Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis

An evidence gap map of interventions for noncommunicable diseases and risk factors among children and adolescents

Substance misuse, obesity, mental health conditions, type 1 diabetes, cancers, and cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases together account for 41% of disability-adjusted life years linked to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) among children and adolescents worldwide. However, the evidence on risk factors and interventions for this age group is scarce. Here we searched four databases to generate an evidence gap map of existing interventions and research gaps for these risk factors and NCDs. We mapped 159 reviews with 2,611 primary studies; most (96.2%) were conducted in high-income countries, and only 100 studies (3.8%) were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The efficacy of therapeutic interventions on biomarkers and adverse events for NCDs appears to be well evidenced. Interventions for mental health conditions appear to be moderately evidenced, while interventions for obesity and substance misuse appear to be moderate to very low evidenced. Priority areas for future research include evaluating digital health platforms to support primary NCD prevention and management, and evaluating the impact of policy changes on the prevalence of obesity and substance misuse. Our findings highlight the wide disparity of evidence between high-income countries and LMICs. There is an urgent need for increased, targeted financing to address the research gaps in LMICs.

Factors affecting adherence to intranasal treatment for allergic rhinitis: A qualitative study

Objective

To determine the facilitators of and barriers to adherence to use of intranasal pharmacotherapy (daily intranasal corticosteroids and/or antihistamine, and nasal saline irrigation [NSI]), for allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

Patients were recruited from an academic tertiary care rhinology and allergy clinic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the initial visit and/or 4-6 weeks following treatment. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory, inductive approach to elucidate themes regarding patient adherence to AR treatment.

Results

A total of 32 patients (12 male, 20 female; age 22-78) participated (seven at initial visit, seven at follow-up visit, and 18 at both). Memory triggers, such as linking nasal routine to existing daily activities or medications, were identified by patients as the most helpful strategy for adherence at initial and follow-up visits. Logistical obstacles related to NSI (messy, takes time, etc.) was the most common concept discussed at follow-up. Patients modified the regimen based on side effects experienced or perceived efficacy.

Conclusions

Memory triggers help patients adhere to nasal routines. Logistical obstacles related to NSI can deter from use. Health care providers should address both concepts during patient counseling. Nudge-based interventions that incorporate these concepts may help improve adherence to AR treatment.

Level of Evidence

2.

Comparison of the Effects of Azelastine and Fluticasone Nasal Sprays in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent, allergen-induced disease. Intranasal corticosteroids are currently the first-line therapy for these patients. It is uncertain whether intranasal antihistamines have comparable efficacy. This study compares effects of Azelastine and Fluticasone nasal spray in patients with allergic rhinitis. Prospective comparative study including 240 patients with allergic rhinitis was conducted with 120 each in fluticasone and azelastine group. Nasal sprays were given for period of three months along with an oral antihistamine. Follow up was done after three months. Pre and post treatment symptom assessment were done using Total nasal symptom score. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group A (fluticasone) is 10(4) and 1(3) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. Median TNSS in pre and post treatment of group B (azelastine) is 9(4) and 1(2) which shows statistical significance with p value < 0.001. The median TNSS in pre and post treatment value between Group A and B shows no statistically significant difference between two groups with p value 0.56 and 0.06 respectively. Intranasal azelastine and fluticasone had comparable efficacy in symptom control in patients with allergic rhinitis. Azelastine due to its lesser side effects, can be safely used in children, patients with glaucoma and cataract. Azelastine may be considered as a safer replacement to fluticasone for long term use in patients with allergic rhinitis. A larger multicentric study with a bigger sample size may be required to confirm the efficacy and safety profile of azelastine nasal spray.

The complex pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis: scientific rationale for the development of an alternative treatment option

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a global health problem and can be challenging to treat. Many of the current symptomatic treatments for AR have been available for decades, yet there has been little improvement in patient quality of life or symptom burden over the years. In this review, we ask why this might be and explore the pathophysiological gaps that exist within the various AR treatment classes. We focus on the benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options and delivery routes for AR treatments and consider how, given what is known about AR pathophysiology and symptomatology, patients may be offered more effective treatment options for rapid, effective, and sustained AR control. In particular, we consider how a new AR preparation, MP-AzeFlu (Dymista^®, Meda, Sweden), comprising a formulation of an intranasal antihistamine (azelastine hydrochloride), an intranasal corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate), and excipients delivered in a single spray, may offer benefits over and above single and multiple AR therapy options. We review the evidence in support of this treatment across the spectrum of AR disease. The concept of AR control is also reviewed within the context of new European Union and Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif-Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiatives.

