Once daily mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray is as effective as twice daily beclomethasone dipropionate for treating perennial allergic rhinitis patients

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.

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.

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.

Management of Allergic Rhinitisand Sinusitis

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis are chronic conditions of the airway and cause significant morbidity. Both can require pharmacotherapy with nonprescription products to relieve symptoms or with prescription products to treat the underlying pathophysiology. Because these diseases are prevalent conditions, the pharmacist is in the unique position of being the first health professional contact for many patients. The pharmacist can assist the patient in selection of nonprescription antihistamines, decongestants, and nasal saline sprays as well as provide instruction on the use of steam therapy, aromatic vapors, and warm compresses for the relief of symptoms. Equally important, the pharmacist can encourage patients to seek care from a physician when treatment with intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, and nonsedating antihistamines are needed.

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.

Beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

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

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.

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.

Intranasal Mometasone Furoate for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic nasal disease that affects the upper respiratory tract. This disorder is characterized by inflammation of the mucous membranes and it manifests with several nasal symptoms accompanied sometimes by non-nasal symptoms. Best therapy aims to prevent and improve the AR-clinical picture. Steroids have an important role in the treatment of AR. The development of steroids administrated directly on nasal mucosa has much reduced the systemic adverse affects associated with oral steroids therapy. Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray is a synthetic steroid assessed for intranasal use in the therapy of adults and children affected by AR. Such topical nasal steroid is an effective molecule improving clinical picture of AR and it is also approved as prophylactic therapy. In this article, apart from a careful description of its successful clinical use the authors review pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of such steroid molecule.

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.

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.

Dose-ranging study of fluticasone furoate nasal spray for Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis*

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), a novel enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid, in Japanese patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and to determine the optimal dose.

METHODS

In this phase II, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study, 240 patients (aged >or= 16 years) received once-daily (od) treatment for 2 weeks with either FFNS 110 microg (n = 80), 220 microg (n = 81) or placebo (n = 79). Patients evaluated 3 nasal symptoms using a 4-point scale. Efficacy was assessed as the mean change from baseline in total nasal symptom score (TNSS).

RESULTS

Treatment with FFNS resulted in a significantly greater decrease over the treatment period in the mean 3TNSS (sneezing, rhinorrhea, and nasal congestion; p < 0.001 each dose vs. placebo), compared with placebo. More patients receiving FFNS had a markedly or moderately improved impression of treatment than placebo recipients (48% and 49% for FFNS 110 micro and 220 microg, respectively, vs. 18% for placebo; p < 0.001). Nasal rhinoscopy findings revealed significant improvements in mucosal swelling of the inferior turbinate (110 microg: p = 0.004; 220 micro: p = 0.011) and amount of watery rhinorrhea (110 microg: p = 0.003; 220 microg: p < 0.001), compared with placebo. Both doses of FFNS were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Both FFNS 110 microg and 220 microg od were effective in alleviating nasal symptoms in Japanese patients with PAR over the 2-week duration of this study. FFNS 110 microg od was selected as the optimal dose for further evaluation in phase III clinical trials.

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.

Effect of nasal steroid treatment on airway inflammation determined by exhaled nitric oxide in allergic schoolchildren with perennial rhinitis and asthma

Rhinitis is common in asthmatic schoolchildren who are allergic to animal dander and constantly and indirectly exposed to these allergens in their everyday environment. As a patho-physiological linkage between nasal and bronchial inflammation has been proposed to exist, the primary objective of this study was to determine whether nasal administration of mometasone furoate (MSNF) can reduce bronchial inflammation, as reflected in the level of exhaled nitric oxide (F(E)NO) in asthmatic schoolchildren with dander allergy and mild-to-moderate rhinitis. Forty such children were assigned randomly to be treated for 4 wk with MSNF or placebo, employing a double-blind procedure. F(E)NO was the primary end-point measured and secondary end-points were nasal levels of NO, the concentration of eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) in nasal lavage, the relative numbers of eosinophils in blood, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), peak expiratory flow (PEF) and scoring of symptoms. There was no significant difference in the F(E)NO values of the treated and control groups at any time-point, whereas the nasal level of ECP was lower in the treated group compared with placebo (p = 0.05) on both days 7 and 28, and compared with baseline for the treated group (p = 0.06 on day 7, p = 0.02 on day 28). Furthermore, the mean blood eosinophil count decreased in the treated group, which also demonstrated lower scores for nasal symptoms compared with placebo, but neither of these differences were statistically significant. FEV(1), PEF and nasal levels of NO remained unchanged in both groups. Four weeks of nasal treatment with MSNF had no effect on bronchial inflammation, as reflected by exhaled NO, whereas signs of nasal and systemic eosinophil activation were reduced. Thus, nasal administration of a steroid as a strategy to reduce asthmatic inflammation remains questionable in mild-to-moderately severe cases of perennial rhinitis and asthma.

