A controlled study on the effectiveness of loratadine in combination with flunisolide in the treatment of nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia (NARES)

The Role of Nasal Cytology and Serum Atopic Biomarkers in Paediatric Rhinitis

A Nasal Provocation Test allows the differentiation of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, but it is difficult and expensive. Therefore, nasal cytology is taking hold as an alternative. We carried out a cross-sectional study, including 29 patients with persistent rhinitis according to ARIA definition and negative skin prick tests. Nasal symptoms were scored from 0 to 5 using a visual analogue scale, and patients underwent blood tests to investigate blood cell count (particularly eosinophilia and basophilia), to analyze serum total and specific IgE and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), and to perform nasal cytology. We performed a univariate logistical analysis to evaluate the association between total serum IgE, serum eosinophilia, basophils, and ECP and the presence of eosinophils in the nasal mucosa, and a multivariate logistic model in order to weight the single variable on the presence of eosinophils to level of the nasal mucosa. A statistically significant association between serum total IgE levels and the severity of nasal eosinophilic inflammation was found (confidence interval C.I. 1.08-4.65, odds ratio OR 2.24, p value 0.03). For this reason, we imagine a therapeutic trial with nasal steroids and oral antihistamines in patients with suspected LAR and increased total IgE levels, reserving nasal cytology and NPT to non-responders to the first-line therapy.

Clinical Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation in Non-allergic Rhinitis with Eosinophilia Syndrome: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) includes different subtypes, among which NAR with eosinophilia syndrome (NARES) is the most important because of severity of symptoms and the high risk of comorbidities. Its pathophysiology is still object of debate, but a crucial role of chronic eosinophilic inflammation has been recognized. The aim of this review is to critically analyze the current evidence regarding the hypothesis that NARES may be considered a type 2 inflammatory disorder.

RECENT FINDINGS

The definition and diagnostic criteria for NARES are not universally shared and adopted, thus generating difficulties in reproducing the results. At present, there is extreme heterogeneity in sampling methods and disagreement in the cut-off of local eosinophilic count to determine a diagnosis of NARES. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standard was applied to identify English-language experimental and clinical articles regarding NARES. The search was performed in April 2021. Twenty-six articles were included. Our data suggest a particular heterogeneity regarding sampling and specific cut-offs adopted for diagnosis of NARES and consensus should be reached. We suggest that eosinophil count should be reported as an absolute value for at least 10 observed rich fields in order to increase the level of standardization. Consensus among authors on this topic should be reached with particular attention to the cut-off for diagnosis. In the future, this limitation may be overcome by the identification of repeatable biomarkers to refine diagnosis and prognosis of NARES. Furthermore, our data strongly suggest that NARES have numerous similarities with clinical features of the most common type 2 diseases such as eosinophilic asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP): late onset, association with type 2 comorbidities, selective eosinophilic tissue infiltration, remarkable response to oral and intranasal corticosteroids, and progression in a type 2 CRSwNP.

The prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis phenotypes in the general population: A cross-sectional study

Background

Non‐allergic rhinitis (NAR) can be subdivided into several phenotypes: rhinorrhea of the elderly, rhinitis medicamentosa, smokers', occupational, hormonal, drug‐induced, gustatory, and idiopathic rhinitis. There are two pathophysiological endotypes of NAR: inflammatory and neurogenic. Phenotypes may serve as an indicator of an underlying endotype and, therefore, help to guide the treatment. The prevalence of each phenotype in the general population is currently unknown.

Methodology/Principal

Cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study in the general population of the Netherlands.

Results

The prevalence of chronic rhinitis in the general population was 40% (N = 558, of those, 65% had NAR and 28% AR, in 7% allergy status is unknown). Individuals with NAR (N = 363) had significantly more complaints in October–February. Those with AR (N = 159) had significantly more complaints in April–August. The most common NAR phenotypes were idiopathic (39%) and rhinitis medicamentosa (14%), followed by occupational (8%), smokers' (6%), hormonal (4%), gustatory (4%), and rhinorrhea of the elderly (4%). The least prevalent phenotype was drug induced (1%). Nineteen percent of the NAR group could not be classified into any of the phenotypes.