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR). Triamcinolone acetonide is a nasal corticosteroid preparation indicated for the treatment of seasonal and perennial AR (PAR) in different countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

In order to determine the efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of PAR, the non-inferiority of triamcinolone acetonide to fluticasone propionate was assessed in Russian adults.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, prospective, non-inferiority, phase III clinical trial, a total of 260 patients with persistent PAR were randomized to receive either triamcinolone acetonide or fluticasone propionate nasal sprays for 4 weeks. The efficacy in symptom control was evaluated using the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) from baseline (day 0) to day 28. Safety was assessed through the reporting of adverse events.

RESULTS

The rTNSS mean values decreased from baseline to the end of study treatment (day 28) in both groups: -8.2 ± 3.0 in the triamcinolone acetonide arm versus -8.0 ± 2.8 in the fluticasone propionate arm. The mean difference between the groups (triamcinolone acetonide - fluticasone propionate) for rTNSS change from baseline was -0.2 (95% confidence interval -0.89 to 0.54), with an upper confidence limit of 0.54, which is lower than the non-inferiority margin of 0.8. Triamcinolone acetonide was well tolerated, with no difference in adverse event occurrence compared with fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSIONS

Triamcinolone acetonide proved to be non-inferior to fluticasone propionate in adult patients with PAR; both treatments decreased rTNSS values and showed a good safety profile.

A multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study in a Norwegian cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis treated with MP-AzeFlu

Background:

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines recently recommended a treatment strategy for allergic rhinitis (AR) based on disease control rather than symptom severity by using a visual analog scale (VAS) to categorize control.

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu (Dymista^®) by using this VAS in routine clinical practice in Norway. MP-AzeFlu comprises a novel formulation that contains azelastine hydrochloride, fluticasone propionate and excipients delivered in a single spray.

Methods:

This multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study enrolled patients (n = 160) with moderate-to-severe AR and acute symptoms who were eligible to receive treatment with MP-AzeFlu according to its summary of product characteristics. Patients assessed symptom severity by using a VAS from 0 (not at all bothersome) to 100 mm (very bothersome) in the morning before MP-AzeFlu use on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and after ∼14 days. On day 3, the patients assessed their level of disease control as well controlled, partly controlled, or uncontrolled. The proportion of Norwegian patients who achieved defined VAS score cutoffs for “well-controlled” and “partly controlled” AR were also calculated.

Results:

MP-AzeFlu reduced the mean ± standard deviation VAS score from 68.1 ± 16.4 mm at baseline to 37.4 ± 25.9 mm on the last day, a reduction of 30.8 ± 27.2 mm. The results were consistent, irrespective of disease severity, phenotype (i.e., seasonal AR [SAR], perennial AR [PAR], SAR plus PAR, unknown) or age (i.e., 12–17, 18–65, and >65 years). Of the patients (with recorded data), 88.1% considered their symptoms to be partly or well controlled at day 3; and 19.5, 32.0, 50.0, and 61.0% of the patients achieved a ≤38 mm well-controlled VAS score cutoff on days 1, 3, 7, and the last day, respectively.

Conclusions:

MP-AzeFlu provided rapid sustained symptom control in a routine clinical practice in Norway, which provided support for its effectiveness for the treatment of AR in real life.

Methyl-cellulose powder for prevention and management of nasal symptoms

INTRODUCTION

HPMC-p, an inert micronized powder form of hydroxy-propyl-methyl-cellulose, when insufflated nasally, provides a natural barrier against pollen allergens and noxious agents. This overview assesses the efficacy and safety of this patented powder product and delivery system without an analogue among the cellulose derivatives. Areas covered: Twenty-six studies with HPMC-p were critically appraised to obtain an updated characteristic of the product. Most studies assessed the efficacy of HPMC-p as a nasal barrier enforcing measure: one experimental setup evaluated its ability to prevent or delay the diffusion of allergen through it, two clinical studies used allergen provocation tests, and the remaining relied on clinical criteria in open real world or placebo controlled designs. Two studies checked if HPMC-p could enhance the efficacy of drugs applied nasally to treat local symptoms. The studies, using either nasal allergen challenge or natural exposure of patients to environmental allergen, support the hypothesis that HPMC-p possesses barrier enforcing properties. Also, acute and clinical experiments indicated that intra-nasal application of HPMC-p following local relief medications enhances their ability to suppress symptoms and reduces their long-term use. Expert commentary: Nasal insufflation of HPMC-p provides a mucosal barrier, reducing the nasal symptoms and enhancing the effects of local relief medications.

