Chamber

V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis - 2024

Since we published the "IV Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis", in2017, several advances have been achieved and have enabled a further understanding of the different aspects of "Rhinitis". This new guideline, developed jointly by ASBAI, SBP and SBORL, represents a relevant milestone in the updated and integrated management of the different forms of the disease, and it aims to unify evidence-based approaches to improve the diagnosis and treatment of this common and often underestimated condition. The document covers a wide range of topics, including clear definitions of the different phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis, risk factors, updated diagnostic criteria, and recommended methods for clinical and laboratory investigation. We stress the importance of detailed clinical history and objective assessment, as well as tools for control and assessing severity tools an accurate diagnostic approach to the disease. Regarding treatment, it emphasizes the treatment customization, considering the severity of symptoms, the presence of comorbidities and the impact on the patient's quality of life. We discuss different drug treatment, in addition to non-pharmacological measures, such as environmental control and specific immunotherapy; and the possible role of immunobiological agents. Furthermore, the consensus addresses issues related to patient education, prevention and management of special situations, such as rhinitis in children, in pregnant women and in the elderly. In short, the "V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis" represents a comprehensive and updated guide for healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and management of rhinitis, aiming to improve patients' quality of life through an integrated and evidence-based approach.

Onset of efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride 0.15% nasal spray for allergic rhinitis in an environmental exposure chamber

BACKGROUND

Azelastine nasal spray is effective in relieving symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.15% vs placebo in participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A total of 110 participants aged 18 to 65 years were randomized to receive azelastine HCl 0.15% 2 sprays per nostril vs placebo nasal spray after being continuously exposed to ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure chamber. Symptoms were evaluated subjectively by the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) scale. The primary efficacy parameter was the time to onset of efficacy of azelastine as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 minutes post-dose.

RESULTS

The azelastine nasal spray group had statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo 30 minutes post-dose (P = .0002), and the effect was sustainable throughout the environmental exposure chamber session for all subsequent time points (P < .0001). Adverse events were mild, including bitter taste, nasal discomfort, epistaxis, sinusitis, and nausea. No major adverse events were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

Azelastine HCl 0.15% nasal spray relieves nasal symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis and has a fast onset of action within 30 minutes. The overall safety profile of azelastine has also been proven to be safe. These results, along with previous findings on efficacy and improved quality of life for people with allergic rhinitis, establish the important clinical role of azelastine HCl 0.15%.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04264637.

The Use of Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate in the Management of Allergic Rhinitis in Asia: A Review

The incidence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Asia and the world is steadily rising. Patients experience incomplete symptom relief despite existing treatment options, which warrants the need for new therapeutic regimes. Azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu), a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate has been indicated in the treatment of AR. The current review discusses the effects of MP-AzeFlu versus conventional therapies in achieving superior clinical improvement with a very rapid onset of action (5 minutes). The superiority of MP-AzeFlu in offering complete symptom control with sustained relief in patients with AR compared to the existing therapeutic options is also discussed. MP-AzeFlu has been shown to improve the quality of life for patients with AR, thereby enhancing patient adherence to therapy and establishing its preference for the treatment of AR. Currently, the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines recommend the use of a combination of intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines as first-line treatment in patients with persistent AR with visual analog scores ≥5 or when prior treatment with single agents has been ineffective. Widely published data on the efficacy and safety of its prolonged use in adults and children have validated that effective treatment of AR can be achieved with MP-AzeFlu.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of two doses of azelastine hydrochloride in perennial allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

Materials and methods

A total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo.

Results

Least square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported.

Conclusion

The present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

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.