Conclusions

This is the first study to describe the prevalences of NAR phenotypes in the general population. AR and NAR have a distinct seasonality pattern with NAR being more prevalent in autumn/winter and AR in spring/summer. Our data on the prevalence of phenotypes may help clinicians to anticipate the type of patients at their clinic and help guide a tailored treatment approach. The high prevalence of rhinitis medicamentosa is alarming, since this is a potentially preventable phenotype.

Diagnosis and treatment of non-allergic rhinitis: focus on immunologic mechanisms

INTRODUCTION

Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) is a heterogeneous nasal disease with high global prevalence. NAR can be subclassified as nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome (NARES), vasomotor rhinitis (VMR), and local allergic rhinitis (LAR). Although the precise factors involved in the etiology of NAR are not clear, there is evidence that immunological factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of NAR. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the immunological and neurogenic mechanisms involved in the diagnosis and treatment of NAR.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the immunological basis of diagnostic and treatment strategies for NARES, VMR, and LAR. In particular, recently documented molecular and immunological mechanisms of NAR are discussed, which may help to better understand the mechanisms underlying the pathologies of the different endotypes of NAR.

EXPERT OPINION

An increasing number of studies investigating the pathogenesis of NAR suggest that the immunological mechanisms underlying the different subtypes of NAR vary greatly, and are still not fully understood to accurately diagnose these subtypes. Thus, further studies should focus on making diagnosis and treatment of NAR more precise, safe, and effective. A better understanding of the immunological mechanisms involved in NAR should help in the discovery of new diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H₁ antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H₁ antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR.

METHODS

A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H₁ antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (Score_Monotherapy - Score_{Combined therapy}) / Score_Monotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal H₁ antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H₁ antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

Nonallergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is normally defined by the symptoms of nasal congestion, postnasal drainage, rhinorrhea, and sneezing. It has been associated with various pathologic changes, but can occur in the absence of any inflammation. Thus, the diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation. There are no clear-cut criteria to distinguish when rhinitis becomes chronic, but in its chronic form, it can be complex. Chronic forms of rhinitis that occur in the absence of any detectable specific IgE against relevant aeroallergens in its broadest sense can be called chronic nonallergic rhinitis. This review will concentrate on chronic nonallergic rhinitis in its various forms, discussing the epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and its therapy.

Effect of betamethasone-loratadine combination therapy on severe exacerbations of allergic rhinitis : a randomised, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Corticosteroids are effective in controlling the inflammatory component of allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for the clinical efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in this disease is sparse. It is further common practice to combine oral corticosteroids with antihistamines in the treatment of acute exacerbations of allergic rhinitis. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of low-dose oral betamethasone alone and in combination with loratadine in a group of patients with allergic rhinitis with clinically significant obstruction.

METHODS

In this parallel, double-blind, active controlled multicentre study, 299 patients with severe allergic rhinitis were randomly allocated to either betamethasone 1.0mg or betamethasone 1.0mg plus loratadine 10mg or betamethasone 0.5mg plus loratadine 10mg or loratadine 10mg alone for 5-7 days. Total symptom scores, nasal obstruction, and doctor and patient perception of improvement were measured as markers of disease severity.

RESULTS

Although not statistically significant, both betamethasone 1.0mg regimens resulted in a total symptom score difference of at least 1 or more from loratadine (i.e. mean [SD] change in total symptom score of 4.10 [3.10] and 4.40 [3.62] vs 3.10 [3.30], respectively, for betamethasone 1.0 mg plus loratadine, betamethasone 1.0 mg and loratadine). All corticosteroid-containing regimens were significantly better than loratadine alone with regard to the patients' (p < 0.013) and doctors' (p < 0.009) perceptions of improvement. They significantly favoured loratadine in combination with betamethasone over single-drug therapy (i.e. odds ratio: investigator ratings 0.49, 0.36 and 0.45, and patient ratings 0.47, 0.40 and 0.43, respectively, for 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg betamethasone plus loratadine and betamethasone 1.0 mg alone vs loratadine alone). Betamethasone 1.0mg plus loratadine also resulted in significant reduction of the relapse rate compared with the other therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the benefit of a short course of a systemic low dosage of corticosteroids with and without antihistamine therapy during acute severe exacerbations of allergic rhinitis. Combination treatment with betamethasone 1.0mg and loratadine 10mg was significantly better in relieving symptoms of hayfever as experienced by patients. This was the first study to give evidence of benefit of systemic low-dose corticosteroids with and without an antihistamine in patients with acute exacerbations of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal flunisolide treatment in patients with non-allergic rhinitis

Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) is a heterogeneous disease, characterized by nasal hyperreactivity and inflammation. Its treatment is still debated, intranasal corticosteroids may be an option. The present study is aimed at evaluating the effect of the use of intranasal flunisolide in patients with NAR, considering both clinical and cytological parameters. Sixty patients were treated with intranasal flunisolide (30) or saline solution (30) for 8 weeks. Symptom severity, turbinate size, and inflammatory cell counts were assessed, before and after treatment. Intranasal flunisolide induced a significant reduction of symptoms, turbinate size, and cellular infiltrate. Thus, intranasal flunisolide might be a therapeutic option for NAR.

Mometasone and desloratadine additive effect on eosinophil survival and cytokine secretion from epithelial cells

Background

Although antihistamines and topical corticosteroids are used in combination to treat allergic rhinitis, their additive effect has not been yet demonstrated. The aim was investigate the antiinflammatory additive effect of mometasone and desloratadine on cytokine and sICAM-1 secretion by epithelial cells, and on eosinophil survival stimulated by human epithelial cells secretions from nasal mucosa and polyps.

Methods

Epithelial cells obtained from nasal mucosa or polyps were stimulated with 10% fetal bovine serum in presence of mometasone (10^-11M-10^-5M) with/without desloratadine (10^-5M). Cytokine and sICAM-1 concentrations in supernatants were measured by ELISA. Peripheral blood eosinophils were incubated during 4 days with epithelial cell secretions with (10^-11M-10^-5M) and/or desloratadine (10^-5M) and survival assessed by Trypan blue. Results are expressed as percentage (mean ± SEM) compared to control.

Results

Fetal bovine serum stimulated IL-6, IL-8, GM-CSF and sICAM-1 secretion. In mucosa and polyp epithelial cells, mometasone inhibited this induced secretion while desloratadine inhibited IL-6 and IL-8. The combination of 10^-5M desloratadine and 10^-9M mometasone reduced IL-6 secretion (48 ± 11%, p < 0.05) greater extent than mometasone alone (68 ± 10%) compared to control (100%). Epithelial cell secretions induced eosinophil survival from day 1 to 4, this effect being inhibited by mometasone. At day 4, the combination of mometasone (10^-11M) and desloratadine (10^-5M) provoked an increased inhibition of eosinophil survival induced by cell secretions (27 ± 5%, p < 0.01) than mometasone (44 ± 7%) or desloratadine (46 ± 7%) alone.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the combination of desloratadine and mometasone furoate have a greater antinflammatory effect in an in vitro model of eosinophil inflammation than those drugs administered alone.

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.

The role of antihistamines in the treatment of vasomotor rhinitis

Background

The pathogenesis of vasomotor rhinitis is not understood. It is unlikely that antihistamines, based on their H1 antagonist activity alone, would be effective in this disorder.

Methods

Nonetheless, at least one double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial has found that intranasal azelastine relieves symptoms of this disorder better than placebo. The mechanism responsible for its beneficial effect in nonallergic rhinitis is unclear but probably relates to "anti-inflammatory/antiallergic" activities.

Results

Such mechanisms have been demonstrated for a number of different oral antihistamines, but often the concentrations required in vitro are higher than those that are normally achieved in vivo using recommended dosing. It has been postulated that intranasal administration, which can achieve high local levels, might be a factor responsible for enhancing the "anti-inflammatory/antiallergic" properties.

Conclusions

Interpreting this information allows one to conclude that antihistamines may be potentially effective agents in vasomotor rhinitis, and are more likely to be so when administered intranasally, despite the fact that data documenting this beneficial effect are sparse.

Nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome

Nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome (NARES) is a clinical syndrome comprising symptoms consistent with allergic rhinitis in which an absence of atopy has been demonstrated by allergen skin testing, and nasal cytology analysis demonstrates more than 20% eosinophils. Anosmia is a prominent feature not shared with allergic rhinitis. The pathophysiology of NARES is poorly understood, but a key component involves a self-perpetuating, chronic eosinophilic nasal inflammation with development of nasal micropolyposis and polyposis. Mast cells likely play an important role as well. NARES is a risk factor for the development of nasal polyposis and aspirin sensitivity, as well as obstructive sleep apnea. Treatment consists mainly of intranasal corticosteroids with or without the addition of second-generation antihistamines and/or leukotriene-receptor antagonists.

