Once daily fluticasone propionate is as effective for perennial allergic rhinitis as twice daily beclomethasone diproprionate

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Odevixibat: A Review of a Bioactive Compound for the Treatment of Pruritus Approved by the FDA

Odevixibat is synthesized through chemical modification of Benzothiazepine's structure. It is a tiny chemical that inhibits the ileal bile acid transporter and is used to treat a variety of cholestatic illnesses, including progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC). For cholestatic pruritus and liver disease development, bile acid transporter inhibition is a unique treatment strategy. Odevixibat reduces enteric bile acid reuptake. Oral odevixibat was also studied in children with cholestatic liver disease. Odevixibat received its first approval in the European Union (EU) in July 2021 for the treatment of PFIC in patients aged 6 months, followed by approval in the USA in August 2021 for the treatment of pruritus in PFIC patients aged 3 months. Bile acids in the distal ileum can be reabsorbed by the ileal sodium/bile acid cotransporter, a transport glycoprotein. Odevixibat is a sodium/bile acid co-transporter reversible inhibitor. An average 3 mg once-daily dose of odevixibat for a week resulted in a 56% reduction in the area under the curve of bile acid. A daily dose of 1.5 mg resulted in a 43% decrease in the area under the curve for bile acid. Odevixibat is also being evaluated in many countries for the treatment of other cholestatic illnesses, including Alagille syndrome and biliary atresia. This article reviews the updated information on odevixibat with respect to its clinical pharmacology, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, metabolism, drug-drug interactions, pre-clinical studies, and clinical trials.

Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Background

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy, safety, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of once-daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS), fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS), mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), and triamcinolone aqueous nasal spray (TANS) for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adult patients.

Methods

A MEDLINE search (1966 to January 2004) was conducted to identify potentially relevant English language articles. Pertinent abstracts from recent allergy society meetings were identified also. The medical subject heading search terms included were intranasal corticosteroid (INS), nasal steroid, BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS and AR. Selected studies were randomized, controlled, comparison trials of patients with AR treated with once-daily BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS.

Results

All four INSs administered once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of AR in adult patients, with similar efficacy and adverse event profiles. No differences were seen between INSs in systemic effects, except for significantly lower overnight urinary cortisol levels in healthy volunteers treated with FPNS compared with placebo. Based on sensory attributes, patients preferred BANS and TANS versus MFNS and FPNS. BANS was associated with more days of treatment per prescription at a lower cost per day for adults compared with the other INSs and is the only INS with a pregnancy category B rating.

Conclusion

BANS, FPNS, MFNS, and TANS have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Differences in sensory attributes, documented safety during pregnancy, and cost may contribute to better patient acceptance of one INS versus another and promote better adherence to therapy.

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.

Normal saline solution nasal-pharyngeal irrigation improves chronic cough associated with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Upper airway inflammation is one of the most commonly identified causes of chronic cough, although the underlying mechanism is not clear. This study compared normal saline solution nasal-pharyngeal irrigation (NSNPI) and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) treatment for chronic cough associated with allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

Patients with suspected AR to house-dust mite were enrolled, and the symptom of cough was assessed by a cough symptom score and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, and cough response to capsaicin was evaluated. AR was assessed by using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Mini Juniper Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ). Mediators, including histamine, leukotriene C4, and prostaglandin D2, and the major basic protein from nasal lavage fluid (NLF) were examined. The patients were treated with NSNPI (the NSNPI group) or FPNS (the FPNS group) for 30 days, after which they were reassessed.

RESULTS

Forty-five of 50 patients completed this study. The scores of the cough symptom and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire, and the capsaicin cough threshold all improved statistically after NSNPI but did not change after FPNS. There were statistically significant changes in the evaluations of the MiniRQLQ and the mediators, including histamine and leukotriene C4, in the NLF in the NSNPI group. However, significant changes were found in the assessments of VAS, MiniRQLQ, and all above mediators including histamine, leukotriene C4, and prostaglandin D2, and the major basic protein in the NLF of the FPNS group. Furthermore, the assessments of VAS and all the mediators were reduced more in the FPNS group compared with those in the NSNPI group.

CONCLUSION

The patients with suspected AR to house-dust mite reported a better relief of the cough symptom after 30 days of treatment with NSNPI compared with that after nasal corticosteroid.

Intranasal Fluticasone Once Daily Compared with Once-Daily Cetirizine in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis : Results of a Multicentre, Double-Blind Study

The efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, 200µg once daily for 21 days, was compared with cetirizine, 10mg once daily for 21 days, in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study. 237 evaluable patients aged 12 years and above, with seasonal allergic rhinitis (defined as having a positive skin test and a total symptom score of ≥ 6/15), received either fluticasone aqueous nasal spray (n = 119) or cetirizine (n = 118). Improvement in total symptom score was observed in patients from both treatment groups, with the improvement in the fluticasone treatment group being significantly greater (decrease in total symptom score from 9.23 to 2.13) than in the cetirizine treatment group (decrease in total symptom score from 9.36 to 4.31; p < 0.001). There was also a significantly greater improvement in the number of symptom-free days for all symptoms in favour of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray compared with cetirizine (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the percentage of days when patients did not require terfenadine as rescue therapy was significantly greater in the fluticasone group (87%) than in the cetirizine group (80%; p < 0.05). Five adverse events were reported during intranasal fluticasone treatment and 10 adverse events were reported during cetirizine therapy. There were no treatment-related withdrawals from therapy in the fluticasone group, but 5 treatment-related withdrawals were reported in the cetirizine group.This study demonstrated that fluticasone aqueous nasal spray, 200µg once daily, was significantly more effective than cetirizine, 10mg once daily, and had comparable (if not better) tolerability, in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Recent pharmacological developments in the treatment of perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a major negative impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and carries a high socio economic burden. This is particularly the case for patients who experience symptoms for extended periods of time (i.e. those with perennial (PAR) or persistent AR (PER), depending on the classification system used). This review covers available pharmacological advances and recent developments in the treatment of PAR or PER.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacological AR treatment is used to reduce symptom burden and help restore patients' normal daily routine. Traditionally, non-sedating antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) were the two drug classes recommended for use first line. These, along with antileukotrienes, decongestants, mast cell stabilizers and anticholinergics, constituted the bulk of the AR treatment arsenal. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the most recent addition to that arsenal. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered in a single spray and has surpassed available therapies in terms of symptom control and treatment response. Other relatively new treatments for PAR or PER include H3 antihistamines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, cellulose powders and micro-emulsions, novel biomolecular formulations and omalizumab. Each of these new additions is reviewed here.