Comorbid allergic rhinitis and asthma: important clinical considerations

INTRODUCTION

The numerous links between allergic rhinitis and asthma have been extensively explored in the last two decades, gaining great concern within the scientific community. These two conditions frequently coexist in the same patient and share numerous pathogenetic and pathophysiological mechanisms.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed major pathophysiological, epidemiological, and clinical links between allergic rhinitis and asthma. We also provided a comprehensive discussion of allergic rhinitis treatment according to current guidelines, with a particular focus on the relevance of allergic rhinitis therapies in patients with comorbid asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

We believe that there are several unmet needs for our patients, however, there are promising advances forecasted for the future. Although allergic rhinitis is a recognized risk factor for asthma, a proper asthma detection and prevention plan in allergic rhinitis patients is not available. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents a promising preventive strategy and may deserve an earlier positioning in allergic rhinitis management. A multidisciplinary approach should characterize the journey of patients with respiratory allergies, with an adequate referral to specialized Allergy/Asthma centers. Molecular Allergy Diagnosis may provide support for optimal AIT use. Finally, a possible evolution of biological treatment can be envisaged, mainly if biosimilars decrease such therapies' costs.

The Nose as a Route for Therapy: Part 1. Pharmacotherapy

This article reviews nasal structure and function in the light of intranasal pharmacotherapy. The nose provides an accessible, fast route for local treatment of nose and sinus diseases, with lower doses than are necessary systemically and few adverse effects. It can also be used for other medications as it has sufficient surface area protected from local damage by mucociliary clearance, absence of digestive enzymes, responsive blood flow, and provides a rapid route to the central nervous system.

Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is caused by immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reactions to inhaled allergens and is one of the most common chronic conditions globally. AR often co-occurs with asthma and conjunctivitis and is a global health problem causing major burden and disability worldwide. Risk factors include inhalant and occupational allergens, as well as genetic factors. AR impairs quality of life, affects social life, school and work, and is associated with substantial economic costs. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative classified AR into intermittent or persistent and mild or moderate/severe. The diagnosis is based on the clinical history and, if needed in patients with uncontrolled rhinitis despite medications or with long-lasting symptoms, on skin tests or the presence of serum-specific IgE antibodies to allergens. The most frequently used pharmacological treatments include oral, intranasal or ocular H₁-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids or a fixed combination of intranasal H₁-antihistamines and corticosteroids. Allergen immunotherapy prescribed by a specialist using high-quality extracts in stratified patients is effective in patients with persistent symptoms. Real-world data obtained by mobile technology offer new insights into AR phenotypes and management. The outlook for AR includes a better understanding of novel multimorbid phenotypes, health technology assessment and patient-centred shared decision-making.

ARIA 2019 Care Pathways for Allergic Rhinitis in the Kuwait Health Care System

A worldwide increase in prevalence of allergic diseases has led to adaptations in national and international health care systems. ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma) initiative develops internationally applicable guidelines for allergic respiratory diseases. In collaboration with international initiatives, ARIA offers updates of real-life integrated care pathways (ICPs) for digitally assisted, integrated, and individualized treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). This article presents certain aspects of the health care system in Kuwait with reference to the management of AR and the objective of introducing ICPs and adopting the latest ARIA recommendations. Guidelines for ICPs include aspects of patients and health care providers and cover key areas of management of AR. This model of guidelines supports real-life health care better than traditional models. ARIA recommendations will be locally integrated in the health care system with the aim of improving both pharmacotherapy and allergy immunotherapy.

[Rhinitis medicamentosa]

One type of non-allergic non-infectious rhinitis is represented by a heterogeneous group of rhinitis medicamentosa, which can be divided into several pathogenetic types. The most common rebound nasal congestion associated with the use of topical decongestants. Excessive use of intranasal decongestants leads to a decrease in the number of alpha-adrenoreceptors on the surface of cell membranes and uncoupling their connection with the G-protein and the development of tachyphylaxis. To prevent the development of rebound nasal congestion caused by topical decongestants, it is important to limit the frequency of their use. In most cases, the duration of the use of vasoconstrictor drugs should be limited to 5-7 days, according to Patient information leaflets for the drugs. However, in patients who have had a history of episodes of rebound nasal congestion, which develops including the previously indicated periods, the duration of decongestant therapy should be limited to 3 days. Rhinitis associated with local inflammation is caused by the intake of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Currently, the so-called "aspirin triad" is well known - a combination of bronchial asthma, rhinosinusitis (often polyposis) and intolerance to ASA. Neurogenic rhinitis develops due to the use of drugs that violate vascular tone, for example, antihypertensive drugs or type 5 phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Drug-induced rhinitis has a significant impact on the patient's quality of life: nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, secondary night apnea, insomnia as a result of nasal breathing disturbances, headaches, irritability, weakness after sleepless nights disturb patients to a large extent. Timely diagnosis and withdrawal of a provocative drug, the use of topical corticosteroids in case of severe rhinitis are the basis of the treatment of rhinitis medicamentosa. In severe cases, there is a need, including surgical treatment, such as, for example, submucosal laser destruction of the lower nasal concha.