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.

Topical nasal steroids for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a very common chronic illness affecting 10% to 40% of children worldwide. There has been a significant increase in prevalence among children over the last two decades and this increase has been accompanied by a parallel increase in comorbid illnesses such as asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and adverse event profiles of topical nasal steroids for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 onwards) and EMBASE (1974 onwards) on 5(th) September 2005. CINAHL, mRCT(a meta-database of controlled trials), NRR (the National Research Register), LILACS, MedCarib, KOREAMED, IndMed, Samed, Panteleimon, Zetoc, ISI Proceedings, the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Trials Database and the websites of AstraZeneca, Schering Plough and Aventis were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing topical nasal steroid preparations against each other or placebo, prescribed for allergic rhinitis in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from the included trials. The limited and variable quality of reported data precluded any pooling of results and only a descriptive summary is presented.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials involving a total of 79 participants were included. All three trials, which compared topical nasal steroids against placebo for perennial rhinitis, provided some, albeit limited data, relevant to our primary outcomes; but in two of the trials the data analysis was flawed and in the third trial it was incomprehensible. None of the trials provided data relevant to our secondary outcomes. There were no adverse events reported from any of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three included trials provided some weak and unreliable evidence for the effectiveness of Beconase(R) and flunisolide used topically intranasally for the treatment of intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis in children. The reduction of severity in symptoms as assessed by the trialists could not be confirmed with the data provided and decisions on the use of these medications should, until such time as more robust evidence is available, be guided by the physician's clinical experience and patients' individual circumstances and preferences.

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.

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.

Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials

For several years there has been discussion of whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids. No well documented, clinically relevant differences seem to exist for individual nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Likewise, the current body of literature does not seem to favor any specific intranasal corticosteroid. When comparing efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, present data favor intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not support antihistamines as superior in treating conjunctivitis associated with allergic rhinitis. Safety data from comparative studies in allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide additional beneficial effects to intranasal corticosteroids alone. Considering present data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis, when compared with antihistamines.

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.

Features of mometasone furoate nasal spray and its utility in the management of allergic rhinitis

Mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (NS; Nasonex, Schering Corporation), is a synthetic corticosteroid approved for the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) in patients >or= 12 years of age, and for the treatment of SAR and PAR in children as young as 2 years of age. Studies demonstrate that mometasone furoate NS is a potent, clinically effective and well-tolerated intranasal corticosteroid with negligible systemic activity and which offers the convenience of once-daily dosing.

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.

Effective dose range of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) 400 microg, twice daily, as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic significantly improved symptoms of recurrent rhinosinusitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MFNS 200 microg, twice daily, and 400 microg, twice daily, compared with placebo as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic for acute rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 967 outpatients with computed tomographic scan-confirmed moderate to severe rhinosinusitis received amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium (Augmentin, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) 875 mg, twice daily, for 21 days with adjunctive twice daily MFNS 200 microg, MFNS 400 microg, or placebo nasal spray. Patients recorded scores of six rhinosinusitis symptoms and any adverse events twice daily. Pre- and postcosyntropin-stimulation plasma cortisol levels were measured in a subset of patients at selected study sites.

