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

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.

Farit NA. The Efficacy of Elonide Nasal Corticosteroids in Managing Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

Background: Mometasone furoate nasal spray is efficacious in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms. The objectives of this study were, firstly, to compare the efficacy of Elonide to Nasonex® and a placebo and secondly, to investigate the side effects of Elonide. Method: This was a prospective, single-centered, double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 163 participants from the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), were randomized into three treatment groups receiving Elonide (n = 56), Nasonex® (n = 54), and placebo (n = 53) nasal sprays using an online randomizer (Random.org). Treatment was administered for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Total Nasal Resistance (TNR), and the secondary outcomes were the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQOLQ) score. Side effects were recorded. Results: There were significant improvements for all groups from baseline. The Elonide group had the greatest mean difference for all primary and secondary outcomes compared to Nasonex® and the placebo (0.77 ± 2.44 vs. 0.35 ± 1.16, p = 1.00 vs. 0.17 ± 0.82, p = 0.01). Elonide is non-inferior to Nasonex (p = 1.00) and superior to the placebo (p < 0.05). The highest side effects reported were for Nasonex (n = 14, 26%), followed by the placebo (n = 8, 16%) and Elonide (n = 6, 12%); headaches (n = 9, 17%) and sore throat (n = 9, 17%) were the most common. Conclusions: Elonide has similar efficacy to Nasonex® when compared to a placebo in the treatment of AR in adults. Elonide is safe and tolerable, with fewer side effects and no adverse side effects.

Geographic Variation in Otolaryngologist Intranasal Steroid Prescribing Patterns Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are a commonly prescribed medication to treat various rhinological conditions. However, no prior studies have looked at factors and patterns that influence the rates of INCS prescriptions among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the patterns of INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

Data on the most common INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists for Medicare beneficiaries were obtained from the 2013 to 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) and the Part D Public Use Files from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). INCS prescriptions were analyzed by cost, state, provider, and regional temperature. State temperature data was collected through the National Centers for Environmental Information.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the total claims per beneficiary for fluticasone, mometasone, and triamcinolone combined increased from 2.31 to 2.39. Combined cost/beneficiary was similar for mometasone and triamcinolone at 102.47 and 103.60 respectively, while it was much lower for fluticasone at 39.12. There was a strong correlation between otolaryngology providers per beneficiary in each state and total claims per state with a correlation coefficient of .79. Additionally, comparing the average state temperature to the claims/beneficiary yielded a moderately strong correlation coefficient of .44, suggesting that temperature was a possible factor for INCS prescription patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

INCS prescriptions by otolaryngologists and the number of INCS beneficiaries have increased between 2013 and 2017. Over the same time period, the costs of fluticasone and triamcinolone have decreased while the cost of mometasone increased. Total providers by state correlated with claims per state. Additionally, average annual temperature was positively correlated with INCS claims per beneficiary in each state.

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.

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

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

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal Steroid Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common medical condition in children. It is associated with significant morbidity because symptoms can adversely affect quality of life. The goals of treatment of AR are to provide effective prevention as well as symptom alleviation. Pharmacotherapy is often necessary for the reduction of symptoms and the associated morbidity. Intranasal steroids (INS) are highly effective drugs for treatment of AR and are more efficacious compared to other medications used to treat AR such as antihistamines and leukotriene modifiers. Several formulations of INS are available, all of which have approximately the same efficacy and safety profile. The most common adverse effect is local irritation. Systemic absorption from nasal mucosa is low and thus systemic effects are rare. However, prolonged use of INS, especially in patients who are also using oral or inhaled steroids, can result in hypothalamic-pituitary-axis suppression. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(1):e43-e48.].

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.

An algorithm recommendation for the pharmacological management of allergic rhinitis in the UK: a consensus statement from an expert panel

Allergic rhinitis is a frequent presenting problem in primary care in the UK, and has increased in prevalence over the last 30 years. When symptomatic, patients report significant reduction in their quality of life and impairment in school and work performance. Achieving adequate symptom control is pivotal to successful allergic rhinitis management, and relies mostly on pharmacotherapy. While it is recognised that most mild-moderate allergic rhinitis symptoms can be managed successfully in primary care, important gaps in general practitioner training in relation to allergic rhinitis have been identified. With the availability of new effective combination therapies, such as the novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single device (Dymista®; Meda), the majority of allergic rhinitis symptoms can be treated in the primary care setting. The primary objective of this consensus statement is to improve diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in primary care, and offer guidance on appropriate referral of difficult-to-treat patients into secondary care. The guidance provided herein outlines a sequential treatment pathway for allergic rhinitis in primary care that incorporates a considered approach to improve the management of allergic rhinitis symptoms and improve compliance and patient satisfaction with therapy. Adherence with this care pathway has the potential to limit the cost of providing effective allergic rhinitis management in the UK by avoiding unnecessary treatments and investigations, and avoiding the need for costly referrals to secondary care in the majority of allergic rhinitis cases. The fundamentals presented in this consensus article should apply in most health-care settings.

Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses

BACKGROUND

Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 μg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs.

RESULTS

In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.

Optimal Duration of Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines have been published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for the conduct of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) studies. These guidelines have differences regarding the duration of such trials: the FDA suggests 2 weeks for SAR and 4 weeks for PAR but the EMEA suggests 2 to 4 weeks for SAR and 6 to 12 weeks for PAR trials. In the interest of global harmonization, it would be desirable to have a uniform duration of such trials so that investigators, internationally, would be able to readily compare results for various types of treatments based on a single standard. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based review to answer the clinical question, What is the optimal duration for SAR and PAR clinical trials?

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the published literature from 1995 to the present. We used appropriate search terms, such as allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, SAR, and PAR, to identify pertinent articles. These articles were reviewed and graded according to the evidence quality.

RESULTS: After an initial screening of more than 300 articles, 138 articles were analyzed thoroughly. No study specifically addressed the question of the optimal duration of SAR or PAR clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current FDA (draft) guidelines calling for a study length of 2 weeks for the assessment of drug efficacy for SAR and 4 weeks for the study of drug efficacy in PAR are appropriate and that longer study periods are not likely to add meaningfully to the assessment of drug efficacy.

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.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; MP29-02 (a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) fills the gaps

INTRODUCTION

Effective pharmacologic treatment exists for most patients suffering from allergic rhinitis (AR). However, both in clinical trials and in real-life studies, many patients are dissatisfied with treatment. Physicians often use multiple therapies, in an attempt to improve symptom control, often with limited evidence of success. Novel treatment options are needed and must consider unmet medical needs.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the clinical data for a new AR treatment. MP29-02 (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) contains azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP), in a novel formulation and delivered in an improved device as a single nasal spray. It has shown superior efficacy in AR patients than either commercially available AZE or FP monotherapy for both nasal and ocular symptom relief, regardless of disease severity. MP29-02 also provided more effective and rapid symptom relief than either AZE or FP monotherapy delivered in the MP29-02 formulation and device. However, the effect was less than that observed versus commercial comparators, suggesting the impact of formulation and device on clinical efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

MP29-02 simplifies AR management, surpassing the efficacy of gold standard treatment, intranasal corticosteroids (INS), for the first time. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis when monotherapy with either intranasal antihistamine or INS is NOT considered sufficient. Most patients present with moderate/severe disease, with evidence of current or previous treatment insufficiency. MP29-02 should be the treatment of choice for these patients.

Intranasal corticosteroids topical characteristics: side effects, formulation, and volume

BACKGROUND

Guidelines from throughout the world recommend intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) as first-line treatment for most patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis. In general, limited comparative studies between different INSs have not indicated that one particular steroid moiety is more effective than another in controlling symptoms of allergic rhinitis. However, there are numerous formulations available with different ingredients that may influence a patient's adherence to treatment.

METHODS

This article looks at topical features with these agents, specifically, formulations, vehicles (aqueous vs aerosol), and side effects such as epistaxis and nasal septal perforation.

RESULTS

Topical side effects are minimal with INSs with the exception of epistaxis. There are major differences in formulations, volumes, and vehicles between INSs, which could affect adherence.

CONCLUSION

Physicians need to be aware of the different INS attributes to try to match patients' preferences in order to achieve better adherence and improve outcomes in sufferers of allergic rhinitis.

Comparison of mometasone furoate monohydrate (Nasonex) and fluticasone propionate (Flixonase) nasal sprays in the treatment of dust mite-sensitive children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Various studies have investigated the efficacies of mometasone furoate monohydrate (MFM) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays for adults. However, research on their effectiveness for children is limited. This study compares the efficacies of MFM and FP nasal sprays in pediatric patients with perennial-allergic rhinitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this study, 94 perennial allergic rhinitis patients aged 6-12 years were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: an MFM group and an FP group. Treatment was provided for 4 weeks. The effects of the two agents were compared using the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and total symptom scores (TSSs). Nasal-peak expiratory flow rates and eosinophil percentage in nasal smears were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients in the MFM group exhibited significant improvement in their TSS (t = -2.65, p < 0.05). A detailed TSS analysis showed MFM to be more effective for relieving nasal symptoms, whereas FP was more effective for relieving non-nasal symptoms. Patient questionnaire scores suggested a significant reduction in symptoms for both the MFM (t = -7.23, p < 0.01) and FP (t = -5.43, p < 0.01) groups. The flow rate test results indicated significant improvements in the MFM group (t = 2.27, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Following the 4-week therapy, MFM provided greater improvement compared to FP for symptoms of childhood perennial-allergic rhinitis. Based on their TSSs, the MFM group experienced more effective relief of nasal symptoms, whereas the FP group experienced more effective relief of non-nasal symptoms.

Clinically relevant effect of a new intranasal therapy (MP29-02) in allergic rhinitis assessed by responder analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear what constitutes a clinically meaningful response for allergic rhinitis (AR) outcomes. The objectives of these post hoc analyses were (1) to define a clinically meaningful response using novel efficacy analyses (including a responder analysis), and (2) to compare the efficacy of MP29-02 [a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP)] with commercially available FP, AZE and placebo in seasonal AR (SAR) patients, using these novel analyses.

