Lack of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with once-daily or twice-daily beclomethasone dipropionate aqueous nasal spray administered to patients with allergic rhinitis

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression and intranasal corticosteroid use: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are used in the management of sinonasal conditions. Use of exogenous steroids can be associated with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction and adrenal insufficiency (AI). We aimed to estimate the rate of AI after INCS use in a meta-analysis, stratified by steroid type and treatment duration.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, Embase Classic, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies investigating INCS use and AI. AI was defined as morning serum cortisol <550 nmol/L and <80 nmol/L with and without adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation. INCS were classified as first (beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, beclomethasone, budesonide, dexamethasone) and second (ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate) generation. Duration of treatment was classified as short (<1 month), medium (1-12 months), and long-term (>12 months) time periods.

RESULTS

This search identified 3668 articles. A total of 39 studies (1678 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled percentage of AI for routinely utilized first- and second-generation INCS was 0.70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-1.12%). Stratified by type, AI was observed in 0.78% (95% CI, 0.25-1.30%) of first-generation and 0.58% (95% CI, -0.1% to 1.26%) of second-generation steroids. AI was seen in 0.48% (95% CI, -0.01% to 0.96%) of short-term, 1.13% (95% CI, 0.2-2.1%) of medium-term, and 1.67% (95% CI, 0.37-2.9%) of long-term use of INCS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the use of INCS carries a low risk for AI. Although modest, this risk may differ depending on the length of duration and type of INCS used. Informing patients of these risks is of importance for the treatment of chronic sinonasal conditions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Safety and Adverse Effects in Adults

Objectives

To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population.

Data Source

Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.

Review Methods

A structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta-analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA-approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.14; P = .007).

Conclusions

Overall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non-FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

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.

Intranasal azelastine and mometasone exhibit a synergistic effect on a murine model of allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-allergic effects of the combination of azelastine and mometasone with those of either agent alone in a Dermatophagoides farinae (Derf)-induced murine model of allergic rhinitis (AR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty BALB/c mice were divided into five groups: azelastine (A), mometasone (M), a combination of azelastine and mometasone (MA), Derf, and control. Derf served as the allergen. Allergic symptom scores, eosinophil counts, and serum Derf-specific IgE levels were measured. The mucosal levels of mRNAs encoding interferon (IFN)-γ, T-bet, interleukin (IL)-4, GATA-3, Foxp3, IL-17, and ROR-γt were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The T-bet, GATA-3, Foxp3, and ROR-γt results were confirmed by Western blotting.

RESULTS

Nose-rubbing motions; the levels of mRNAs encoding IL-4, GATA-3, and ROR-γt; and tissue eosinophil count were reduced in the MA compared with those in the Derf group (all P values <0.05). The levels of mRNAs encoding GATA3 and IL-4 mRNA [synthesized by T helper (Th)2 cells] were reduced and that of mRNA encoding Foxp3 was increased in the MA compared with those in the Derf and A groups. Western blotting confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

We found that the combination of intranasal azelastine and mometasone synergistically suppressed Th17 responses and (reciprocally) elevated Treg responses. Therefore, this combination not only ameliorated allergic inflammation by suppressing Th2 responses, but also usefully modified the Treg/Th17 balance.

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.

Impact of study design on the evaluation of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids' effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function

In part I of this review, an overview of the designs of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis studies in the setting of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or intranasal corticosteroids (INS) use was discussed. Part II provides detailed discussion on the HPA axis evaluation results for each common ICS and INS, and how these results are possibly affected by the factors of study design. Significant adrenal suppression at conventional ICS/INS doses appears to be rare in clinical settings. The magnitude of cortisol suppression varies widely among different study designs. Factors potentially impacting this variability include: the choice of dose, dosing duration, assay sensitivity, statistical methodology, study population, and compliance. All of these factors have the potential to affect the extent of HPA axis effects detected and should be considered when designing or interpreting the results of a HPA axis study.

Impact of study design on the evaluation of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids' effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, part I: general overview of HPA axis study design

Inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids (ICS and INS) are among the mainstays of the treatment for asthma and allergic rhinitis, respectively, and also carry the potential to suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Several important factors affect the interpretability of trials investigating the impact of ICS and INS on the HPA axis. This paper reviews 106 published clinical trials, peer-reviewed articles, and New Drug Application reviews of approved ICS and INS, using MEDLINE and Drugs@FDA database. The trials included in this review evaluated the potential impact on HPA axis function of eight approved single-ingredient ICS and INS (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone furoate, flucticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide) and combination products containing these ingredients. The most commonly utilized design was blinded, placebo controlled, and short term (<6 weeks) for adult trials and blinded, placebo controlled, and long term (≥6 weeks) for pediatric trials. Factors potentially affecting trial results include the choice of dose, dosing duration, assay sensitivity, statistical methodology, and the study population evaluated (patients or healthy volunteers). All of these factors have the potential to affect the level of adrenal suppression detected. In conclusion, to be informative, a HPA axis study should be well designed and carefully implemented to minimize variability in results and improve the overall interpretability of data obtained.