RESULTS

Treatment with MFNS 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, produced significantly greater improvements in total symptoms score (primary efficacy variable) day 1 to day 15 average (50% and 51%, respectively) than placebo (44%, P < or = 0.017). Both doses of MFNS produced significant total symptoms score improvement over placebo by day 4, and maintained efficacy over the entire 21-day study. Relief of individual symptoms showed a similar pattern. Both doses of MFNS were well tolerated, and adverse events were similar to that of placebo. Cosyntropin stimulation showed no evidence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression.

CONCLUSIONS

As adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotic treatment, MFNS at doses of 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, was well tolerated and significantly more effective in reducing the symptoms of rhinosinusitis than antibiotic therapy alone.

A randomized comparison of the effects of budesonide and mometasone furoate aqueous nasal sprays on nasal peak flow rate and symptoms in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Using conventional methods, it has been difficult to show differences in efficacy between intranasal corticosteroids in perennial rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of budesonide and mometasone on nasal symptoms and nasal airflow in perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-eight patients (age > 18 years old) were randomized to budesonide, 256 microg or 128 microg, mometasone furoate 200 microg, or placebo, once daily for 4 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by nasal index score (NIS; the sum of scores for blocked nose, runny nose, and itchy nose/sneezing) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF).

RESULTS

All three active treatments significantly reduced the NIS compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between the treatments, although the effect of budesonide, 256 microg, tended to be greater than that of the other regimens. PNIF was significantly improved with all three active treatments: the effect of budesonide 256 microg on morning and evening PNIF was significantly greater than that of mometasone furoate and 128 microg budesonide. Budesonide had a rapid onset of action, showing a significantly greater effect on evening PNIF than mometasone furoate during the first 10 days. For all active treatments, significant improvements in NIS were seen within 4 hours of the first dose. All three treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The objective parameter PNIF was capable of demonstrating greater efficacy of budesonide 256 microg compared with budesonide 128 microg and mometasone furoate 200 microg, whereas the combined nasal symptom score could only distinguish active treatment from placebo.

Pharmacokinetics of intranasal corticosteroids

Topical administration of corticosteroids can reduce the total dose of corticosteroid required to treat the patient and minimize side effects. This logic has led to the development of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) for allergic and perennial rhinitis. The second generation of these compounds includes beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. There is evidence that the INCS are effective in rhinitis; however, there is concern about the potential for these compounds to cause growth suppression. In one study, beclomethasone dipropionate significantly reduced growth in children; however, treatment of children with mometasone furoate nasal spray for 1 year showed no signs of growth suppression. It is evident that the differences among INCS lie in their pharmacokinetics. Structural differences among the various INCS influence their metabolism. The goal of INCS therapy is to have a high ratio of topical to systemic activity. The drug delivery device, absorption of the drug, and drug distribution all contribute to effective topical activity of an INCS. In addition, individual drug metabolism and elimination (half-life and drug clearance) also contribute to the therapeutic index of a drug. Overall, the second-generation INCS cause minimal systemic effects at recommended doses.

Safety and efficacy of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray in children with allergic rhinitis: results of recent clinical trials

Intranasal mometasone furoate (MF) has been extensively studied in adults and has been found to be safe and effective therapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Several studies have now been conducted on pediatric patients. In all, 990 pediatric patients given mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) have been studied in phase I, II, and III clinical trials. In a dose-ranging study, 5 doses of nasal spray (25, 100, and 200 microg MFNS daily and 168 microg beclomethasone dipropionate daily) were compared with placebo. The 100- and 200-microg daily doses of MFNS were found to be more effective than 168 microg beclomethasone dipropionate or 25 microg MFNS given daily. MFNS (100 microg once daily) was chosen as the appropriate dose. In clinical efficacy and safety trials, MFNS was given to 381 patients 3 to 11 years of age for 4 weeks (357 patients received 100 microg MFNS daily for 6 months) and was found to decrease symptom scores from baseline significantly better than placebo. The long-term safety of MFNS was also studied in 166 patients treated for one year; no significant changes in intraocular pressure were detected. Cosyntropin stimulation showed no decreases in cortisol. In adults, nasal mucosa showed improvement in appearance of epithelium and reduction of inflammatory infiltrates, and there were no signs of nasal atrophy.