METHODS

610 moderate-to-severe SAR patients (≥12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Change from baseline in the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) over 14 days was the primary outcome. Post hoc endpoints included the sum of nasal and ocular symptoms (rT7SS), efficacy by disease severity and by predominant nasal symptom, and a set of responder analyses.

RESULTS

MP29-02 most effectively reduced rT7SS (relative greater improvement: 52% to FP; 56% to AZE) and both nasal and ocular symptoms irrespective of severity. More MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥30, ≥50, ≥60, ≥75 and ≥90% rTNSS reduction, which occurred days faster than with either active comparator; MP29-02 alone was superior to placebo at the ≥60% (or higher) threshold. One in 2 MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥50% rTNSS reduction and 1 in 6 achieved complete/near-to-complete response. Only MP29-02 was consistently superior to placebo for all patients, whatever their predominant symptom.

CONCLUSIONS

MP29-02 provided faster and more complete symptom control than first-line therapies. It was consistently superior irrespective of severity, response criteria or patient-type, and may be considered the drug of choice for moderate-to-severe AR. These measures define a new standard for assessing relevance in AR.

Patient preference and sensory perception of three intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the medication preference, sensory perceptions and compliance of allergic rhinitis patients after a single administration of three intranasal corticosteroids.

STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

In this double-blind, comparative, crossover study, 364 patients were randomised to receive fluticasone propionate (FP), mometasone furoate (MF) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) nasal sprays. Patients completed a preference questionnaire including a product preference and compliance evaluation after administration to determine the acceptability of each product.

RESULTS

The results indicate that TAA was judged more comfortable (p = 0.0406), had less odour (p < 0.0001) and had a significantly greater overall liking (p = 0.0008) compared with FP and MF. The nasal spray 'most preferred to be prescribed' was TAA (38.2%), followed by FP (36.8%) and MF (24.9%). Furthermore, 82.3% of the patients indicated that they would 'definitely comply' with a doctor's prescription for TAA, compared with 39.6% for FP and 20.5% for MF.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that TAA is the most favourable nasal spray in terms of preference and sensory perceptions for patients with perennial or seasonal allergic rhinitis.

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.

Impact of mometasone furoate nasal spray on individual ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are a mainstay of treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) nasal symptoms. The INS mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) has well-documented efficacy and safety for the treatment and prophylaxis of nasal symptoms of seasonal AR (SAR) and for the treatment of nasal symptoms of perennial AR (PAR). Increasing interest has focused on whether INSs, including MFNS, may have beneficial effects on the ocular symptoms frequently associated with AR.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the efficacy of MFNS 200 mcg daily in relieving ocular allergy symptoms, including itching/burning, redness, and tearing/watering in both SAR and PAR. Four PAR studies and six SAR studies are included in the analysis. A fixed-effect inverse variance model was used to calculate weighted mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison, and a combined overall treatment effect (Z) with P-value.

RESULTS

In both analyses of SAR and PAR studies, including 3132 patients, all individual ocular symptoms were reduced in patients treated with MFNS. Overall treatment effect was significant for all three individual ocular symptoms in the SAR studies (Z = 9.18 for tearing, Z = 10.15 for itching, and Z = 8.88 for redness; P < 0.00001 for all) and in the PAR studies (Z = 5.94, P < 0.00001 for tearing; Z = 2.43, P = 0.02 for itching; and Z = 2.42, P = 0.02 for redness).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the growing body of literature supporting the positive class effect of INSs, including MFNS, on ocular symptoms associated with SAR and PAR.

New aspects of the Slug Mucosal Irritation assay: predicting nasal stinging, itching and burning sensations

Stinging, itching and/or burning (SIB) sensations cannot be detected by animal tests or in vitro models. In the past, the Slug Mucosal Irritation (SMI) assay demonstrated a relation between an increased mucus production in slugs and an elevated incidence of SIB sensations in humans. A new 1-day SMI test procedure was developed focusing on the prediction of these short-term sensations. The objective of this study was to verify whether this new procedure is capable predicting mucosal tolerance of several marketed nasal formulations using the slug Arion lusitanicus. Irritation and tissue damage were quantified with a 5-day repeated exposure study by means of the mucus produced and proteins and enzymes released. The new protocol predicted SIB sensations by means of mucus production. The effects of six liquid nasal formulations were tested with both protocols, while five physiologic saline solutions were only tested with the new protocol to optimize it. None of the tested liquid nasal formulations resulted in tissue damage; however, exposure to the different formulations had a clear effect on the mucus production of the slugs and moderate discomfort was observed in some cases. These effects were due to the active ingredient, the presence of benzalkonium chloride as a preservative or the hyperosmolality of the formulation. For the most part results agreed with clinical data found in literature. It was concluded that the SMI assay, and the new 1-day protocol in particular, is a good tool to predict nasal clinical discomfort.

Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray Provides Early, Continuing Relief of Nasal Congestion and Improves Nasal Patency in Allergic Patients

Background

Patients report nasal congestion as the most bothersome seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptom. Measurement of this symptom in previous research has largely been based on subjective patient ratings. This study was designed to measure efficacy, onset, and duration of action of the corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) on nasal congestion using an environmental exposure chamber (EEC) and the objective assessment acoustic rhinometry (AcR).

Methods

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, ragweed-sensitive subjects were exposed to ragweed pollen (3500 ± 500 pollen grains/m3) in an EEC (day 1). Subjects rated instantaneous total nasal symptom score (TNSS), including NSS for congestion (NSS-C). Qualifying subjects received MFNS, 200 micrograms, or placebo and rated postdosing symptoms; a subset received MFNS, 200 micrograms, or placebo q.d. for 6 subsequent days, returning to EEC on day 8. Days 1 and 8 assessments included AcR, TNSS, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire developed for use in the EEC (RQOLQ-EEC).

Results

At day 1, hour 6, patients receiving MFNS (n = 155) reported significantly reduced congestion versus placebo (n = 155) per AcR and NSS-C after one dose, showing numerically superior TNSS change from baseline (p = NS). Among the subset who received 6 additional days of treatment, MFNS (n = 78) yielded significantly lower TNSS versus placebo (n = 77) before day 8 EEC entry and throughout 4-hour exposure (p < 0.05), except at 3.5 hours. AcR showed lower congestion with MFNS versus placebo before day 8 EEC exposure and at 24 and 26 hours after final dose (p < 0.05 for all). AcR and NSS-C correlated at multiple time points. Day 8 RQOLQ-EEC between-group scores were significantly different (p = 0.02) for practical problems.

Conclusion

MFNS, 200 micrograms, showed onset of nasal congestion relief at 6 hours and duration of action beyond 24 hours postdosing. Objective and subjective assessments were correlated in subjects with maximal (placebo) or minimal (MFNS treatment) congestion symptoms; both assessments were correlated with improved QOL.

Intranasal mometasone furoate therapy for allergic rhinitis symptoms and rhinitis-disturbed sleep

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and related nasal congestion cause rhinitis-disturbed sleep (RDS). Intranasal corticosteroids reduce nasal congestion and improve sleep quality in AR but have not been extensively studied in RDS.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) on nasal symptoms, nasal patency, sleep variables, quality of life, and daytime functioning in perennial AR (PAR) and concomitant RDS.

METHODS

In this double-blind 4-week study, 30 adults with PAR and moderate RDS were randomized 2:1 to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, or placebo each morning. The primary end point was the apnea-hypopnea index. Secondary outcome measures included changes in total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nighttime symptom score, daytime peak nasal inspiratory flow, nighttime flow limitation index, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire-Standardized (RQLQ-S) score, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and Work Productivity and Activities Impairment-Allergy Specific (WPAI-AS) questionnaire score. Analysis of covariance was used for all efficacy end points.

RESULTS

The apnea-hypopnea index at study end was not statistically significantly different between groups. However, mometasone furoate NS therapy significantly improved morning (P = .04) and evening (P = .01) TNSSs, morning (P = .049) and evening (P = .03) nasal obstruction/blockage/congestion, daily peak nasal inspiratory flow (P = .03), flow limitation index (P = .02), Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (P = .048), RQLQ-S score (P = .03), and 2 of 5 WPAI-AS domains. Among patients receiving mometasone furoate NS, TNSS improvements were significantly correlated with improved work- and non-work-related productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PAR and RDS, mometasone furoate NS use improved nasal symptoms, sleepiness, and impairment in daily activities. Correlated reduced nasal symptoms and improved performance suggest that improving AR symptoms with mometasone furoate NS administration can benefit sleep and daytime functioning.

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.

Objective improvement in nasal congestion and nasal hyperreactivity with use of nasal steroids in persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the action of topical nasal steroid in nasal congestion and nasal hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with persistent allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Twenty atopic children and adolescents (6 to 18 years) with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR) were treated with mometasone furoate (100 microg once a day) for 21 days. At the beginning and end of treatment, the following were recorded: a) nasal symptoms score; b) several parameters of nasal congestion measured by acoustic rhinometry (SRE 2000 Rhinometrics); c) degree of nasal hyper-reactivity to histamine (concentration of histamine necessary to induce at least 100% increase in total nasal resistance during nasal provocation test). Data were compared with those from 20 controls.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, PAR patients had significantly higher score of symptoms, as well as higher degree of nasal hyper-reactivity and lower nasal volumes. After treatment, there was a significant decrease in the mean nasal symptoms score (8.0 versus 3.8; p < 0.001) and in the nasal hyper-reactivity (histamine concentration: 0.72 mg/ml versus 2.60 mg/ml; p < 0.001). Congestion improvement was observed by the increase in all acoustic rhinometry parameters. Among all studied volumes, the volume in the segment between 2 and 5 cm showed the highest mean increase (19.8%).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with topical nasal steroid objectively reduced nasal congestion and nasal histamine hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with PAR.