EXPERT OPINION

A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.

Beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common respiratory disease, and its prevalence is increasing all over the world, both in adults and in children. Patients experience symptoms that may negatively impact on physical, social and psychological well-being. Hence, if left untreated, allergic rhinitis may significantly affect quality of life. Under current guidelines, intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective drugs and they are recommended as first-line therapy. Among the several corticosteroid intranasal sprays available, beclomethasone dipropionate is one of the most prescribed. Recently, new intranasal hydrofluoroalkane-propelled formulations with little or no impact on the ozone layer have been developed for the treatment of AR. The use of these devices might improve patients' adherence to treatment, avoiding some of the most common side effects associated with aqueous formulations. This review provides the most recent evidence for the efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

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.

A 26-week tolerability study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A new, hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide (CIC-HFA) delivered via a metered dose inhaler is currently in clinical development for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To study tolerability and quality of life following administration of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses once-daily compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) over 26 weeks.

METHODS

Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2 year history of PAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 μg, 148 μg, or placebo QD AM for 26 weeks. Safety was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Quality of life was assessed by using a rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire with standardized activities (RQLQ[S]) in patients with baseline RQLQ ≥3.00. Reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (iTNSS) over 26 weeks were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In this study, 1111 patients were randomized. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the treatment groups. Treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses showed improvements in RQLQ[S] [least squares (LS) mean change 0.40 and 0.37, respectively from baseline, p < 0.01 versus placebo for both], rTNSS (LS mean change 0.65 and 0.52, respectively from baseline; p ≤ 0.01 versus placebo for both), and iTNSS (LS mean change 0.51 and 0.42, respectively from baseline; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both) from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses over 26 weeks was well tolerated with comparable incidence of TEAEs between the treatment groups.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

While nasal congestion has been identified as one of the most bothersome and prevalent symptoms of allergic rhinitis, it is underappreciated that many patients find rhinorrhea also to be bothersome. Rhinorrhea as a symptom of allergic rhinitis virtually never occurs alone; about 97% of patients with allergic rhinitis suffer from at least two symptoms, a finding that underscores the advantage of treating a broad range of symptoms with a single medication. Along with sneezing and nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea is a classic acute symptom of allergic rhinitis; it appears as a late-phase symptom as well. In this review, the characterization and epidemiology of rhinorrhea, the pathophysiology of rhinorrhea in allergic rhinitis, the roles played by mediators in early- and late-phase rhinorrhea, the prevalence and impact of this symptom, and the efficacy and safety of available treatment options are all discussed in context of relevant literature. A review of the clinical studies assessing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) for rhinorrhea is presented. Many clinical studies and several meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that, in addition to being safe and well-tolerated, INS are more effective than other agents (including oral and intranasal antihistamines) across the spectrum of AR symptoms, including rhinorrhea and nasal congestion.

The role of nasal corticosteroids in the treatment of rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the first choice for rhinitis pharmacotherapy. This preference is because of their broad range of actions that result in reductions of proinflammatory mediators, cytokines, and cells. Over the past 30 years, INSs have been modified to improve their pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and delivery system properties, with attention to improving characteristics such as receptor binding affinity, lipophilicity, low systemic bioavailability, and patient preference. Clinically, they have been shown to be the most effective class of nasal medications for treating allergic rhinitis and nonallergic rhinopathy, with no clear evidence that any specific INS is superior to others.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

The treatment of vasomotor rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids

Objective

Intranasal steroids (INS) are firmly established as the therapy for choice for allergic rhinitis, but their role in vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is not fully characterized. This review examines the potential mechanisms of action and reported efficacy of INS in patients with VMR.

Results

INS, through intracellular activation of the glucocorticoid receptor, down-regulate the recruitment and activation of inflammatory cells (T-lymphocytes, eosinophils, mast cells, basophils, neutrophils, macrophages), increase degradation of neuropeptides, and reduce epithelial cell activity, vascular permeability, and chemokine secretion. It is likely that more than vasoconstriction is responsible for the clinical effects of INS.

Eight INS can be prescribed for rhinitis in the US; only 4 have been studied for VMR. Seventy-four percent of patients treated with beclomethasone dipropionate considered themselves symptom-free or greatly improved versus 31% with placebo. Budesonide significantly reduced rhinitis symptoms and methacholine-induced nasal secretions compared with placebo. Fluticasone propionate compared with placebo provided significantly greater relief from nasal obstruction; computed tomographic scans showed significant reductions in the mucosal area of the lower turbinates. Mometasone furoate produced numerically better rhinitis symptom scores and, when discontinued, lower relapse rates than placebo.