Dose-ranging study of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler in the treatment of moderate persistent asthma using fluticasone propionate as an active comparator

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate (MF; Schering-Plough, Madison, NJ), is a glucocorticoid with high local potency and low potential systemic availability.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative efficacy and safety of a new formulation of MF, coupled with a recently designed dry powder inhaler (DPI), in the treatment of patients with moderate persistent asthma. Fluticasone propionate administered by Diskhaler (FP Diskhaler, 250 microg twice a day; Glaxo Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, NC) was used as an active control.

DESIGN

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind (for MF-DPI dosage), evaluator-blind (for MF-DPI vs FP) trial.

SETTING

Sixty centers in 20 countries.

PATIENTS

Seven hundred thirty-three patients with moderate persistent asthma on inhaled corticosteroid treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Discontinuation of previous inhaled corticosteroid and initiation of one of four study treatments: three doses of MF-DPI (100, 200, and 400 microg twice daily) and one of FP (250 microg twice daily >12 weeks).

RESULTS

FEV1 (primary efficacy variable) was evaluated as the mean change from baseline to endpoint (last evaluable visit). All dosage groups showed improvement at endpoint. Only 400 microg twice daily of MF-DPI (+0.19 L) was statistically different from 100 microg twice daily of MF-DPI (+0.07 L; P = 0.02). MF-DPI (200 microg twice daily) and FP Diskhaler groups showed similar improvement (+0.16 L). Greater improvement in most secondary variables (forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity, and morning and evening peak expiratory flows) also resulted from treatment with 200 or 400 microg twice daily of MF-DPI or with FP Diskhaler, compared with 100 microg twice daily of MF-DPI. Overall, a total daily 800-microg dose of MF-DPI conferred no significant additional benefit >400 microg of MF-DPI. The incidence of oral candidiasis was 1%, 7%, 10%, and 10% in the 100, 200, and 400 microg twice daily of MF-DPI and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A total daily dose of 400 microg of MF-DPI provides clinical benefit comparable to that observed with a total daily dose of 500 microg of FP Diskhaler.

Mometasone furoate: efficacy and safety in moderate asthma compared with beclomethasone dipropionate

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate (MF) is a new inhaled glucocorticoid administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI).

OBJECTIVE

MF-DPI was evaluated for safety and efficacy and compared with placebo DPI and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI) in the treatment of patients with moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 227), 13 to 75 years of age, maintained on inhaled glucocorticoids before entering the trial, were randomized to receive: MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily, MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily, BDP MDI, 168 microg, twice daily, or placebo in a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind study.

RESULTS

At endpoint, FEV1 (primary efficacy variable) significantly improved for all three active treatments compared with placebo (P < .01, all comparisons). The response to MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily treatment was approximately twice as large as the response to MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily or BDP MDI treatment, although the differences between these groups did not reach statistical significance. Secondary efficacy variables including PEFR, asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, and albuterol use showed similar trends. The MF-DPI, 100 microg, twice daily and BDP MDI, 168 microg, twice daily treatment groups produced comparable results for all efficacy variables.

CONCLUSIONS

MF-DPI, 100 microg and 200 microg, twice daily were well-tolerated and significantly improved lung function and symptom control in the treatment of patients with moderate persistent asthma. In this study, MF-DPI, 200 microg, twice daily seemed to be the most effective dosage.

Comparison of once-daily to twice-daily treatment with mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler

BACKGROUND

Once-daily dosing with an effective inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) would likely enhance compliance and, therefore, aid in the management of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

Several once-daily dosing regimens of mometasone furoate (MF) administered by dry powder inhaler (DPI) were compared with a twice-daily dosing regimen in 286 patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma who were previously being treated with ICS.

METHODS

During a 2-week open-label phase, patients received MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily. They were then randomized to continue MF-DPI, 200 microg twice-daily treatment or to receive MF-DPI, 200 microg once daily in the morning (AM), 200 microg once daily in the evening (PM), 400 microg once daily AM, or placebo as part of the 12-week, double-blind phase. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from the baseline to endpoint (last evaluable observation) for FEV1.