Treatment of congestion in upper respiratory diseases

Congestion, as a symptom of upper respiratory tract diseases including seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis, is principally caused by mucosal inflammation. Though effective pharmacotherapy options exist, no agent is universally efficacious; therapeutic decisions must account for individual patient preferences. Oral H₁-antihistamines, though effective for the common symptoms of allergic rhinitis, have modest decongestant action, as do leukotriene receptor antagonists. Intranasal antihistamines appear to improve congestion better than oral forms. Topical decongestants reduce congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, but local adverse effects make them unsuitable for long-term use. Oral decongestants show some efficacy against congestion in allergic rhinitis and the common cold, and can be combined with oral antihistamines. Intranasal corticosteroids have broad anti-inflammatory activities, are the most potent long-term pharmacologic treatment of congestion associated with allergic rhinitis, and show some congestion relief in rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis. Immunotherapy and surgery may be used in some cases refractory to pharmacotherapy. Steps in congestion management include (1) diagnosis of the cause(s), (2) patient education and monitoring, (3) avoidance of environmental triggers where possible, (4) pharmacotherapy, and (5) immunotherapy (for patients with allergic rhinitis) or surgery for patients whose condition is otherwise uncontrolled.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray is safe and effective for 1-year treatment of children with perennial allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) affects children at a young age. Current guidelines recommend intranasal corticosteroids as the first-line treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe or persistent disease or in those who have congestion. In this study, the long-term safety and efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) were assessed in children with PAR.

METHODS

In this multicenter, active-controlled, evaluator-blind, 12-month study, 255 children aged 6-11 years with a >or=1-year history of PAR were randomized to receive once-daily MFNS 100 microg (n=166) or the active comparator beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 microg (n=85). Changes from baseline in overall PAR symptoms and response to treatment were rated at each visit. Cosyntropin stimulation testing, as well as tonometry and slit lamp procedures, were performed. Safety variables were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 137 subjects in the MFNS group and 68 in the BDP group completed treatment. The mean reductions in physician- and subject-rated overall condition of PAR at week 52 were -42.1% and -39.7%, respectively, for MFNS, compared with -44.0% and -39.0%, respectively, for BDP. A total of 94% and 100% of MFNS and BDP subjects, respectively, reported adverse events (AEs), which were mostly mild or moderate. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs in both groups were epistaxis, headache, and pharyngitis. Response to cosyntropin was normal and no posterior subcapsular cataracts were observed in either group. Although no significant changes in intraocular pressure were observed with MFNS, one subject receiving BDP demonstrated this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with MFNS 100 microg once daily for 1 year was well tolerated in children 6-11 years old, with negligible systemic exposure and no evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis or ocular changes.

Diagnosis and management of nasal congestion: the role of intranasal corticosteroids

Nasal congestion is considered the most bothersome of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms and can significantly impair ability to function at work, home, and school. Effective management of AR-related nasal congestion depends on accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Many individuals with AR and AR-related congestion remain undiagnosed and do not receive prescription medication. However, new tools intended to improve the diagnosis of nasal congestion have been developed and validated. Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AR and also when nasal congestion is a prominent symptom. Double blind, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated greater efficacy of INSs versus placebo, antihistamines, or montelukast for relief of all nasal symptoms, especially congestion. Patient adherence to treatment also affects outcomes, and this may be influenced by patient preferences for the sensory attributes of an individual drug. Increased awareness of the effects of AR-related nasal congestion, the efficacy and safety of available pharmacotherapies, and barriers to adherence may improve clinical outcomes.

Mometasone furoate: a review of its intranasal use in allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate (Nasonex) is a high-potency intranasal corticosteroid available for the treatment and/or prophylaxis of the nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). In the EU, it is approved for use in patients aged > or =6 years and, in the US, it is approved as a treatment in patients aged > or =2 years and as prophylaxis in those > or =12 years of age.Extensive experience in both clinical trials and the clinical practice setting has firmly established the efficacy and good tolerability profile of intranasal mometasone furoate in children and adults with PAR or SAR. Thus, intranasal mometasone furoate is a useful first-line option for the treatment and prophylactic management of these conditions, including in children as young as 2 years of age in some countries and 6 years of age in others.

Efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials

RATIONALE

Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) thus allowing for a meta-analysis to determine the overall treatment effect.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, LILACS, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases up to 31 October, 2007 was carried out. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MFNS in patients with AR compared to placebo were included. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), individual nasal symptoms, total non-nasal symptom scores (TNNSS) and nasal airflow were analysed as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Meta-analysis was performed with the random or the fixed effect models depending on heterogeneity, by using revman 5 software.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Sixteen of the 113 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. For MFNS efficacy on TNSS, 2998 participants were analysed: 1534 received MFNS and 1464 placebo. Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a significant reduction in TNSS (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.38; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 50.1%). A significant effect on SMD for nasal stuffiness/congestion (-0.41; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.27), rhinorrhoea (-0.44; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), sneezing (-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.23) and nasal itching (-0.39; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.25) was also demonstrated. Mometasone furoate nasal spray treated subjects also showed a significant reduction in TNNSS (-0.30; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.18). The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar for MFNS and placebo (0.99; 95% CI: 0.81-1.20; P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides a level Ia evidence for the efficacy of MFSN in the treatment of AR vs placebo. Adverse events frequency was similar in both groups.