Rationally designed nanocarriers for intranasaltherapy of allergic rhinitis: influence of carrier type on in vivo nasal deposition

The aim of this study is to develop a locally acting nasal delivery system of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) for the maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis. The effect of encapsulating TA in different nanocarriers on its mucosal permeation and retention as well as in vivo nasal deposition has been studied. A comparative study was established between polymeric oil core nanocapsules (NCs), lipid nanocarriers such as nanoemulsion (NE), and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs). The elaborated nanocarriers were compared with TA suspension and the commercially available suspension "Nasacort(®)". The study revealed that NC provided the highest mucosal retention, as 46.14%±0.048% of the TA initial dose was retained after 24 hours, while showing the least permeation through the nasal mucosa. On the other hand, for TA suspension and Nasacort(®), the mucosal retention did not exceed 23.5%±0.047% of the initial dose after 24 hours. For NE and NLC, values of mucosal retention were 19.4%±0.041% and 10.97%±0.13%, respectively. NC also showed lower mucosal irritation and superior stability compared with NE. The in vivo nasal deposition study demonstrated that NC maintained drug in its site of action (nasal cavity mucosa) for the longest period of time. The elaborated polymeric oil core NCs are efficient carriers for the administration of nasally acting TA as it produced the least permeation results, thus decreasing systemic absorption of TA. Although NCs have been administered via various routes, this is the first study to implement the polymeric oil core NC as an efficient carrier for localized nasal drug delivery.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds.

METHODS

Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold.

RESULTS

No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.

Extranasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis are difficult to treat and affect quality of life

BACKGROUND

Total nasal symptom score is widely used to evaluate the severity of allergic rhinitis, but the clinical significance of extranasal symptoms is largely unknown. We wished to analyze the presenting symptoms in allergic rhinitis, as well as their relationship with quality of life (QoL) and therapeutic outcomes.

METHODS

Presenting symptoms and QoL were assessed using the Optum™ SF-12v2(®) Health Survey in 260 patients with allergic rhinitis. Clinical response at 3 months after treatment was measured.

RESULTS

Ten most common symptoms presenting with at least moderate severity in allergic rhinitis were: blocked nose (82.7%), rhinorrhea (75.0%), sneeze (70.9%), itchy nose (68.5%), fatigue (63.6%), mouth breathing (61.1%), daytime somnolence (52.7%), postnasal drip (49.1%), itchy eyes (47.3%), and dry mouth (46.3%). Severity of sneeze was correlated with physical component summary (PCS) whereas postnasal drip and daytime somnolence were correlated with mental component summary (MCS). Severity of dry mouth was correlated with PCS and MCS. The symptoms with the highest severity scores after treatment were blocked nose, postnasal drip, fatigue, and dry mouth, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Extranasal symptom scores correlated well with physical health and mental health in allergic rhinitis patients. Assessment of extranasal symptoms should be included to evaluate disease severity and assess therapeutic outcomes. Clinical trial NCT02000648, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a worldwide health problem, currently affecting up to 40% of the general population, and characterized by the following symptoms in a variable degree of severity and duration: nasal congestion/obstruction, rhinorrhea, itchy nose and/or eyes, and/or sneezing. General symptoms like fatigue, reduced quality of sleep, impaired concentration and reduced productivity, if left untreated, may significantly affect quality of life. In addition, of being associated to various comorbidities, allergic rhinitis is also an independent risk factor for the development and worsening of asthma. Perennial allergic rhinitis is caused by allergens present around the year.

AREAS COVERED

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines currently recommend a stepwise therapeutic approach that combines patient education with specific allergen avoidance, symptomatic pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy. The available treatment strategies provide suboptimal symptom relief in patients with moderate-to-severe disease who continue to experience symptoms while treated, even on multiple therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

New insights into current therapy have been provided with the development of new symptomatic drugs with improved pharmacokinetics and safety. However, the ultimate research goal is beyond symptomatic treatment, and is mainly directed at modifying the immune response to allergens and prevent the progression of allergic rhinitis towards asthma. In this direction, promising advances are expected in the fields of allergen immunotherapy and biological drugs, such as omalizumab. Finally, significant research efforts are also focused on the growing number of new specific molecular targets involved in the Th2 pathway inflammation of allergic diseases.