RESULTS

Once-daily MF-DPI, 400 microg, AM maintained FEV1, and morning peak expiratory flow rate, FVC, FEF25%-75%, and asthma symptom scores, at levels similar to those for MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily and significantly better than placebo. Once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, PM was effective in maintaining pulmonary function, but was less effective on other efficacy measures. In comparison to the other MF-DPI groups, once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, AM was not as effective overall. The incidence of local adverse events, including oral candidiasis, was low with all dosages.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily MF-DPI, 400 microg, AM was as effective as MF-DPI, 200 microg twice daily, whereas once-daily MF-DPI, 200 microg, was more effective when administered in the evening compared with morning, for patients receiving ICS therapy. Once-daily dosing offers an effective and convenient treatment that could aid compliance in the treatment of asthma.

Inhaled mometasone furoate reduces oral prednisone requirements while improving respiratory function and health-related quality of life in patients with severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroid therapy in severe persistent asthma has been shown to reduce or eliminate oral corticosteroid (OCS) use while retaining effective asthma control.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the ability of mometasone furoate (MF) delivered by means of dry powder inhaler to reduce daily oral prednisone requirements in OCS-dependent patients with severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

We performed a 12-week, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial (21 centers, 132 patients) comparing 2 doses of MF (400 and 800 microg administered twice daily) with placebo, followed by a 9-month open-label phase in which 128 patients received treatment with MF.

RESULTS

At the endpoint of the double-blind trial, MF 400 and 800 mg twice daily reduced daily OCS requirements by 46.0% and 23.9%, respectively, whereas placebo increased OCS requirements by 164.4% (P <.01). Oral steroids were eliminated in 40%, 37%, and 0% of patients in the MF 400 and 800 mg twice daily and placebo groups, respectively. Pulmonary function and quality of life significantly increased for MF-treated patients. Further reductions in OCS requirements were achieved with long-term MF treatment in the open-label phase.

CONCLUSION

MF inhaled orally as a dry powder is an effective alternative to systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe persistent asthma.

A risk-benefit assessment of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in allergic rhinitis

The efficacy of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide in seasonal and allergic rhinitis has been evaluated in clinical trials and has been compared with antihistamines and other intranasal corticosteroids. Intranasal corticosteroids are either as equally effective as or more effective than comparative drugs. Intranasal corticosteroids are particularly useful as they decrease membrane permeability and inhibit both early and late phase reactions to allergens. They minimise the nasal secretory response and reduce the sensitivity of local nasal irritant receptors. A potential benefit of topical application is the flushing action of the nasal mucosa, which may reduce allergens and secretions. In addition to seasonal and perennial rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids have additional benefits when used to reduce inflammation in the treatment of sinusitis and may help in decreasing secondary rhinovirus infections. Furthermore, suboptimal control of asthma can be avoided by treatment of allergic rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids. In clinical trials, common adverse effects for triamcinolone acetonide include sneezing, dry, mucosa, nasal irritation, sinus discomfort, throat discomfort, epistaxis and headache. Posterior subcapsular cataract formation has not been seen with triamcinolone acetonide. Recent literature evaluating systemic absorption of intranasal corticosteroids have shown surprising results where significant absorption has occurred with intranasal budesonide and fluticasone propionate. Growth and hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) function studies have been reviewed, with some intranasal corticosteroids showing changes with continual use. A retrospective study in children receiving daily triamcinolone acetonide for 12 months showed no effect on height and bodyweight. Triamcinolone acetonide at standard dosages (110 or 220microg once or twice a day) does not appear to suppress adrenal gland function and is effective in relieving most symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The International Consensus Conference Proceedings on Rhinitis now currently recommends the use of intranasal corticosteroids as first line therapy, since they have been found to be well tolerated and effective with minimal adverse effects and, specifically, no cognitive impairment. The recommended maximum dose of aqueous triamcinolone acetonide in adults and children is 220microg once a day. The aerosol form may be recommended in children between 7 and 12 years old, up to 440microg once a day or in divided doses. Duration of allergy treatment is generally for the length of each allergy season. If symptoms are perennial, then a reduction of dosage is made to the lowest effective dose with monitoring every 3 months for risk and benefit assessment. Complications to watch for include bleeding, and possible septal perforation and nasal candidiasis, although these are rare.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Once-daily mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler in the treatment of patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Although inhaled glucocorticoids are recommended for all stages of persistent asthma, compliance with long-term therapy is often poor, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. A simplified, once-daily dosing regimen may foster improved compliance.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (AM) administration of mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler (MF DPI) 200 microg and 400 microg with placebo in patients with asthma previously maintained only on short-acting inhaled beta-adrenergic receptor agonists.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. The mean change from baseline to endpoint (last treatment visit) for FEV1 was the primary efficacy variable.