Optimal management of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in children: safety and efficacy of medical treatments

Nasal congestion is such a frequent and multifactorial occurrence in young children that parents and medical caregivers often overlook the need for medical intervention. However, children with congestion can suffer quality-of-life detriments resulting from sleep disturbance, learning impairment, and fatigue. Congestion also impairs the normal nasal breathing that is physiologically important for the efficient cleaning and conditioning of inspired air. Further, the most common cause of congestion, allergic rhinitis, is considered a potential risk factor for asthma. Published guidelines on the treatment of allergic rhinitis agree that management strategies in children should follow the same principles as in adults, while recognizing the need for dosage adjustments and being aware of unique safety issues. Intranasal corticosteroids, with robust effects in reducing congestion and good tolerability, remain a treatment of choice. Despite lingering concerns about the potential for growth suppression with these drugs, clinical evidence suggests a very low risk at prescribed dosages, especially with compounds that have a low systemic bioavailability. Oral antihistamines are commonly cited as first-line options for allergic rhinitis, although their effect on nasal congestion is relatively modest. First-generation antihistamines should not be administered to children because of their sedative properties, which can worsen learning problems associated with allergic rhinitis. Second-generation oral antihistamines are preferred, although this class is not completely devoid of adverse effects. Other treatments, such as a nasal antihistamine, decongestants, and immunotherapy, present varying levels of safety and tolerability issues in children.

Identification and management of undiagnosed and undertreated allergic rhinitis in adults and children

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common health problem that affects adults, adolescents and children and is often undiagnosed or inadequately treated. Because AR is not a life-threatening disease, many patients do not seek medical treatment for their symptoms, and others self-medicate with over-the-counter medications, often sedating antihistamines. However, untreated or inadequately treated AR can substantially impair overall quality of life (QOL) by causing fatigue, headache, cognitive impairment and other problems. The risk for comorbid conditions, such as asthma, otitis media, and lymphoid hypertrophy with obstructive sleep apnea, can increase, and the symptoms of AR can worsen if AR is not adequately treated. Among the symptoms of AR, nasal congestion has been described by patients as the most bothersome because it disrupts sleep, resulting in diminished daytime performance. A new congestion screening tool, the Congestion Quantifier, has been developed to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of AR and to help guide treatment decisions. Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are recommended as effective pharmaceutical treatments for controlling the symptoms of AR. Randomized, controlled trials in children and adults have demonstrated that INSs relieve rhinitis symptoms, thereby improving QOL in individuals with seasonal or perennial AR. Most INSs are approved for use in children >or=6 years of age, but mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate are approved for use in children as young as 2 years of age and fluticasone propionate for children >or=4 years old. Long-term benefits have also been seen with the use of immunotherapy, although some patients, especially children, resist the injections used in subcutaneous immunotherapy. Recent studies with sublingual immunotherapy have indicated that it might be an effective and well-tolerated alternative to immunotherapy injections.

Clinical benefits of combination treatment with mometasone furoate nasal spray and loratadine vs monotherapy with mometasone furoate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines are the drug classes most often prescribed to treat allergic rhinitis (AR). Treatment guidelines recommend a combination of these agents for moderate-to-severe AR. However, clinical studies have found that combining an antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid provides few or no advantages over monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) plus loratadine with that of monotherapy with the individual agents in patients 12 years and older with at least a 2-year history of seasonal AR.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical study, 702 patients were randomized to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, plus loratadine, 10 mg (n = 169); mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg (n = 176); loratadine, 10 mg (n = 181); or placebo (n = 176) once daily for 15 days. Primary efficacy variables were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total symptom score (TSS) as recorded on diary cards.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed between mometasone furoate NS plus loratadine and mometasone furoate NS monotherapy for the primary efficacy variables. For TNSS and TSS, all 3 active drug therapies were more effective than placebo (P < or = .02). Both mometasone furoate NS treatment regimens were more effective than loratadine or placebo for TNSS (P < .01 for both) and TSS (P < or = .03 for both), whereas loratadine was more effective than placebo for TNSS only (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with mometasone furoate NS and loratadine provided benefits similar to monotherapy with mometasone furoate NS for the symptoms of seasonal AR. Therefore, mometasone furoate NS monotherapy was shown to be an effective treatment for seasonal AR.

Allergic rhinitis--current pharmacotherapy

The use of pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis remains a central strategy in the integrated treatment of the patient. The most appropriate medical therapy depends upon the nature of specific rhinitis symptoms, patient tolerance to and preference for certain classes of medications, and response to treatment. Through an appreciation of these various physiological mechanisms, the physician can select the treatment option or options that will be most likely to effectively manage symptoms.