Conclusion

Data supports INS as beneficial pharmacotherapy for VMR.

Long-term safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in adults and adolescents with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate is a novel-enhanced affinity glucocorticoid and its long-term safety must be assessed. This study was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of 12-month intranasal administration of fluticasone furoate in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 806 patients with PAR were randomized to once daily (od) fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 microg (n = 605) or vehicle placebo nasal spray (n = 201) for 12 months, following a 7- to 14-day screening period. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events (AEs), 24-h urinary cortisol excretion, nasal and ophthalmic examinations, electrocardiograms and clinical laboratory tests. Plasma concentrations of fluticasone furoate were determined from blood samples.

RESULTS

Fluticasone furoate was well tolerated. The incidence of most AEs was similar to that observed with placebo, with the exception of epistaxis, which was more frequently reported on active treatment. There were no clinically meaningful differences between fluticasone furoate and placebo in terms of safety assessments, including mean changes in ophthalmic parameters and 24-h urine cortisol excretion. Plasma concentrations of fluticasone furoate were not quantifiable in the majority of patients following intranasal administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term (12-month) administration of fluticasone furoate 110 microg od revealed an AE profile typical of the intranasal corticosteroid class in both adult and adolescent patients with PAR, with no evidence of clinically relevant systemic corticosteroid exposure.

Treatment with intranasal fluticasone propionate significantly improves ocular symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

If monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid can alleviate both nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis, treatment may be simplified and costs may be reduced.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray 200 microg compared with vehicle placebo and oral loratadine (LOR) 10 mg in reducing ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A total of 471 patients received vehicle placebo, LOR, or FP in this multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study. Patients were > or =12 years old with a history of seasonal allergic rhinitis and a positive skin test for a relevant allergen. During the baseline and treatment periods, patients rated the severity of eye itching, tearing, and redness via visual analogue scales that ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (most severe symptoms). The three ocular ratings were added to derive the total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients with a TOSS > or =120 on at least 4 of the 7 days before the randomization visit were enrolled. The primary outcome was the difference between FP and vehicle placebo in the mean change from baseline in the reflective TOSS overall (averaged over the 28-day treatment period). A difference between FP and vehicle placebo of 25.5 was considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

The overall mean change from baseline in the TOSS was significantly greater in the FP group compared with vehicle placebo (clinically significant difference of 28.8; P<0.001) and compared with LOR (difference of 16.2; P=0.028). Overall mean (SEM) changes were -59.9 (5.4) for the placebo group, -72.5 (5.4) for the LOR group, and -88.7 (5.3) for the FP group. The FP treatment group also showed significantly greater overall mean changes in ocular itching, tearing, and redness compared with vehicle placebo (P<0.001) and compared with LOR (P< or =0.045).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with intranasal FP had clinically and statistically significant decreases in ocular symptom scores compared with vehicle placebo. Data also suggest that FP reduced ocular symptoms more than or comparable with oral LOR. Patients experiencing ocular symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis may benefit from monotherapy with intranasal FP.

Effect of intranasal fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide on basal and dynamic measures of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis activity in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Most published studies show that intranasal corticosteroids have no effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, but there have been isolated reports to the contrary, contradicting accumulated knowledge on pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE

To re-evaluate the effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) aqueous nasal spray on the HPA axis using an improved study design.

METHODS

Twenty-three healthy volunteers were randomized in a double-blind, three-way crossover study. The study comprised a 4-day placebo run-in phase followed by three 4-day treatment periods (placebo, FPANS (200 microg once daily) or TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 microg once daily)), separated by 7-14 days washout intervals. Before the first, and on the last day of each treatment period, 12-h overnight urine was collected to assess cortisol excretion and cortisol creatinine ratio. Approximately 26 h after the last administration of study medication, volunteers underwent stimulation with 0.5 microg adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). Serum cortisol concentrations were measured before and 20 and 30 min after injection. Blood and urine samples were analysed for cortisol by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, EP or TAA had no significant effect on mean overnight (12 h) urinary cortisol excretion, and did not significantly suppress the overnight geometric mean urinary cortisol/creatinine excretion ratio. Values for serum cortisol before and after ACTH simulation showed no significant suppression, although there was a slight blunting of the HPA-axis response following TAA treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that there are no detectable effects on the HPA axis following short-term intranasal FP or TAA at their recommended dosages.

Lack of effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in 2- and 3-year-old patients

OBJECTIVE

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FP) at the highest recommended doses does not affect hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function in adults or older children, but its potential effects in children younger than 4 years have not been previously studied. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effects of FP on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol levels in children 2 to 3 years of age.

METHODS

Patients ages 2 to 3 years with symptoms of allergic rhinitis were administered FP 200 microg/day (FP200 QD) or vehicle placebo for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The FP200 QD group (n = 33) was equivalent to the placebo group (n = 32) in mean change from baseline in the primary safety measure of 12-hour creatinine-corrected urinary-free cortisol concentration (geometric mean difference [standard error; SE] for placebo-FP200 QD = 0.96 [1.20]; 95% confidence interval 0.66, 1.39) at the end of the treatment period. The adjusted geometric mean change from baseline value was 0.98 for FP200 QD (SE = 1.14) and 0.94 for placebo (SE = 1.15); a value of 1.0 reflects no change from baseline. Cough and fever were the most common adverse events reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

FP200 QD was equivalent to placebo with respect to effects on HPA axis function measured by 12-hour urinary-free cortisol in 2- and 3-year-old patients. FP200 QD was well-tolerated in these very young children with allergic rhinitis.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray improves nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis when used as needed (prn)

BACKGROUND

Few published clinical trials document the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids used as needed for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' treatment with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray 200 microg used as needed (FP200PRN) in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 241 patients (> or = 12 years of age) with a positive skin test result to a relevant fall allergen and who were symptomatic at randomization. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; the sum of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching, each rated on a 4-point scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe).