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.

Utility of Environmental Exposure Unit Challenge Protocols for the Study of Allergic Rhinitis Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper explores how the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) experimental model can be used to further our understanding of pharmacotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

RECENT FINDINGS

EEUs are used increasingly for the study of combination therapies, immunotherapies, and novel AR treatments. A combined antihistamine/corticosteroid nasal spray formulation was seen to have a faster onset of action relative to the therapies individually in the Environmental Exposure Chamber. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets are both safe and efficacious as evaluated by the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The Kingston EEU found that a novel peptide-based immunotherapy approach to be effective in reducing grass pollen-induced AR. Lastly, nasal filters were determined to reduce seasonal AR symptoms, given out-of-season in the Denmark Environmental Exposure Unit. EEUs are controlled, replicable models that provide valuable insight into the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and dose-related impacts of AR therapeutics, with direct clinical relevance.

ARIA 2019, Allerjik Rinite Tedavi Yaklaşımı-Türkiye

Gerçek yaşamda, çevresel maruziyetlerin de etkilediği rinit ve astım mültimorbidite durumlarında, dijitalleşmiş ve kişiye odaklanan tedaviler için bütünleştirilmiş tedavi yollarının değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir. Gerçek yaşamdaki bu durum mültisipliner bir yaklaşımla basamaklandırılıp, rehberilerinde ülkelerdeki gereksinimlere göre değiştilmesini gerektirebilir. Allerjik rinitte hem farmakoterapi hem immünoterapi açısından acil yeni yaklaşımlara ihtiyaç olduğu görülmüştür. 3. Aralık 2018'de Paris'te bir toplantı yapılmış ve iki ayrı belge hazırlanmıştır. Bu yayında bunlara ait bir özet sunulup, ülkeye ve sağlık sistemine uygun kullanımın çerçevesi oluşturulmak istenmiştir.

ARIA guideline 2019: treatment of allergic rhinitis in the German health system

Background: The number of patients affected by allergies is increasing worldwide. The resulting allergic diseases are leading to significant costs for health care and social systems. Integrated care pathways are needed to enable comprehensive care within the national health systems. The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative develops internationally applicable guidelines for allergic respiratory diseases. Methods: ARIA serves to improve the care of patients with allergies and chronic respiratory diseases. In collaboration with other international initiatives, national associations and patient organizations in the field of allergies and respiratory diseases, real-life integrated care pathways have been developed for a digitally assisted, integrative, individualized treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) with comorbid asthma. In the present work, these integrated care pathways have been adapted to the German situation and health system. Results: The present ICP (integrated care pathway) guideline covers key areas of the care of AR patients with and without asthma. It includes the views of patients and other healthcare providers. Discussion: A comprehensive ICP guideline can reflect real-life care better than traditional guideline models.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2019 and beyond

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future.

Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

Rapid onset of action and reduced nasal hyperreactivity: new targets in allergic rhinitis management

Background

This article summarizes a EUFOREA symposium, presented during the European Rhinology Research Forum in Brussels (9–10 November 2017; https://www.rhinologyresearch.eu/) which focused on novel pathways and therapeutic approaches in allergic rhinitis (AR).

