Comparison of intranasal ciclesonide, oral levocetirizine, and combination treatment for allergic rhinitis

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

[Optimization of treatment of patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis with relating allergic rhinitis]

The article considers the problem of acute rhinosinusitis and its multifactorial relationship with allergic rhinitis. Data on a higher incidence of acute rhinosinusitis in patients with an allergic background is given, which is primarily associated with a deterioration in the state of the respiratory tract mucous membrane barrier function. It is shown that local allergic inflammation causes a more severe course of acute rhinosinusitis. A review of the combined course of these pathological processes is carried out and options for their treatment are considered. A study of the clinical use of the complex preparation Frinosol is described, which, thanks to the combination of a nasal decongestant and an antihistamine in its composition, effectively alleviates the symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis in patients with allergic rhinitis. It has been shown that the use of Frinosol in the complex treatment of adult patients with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, combined with allergic rhinitis is safe and effective.

Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H₁ antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H₁ antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR.

METHODS

A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H₁ antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (Score_Monotherapy - Score_{Combined therapy}) / Score_Monotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal H₁ antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.

Simultaneous bioanalysis and pharmacokinetic interaction study of acebrophylline, levocetirizine and pranlukast in Sprague-Dawley rats

The combination of acebrophylline (ABP), levocetirizine (LCZ) and pranlukast (PRN) is used to treat allergic rhinitis, asthma, hay-fever and other conditions where patients experience difficulty in breathing. This study was carried out with the aim of developing and validating a reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic bioanalytical method to simultaneously quantitate ABP, LCZ and PRN in rat plasma. The objective also includes determination of the pharmacokinetic interaction of these three drugs after administration via the oral route after individual and combination treatment in rat. Optimum resolution between the analytes was observed with a C₁₈ Kinetex column (250 mm × 4.6 mm × 5 μm). The chromatography was performed in a gradient elution mode with a 1 mL/min flow rate. The calibration curves were linear over the concentration range of 100-1600 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy were found to be within acceptable limits as specified in US Food and Drug Administration guideline for bioanalytical method validation. The analytes were stable on the bench-top (8 h), after three freeze-thaw cycles, in the autosampler (8 h) and as a dry extract (-80°C for 48 h). The statistical results of the pharmacokinetic study in Sprague-Dawley rats showed a significant change in pharmacokinetic parameters for PRN upon co-administration of the three drugs.

Prescription Profile and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis Treated with Oral Antihistamines or Nasal Corticosteroids

Introduction  Oral antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, the evidence suggests a level of superiority of corticosteroids, so they should be preferred over the former.

Objective  To know the prescription profile of two second generation antihistamines (cetirizine and levocetirizine) and two nasal corticosteroids (mometasone and furoate-ciclesonide) in a cohort of patients with allergic rhinitis, and to compare the clinical outcomes obtained.

Methods  A cohort study was carried including patients with allergic rhinitis treated with cetirizine, levocetirizine, mometasone furoate or ciclesonide. The improvement was evaluated with the total nasal symptoms score (TNSS). This scale yields results between 0 and 12. Zero indicates absence of symptoms.

Results  A total of 314 patients completed 12 weeks of follow-up. Seventy-five percent were treated with antihistamines, 20% with corticosteroids, and 5% with a combination of the above. The TNSS median for corticosteroid was 2.5 points; for antihistamines, its was 5 points, and for combination, it was 4 points. We found differences between corticosteroids and antihistamines.

Conclusion  The prescription percentage of second generation oral antihistamines is higher than that of intranasal corticosteroids. However, patients with allergic rhinitis treated with the second option obtained better control of symptoms.

Effects of double-dose intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

When a standard dose of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) fails to control symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), a double dose of INCS is optional. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of double-dose INCS.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of double-dose INCS vs standard-dose INCS for treating patients with AR were included. Data from the included studies were extracted and collected for meta-analyses. The outcomes were nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (4166 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There were 5 pediatric studies (1868 patients), 5 adult studies (1414 patients), and 2 studies with mixed populations (884 patients). The meta-analysis results in adult patients favored the effects of double-dose INCS on: total nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.08; 4 studies; 568 patients) and total ocular symptom score (SMD -0.27; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03; 1 study; 259 patients). The meta-analysis results in pediatric patients did not show the difference between groups on total nasal symptom score (SMD -0.16; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.07; 3 studies; 801 patients). The meta-analysis of ocular symptom score in pediatric patients had insufficient data. There were no differences between groups on adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Double-dose INCS showed better improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms in adult patients with AR when compared to the standard dose. These beneficial effects were not seen in the pediatric population. Adverse events between groups were not different.