RESULTS

The mean percentage of days that patients used the study medications in the FP200PRN and placebo groups was 61.8% (SD = 30.4%) and 70.1% (SD = 28.3%), respectively. Patients treated with FP200PRN had a significantly greater reduction from baseline in TNSS compared with those treated with vehicle placebo (mean +/- SE = -2.02 +/- 0.18 vs -1.06 +/- 0.22, P < 0.001), representing a 91% greater improvement with FP200PRN than vehicle placebo. The FP200PRN group also had a significantly greater (P < 0.001) mean reduction in individual nasal symptoms of rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching, and nasal congestion compared with placebo. FP200PRN was well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events comparable to vehicle placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

FP200PRN in patients 12 years and older is effective for treatment of nasal symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis. It has a lower incidence of adverse events than typically associated with regular once-daily use.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids are accepted as safe and effective first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Several intranasal corticosteroids are available: beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. All are efficacious in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis and as prophylaxis for perennial allergic rhinitis. In general, they relieve nasal congestion and itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing that occur in the early and late phases of allergic response, with studies showing almost complete prevention of late-phase symptoms. The rationale for topical intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis is that adequate drug concentrations can be achieved at receptor sites in the nasal mucosa. This leads to symptom control and reduces the risk of systemic adverse effects. Adverse reactions usually are limited to the nasal mucosa, such as dryness, burning and stinging, and sneezing, together with headache and epistaxis in 5-10% of patients regardless of formulation or compound. Differences among agents are limited to potency, patient preference, dosing regimens, and delivery, device and vehicle.

Comparison of once daily fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray with once daily budesonide reservoir powder device in patients with perennial rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing the corticosteroids fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD) in both perennial and seasonal rhinitis have shown no consistent difference between treatments. However, the therapeutic outcomes may have been influenced by study design.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of FP aqueous nasal spray (ANS; 200 microg/day) with BUD reservoir powder device (RPD; 200 microg/day) on rhinitis symptoms, productivity loss and device preference in patients with perennial rhinitis.

METHODS

After a 2-week run-in period, 440 patients were randomized to receive either FPANS, BUD RPD or matched placebo (ANS or RPD) for 8 weeks, followed by an open-label 4-week follow-up treatment with FPANS. Patients completed diary card visual analogue scores for nasal symptoms, and questionnaires on satisfaction with the treatment and preferred choice of device.

RESULTS

During weeks 1-4, the visual analogue total nasal symptom scores (VATNS) in the FPANS group were significantly lower than scores in the BUD RPD group (mean difference = -17.8; 95% CI = -34.4, -1.3; P = 0.036). FPANS also significantly reduced the VATNS compared with the ANS placebo at all time-points assessed (P < or = 0.005). BUD RPD did not significantly differ from the RPD placebo at weeks 5-8 (P = 0.167), or the ANS placebo at any time-point (P < or = 0.151). Over the 8-week treatment period FPANS was significantly more effective than BUD RPD at reducing sneezing (mean difference = -4.4; 95% CI = -8.6, -0.3; P = 0.036) and nasal itching (mean difference = -5.3; 95% CI = -9.9, -0.8; P = 0.022), and was significantly superior to the ANS placebo for all symptoms assessed at weeks 1-4 and 1-8 (P < 0.016). At the same time-points BUD RPD was no better at alleviating nasal itching than the RPD placebo (P < or = 0.306), and compared with the ANS placebo, significantly reduced only one symptom; nasal blockage (P < or = 0.016). After 8 weeks of treatment, patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD (P < 0.001), and at 12 weeks a significantly greater number of patients were satisfied with FPANS treatment compared with BUD RPD (P = 0.0019) or the respective placebos (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

FPANS and BUD RPD are effective therapies with a good safety profile for the treatment of perennial rhinitis but, in this direct placebo-controlled comparison, FPANS was more efficacious than BUD RPD, and the patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD.

Onset of therapeutic effect of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of rhinitis has been demonstrated in multiple controlled clinical studies. The onset of therapeutic effect of FP in these clinical trials appears to occur within 12 hours after administration of the initial dose.

OBJECTIVE

This article presents an analysis from previous clinical trials that examined the efficacy of intranasal FP in patients with rhinitis to ascertain whether the time to onset of the therapeutic effect of this medication could be determined.

METHODS

Completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with FP were evaluated to determine whether onset of effect could be evaluated based on the study designs. A study was deemed acceptable for evaluation of onset of effect if at least one evaluation of the intensity of nasal symptoms was completed within 12 hours after the initial dose of study medication and daily evaluations were made thereafter. Adult patients were included in the onset analysis if they received an initial FP dose of 200 microg. Pediatric patients who received an initial FP dose of 100 microg were also included. Onset of effect was evaluated by 1) examining the timepoints at which statistically significant differences were observed between FP and placebo in mean change from baseline for total nasal symptom score (TNSS); and by 2) using a binary probability model of success/failure to determine statistically significant differences from placebo.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies met the criteria to evaluate onset of therapeutic effect; 3,605 patients with rhinitis received FP and 2,271 patients received placebo. This database represents the largest compilation of data ever assembled to determine the onset of therapeutic effect of a corticosteroid nasal spray. Two studies used a "park design" to examine onset of effect; statistically significant differences in TNSS favoring FP were achieved at hours 2 to 4 and at hour 12, respectively. Using a binary probability model of success/failure for analysis of TNSS in the remaining 20 studies not specifically designed to evaluate onset of effect, numerically greater improvements in TNSS for FP compared with placebo were found in 19 of the 20 studies within 12 hours of the administration of the first dose (P < .001). Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant improvement for TNSS within 12 hours postdose in five of the studies for FP compared with placebo and in none for placebo compared with FP.