Main body

AR remains under-diagnosed, under-estimated and under-treated. A key component in understanding the AR landscape has been the realization of a significant mismatch between how physicians instruct AR patients to manage their disease and what AR patients actually do in real life. Data from the Allergy Diary (developed by MACVIA ARIA) showed that AR patients take their medication prn, rapidly switch treatments, often experience poor control, use multiple therapies and stop treatment when symptoms are controlled. Better control of AR may be achievable by using an AR treatment which has a rapid onset of action and which effectively targets breakthrough symptoms. Indeed, AR patients report complete symptom relief, lack of breakthrough symptoms, rapid onset of action, safety and use on an ‘as needed’ basis as key targets for new nasal sprays. MP-AzeFlu comprises intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a novel formulation delivered in a single device. It is the first AR treatment to break the 5 min onset of action threshold and provides clinically relevant symptom relief in 15 min, much faster than that noted for FP + oral loratadine. MP-AzeFlu also significantly reduces nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR) which may be responsible for the breakthrough symptoms frequently reported by AR patients. Mechanisms underlying MP-AzeFlu’s effect include inhibition of mast cell degranulation, stabilization of the mucosal barrier, synergistic inhibition of inflammatory cell recruitment and a unique desensitization of sensory neurons expressing the transient receptor potential A1 and V1 channels.

Conclusion

With the most rapid onset of action and onset of clinically-relevant effect of any AR medication currently available, and proven efficacy in the treatment of NHR, MP-AzeFlu is an AR treatment which provides what patients want, and fits how patients manage their AR in real life.

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber

BACKGROUND

A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP).

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP.

CONCLUSION

MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Intranasal azelastine and mometasone exhibit a synergistic effect on a murine model of allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-allergic effects of the combination of azelastine and mometasone with those of either agent alone in a Dermatophagoides farinae (Derf)-induced murine model of allergic rhinitis (AR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty BALB/c mice were divided into five groups: azelastine (A), mometasone (M), a combination of azelastine and mometasone (MA), Derf, and control. Derf served as the allergen. Allergic symptom scores, eosinophil counts, and serum Derf-specific IgE levels were measured. The mucosal levels of mRNAs encoding interferon (IFN)-γ, T-bet, interleukin (IL)-4, GATA-3, Foxp3, IL-17, and ROR-γt were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The T-bet, GATA-3, Foxp3, and ROR-γt results were confirmed by Western blotting.

RESULTS

Nose-rubbing motions; the levels of mRNAs encoding IL-4, GATA-3, and ROR-γt; and tissue eosinophil count were reduced in the MA compared with those in the Derf group (all P values <0.05). The levels of mRNAs encoding GATA3 and IL-4 mRNA [synthesized by T helper (Th)2 cells] were reduced and that of mRNA encoding Foxp3 was increased in the MA compared with those in the Derf and A groups. Western blotting confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

We found that the combination of intranasal azelastine and mometasone synergistically suppressed Th17 responses and (reciprocally) elevated Treg responses. Therefore, this combination not only ameliorated allergic inflammation by suppressing Th2 responses, but also usefully modified the Treg/Th17 balance.

Technical and clinical validation of an environmental exposure unit for ragweed

Background

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition, with ragweed pollen one of the more prevalent aeroallergens. Environmental exposure units such as the Allergen BioCube^® are valuable models for clinical allergy studies. A study was conducted to validate the Allergen BioCube for uniform ragweed pollen concentrations and clinically relevant sign and symptom responses to ragweed exposure.

Methods

Ragweed pollen concentrations were measured on 3 consecutive days in the Allergen BioCube and verified by Rotorod collection and continuous laser particle count measurements. Subjects (N=10) were exposed to ragweed pollen in the BioCube for 3 hours per day for 3 consecutive days. Subjects assessed their nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal congestion during each BioCube exposure; total nasal symptom score was computed. Peak nasal inspiratory flow was also assessed during BioCube exposure.

Results

Uniform ragweed pollen concentrations were obtained throughout each of the 3-hour testing periods in the Allergen BioCube, both spatially and temporally, at all subject positions, with a low mean standard deviation of 10%. Pronounced increases in mean total nasal symptom scores (6.7±0.94 to 7.6±0.86, last 90 minutes of exposure) occurred for all three BioCube ragweed pollen exposure visits. Mean peak nasal inspiratory flow decreased 24% at 3 hours of BioCube exposure on Day 3. No safety issues of concern occurred in this study.

Conclusion

The Allergen BioCube achieved technical and clinical validation for ragweed allergen. Ragweed pollen concentration was uniform both temporally and spatially. Allergic rhinitis signs and symptoms were induced in subjects during exposure to ragweed in the BioCube at clinically meaningful levels for allergy studies.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

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

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

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.