The effect of combined medical treatment on quality of life in persistent allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis may significantly affect the patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of nasal steroids alone, to nasal steroids plus Levocetirizine or Montelukast, on quality of life in persistent allergic rhinitis. This is a prospective, randomized study and included 56 patients with moderate to severe persistent allergic rhinitis. All patients had house dust mite allergy on skin prick test and we divided the patients into three groups. 1 month long medical treatment was; topical Mometasone furoate 200 mcg/day in the first group (n:14), Mometasone furoate 200 mcg/day plus oral Levocetirizine 5 mg/day in the second group (n:21), and Mometasone furoate 200 mcg/day plus oral Montelukast 10 mg/day in the third group (n:21). We evaluated the patients before treatment and at the first month after treatment with mini rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (miniRQLQ) and nasal symptom scores. In the first group nasal symptom and mini RQLQ scores were not improved but in second and third group, both scores were improved significantly (p < 0.05). Nasal obstruction symptom score was better in the third group after treatment (p < 0.01), but other nasal symptom scores (rhinorrhea, sneezing and nasal itching) were better in the second group (For each symptom p < 0.05). Improvement of quality of life scores in the second group were better than the third group (p < 0.05). In persistent allergic rhinitis, combination of levocetirizine or montelukast to nasal steroids was better than the topical mometasone furoate alone in terms of quality of life.

Safety of intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis

Treatment guidelines for acute rhinosinusitis (RS) recommend the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. However, the adverse event (AE) profiles of oral glucocorticoids, which result largely from the systemic absorption of those agents, have engendered concerns about the safety of INSs. These concerns persist for INSs despite significant or marked clinical differences between them and systemic corticosteroids in systemic absorption and among the INSs in bioavailability, mechanism of action, and lipophilicity, which may contribute to differences in AEs. For example, the systemic bioavailability of the INSs as a percentage of the administered drug is less than 0.1% for mometasone furoate, less than 1% for fluticasone propionate, 46% for triamcinolone acetonide, and 44% for beclomethasone dipropionate. A review of the safety profiles of INSs, as reported in clinical trials in acute and chronic RS and allergic rhinitis, shows primarily local AEs (eg, epistaxis and headache) that are generally classified as mild to moderate, with occurrence rates that are similar to those with placebo. Studies of the safety of mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and triamcinolone acetonide did not identify any evidence of systemic AEs, such as growth retardation in children due to suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, bone mineral density loss, or cataracts, which suggests that INSs can be safely administered in patients with acute RS without concern for systemic AEs.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

The safety of intranasal steroids

The increasing use of intranasal steroids in the management of allergic rhinitis reflects their efficacy, tolerability, and safety. However, issues related to the safety of intranasal steroids continue to generate debate and confusion among clinicians. Consequently, there is often reluctance and uncertainty in prescribing these effective agents for the treatment of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis. Issues of particular concern are whether intranasal steroids adversely affect various homeostatic systems, influence growth and bone metabolism, and compromise ocular function. Furthermore, the expanding role of intranasal steroids in the pediatric, geriatric, and postmenopausal populations has raised concerns that these agents may result in a steroid burden that more readily causes adverse effects. An extensive review of the literature overwhelmingly supports the assertion that intranasal steroids are safe in prescribed doses and should allay the misconceptions regarding their appropriate use in the management of allergic rhinitis.

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.