CONCLUSIONS

Onset of therapeutic effect occurs within 12 hours, and as early as 2 to 4 hours in some patients, after administration of the first dose of FP aqueous nasal spray.

Clinical and pathologic methods to assess the long-term safety of nasal corticosteroids. French Triamcinolone Acetonide Study Group

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this long-term prospective local safety study was to evaluate endoscopic and histologic changes in nasal epithelium after 6-month treatment with triamcinolone acetonide (TAA). We describe here a method to measure quantitatively epithelium thickness. Results were compared with those seen with the use of cetirizine (an antihistamine) and another oral intranasal corticosteroid, beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP).

METHODS

Patients were examined by an ENT specialist who first performed an endoscopic evaluation of the nasal cavities, assessing any morphologic abnormalities and the aspect of the mucosa. Biopsies were taken from the inferior turbinate before and after 24 weeks of treatment. Biopsies were immediately fixed in cold acetone (-20 degrees C) and embedded in glycolmethacrylate; sections of 2 microm were cut on an ultramicrotome. Morphometric evaluations were done in a blinded fashion by computerized image analysis to measure an epithelial area over a minimum length of 50 microm. The thickness was ascertained by the ratio of area to length.

RESULTS

1) For all three treatment groups, the nasal epithelium thickness decreased slightly from pretreatment to the end of treatment. 2) No statistically significant differences between the three treatment groups were found in epithelium thickness. 3) Macroscopically, nasal tissues in all treated groups were normal.

CONCLUSIONS

These results clearly indicate that long-term treatment with TAA has no atrophic effect on nasal mucosa.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: how do different agents compare?

Intranasal steroids have proved to be an effective and safe form of therapy for allergic rhinitis. However, as the number of new glucocorticoid compounds has increased over the past decade, it has become important to consider whether significant differences exist between these agents. Pharmacologically, newer drugs such as mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate appear to have substantially higher topical potencies and lipid solubilities and lower systemic bioavailabilities than do older compounds. In clinical use, however, all the available drugs appear to be equally effective in controlling symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. With respect to adverse effects, emerging data suggest that mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate may have less potential for systemic effects during prolonged use, particularly in children. Newer intranasal steroids appear to have practical advantages over older agents that may favor their use in some groups of patients with allergic rhinitis.

Use of nasal steroids in managing allergic rhinitis

Intranasal steroids are highly effective drugs for treating patients with allergic rhinitis. First-line use of intranasal steroids is becoming increasingly common, and intranasal steroids can be used alone or in combination with other therapies to achieve optimal improvement in rhinitis symptoms. The major adverse effect of intranasal steroids is local irritation. This article reviews the mechanism of action of corticosteroids, the effects of intranasal steroids on chemical mediators of inflammation, and the risks and benefits associated with their use.

Diagnosis and management of rhinitis: complete guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

Risk-benefit assessment of fluticasone propionate in the treatment of asthma and allergic rhinitis

BENEFITS

Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a new topical corticosteroid spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. FP has been shown to be effective for the treatment of adult and pediatric asthma, even at rather low doses (25 microg twice daily [b.i.d.]); many studies in asthma have shown clinical efficacy of fluticasone at half the dose of the comparison steroid (such as beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP] or budesonide [BUD]). However, exact dose comparisons cannot be made because dose-ranging comparison studies have not been done. Studies in allergic rhinitis in children and adults have shown good efficacy in FP-treated patients at a dose of 200 microg once daily (o.d.), intranasally. In summary, FP is effective in both asthma and allergic rhinitis.

RISKS

FP has minimal systemic activity because the portion of drug that is swallowed is not absorbed from the gut. Thus, the amount available for systemic activity is only that which is absorbed through the nasal mucosa (in the treatment of rhinitis) or through the alveoli of the lungs (in the treatment of asthma). When laboratory assays of adrenal function or bone formation are measured, FP and other inhaled corticosteroids can be shown to cause suppression of these markers, especially at high doses. There have been no consistent reports of clinical adrenal suppression or osteoporosis caused by FP. In summary, the risk-benefit ratio of FP at the usual doses (therapeutic ratio) is very favorable. High doses may show evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic pituitary axis as measured by in vitro tests, but evidence of corresponding clinical adverse effects is lacking.

Treatment options for the child with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is extremely common in pediatric populations. Its symptoms can interfere markedly with everyday life; moreover, untreated allergic rhinitis can predispose patients toward more serious respiratory diseases. Therapy focuses both on reducing the causes (avoidance, immunotherapy) and on controlling manifest symptoms (pharmacotherapy). Antihistamines, decongestants, anticholinergic agents, mast cell stabilizers, and intranasal corticosteroids constitute the pharmacotherapy arsenal. Of these, the intranasal corticosteroids most effectively control the major symptoms; many studies have found that their efficacy in persistent allergic rhinitis is greater than that of decongestants, antihistamines, and cromolyn sodium. Moreover, unlike systemic corticosteroids, they are generally free from adverse side effects. Thus, with appropriate attention to education and formulations most tolerable to children, they should be a wise choice for many pediatric patients.