Environmental exposure chambers in allergen immunotherapy trials: Current status and clinical validation needs

As required by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for pivotal trials involving allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products, clinical efficacy assessment is currently based on double-blind, placebo-controlled field studies with natural allergen exposure during the allergen season. However, this study design is associated with several drawbacks, such as the high variability of allergen exposure in different trial sites or seasons and the presence of confounding environmental factors. On the contrary, environmental exposure chambers (EECs) aim to operate with a stable and reproducible allergen exposure under highly standardized environmental conditions. Technical validation parameters for different EECs worldwide have been published by several groups. However, full clinical validation of EEC study outcomes is required for their classification as an appropriate alternative to natural allergen exposure for AIT product efficacy assessment. Some clinical validation parameters have already been addressed for EEC units. The reliability of provoked symptoms in repeated EEC sessions is high, but the predictive power of EEC settings for the clinical response on natural exposure and the impact of seasonal priming on test results still have to be validated systematically, as does the inter-EEC variability. Thus the authors recommend a continued in-depth validation of EECs to exploit the potential of this technology for future AIT product development.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis with ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops in comparison with azelastine containing nasal spray and eye drops or with cromoglycic Acid containing nasal spray

Objectives. Allergic rhinitis is a common disease with increasing prevalence and high impact on economic burden and comorbidities. As treatment with pharmacological drugs is not always satisfactory due to side effects and incomplete efficacy, alternative treatment strategies are needed. Ectoine is an osmolyte with membrane stabilizing and inflammation reducing capacities. Nasal spray and eye drops containing ectoine are promising new treatment regimens for allergic rhinitis sufferers. Design and Methods. The current two noninterventional trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops for treating allergic rhinitis in comparison with either azelastine or cromoglycic acid containing products. Nasal and ocular symptom developments as well as judgment of tolerability and efficacy were assessed both by investigators and patients over a time period of one to two weeks. Results. Both trials confirmed that ectoine containing products reduced nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients. Results clearly demonstrated good safety profiles of the ectoine products comparable to those of azelastine and even better to those of cromoglycate products. Conclusion. Ectoine containing nasal spray and eye drops are interesting new treatment strategies for sufferers of allergic rhinitis, combining both good efficacy and absence of side effects.

Characteristics of the Chiba environmental challenge chamber

BACKGROUND

An environmental challenge chamber (ECC), which we refer to as the α-chamber, was built at Chiba University in 2008. The aim of this study was to validate the functionality of the ECC.

METHODS

The stability of the pollen distribution and concentration in the ECC and symptoms of patients with Japanese cedar pollinosis induced by cedar pollen exposure were examined. Carryover effects of symptoms induced by different exposure protocols and correlations between symptoms induced in the ECC and those in the natural cedar pollen season were also determined. All the studies using the α-chamber were conducted out of the cedar pollen season.

RESULTS

The severity of symptoms in the chamber reached a peak about 2 hours after the start of pollen exposure and plateaued thereafter. After subjects left the chamber, the symptoms persisted for several days. There was no significant difference between the severity of symptoms at exposure levels of 8000 and 12000 grains/m3. The symptoms were significantly increased by exposure for 3 consecutive days; however, there were no carryover effects in a study performed with a two-week interval. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS) in the natural pollen season showed a weak correlation with the mean TNSS on the day of exposure and the following 3 days. Symptoms in the ECC also had weak correlations with those in the early natural pollen season.

CONCLUSIONS

The ECC under well-controlled conditions is suitable for clinical studies and might accelerate development of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis. A complete evaluation requires inclusion of the persistent reaction after subjects leave the ECC.

A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis

Background

Azelastine has been shown to be effective against seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) is a validated model of experimental SAR. The objective of this double-blind, four-way crossover study was to evaluate the onset of action of azelastine nasal spray, versus the oral antihistamines loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg in the relief of the symptoms of SAR.

Methods

70 participants, aged 18-65, were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray, cetirizine, loratadine, or placebo after controlled ragweed pollen exposure in the EEU. Symptoms were evaluated using the total nasal symptom score (TNSS). The primary efficacy parameter was the onset of action as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS.