Impact of allergic rhinitis treatment on quality of life

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the nasal passages. It affects approximately 20% of the population, is a significant health and economic burden, and severely impairs quality of life. Two main instruments, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form health survey (SF-36) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) have been used to assess quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis. Antihistamines, corticosteroids, anticholinergic agents, decongestants, cromoglycates, and immunotherapy are used to treat patients with allergic rhinitis. Of these, antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious and frequently utilised medications. Studies have demonstrated improvements in quality of life with both of these medications in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Systemic effects of intranasal steroids: an endocrinologist's perspective

Intranasal steroids (INSs) are established as first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis. Extensive use of INSs with few reported adverse events supports the safety of these medications. Nevertheless, the prescription of more potent INSs for consistent and more prolonged use to younger and older patients, often in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, justifies the careful examination of their potential adverse systemic effects. Systemic bioavailability of INSs, by way of nasal and intestinal absorption, can be substantial; but current INSs vary significantly in their degree of first-pass hepatic inactivation and clearance from the body of the swallowed drug. For safety studies of INSs, distinguishing detectable physiologic perturbations from important adverse events is aided by an understanding of normal endocrine physiology and the methods used to test these systems. A review of available information indicates that (1) sensitive tests can measure the effects of INSs on biologic feedback systems, but they do not accurately predict clinically relevant adverse effects; (2) the primary factors that influence the relationship between therapeutic and adverse systemic effects of INSs are dosing frequency and efficiency of hepatic inactivation of swallowed drug; (3) INS treatment in recommended doses does not cause clinically significant hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression; (4) growth suppression can occur with twice-daily administration of certain INSs but does not appear to occur with once-daily dosing or with agents with more complete first-pass hepatic inactivation; (5) harmful effects of INSs on bone metabolism have not yet been adequately studied but would not be expected with the use of an INS dose and dosing frequency that do not suppress basal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function or growth; and (6) these conclusions apply to INS treatment alone and in recommended doses-the risk of adverse effects in individual patients who are treated with INSs is increased by excessive dosing or concomitant inhaled corticosteroid or other topical corticosteroid therapy.

Detection of growth suppression in children during treatment with intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate

OBJECTIVE

Intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) has generally been considered to have no systemic activity at recommended doses, but the potential for long-term effects on growth has not previously been evaluated. This study was undertaken to assess the effects of 1 year of treatment with intranasal BDP on growth in children.

STUDY DESIGN

In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 100 prepubertal children 6 to 9 years old with perennial allergic rhinitis were treated with aqueous BDP 168 microg twice daily (n = 51) or placebo (n = 49) for 1 year. Subjects' baseline heights were required to be between the 5th and 95th percentile, and skeletal age as determined by left wrist radiograph was required to be within 2 years of chronological age. Washout periods for medications known to affect growth, including other forms of corticosteroids, were established, and these medications were prohibited during the study. However, short courses of oral prednisolone lasting no more than 7 days, and short courses of dermatologic corticosteroids lasting no more than 10 days, were allowed. Height was measured with a stadiometer after 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months of treatment. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis was assessed by measurements of 8 AM basal cortisol concentrations and response to. 25 mg cosyntropin stimulation. The primary safety parameter was the rate of change in standing height. Statistical analyses were based on all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of medication (intent-to-treat principle). The rate of change in standing height was analyzed for all subjects who entered the study and for those completing the full 12 months of treatment (n = 80). The rate of change in standing height over the 1-year study was calculated as the slope of a linear regression line fitted to each subject's height measurements over time. Because there was a statistically significant between-group difference in standing height at baseline, an analysis of covariance was performed for all analyses of standing height data.

RESULTS

Of the 100 subjects enrolled, 90 completed the study. The 2 treatment groups were generally comparable at baseline; however, at baseline, mean age and mean height were significantly greater in the BDP treatment group that the in placebo treatment group. In both analyses, overall growth rate was significantly slower in BDP-treated subjects than placebo-treated subjects. The mean change in standing height after 1 year was 5.0 cm in the BDP-treated subjects compared with 5.9 cm in the placebo-treated subjects. The difference in growth rates was evident as early as the 1-month treatment visit, suggesting that the effect on growth occurred initially. The growth-suppressive effect of BDP remained consistent across all age and gender subgroups, and among subjects with and without a previous history of corticosteroid use. Use of additional exogenous corticosteroids during the study was similar in both groups and did not affect the results. Because there was a baseline imbalance in height, a supplemental analysis of the differences in prestudy growth rates was performed. This analysis found no baseline imbalance in prestudy growth rates. To determine whether the difference in growth rates during the study could be attributed to preexisting growth rates, a z score analysis was performed. The heights of both groups were normalized at baseline and at the end of the study using the US National Center for Health Statistics data for mean and standard deviations of height. This analysis confirmed that the difference in growth rates between the 2 groups was primarily attributable to the treatment rather than to any preexisting difference in growth. Additional analyses confirmed that the results were not influenced by outlier values. No significant between-group difference were found in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis assessments. No unusual adverse events were observed. (ABSTRACT

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids versus oral H1 receptor antagonists in allergic rhinitis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intranasal corticosteroids are superior to oral H1 receptor antagonists (antihistamines) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing intranasal corticosteroids with oral antihistamines.