RESULTS

At endpoint, both doses of MF DPI were significantly more effective than placebo (P < or = .05) in improving FEV1. Based on morning peak expiratory flow rate, once-daily MF DPI 400 microg was more effective than placebo (P < or = .001) at endpoint. Both active treatments also demonstrated improvement at endpoint in asthma symptom scores, physician-evaluated response to therapy and use of rescue medication. Although both MF DPI dosages were efficacious, MF DPI 400 microg provided additional improvement in some measures of pulmonary function (eg, morning PEFR) when these agents were administered once daily in the morning. Both doses of MF DPI were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events occurred at a similar incidence among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that once-daily (AM) MF DPI provides a convenient and effective treatment option for patients with mild or moderate persistent asthma.

Pharmacological factors that influence the choice of inhaled corticosteroids

Local therapeutic effect relative to the risk of adverse effects of inhaled drugs, i.e. airway selectivity, is determined by the efficiency of the delivery system and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of the drug molecule. For the inhaled corticosteroid formulations, many of the pharmacokinetic prerequisites for airway selectivity have been fulfilled, but there are still differences that may influence the choice of treatment regimens. This choice should be based on disease severity, age, inhalation technique, preference and expected compliance, together with a knowledge of individual features of different corticosteroid formulations. Simple to use, hand-held pressurised or breath-actuated inhalers have favourable lung deposition properties and are appropriate for most patients. For small children or severely ill patients, nebulised treatment or spacers may be advocated. A corticosteroid formulation with a high intrinsic activity and long duration of action allows for once-daily administration in some patient groups. These properties may also partly compensate for noncompliance when more frequent administration schemes are used. The risk of adverse effects is reduced if systemic exposure is held to a minimum by rapid elimination and low tissue distribution.

Absence of growth retardation in children with perennial allergic rhinitis after one year of treatment with mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray

OBJECTIVE

Intranasal corticosteroids are used widely for the treatment of allergic rhinitis because they are effective and well tolerated. However, their potential to suppress growth of pediatric subjects with allergic rhinitis continues to be a concern, particularly in light of reports of growth suppression after treatment with intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate or intranasal budesonide (see the article by Skoner et al in this month's issue). A 1-year study of prepubertal patients between 3 and 9 years of age with perennial allergic rhinitis was conducted to assess the effects on growth of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS), a new once-daily (QD) intranasal corticosteroid with negligible bioavailability.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study. Ninety-eight subjects were randomized to treatment with either MFNS 100 microg QD or placebo for 1 year. Each subject's height was required to be between the 5th and 95th percentile at baseline, and skeletal age at screening was required to be within 2 years of chronological age, as determined by left wrist x-rays. Washout periods for medications that affect either childhood growth or allergic rhinitis symptoms were established based on estimated period of effect, and these medications were prohibited during the study. However, short courses of either oral prednisone lasting no longer than 7 days or low-potency topical dermatologic corticosteroids lasting no longer than 10 days were permitted if necessary. Height was measured with a calibrated stadiometer at baseline and at 4, 8, 12, 26, 39, and 52 weeks, and the primary safety variable was the change in standing height. The rate of growth was also calculated for each subject as the slope (linear regression) of the change in height from baseline using data from all visits of subjects who had at least 2 visits. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical- (HPA)-axis function was assessed via cosyntropin stimulation testing at baseline and at 26 and 52 weeks. All analyses were based on all randomized subjects (intent-to-treat principle). The change from baseline in standing height was analyzed by a 2-way analysis of variance that extracted sources of variation attributable to treatment, center, and treatment-by-center interaction.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar at baseline. Eighty-two subjects completed the study (42 in the MFNS group and 40 in the placebo group), and 93% of subjects achieved at least 80% compliance with therapy. After 1 year of treatment, no suppression of growth was seen in subjects treated with MFNS, and mean standing heights were similar for both treatment groups at all time points. For the primary safety variable (change in height from baseline), both treatment groups were similar at all time points except for weeks 8 and 52. Subjects treated with MFNS had a slightly greater mean increase in height than subjects treated with placebo at these time points: the change in height was 6.95 cm versus 6.35 cm at the 1-year time point. However, the rate of growth (.018 cm/day) averaged for all time points over the course of the study was similar for both treatment groups. Additional analyses found that MFNS did not retard growth in any sex or age subgroup of subjects. The use of exogenous corticosteroids other than the study drug was also similar among the 2 treatment groups. Results from cosyntropin stimulation testing confirmed the absence of systemic effects of MFNS. The change from baseline in the difference between prestimulation and poststimulation levels was similar for both treatment groups after 1 year of treatment, with no evidence of HPA-axis suppression in MFNS-treated subjects at any time point. Incidences of treatment-related adverse events were similar for both treatment groups, with 16% of MFNS-treated subjects reporting adverse events, compared with 22% of placebo-treated subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

A review of the preclinical and clinical data of newer intranasal steroids used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

The anti-inflammatory activity of corticosteroids has prompted the exploration of their use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The development of intranasal steroids has resulted in several agents with quick actions, localized effects, and great efficacy in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and the prophylactic management of perennial rhinitis. This article presents a concise review of the preclinical and clinical evidence with these new agents and provides data-based guidance for the selection of optimal agents. The survey reveals that mometasone furoate, a new inhaled steroid with topical activity, has the greatest binding affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor, followed by fluticasone propionate, budesonide, triamcinolone acetonide, and dexamethasone. Mometasone furoate also has strong anti-inflammatory activity, with IL-4 and IL-5 inhibition activities equivalent to those of fluticasone propionate. Clinically, both mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate appear to be well tolerated, to have quick onsets of action, and to be equivalent in efficacy in the treatment of seasonal allergic and perennial rhinitis. Of the intranasal steroids currently available, mometasone furoate has been shown to have the least systemic availability and, consequently, is expected to have the fewest systemic side effects. Some suppression of overnight cortisol levels has been reported with fluticasone propionate (indicative of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression).

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.

Dose-ranging study of a new steroid for asthma: mometasone furoate dry powder inhaler

A new formulation of mometasone furoate (MF) for administration by dry powder inhaler (DPI) was evaluated for the treatment of asthma. A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study compared the efficacy and safety of three doses of MF DPI (100, 200 and 400 mcg b.i.d) with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 mcg b.i.d. administered by metered dose inhaler in 365 adult or adolescent patients being treated with inhaled glucocorticoids. The mean change from baseline to endpoint (last treatment visit) for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary efficacy variables included other objective measures of pulmonary function [forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow 25-75% (FEV25-75%.) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)] as well as subjective measures of therapeutic response (patients' daily evaluation of asthma symptoms and physicians' evaluation). At endpoint, all four active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo (P < 0.01) in improving FEV1 (MF DPI 5 to 7%, BDP 3%, placebo -6.6%) and all other measures of pulmonary function (FVC: MF DPI 4 to 5%, BDP 2%, placebo -4.7%; FEF25-75%: MF DPI 6 to 18%, BDP 7.5%, placebo -9.5%; PEFR (AM): MF DPI 5 to 10%, BDP 5.7%, placebo -7%). A consistent trend was observed for better improvement in patients treated with MF DPI 200 mcg b.i.d. than with MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d., with no apparent additional benefit of MF DPI 400 mcg b.i.d. Results for the MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d. and BDP 168 mcg b.i.d. treatment groups were similar. Patients' and physicians' subjective evaluations of symptoms found similar improvement in the MF DPI 200 and 400 mcg b.i.d. treatment groups, which were slightly better than that in the MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d. group. Symptoms tended to worsen in the placebo group. MF DPI was well tolerated at all dose levels and the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse effects were headache, pharyngitis and oral candidiasis. No evidence of HPA-axis suppression was detected in any treatment group. In summary, all doses of MF DPI were well tolerated and significantly improved lung function and MF DPI 400 mcg (200 mcg b.i.d.) was the optimal dose in this study of patients with moderate persistent asthma.