Results

Azelastine displayed a statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo at all time points from 15 minutes through 6 hours post dose. Azelastine, cetirizine, and loratadine reduced TNSS compared to placebo with an onset of action of 15 (p < 0.001), 60 (p = 0.015), and 75 (p = 0.034) minutes, respectively. The overall assessment of efficacy was rated as good or very good by 46% of the participants for azelastine, 51% of the participants for cetirizine, and 30% of the participants for loratadine compared to 18% of the participants for placebo.

Conclusions

Azelastine’s onset of action for symptom relief was faster than that of cetirizine and loratadine. The overall participant satisfaction in treatment with azelastine is comparable to cetirizine and statistically superior to loratadine. These results suggest that azelastine may be preferential to oral antihistamines for the rapid relief of SAR symptoms.

Pollen starch granules in bronchial inflammation

BACKGROUND

Pollen grains with a diameter of more than 10 μm preferentially deposit in the upper airways. Their contribution to lower airway inflammation is unclear. One hypothesis is that lower airway inflammation is mainly caused by allergen containing pollen starch granules, which are released from the pollen grains and can easily enter the peripheral airways because of their smaller size.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the differential effect of pollen grains and pollen starch granules on nasal symptoms and lower airway inflammation.

METHODS

In a 2-period crossover design, 30 patients with allergic rhinitis and mild intermittent asthma underwent 2 allergen challenges on consecutive days in an environmental challenge chamber with either a mixture of pollen grains plus starch granules or starch granules only. End points were the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nasal secretion weight, nasal flow, spirometry, and exhaled nitric oxide (eNO).

RESULTS

The presence of pollen grains had a significant and considerable effect on increase in TNSS and secretion weight and on decrease in nasal flow. Starch granules alone only had minimal effects on nasal symptoms. Challenges with starch granules significantly increased eNO. Pollen had no effect on eNO.

CONCLUSION

Pollen grains cause nasal symptoms but do not augment lower airway inflammation, whereas starch granules trigger lower airway inflammation but hardly induce nasal symptoms.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

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

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

Anti-allergic drug testing in an environmental challenge chamber is suitable both in and out of the relevant pollen season

BACKGROUND

An environmental challenge chamber (ECC) is a useful tool to expose allergic patients to relevant allergens in a controlled indoor setting and to test anti-allergic treatment. Hitherto, ECC studies with grass pollen are conducted primarily outside of the pollen season to avoid the influence of natural pollen exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether an established anti-allergic treatment, a combination of cetirizine (CET) and pseudoephedrine (PSE), shows an equivalent treatment effect within and outside of the grass pollen season when tested in an ECC.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, four-way crossover study, the effect of a combination of 10 mg CET and 120 mg PSE compared with placebo on nasal symptoms, nasal flow, and nasal secretion was investigated in 70 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Subjects underwent four 6-hour pollen challenges in an ECC with administration of the drugs after 2 hours. Two challenges were conducted within the grass pollen season and two out of the grass pollen season.

RESULTS

The active treatment significantly improved nasal symptoms and nasal flow and significantly reduced the amount of nasal secretion compared with placebo both within and outside of the pollen season (P < .0001 each). The treatment effect was not different between the seasons (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Controlled allergen provocation in an ECC can be used to test anti-allergic treatment both within and outside of the grass pollen season.

The efficacy of intranasal antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the new use of intranasal antihistamines as first-line therapies, compare and contrast this class of medication with the traditionally available medications, and discuss the potential for intranasal antihistamines to provide relief superior to second-generation oral antihistamines.

DATA SOURCES

Review articles and original research articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, OVID, PubMed (1950 to November 2009), personal files of articles, and bibliographies of located articles that addressed the topic of interest.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were selected for their relevance to intranasal antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis. Publications included reviews, treatment guidelines, and clinical studies (primarily randomized controlled trials) of both children and adults.