Sleep impairment in allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis

Sleep impairment is a significant problem for patients with inflammatory disorders of the upper respiratory tract, such as allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis. Nasal congestion, one of the most common and bothersome symptoms of these conditions, is associated with sleep-disordered breathing and is thought to be a key cause of sleep impairment. This review examines sleep impairment associated with allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis. It explores the adverse effects of disturbed sleep on patients' quality of life and how these inflammatory nasal conditions can be reduced by therapies that address the underlying problems affecting sleep. Treatment with intranasal corticosteroids has been shown to reduce nasal congestion in inflammatory disorders of the upper respiratory tract. Data on sleep-related end points from clinical trials of intranasal corticosteroids indicate that this reduction is associated with improved sleep, reduced daytime fatigue, and improved quality of life. Further research using measures of sleep as primary end points is warranted, based on the potential of these agents to improve sleep and quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis, acute rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis. Such trials will help to identify the most effective therapies for sleep impairment in these 3 nasal conditions.

Long-term safety and efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide in adult and adolescent patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is a corticosteroid in development for allergic rhinitis that has been shown to be safe and effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) trials of up to 6 weeks in duration. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of ciclesonide are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the long-term safety of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, in patients with PAR.

METHODS

Patients (> or = 12 years old) with a 2-year or longer history of PAR were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily in the morning for up to 52 weeks. Spontaneous and elicited adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Ear, nose, and throat examinations were performed to evaluate local tolerability. Additionally, 24-hour urinary free cortisol level, morning plasma cortisol level, intraocular pressure, and lens opacification were monitored to evaluate the systemic safety of intranasal ciclesonide. Ciclesonide efficacy was determined by measuring 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom scores.

RESULTS

No clinically relevant differences were observed between the ciclesonide and placebo groups in adverse events, ear, nose, and throat examinations, or 24-hour urinary free or morning plasma cortisol levels. Similarly, no clinically relevant differences were found between treatment groups in intraocular pressure, visual acuity, or lens opacification. With regard to efficacy, ciclesonide achieved a significantly greater reduction in 24-hour reflective total nasal symptom score compared with placebo over more than 52 weeks (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, was safe and effective for the long-term treatment of PAR, with no evidence of tachyphylaxis.

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.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Treatment Options for the Management of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis, with a Focus on Intranasal Corticosteroids

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. While allergen avoidance is the first line of management for PAR, complete avoidance is difficult. Therapeutic options available for PAR include intranasal corticosteroids (INS), H1-antihistamines, decongestants and local chromones, as well as immunotherapy. For mild symptoms, INS and antihistamines are the standard of care, whereas for moderate-to-severe PAR, INS are the preferred therapy due to their proven efficacy. Patient quality of life and therapy preference play a role in maintaining adherence to treatment.

Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray

The development of corticosteroids that are delivered directly to the nasal mucosa has alleviated much of the concern about the systemic adverse effects associated with oral corticosteroid therapy. However, given the high potency of these drugs and their widespread use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, it is important to ensure that intranasal corticosteroids have a favourable benefit-risk ratio. One agent that typifies the systemic safety found in the majority of intranasal corticosteroids is mometasone furoate nasal spray, a potent and effective treatment for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis and nasal polyposis. Mometasone furoate does not reach high systemic concentrations or cause clinically significant adverse effects. Results from pharmacokinetic studies in adults and children suggest that systemic exposure to mometasone furoate after intranasal administration is negligible. This is probably because of the inherently low aqueous solubility of mometasone furoate, which allows only a small fraction of the drug to cross the nasal mucosa and enter the bloodstream, and because a large amount of the administered drug is swallowed and undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism. There is no clinical evidence that mometasone furoate nasal spray suppresses the function of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis when the drug is administered at clinically relevant doses (100-200 microg/day); consequently, mometasone furoate nasal spray has not been associated with growth inhibition in children. The safety and tolerability of mometasone furoate nasal spray have been rigorously assessed in clinical trials involving approximately 4,500 patients, with epistaxis, headache and pharyngitis being the most common adverse effects associated with treatment in adolescents and adults. The clinical effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray, coupled with its agreeable safety and tolerability profile, confirms its favourable benefit-risk ratio.

Impact of nasal congestion on quality of life and work productivity in allergic rhinitis: findings from a large online survey

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is the most common allergic disease in the US. The predominant symptom of this condition is nasal congestion, which has a significant impact on quality of life and work productivity. This large survey was conducted to determine the impact of nasal congestion on the above parameters in individuals with allergic rhinitis, and treatment patterns for this symptom.

METHODS

Participants were recruited voluntarily via telephone surveys and internet advertisements. Respondents with nasal congestion as a symptom of their allergic rhinitis (or who were primary caregivers to a child with nasal congestion associated with allergic rhinitis) were eligible for participation and completed a 52-question internet survey. Data were normalized to the US adult population using a weighting algorithm.

