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

Adverse Events Associated with Intranasal Sprays: An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Database and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays (INSs) are commonly used medications for the treatment of many rhinologic conditions. Despite their popularity, an analysis of a nationwide reporting database and comparison to the available literature has never been performed.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was accessed to obtain adverse event (AE) records from 2014 to 2019 for varying INSs, including: 10 corticosteroids, 1 alpha adrenergic, and 3 antihistamines. The Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR) and Reporting Odds Ratios (ROR) were calculated for dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache. A PRR ≥ 2 or ROR ≥ 1 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Corticosteroids had 98 864 total reported AEs to the database, followed by antihistamines (7011) and alpha adrenergics (2071). In total, dyspnea was reported 5843 times, followed by headache (4230), epistaxis (1205), ageusia/dysgeusia (920), and anosmia (312). Overall, PRR and ROR values for dyspnea ranged from 0.51 to 4.25 and 0.51 to 4.49; for dysgeusia/ageusia from 0.56 to 6.09 and 0.56 to 6.12; and for epistaxis from 1.03 to 27.24 and 1.03 to 30.76, respectively. All medications which listed anosmia within the top AEs had PRR and ROR values exceeding 2 and 1, respectively. The PRR for headache exceeded 2 for 1 medication and the ROR exceeded 1 in 7 medications.

CONCLUSION

The AEs of dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache are reported within the FAERS database for commonly prescribed INSs. When compared against the existing scientific literature, the clinical significance of this reporting tool from the FDA for these classes of medications remains unvalidated.

The subtle nuances of intranasal corticosteroids

Background

In the specialty of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for inflammatory processes within the nasal cavity. All too often, physician prescribing patterns are based on previous training, personal experience, and interactions with industry. The purpose of this commentary is to review the nuances of each intranasal corticosteroid.

Commentary

There are nine intranasal corticosteroids approved for use in Canada. Each are discussed in detail, including their indication, bioavailability, effects on intranasal environment, and factors around patient adherence. Off-label use of budesonide irrigations is also discussed and cost information is presented in reference format for all available intranasal corticosteroids.

Conclusion

Although the efficacy of each intranasal corticosteroid has been shown to be similar, prescribing should be tailored based on bioavailability, intranasal environment, and factors that impact patient adherence such as dosing, cost and tolerability.

Graphical abstract

Determinants of the Nasal Microbiome: Pilot Study of Effects of Intranasal Medication Use

Introduction

A role for bacteria and other microbes has long been suspected in the chronic inflammatory sinonasal diseases. Recent studies utilizing culture-independent, sequence-based identification have demonstrated aberrant shifts in the sinus microbiota of chronic rhinosinusitis subjects, compared with ostensibly healthy controls. Examining how such microbiota shifts occur and the potential for physician-prescribed interventions to influence microbiota dynamics are the topics of the current article.

Methods

The nasal cavity microbiota of 5 subjects was serially examined over an 8-week period using pan-bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Four of the subjects were administered topical mometasone furoate spray, while 1 subject underwent a mupirocin decolonization procedure in anticipation of orthopedic surgery.

Results

Measures of microbial diversity were unaffected by intranasal treatment in 2 patients and were markedly increased in the remaining 3. The increase in microbial diversity was related to clearance of Moraxella spp. and a simultaneous increase in members of the phylum Actinobacteria. Both effects persisted at least 2 weeks beyond cessation of treatment. Transient changes in the relative abundance of several bacterial genera, including Staphylococcus and Priopionibacteria, were also observed during treatment.

Conclusions

The effects of intranasal steroids on the sinonasal microbiome are poorly understood, despite their widespread use in treating chronic sinonasal inflammatory disorders. In this longitudinal study, administration of intranasal mometasone furoate or mupirocin resulted in shifts in microbial diversity that persisted to some degree following treatment cessation. Further characterization of these effects as well as elucidation of the mechanism(s) underlying these changes is needed.

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 in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis: a non-inferiority study (PUMA)

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis is considered the most prevalent respiratory disease in Brazil and worldwide, with great impact on quality of life, affecting social life, sleep, and also performance at school and at work.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of two formulations containing mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis after four weeks of treatment.

Methods

Phase III, randomized, non-inferiority, national, open study comparing mometasone furoate in two presentations (control drug and investigational drug). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with reduction of at least 0.55 in nasal index score (NIS) after four weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included total nasal index score score after four and 12 weeks of treatment; individual scores for symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal pruritus; as well as score for pruritus, lacrimation, and ocular redness after four and 12 weeks of treatment. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number NCT01372865.

Results

The efficacy primary analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of the investigational drug in relation to the control drug, since the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) of 95% for the difference between the success rates after four weeks of treatment (12.6%) was below the non-inferiority margin provided during the determination of the sample size (13.7%). Adverse events were infrequent and with mild intensity in most cases.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of investigational drug in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis were similar to the reference product, demonstrating its non-inferiority.

Allergic Rhinitis: Mechanisms and Treatment

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has been estimated at 10% to 40%, and its economic burden is substantial. AR patients develop specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody responses to indoor and outdoor environmental allergens with exposure over time. These specific IgE antibodies bind to high-affinity IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils. Key outcome measures of therapeutic interventions include rhinitis symptom control, rescue medication requirements, and quality-of-life measures. A comprehensive multiple modality treatment plan customized to the individual patient can optimize outcomes.

Effect of three-drug delivery modalities on olfactory function in chronic sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Olfactory dysfunction is deemed to be a significant contributor to poor quality of life in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

OBJECTIVE

To assess and to compare the effectiveness of three modalities of corticosteroids administration in patients with CRS.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective randomized controlled study

METHODS

Thirty patients with CRS were randomized in three groups depending on the route of corticosteroids administration: 16 days by oral route (Medrol (Pfizer, Belgique), 32 mg/8 days -16 mg/4 days-8 mg/4 days); nasal spray (Rhinocort (AstraZeneca, Belgique), 2 × 2 × 64 µg/nostril); or sonic nebulization (Pulmicort (AstraZeneca, Belgique), 2 × 1 mg/4 mL) (Sonic nebulizer, AOHBOX-NL11SN, DTF, France). Olfactory function was assessed using orthonasal threshold discrimination identification and retronasal psychophysical olfactory tests (RNT) before and after the treatment. Same intranasal modalities were previously tested for in vitro airways scintigraphic deposition.

RESULTS

In vitro differences in drug deposition pattern between both intranasal modalities were demonstrated. Threshold discrimination identification and RNT were similar between three groups at baseline. Threshold discrimination identification improved by 5.5, 5.8, and -1.1 for sonic nebulization, oral, and nasal spray groups, respectively (P = 0.010). This improvement was clinically relevant for oral and nebulized administration. It was similar between oral and nebulized administration but significantly higher than nasal spray administration. Retronasal psychophysical olfactory tests improved similarly for the three groups (P = 0.231) CONCLUSION: Effectiveness of sonic nebulized and oral administration is demonstrated on orthonasal olfactory. The clinical benefit is better than with nasal spray.

Current recommendations and emerging options for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases and represents a global health problem, currently affecting up to 30% of the general population, with a continuously increasing prevalence and significant comorbidities and complications. The aim of this review is to provide an update on AR treatment, with a focus on current therapies defined by AR and its impact on asthma guidelines and with a particular emphasis on new and future therapeutic perspectives.