RESULTS

This panel was charged with reviewing the place of intranasal antihistamines in the spectrum of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Intranasal antihistamines have been shown in numerous randomized, placebo-controlled trials to be more efficacious than the oral antihistamines. Although intranasal corticosteroids are considered by some to be superior to intranasal antihistamines, multiple studies have shown an equal effect of the 2 classes of medication. Both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines have been shown to reduce all symptoms of allergic rhinitis. In addition, some intranasal antihistamines have a more rapid onset of action than intranasal corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

The future of allergy treatment will likely involve a combination of both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines because of the benefits of local administration and their additive effect on efficacy.

Experimental and seasonal exposure to birch pollen in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma with regard to the inflammatory response

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Seasonal allergy is an interesting model to study the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in allergic inflammation. However, experimental allergen exposure is easier to perform and standardise. The primary aim of this study was to compare the inflammatory responses to high-dose bronchial challenge and natural exposure during birch pollen season. The second aim was to compare the responses of patients with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, respectively to both types of allergen exposure.

METHODS

Fifteen birch pollen-allergic patients (seven with asthma and eight with rhinitis) and five healthy individuals were studied during pollen season and after challenge with birch allergen. Symptoms, medication and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) were recorded, and blood samples, spirometry and induced sputum were analysed during season and after challenge.

RESULTS

Patients with allergic asthma demonstrated a greater bronchial responsiveness to bronchial provocation with birch allergen than patients with rhinitis (P = 0.04) whereas no difference was found regarding nasal challenge. No significant association was found between the level of responsiveness and the inflammatory response after seasonal exposure. Seasonal exposure was related to a more marked systemic inflammatory blood-eosinophil increase than bronchial challenge [(median) (0.25 vs 0.11 x 109/L, P = 0.03)] and after nasal challenge, respectively [(median) (0.25 vs 0.04 x 109/L, P = 0.003)]. A significant correlation in eosinophil cationic protein in induced sputum was found between the experimental and seasonal exposure (rho = 0.62, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchial allergen challenge with inhalation of birch pollen gives a similar inflammatory response in the airway but less systemic inflammation than seasonal exposure in birch pollen allergic patients with asthma and rhinitis.

Azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Reformulated Azelastine Nasal Spray in Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine with a distinctive taste that may be objectionable to some patients. The primary objectives of this clinical trial were (1) to determine if a reformulated azelastine nasal spray (Astepro) with sucralose as a taste-masking agent provides comparable efficacy to the original formulation (Astelin) and (2) to evaluate dose–response relationships between groups.

Methods

Eight hundred thirty-five patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomized to six treatment groups: (1) original azelastine nasal spray, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (2) reformulated azelastine, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (3) placebo, 1 spray/nostril b.i.d.; (4) original azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d., (5) reformulated, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.; and (6) placebo, 2 sprays/nostril b.i.d. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion.

Results

Original azelastine nasal spray and the reformulated spray produced comparable improvements in the TNSS at both dosages. There was a dose-related difference in TNSS comparing the 1- and 2-spray dosages. The percentage changes from baseline in the TNSS in the 2-sprays/nostril dosage groups were 27.9% (p < 0.001) with the reformulated nasal spray, 23.5% (p < 0.01) with the original formulation, and 15.4% with placebo. The incidence of bitter taste was 7% with the reformulated spray and 8% with the original at the 2-sprays/nostril dosage.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed efficacy both with original azelastine nasal spray and with the reformulated nasal spray and a clear dose–response difference between the 1- and 2-spray dosages.

Update on prescription and over-the-counter histamine inverse agonists in rhinitis therapy

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is associated with histamine-mediated physiologic events. The currently used histamine antagonists are all inverse agonists that bind and inactivate histamine H1 receptors. Second-generation antihistamines are much more H1-receptor selective with less central nervous system penetration than first-generation agents. Antihistamines typically are more effective in seasonal than perennial AR and do not demonstrate significant relief of nasal congestion. The recent availability of some second-generation antihistamines as over-the-counter products clearly places them as the preferred first-line treatment for mild to moderate AR based on safety when compared with first-generation over-the-counter antihistamines. The remaining prescription-only second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine, desloratadine, and levocetirizine, all have unique attributes. Antihistamines in oral, intranasal, or intraocular formulations will likely remain among the mainstays of allergy therapeutics.