Effect of mometasone furoate on early and late phase inflammation in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate is a potent glucocorticoid that can markedly inhibit proinflammatory Th2 cytokines in vitro. An aqueous nasal spray formulation has been shown to be clinically active in reducing the symptoms of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether pretreatment with mometasone furoate 200 microg once daily decreases specific indices of early and late phase nasal inflammation compared with placebo.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was conducted using nasal provocation with ragweed antigen in 21 patients with ragweed-induced allergic rhinitis out of the ragweed season; the treatment period was 2 weeks. Symptom scores, rhinoprobe cytology, and nasal lavage fluid were collected during early and late phase periods for nasal cytokines (interleukin, 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8) and leukotriene B4 determinations using ELISA and RIA.

RESULTS

Mean nasal symptom scores and sneezing frequency were consistently lower with mometasone furoate compared with placebo. Treatment was associated with a statistically significant early phase (30-minute time point) reduction in nasal lavage histamine levels compared with placebo (14.3 versus 20.2 ng/mL, P = .02). Within-treatment comparisons suggested that mometasone furoate reduced the antigen-induced late-phase response for IL-6, IL-8, and eosinophils compared with pretreatment. There were similar, but smaller, changes seen in the placebo group for these measurements. There were no statistically significant changes following antigen challenge in IL-1, IL-4, IL-5, LTB4, or in other nasal cytology parameters.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the clinical activity of mometasone furoate nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis is likely due, in part, to a reduction in the levels of histamine in nasal secretions related to the early phase response, and reductions in IL-6, IL-8, and eosinophils during the late phase response.

Subjective and objective assessments in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: effects of therapy with mometasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of topical nasal steroid therapy for allergic rhinitis is usually evaluated by patient and clinician assessments of subjective symptom changes in diaries and at clinical interviews.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to complement the subjective measures with objective measures of nasal cytology, biochemistry, and function.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized study patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) 12 years of age or older received 200 microg mometasone furoate nasal spray (n = 80) or placebo spray (n = 41) once daily for 2 weeks. Subjective assessments by clinician and patient comprised symptom/sign scores and overall therapeutic response evaluations. Objective measures included nasal cytology, nasal biochemistry, nasal airway resistance (NAR), mucociliary clearance, and olfactory functions.

RESULTS

Mometasone furoate produced a significantly greater decrease than placebo in subjective measures of SAR for total symptom score (-46% vs -30%, p < 0.05), total nasal score (-47% vs -30%, p < 0.024), individual nasal symptom scores, and overall therapeutic response. The objective measures of eosinophil, basophil, and neutrophil counts and mucociliary clearance were significantly better in mometasone furoate- than in placebo-treated patients. Similarly, within-treatment statistically significant improvements were produced by mometasone furoate but not by placebo sprays for levels of eosinophilic cationic protein, tryptase and albumin, NAR, and odor identification. Significant positive correlations were found between NAR and nasal stuffiness and between eosinophils, basophils, and neutrophils and both eosinophilic cationic protein and albumin.

CONCLUSION

Subjective measures of SAR were significantly improved in the mometasone furoate group by comparison with placebo-treated patients. Objective assessments supported the subjective findings because within-treatment measures were frequently significantly improved after mometasone furoate treatment but not after placebo treatment.