Comparison of once daily mometasone furoate (Nasonex) and fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal sprays for the treatment of perennial rhinitis. 194-079 Study Group

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate (Nasonex), in a new once-daily aqueous nasal spray formulation, has been shown to be as effective and well-tolerated as twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray in treating symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of mometasone furoate to placebo and of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, all treatments administered once-daily, in patients with perennial rhinitis.

METHODS

This was a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, double dummy, parallel group study in 550 patients, aged 12 to 77 years, at 25 centers in Canada, Latin America, and Europe. Patients allergic to at least one perennial allergen, with confirmed allergy history, skin test positivity, and moderate to severe symptomatology, were eligible to receive one of the following treatments, once daily in the morning: mometasone furoate 200 micrograms, fluticasone propionate 200 micrograms, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in total AM plus PM diary nasal symptom score over the first 15 days of treatment.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-nine patients were valid for efficacy. For the primary efficacy variable, mometasone furoate was significantly (P < .01) more effective than placebo and was not statistically different from fluticasone propionate (percent reductions from baseline were 37, 39, and 22 for mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, and placebo, respectively). Generally, similar trends were seen for physician-evaluated total nasal symptoms, and patient-rated and physician-rated overall condition and response to therapy. Overall, mometasone furoate was at least as effective as fluticasone propionate at equivalent doses. There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate adequately controlled symptoms of perennial rhinitis and were well tolerated.

Recurrent sinusitis: examining medical treatment options

Recurrent sinusitis is an increasingly important disease in its own right and is an often overlooked underlying trigger for chronic asthma and/or bronchitis. The complications of unresolved recurrent sinusitis may include intracranial conditions with significant clinical implications. Patients failing conventional therapy require more aggressive therapy to avoid the necessity for invasive measures, and extensive patient education may help increase compliance with the regimen. Invasive measures (surgery) for the treatment of recurrent sinusitis carry a serious complication rate of 0.5% in 200,000 cases/ year. For this reason, aggressive medical management of these patients is an essential effort. This article explores recurrent sinusitis and its pathophysiology, and suggests a medical treatment regimen using nasally inhaled corticosteroids together with antimicrobial and supportive therapy.

The pharmacological basis for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis and non-allergic rhinitis with topical corticosteroids

The currently available respiratory topical corticosteroids are all effective at reducing the nasal symptoms of itch, sneezing, rhinorrhoea and obstruction associated with allergic rhinitis. The mechanism of action of corticosteroids is related to their anti-inflammatory activities. They have been documented to prevent fluid exudation and reduce the number of circulating inflammatory cells, including lymphocytes, mast cells, basophils, eosinophils, macrophages, and neutrophils. This occurs through multiple mechanisms, e.g. eosinophil infiltration is suppressed by preventing cytokine production, reducing local mechanisms of tissue infiltration, and decreasing eosinophil survival. Furthermore, corticosteroids also reduce preformed and newly-generated mediators (e.g. histamine, tryptase, prostanoids, leukotrienes), and inhibit production of cytokines and chemokines by inflammatory cells (e.g. IL-1 through IL-6, IL-8, RANTES, TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma and GM-CSF). The currently available corticosteroids differ pharmacologically. Fluticasone propionate appears to have the greatest affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor, and binds more quickly and dissociates more slowly from the receptor compared with other corticosteroids, suggesting a more prolonged duration of action. Its increased specificity for respiratory tissue may lead to greater potency with less potential for systemic adverse effects. Fluticasone propionate has been compared with other corticosteroids in animal models for relative topical and systemic potency, and according to these data, it has the most favourable risk-benefit ratio.

Intranasal fluticasone propionate inhibits recovery of chemokines and other cytokines in nasal secretions in allergen-induced rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen-induced nasal responses are associated with the recovery of proinflammatory mediators and cytokines. In recent years, a distinct group of chemotactic cytokines, chemokines, has been the focus of intense investigation as to their possible role in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases. Although corticosteroids have been known to be effective in the treatment of allergic diseases, their mechanism(s) of action has not been fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of topical fluticasone on the recovery of chemokines (IL-8, MIP-1 alpha, and RANTES) and other cytokines (IL-1 beta, IL-6, and GM-CSF) from nasal mucosa following allergen challenge. To correlate the improvement of rhinitis symptoms with cytokine levels during early-phase and late-phase allergic responses.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of fluticasone propionate, 200 micrograms q d, was performed in ten subjects with allergic rhinitis. Allergen challenge was administered after 1 week of treatment. Nasal secretions were collected immediately after challenge and during the late-phase reactions; symptom scores were recorded simultaneously. Nasal cytokines were assayed by specific ELISA.

RESULTS

The allergen challenge caused early-phase and late-phase allergic reactions and increased recovery of IL-1 beta, IL-6, IL-8, RANTES, MIP-1 alpha, and GM-CSF from the nasal mucosa. Intranasal fluticasone inhibited the allergen-induced increase in nasal symptoms. This was associated with decreases in cytokine recovery. A significant correlation was observed between decreases in cytokine levels and in symptom scores after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that treatment with topical fluticasone propionate inhibits allergen-induced nasal responses and the associated increase in the production/secretion of chemokines and other proinflammatory cytokines.

The efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for allergic rhinitis and its relationship to topical effects

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray is an intranasal corticosteroid for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. This double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to confirm that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray is attributable to topical rather than systemic effects. A total of 304 patients with documented seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive fluticasone propionate nasal spray 200 micrograms once daily (n = 77), oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg once daily (n = 73), oral fluticasone propionate 10 mg once daily (n = 77), or placebo (n = 77) for 14 days. Plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations were determined at baseline and after 14 days of treatment (day 15). Nasal symptoms were recorded daily by patients and assessed weekly by clinicians. On day 15, more patients in the oral fluticasone propionate 5-mg or 10-mg groups, compared with patients in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group or the placebo group, had detectable plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations, and mean concentrations were higher in the oral fluticasone propionate groups. Both clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores for obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching were significantly lower in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group compared with either of the oral fluticasone propionate groups or the placebo group. With few exceptions, oral fluticasone propionate (5 mg or 10 mg) was not significantly different from placebo on any measures of efficacy. These findings indicate that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray (200 micrograms once daily) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects rather than from indirect effects after systemic absorption.

Once-daily mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (Nasonex) in seasonal allergic rhinitis: an active- and placebo-controlled study

Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (Nasonex) was compared with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) aqueous nasal spray in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study of adults with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. Patients allergic to at least one tree and/or grass aeroallergen received one of the following regimens for up to 4 weeks; mometasone furoate 100 micrograms once daily [OD] (n = 126) or 200 micrograms OD (n = 126), BDP 200 micrograms twice daily (n = 126), or only placebo spray (n = 123). Physician-rated nasal and total symptom scores, and global evaluation of overall condition and therapeutic response by physicians and patients, showed that the three active treatments were equally effective, and all three were significantly superior to placebo at most time points. Overall, mometasone furoate 200 micrograms OD demonstrated somewhat greater numerical, but not statistical, superiority to mometasone furoate 100 micrograms OD at the earliest evaluation time point. At the end of treatment, complete or marked relief was obtained in 77% of patients with mometasone furoate 100 micrograms/day, 79% with mometasone furoate 200 micrograms/day, and 74% with BDP, compared with 54% of placebo vehicle control patients. Mometasone furoate and BDP were equally well tolerated. It was concluded that mometasone furoate adequately controls symptoms of moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis, offers the advantage of OD treatment, and is well tolerated.

Once daily intranasal fluticasone propionate (200 micrograms) reduces nasal symptoms and inflammation but also attenuates the increase in bronchial responsiveness during the pollen season in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, a new topical corticosteroid, has been proved to be an effective treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

We studied the effect of fluticasone propionate on nasal symptoms, circulating eosinophils, and nasal inflammation in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis after high-load pollen exposure. Moreover, we examined its efficacy in preventing the increase in bronchial responsiveness to methacholine (PD20) during the pollen season.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients who had a history of allergic rhinitis in response to pollens of grass and Parietaria species and were living in northern Italy. After a run-in period of 2 weeks, 24 patients were treated with fluticasone propionate (200 micrograms, once daily), and 26 patients received matched placebo for 6 weeks, starting from the beginning of the pollen season. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms. Nasal lavage was performed at the end of the season, and differential cell count was expressed as percent of total cells. PD20 methacholine was measured at the beginning and end of the season and after the season had ended.

RESULTS

Fluticasone propionate significantly reduced nasal obstruction, itching, and rhinorrhea. Eosinophils in blood (p < 0.01) and nasal lavage (p < 0.001) were also reduced. Moreover, fluticasone significantly attenuated the decrease in mean PD20 methacholine (from 1.95 to 0.89 mg) compared with placebo (from 1.38 to 0.37 mg: p < 0.01). After the season, no difference in PD20 methacholine was found between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that fluticasone propionate is effective in decreasing nasal symptoms and eosinophil inflammation in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis after high-load pollen exposure. Our results also demonstrate that treatment with fluticasone propionate partially prevents the increase in bronchial responsiveness provoked by the inhalation of seasonal pollens in allergic rhinitis.

Double-strength beclomethasone dipropionate (84 micrograms/spray) aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The use of intranasally administered corticosteroid sprays is an established treatment option for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 438 patients with moderate to severe symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis were treated for 4 weeks with double-strength beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) aqueous nasal spray (84 micrograms/spray: BDP-ds), once daily; regular-strength BDP (42 micrograms/spray: BDP-rs), twice daily; high-strength BDP (336 micrograms/spray: BDP-hs), once daily; or placebo. BDP-hs was included as a safety comparison group. All treatments were given as two sprays per nostril.

RESULTS

Physician-rated nasal symptom scores were significantly improved in all three active treatment groups compared with those of the placebo group within the initial 3 days of treatment. Improvement was maintained throughout the 4-week treatment period. BDP-ds and BDP-rs were equivalent at all time points. The BDP-ds, BDP-rs, and BDP-hs groups had greater numbers of patients with a good or excellent therapeutic response at end point than the placebo group. All treatments were well-tolerated, and no unexpected adverse events were reported. No effects on laboratory evaluations or vital signs were evident for any treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that BDP-ds given once a day and BDP-rs given twice a day in the same total daily dose are comparably safe and effective in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Fluticasone propionate: topical or systemic effects?

Intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to be more effective than oral antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. However, there are some who question whether intranasally administered corticosteroids should be used due to potential systemic effects. Fluticasone propionate, a potent corticosteroid with high specificity for the glucocorticoid receptor, is available as an aqueous nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. To determine whether the efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) was due to direct topical effects on the nasal mucosa or to indirect systemic effects following absorption from the nasal mucosa or from the swallowed portion of an intranasal dose, FPANS 200 micrograms once daily was compared with oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg or 10 mg once daily or placebo for 2 weeks in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. These oral dosages were chosen to yield low but consistent plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations. Both clinician- and patient-rated scores for nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and nasal itching were significantly lower in the intranasal fluticasone propionate group compared with both oral fluticasone propionate groups. A separate placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with perennial rhinitis to determine if administration of FPANS 200 micrograms once daily for 1 year was associated with adverse systemic effects. At the 1-year assessment, there were no significant effects on bone mineral density or on biochemical markers of bone turnover. Similarly, there was no evidence of posterior subcapsular cataracts nor of glaucoma. Furthermore, there were no significant effects on hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis function as assessed by plasma cortisol and 24-h urinary cortisol response to the 6-h cosyntropin stimulation test. These data confirm that the efficacy of FPANS for the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects, thus reducing the likelihood of adverse systemic effects.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray: a well-tolerated and effective treatment for children with perennial rhinitis

A total of 535 children aged 4-11 years with perennial rhinitis were recruited to two double-blind studies performed at 56 centres in eight European countries, Israel, and South Africa. One study compared the efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS), at either 100 micrograms once daily (od) or 100 micrograms twice daily (bd), with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDPANS) 200 micrograms bd for 12 weeks in 120 children aged 6-11 years. The second study compared FPANS 100 micrograms od with FPANS 200 micrograms od and placebo for 4 weeks in 415 children aged 4-11 years. Efficacy was determined by means of patient assessments of nasal symptoms of perennial rhinitis and by investigator assessments of symptoms and nasal condition. The symptoms of nasal blockage, on waking and during the day, sneezing, rhinorrhoea, and nasal itching were assessed by the investigator at clinic visits and by the completion of a patient daily diary card. Safety was assessed by collection of adverse event information, routine haematology and biochemistry testing, and monitoring plasma cortisol levels. FPANS demonstrated good control of symptoms at each dose regimen, which was equivalent or superior to BDPANS and superior to placebo. There was no difference between the dose regimens of FPANS. FPANS was as well tolerated as placebo and BDPANS. It is concluded that FPANS 100 micrograms od is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for perennial rhinitis in children aged 4-11 years.

Topical corticosteroids potentiate mucin secretion in the normal nose

The exact mode of action of topical nasal corticosteroids is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine their effects on microvascular permeability and cellular and glandular secretion by measuring the levels of total protein, albumin, lysozyme and mucin recovered in nasal lavage fluid before and after 3 weeks of treatment with a topical nasal corticosteroid in 12 normal non-atopic subjects. Six subjects applied 200 micrograms fluticasone propionate and six applied 200 micrograms beclomethasone dipropionate to one nostril in each 24 h: matched placebo was applied to the other nostril. There was a significant rise in the level of mucin recovered compared with baseline values following fluticasone administration (baseline 76.2 micrograms/ml (mean) +/- 5.5 (SEM), fluticasone 118.3 micrograms/ml +/- 11.6 P = 0.015) and beclomethasone administration (baseline 64.3 micrograms/ml +/- 6.6, beclomethasone 87.2 micrograms/ml +/- 4.8, P = 0.041). There was no significant change in the levels of total protein, albumin or lysozyme following either active medication or placebo treatment. Topical corticosteroids appear to potentiate mucin secretion and do not alter serous secretion or microvascular permeability in the unchallenged non-atopic nose.

A placebo-controlled study of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and beclomethasone dipropionate in perennial rhinitis: efficacy in allergic and non-allergic perennial rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate is a new potent, topically active corticosteroid with negligable oral bioavailability. Data on its comparative efficacy in perennial allergic and non-allergic rhinitis are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200 micrograms once or twice daily with beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray (BPD) 200 micrograms twice daily and placebo in patients with allergic and non-allergic perennial rhinitis.

METHODS

The 12-week study had a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel group design. Efficacy was assessed from symptom scores recorded on daily diary cards.

RESULTS

FPANS 200 micrograms once or twice daily was significantly better than placebo but not better than BDP in relieving the nasal symptoms of rhinitis. FPANS at either dose was equally effective in the treatment of allergic and non-allergic perennial rhinitis. There were few adverse events and no treatment-related abnormalities in laboratory measurements in either FPANS-treated group. Comparison between treatment groups indicated that FPANS was as well tolerated as placebo and BDP at the doses studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of patients FPANS 200 micrograms once daily in as effective as BDP 200 micrograms twice daily in the relief of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Nasal cytological changes following pharmacological intervention

Symptoms of allergic rhinitis are associated with increased numbers of inflammatory cells in the nasal mucosa. The effects of fluticasone propionate on the nasal mucosal cells of patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis were evaluated in seven multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomised studies. In three seasonal allergic rhinitis studies, significantly more patients receiving fluticasone propionate had a decrease in nasal eosinophils following treatment compared with patients receiving placebo. Similarly, more patients receiving fluticasone propionate had a decrease in nasal basophilic cells, but differences from placebo were not significant in all studies. Nearly identical results were observed in two 24-week perennial allergic rhinitis studies: significantly more patients receiving fluticasone propionate or beclomethasone dipropionate had a decrease in nasal eosinophils compared with patients receiving placebo. Furthermore, a higher percentage of patients receiving corticosteroids also had a decrease in the number of basophilic cells. In two separate seasonal allergic rhinitis studies, significantly more patients receiving fluticasone propionate had a decrease in nasal eosinophils compared with patients receiving terfenadine or astemizole, respectively. The decrease in nasal basophilic cells was also significantly greater with fluticasone propionate compared with astemizole. Inhibition of mediator release from eosinophilic and basophilic cells has also been demonstrated in patients receiving fluticasone propionate compared with patients receiving antihistamines. The results of these studies suggest that the therapeutic benefits of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis may be related to its ability to reduce nasal mucosal inflammatory cells and to inhibit local mediator activity.