Omalizumab is effective in the preseasonal treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

To date no study has evaluated the efficacy of preseasonal omalizumab therapy with cost effective dose and at appropriate time point compared with standard medication in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled open-label single-centre trial. 32 SAR patients were randomized to receive a single injection of omalizumab 300-mg approximately two weeks before start of the pollen period (PP) or medication therapy. All patients completed daily questionnaires; recording symptoms, medication use and quality of life (QoL) throughout the observation period. The primary efficacy parameter was the mean daily Combined Symptom and Medication Score (CSMS).

RESULTS

Preseasonal omalizumab significantly reduced the changes of mean daily CSMS of nose during the PP (p < 0.001), peak pollen period (PPP) and PP after PPP (PPP-PP) (p = 0.002) and Post-PP (p = 0.009) compared to standard medication. The proportion of allergy symptoms-relieving medication-free days during PPP-PP was also significantly higher in preseasonal omalizumab-treated group (76.2(16.7-98.8))% than in medication-treated group (19.0(0-71.4))% (p = 0.030). Omalizumab could achieve the same nasal symptom control during the entire pollen season and better eye symptoms relieving results in PP (p = 0.046) and PPP-PP (p = 0.004) than medication treatment. Significantly greater improvement in QoL was also obtained with omalizumab-pretreatment during the PP (p = 0.037) and PPP-PP (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a single injection of 300 mg omalizumab two weeks before start of the pollen season achieves better overall control of symptoms and QoL, with significantly reduced allergy symptoms-relieving medication usage, compared with standard pharmacotherapy in SAR patients.

Efficacy of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine for allergic conjunctivitis as seasonal and preseasonal treatment

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine eye drop preparations as seasonal and preseasonal treatments in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC).

Subjects and methods

This was a prospective, randomized, case-control study involving two institutions. The subjects were patients diagnosed with SAC at two institutions between February and March in 2014. To examine the clinical effects of seasonal treatment, 0.05% epinastine and 0.1% olopatadine were administered, and their effects were investigated every 2 weeks (Stage 1). To evaluate the clinical effects of preseasonal therapy, in January 2015, the same eye drop preparations as adopted in Stage 1 were administered to patients who had participated in Stage 1 and provided consent to participate in this study, and their effects were investigated every month (Stage 2).

Results

In Stage 1, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 43 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 42 patients. There were significant improvements in the total symptom and objective finding scores at each time point after administration in comparison with those before its baseline, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. In Stage 2, the 0.05% epinastine group consisted of 15 patients, and the 0.1% olopatadine group consisted of 14 patients. The rate of change in the total symptom score in comparison with that at the baseline of preseasonal treatment was significantly higher in the 0.1% olopatadine group 1 month after the start of treatment, suggesting symptom deterioration (P=0.025). There was no significant difference in the rate of change in the total objective finding score between the two groups.

Conclusion

Seasonal treatment with 0.05% epinastine or 0.1% olopatadine was equally effective for patients with allergic conjunctivitis. However, for preseasonal therapy, 0.05% epinastine was more effective than 0.1% olopatadine.