SETTING

Randomised controlled trials conducted worldwide and published between 1966 and 1997.

SUBJECTS

2267 subjects with allergic rhinitis in 16 randomised controlled trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nasal blockage, nasal discharge, sneezing, nasal itch, postnasal drip, nasal discomfort, total nasal symptoms, nasal resistance, and eye symptoms and global ratings. Outcomes measured on different scales were combined to determine pooled odds ratios (categorical outcomes) or standardised mean differences (continuous outcomes). Assessment of heterogeneity between studies, and subgroup analyses of eye symptoms, were undertaken.

RESULTS

Intranasal corticosteroids produced significantly greater relief than oral antihistamines of nasal blockage (standardised mean difference 0.63, 95% confidence interval - 0.73 to - 0.53), nasal discharge (-0.5, - 0.6 to - 0.4), sneezing (- 0.49, - 0.59 to - 0.39), nasal itch (- 0.38,- 0.49 to - 0.21), postnasal drip (- 0.24,- 0.42 to - 0.06), and total nasal symptoms (- 0.42,- 0.53 to - 0.32), and global ratings gave an odds ratio for deterioration of symptoms of 0.26 (0.08 to 0.8). There were no significant differences between treatments for nasal discomfort, nasal resistance, or eye symptoms. The effects on sneezing, total nasal symptoms, and eye symptoms were significantly heterogeneous between studies. Other combined outcomes were homogeneous between studies. Subgroup analysis of the outcome of eye symptoms suggested that the duration of assessment (averaged mean score over the study period versus mean score at end of study period) might have accounted for the heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review, together with data on safety and cost effectiveness, support the use of intranasal corticosteroids over oral antihistamines as first line treatment for allergic rhinitis.

Effects of repeated once daily dosing of three intranasal corticosteroids on basal and dynamic measures of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis activity

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are regarded as the first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis, but few studies have directly compared their systemic effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis suppression with three intranasal corticosteroids in terms of basal and dynamic adrenocortical activity.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy volunteers (mean age, 30.7 years) were studied in a single-blind, randomized, four-way crossover study comparing placebo with 200 microg/day fluticasone propionate (FP), 220 microg/day triamcinolone acetonide (TAA), and 336 microg/day beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP). After 4 days of treatment, an overnight urine collection was taken for cortisol and creatinine excretion starting at 10 PM (14 hours after the fourth dose), and blood was taken for serum cortisol at 8 AM (24 hours after the fourth dose) and after stimulation with adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) (0.5 microg).

RESULTS

For overnight urinary cortisol excretion compared with placebo (20.8 nmol), there was a significant (p < 0.05) degree of suppression with FP (11.8 nmol) but not with TAA (16.0 nmol) or BDP (16.5 nmol). In terms of fold difference (95% CI for difference) from placebo, this amounted to 1.75-fold (1.01 to 3.03) for FP (43% suppression), 1.30-fold (0.75 to 2.25) for TAA (23% suppression), and 1.26-fold (0.73 to 2.18) for BDP (21% suppression). There was also a trend towards suppression of overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine excretion, but this was not statistically significant (placebo, 5.2 nmol/mmol; TAA, 5.0 nmol/mmol; BDP, 4.3 nmol/mmol; and FP, 4.3 nmol/mmol). Values for serum cortisol before and after ACTH stimulation showed no significant suppression.

CONCLUSION

Suppression of overnight urinary cortisol occurred with intranasal FP (43%), TAA (23%), and BDP (21%), although this was only statistically significant with FP. None of the drugs were associated with blunting of the response to ACTH stimulation. Further studies are indicated to establish whether the systemic effects of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids are additive.

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.

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.

Clinical review of once-daily beclomethasone dipropionate for seasonal allergic rhinitis

A new double-strength (84 micrograms/spray) formulation of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP-ds) as an aqueous suspension has been introduced to control symptoms of allergic rhinitis with once-daily intranasal dosing. This paper reviews the results of three clinical reports which show that BDP-ds given once a day is more effective than placebo and as effective as regular-strength beclomethasone dipropionate given twice daily in reducing the nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Symptom improvement was seen within 2 days of treatment initiation and was maintained for the subsequent 4 weeks. BDP-ds was found to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo. Adverse effects, which were generally mild, included headache, nasal burning/irritation, epistaxis, coughing, and pharyngitis. BDP-ds is safe for children as young as 6 years of age, and its once-daily dosing schedule may improve patient compliance.

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.