RESULTS

Of the 2355 individuals with allergic rhinitis screened for participation in the survey, 2002 (85%) had nasal congestion. This was considered severe by 40% of respondents, compared with fewer than 30% who considered any other individual allergy symptom to be severe. Nasal congestion was the symptom that most adults and children wished to prevent, and it affected most respondents at work or school, had a notable emotional impact, and interfered with their ability to perform daily activities. Only 13% of participants receiving allergic rhinitis medication of any type, including over-the-counter medications, claimed to be very satisfied with treatment, and only 20% adhered completely to prescribing instructions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for nasal congestion, only 30% of respondents with severe nasal congestion received treatment with intranasal corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal congestion affects most individuals with allergic rhinitis, and has a notable impact on quality of life, emotional function, productivity, and the ability to perform daily activities. Patients need to be better educated on the appropriate use of medications, particularly intranasal corticosteroids, to manage their nasal congestion.

Allergic rhinitis: treatment based on patient profiles

Allergic rhinitis is a common medical condition characterized by nasal, throat, and ocular itching; rhinorrhea; sneezing; nasal congestion; and, less frequently, cough. The treatment of allergic rhinitis should control these symptoms without adversely affecting daily activities or cognitive performance and should prevent sequelae such as asthma exacerbation or sinusitis. This review describes a stepwise approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis derived from a synthesis of clinical trial results, patient preferences, and real-world tolerability data. Key clinical considerations include frequency and intensity of symptoms, patient age, comorbidities, compliance with treatment regimens (influenced by formulation, route and frequency of administration), and effects on quality of life. Oral second-generation antihistamines, versus first-generation agents and inhaled corticosteroids, should be considered first-line treatment because they provide rapid relief of most allergic rhinitis symptoms without safety and tolerability issues. Additional therapeutic agents can then be added or substituted based on individual symptom response.

A preference evaluation study comparing the sensory attributes of mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays by patients with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Data on intranasal corticosteroids suggest that individual product attributes may influence patient preference for therapy in allergic rhinitis. The study objective was to compare product sensory attributes and their impact upon patient preference for scent-free mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) versus fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) in patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a double-blind, crossover study, 100 patients were randomized to MFNS microg followed by FPNS 200 microg, or vice versa. Patients rated the study drugs by completing an individual product sensory attributes questionnaire at the end of each period of drug administration. An overall sensory preference questionnaire was completed following crossover.

RESULTS

A significantly greater number of patients preferred MFNS to FPNS (p < 0.05). MFNS was superior for a number of individual sensory attributes based on mean patient ratings: significantly fewer patients perceived scent/odor (immediately and 2 minutes after drug administration; p < 0.001), taste (immediately after drug administration; p = 0.002), and after-taste (2 minutes after drug administration; p = 0.007) with MFNS compared with FPNS. Similarly, product sensory attribute preference data demonstrated that twice the number of patients preferred MFNS to FPNS for scent/odor (p = 0.0005), immediate taste (p = 0.005), and after-taste (p = 0.005). Fifty-four percent of patients said they would choose a prescription for MFNS compared with 33% for FPNS (p = 0.03). In addition, 47% of patients would be more likely to comply (use daily as directed) with MFNS compared with 25% with FPNS (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Several individual sensory attributes of MFNS were rated significantly superior to FPNS. Overall, based on the tested sensory attributes, patients preferred MFNS to FPNS therapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Mometasone furoate improves congestion in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A recent survey estimated that 85% of patients with allergic rhinitis experience nasal congestion. This symptom considerably impacts quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) experiencing moderate-to-severe nasal congestion.

METHODS

Data were obtained from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of MFNS 200 microg once daily in patients with SAR. Subject-evaluated nasal congestion score data (score range 0-3) from subjects receiving MFNS or placebo were analyzed as a pool and grouped according to baseline score (all pts. with scores >2.5, >2.75, or 3.0). The 2-week average change in score from baseline was analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in mean nasal congestion score were seen with MFNS (n = 490) versus placebo (n = 492; p < 0.001). Overall, there was a 27% improvement in this score in patients receiving MFNS versus 13% with placebo. MFNS produced significant reductions in the nasal congestion score compared with placebo, even in patients with the most severe baseline congestion (0.98 vs 0.52; p < 0.001). Improvements in scores from baseline of 32%, 33%, and 34% were seen with MFNS versus 22%, 21%, and 18% with placebo (for baseline scores of >2.5, >2.75, or 3.0, respectively), confirming the effectiveness of MFNS regardless of congestion severity. This represents an improvement approximating a decrease from severe to moderate congestion or from moderate-to-severe to mild-to-moderate congestion. MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

MFNS 200 microg once daily produces statistically significant improvements in nasal congestion score compared with placebo, alleviating severe congestion in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR.

Nasal allergies and beyond: a clinical review of the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of mometasone furoate

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex, Schering-Plough Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) is an effective and well-tolerated intranasal corticosteroid approved for the prophylactic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. MFNS is a potent molecule with a rapid onset of action and excellent safety and efficacy profiles. Having recently received approval for the treatment of nasal polyposis, data indicate that MFNS may also be effective in rhinosinusitis.