Effects of H1 antihistamine addition to intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A combination of H1 antihistamine (AH) with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is commonly prescribed to patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have an inadequate response to monotherapy. In this systematic review we aimed to determine the effects of AH combined with INCS (AH-INCS) for treating AR.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using Medline and Embase. Randomized, controlled trials that studied the effects of AH-INCS vs INCS monotherapy for treating patients with AR were included. The primary outcomes were total nasal symptom scores, total ocular symptom scores, and disease-specific quality of life. The secondary outcomes were objective tests for nasal patency and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4026 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with INCS, AH-INCS decreased total nasal symptom scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to -0.06; p < 0.001; 10 trials, 3348 patients) and total ocular symptom scores (SMD, -0.12, 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.04; p = 0.003; 6 trials, 2378 patients). Subgroup analysis indicated no benefit with the oral AH-INCS combination but did show benefit with intranasal AH-INCS (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.09; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to disease-specific quality of life (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.02; p = 0.12; 6 trials, 1981 patients), nasal inspiratory flow (MD, -0.03 L/min; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.50; p = 0.91; 1 trial, 54 patients), or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal AH-INCS has benefit over INCS on nasal and ocular symptom improvement for treating AR. Oral AH-INCS is not recommended.

Anti-Interleukin-9 Antibody Increases the Effect of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Murine Allergic Rhinitis

Purpose

Interleukin (IL)-9 induces allergic responses; however, the roles of anti-IL-9 antibody in the induction of tolerance remain unclear. This study investigated the effects of anti-IL-9 antibody on oral tolerance (OT) in a mouse model of allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

BALB/c mice were divided into 4 groups: the control, AR, OT, and OT with anti-IL-9 antibody (OT+IL9AB) groups. Ovalbumin (OVA) was used for sensitization and challenge. Mice in the OT and OT+IL9AB groups were fed OVA for immunotherapy. During immunotherapy, OT+IL9AB mice were injected with anti-IL-9 antibody. Allergic symptoms, tissue eosinophil counts, and serum OVA-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) were measured. The mRNA expressions of cytokines and transcription factors of T cells of nasal mucosa were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The protein levels of GATA3, ROR-γt, and Foxp3 in nasal mucosa were determined by Western blot. CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ T cells in the spleen were analyzed by flow cytometry.

Results

Administration of anti-IL-9 antibody decreased allergic symptoms, OVA-specific IgE levels, and eosinophil counts. In addition, it inhibited T-helper (Th) 2 responses, but had no effect on Th1 responses. Protein levels of ROR-γt and mRNA levels of PU.1 and ROR-γt were reduced by anti-IL-9 antibody. Anti-IL-9 antibody increased Foxp3 and IL-10 mRNA expression, Foxp3 protein, and induction of CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ T cells.

Conclusions

Anti-IL-9 antibody decreased allergic inflammation through suppression of Th2 and Th17 cells. Anti-IL-9 antibody enhanced the tolerogenic effects of regulatory T cells. These results suggest that anti-IL-9 antibody might represent a potential therapeutic agent for allergen immunotherapy in patients with uncontrolled allergic airway disease.

Current controversies and challenges in allergic rhinitis management

There are many obstacles in the path of effective allergy management, in general, and allergic rhinitis (AR) control, in particular. Chief among them are: insufficient symptom relief in some patients provided by some currently considered first-line AR treatments in real life; an over-reliance on randomized controlled trials to direct AR guideline recommendations; the need for a broader interpretation of the AR evidence base (to include randomized controlled trials and real-life studies); poorly designed and interpreted studies; and lack of an AR control concept and common language of control. These controversies are fully reviewed here and challenging solutions have been presented.