Effect of desloratadine on epithelial cell granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor secretion and eosinophil survival

BACKGROUND

Second-generation antihistamines are H(1) receptor antagonists and may have additional anti-inflammatory effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to evaluate the effect of desloratadine (DL) on cytokine secretion by epithelial cells from both nasal mucosa (NM) and polyps (NP), and on eosinophil survival primed by epithelial cell secretions.

METHODS

Epithelial cells were cultured and stimulated with fetal bovine serum (FBS), IL-1beta or TNF-alpha with and without DL for 24 h. Culture supernatant cytokines concentration were measured by ELISA. Peripheral blood eosinophils were incubated with human epithelial cell conditioned media (HECM) and DL. Eosinophil survival was assessed by Trypan blue dye exclusion. Results are expressed as mean+/-SEM of cytokine concentration (pg/mL) or eosinophil survival index (%).

RESULTS

FBS increased granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), IL-6, IL-8, and TGF-beta(1) secretion in epithelial cell cultures from both NM and NP. Only GM-CSF secretion was significantly (P<0.05) inhibited by a dose-response of DL compared with positive controls, in both NM (10(-5) m: 125+/-36 pg/mL, 10(-6) m: 95+/-22 pg/mL vs. control: 256+/-91 pg/mL, n=6) and NP (10(-5) m: 80+/-29 pg/mL, 10(-6) m: 109+/-45 pg/mL vs. control: 333+/-212 pg/mL, n=6). DL also showed an inhibitory effect on HECM-induced eosinophil survival from both NM and NP. At 72 h, DL significantly (P<0.01) inhibited eosinophil survival induced by HECM from NM (10(-5) m: 19.9+/-5.5%, n=9; 10(-6) m: 28.7+/-7.7%, n=9) and NP (10(-5) m: 6.2+/-2.8%, n=11) compared with HECM alone (NM: 42.1+/-7.3%; NP: 45.3+/-8.1%).

CONCLUSION

The inhibitory effects of DL on epithelial cell GM-CSF secretion and on eosinophil survival induced by epithelial cell secretions, suggest that this H(1) antagonist may regulate eosinophil inflammation in upper airways.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

In vitro diagnosis of chronic nasal inflammation

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis of chronic nasal inflammation is insufficient when based solely on clinical examination and radiography of paranasal sinuses. Patients complain about more or less similar symptoms. Activation of mast cells and eosinophils is pivotal in nasal inflammation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare tryptase and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) in nasal secretions in different forms of chronic nasal inflammation and to establish norm values.

METHODS

The study included 1710 patients presenting with nasal complaints. Nasal secretions were gained by the cotton wool method and analysed for tryptase, as a marker of mast cell activation, and for ECP, as a marker of tissue eosinophilia and activation. Patients were grouped according to their diagnosis: chronic, non-allergic rhinosinusitis (sinusitis, n=194), non-allergic nasal polyposis (polyposis, n=138), non-allergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome (NARES, n=198), isolated perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) (n=126), isolated seasonal AR (n=132), and patients allergic to both, seasonal and perennial allergens (n=193). Seven hundred and twenty-nine patients with nasal complaints due to a deviated septum and without any nasal inflammation served as controls.

RESULTS

Nasal tryptase was highly significantly (P<0.001) elevated in polyposis, NARES, and in AR. ECP was highly significantly (P<0.001) elevated in all groups of patients suffering from chronic nasal inflammation. Based on our data and method we established norm values (95% confidence interval of mean value) for nasal tryptase in healthy adults, ranging from 12.0 to 18.7 ng/mL and for ECP ranging from 84.4 to 102.6 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

Mast cells and eosinophils are involved in non-allergic and allergic forms of chronic nasal inflammation. We established an in vitro assay for tryptase and ECP in nasal secretions and defined norm values based on our data and method. In vitro measurement of biological markers in nasal secretions provides important information for differential diagnosis and therapeutic strategies of chronic nasal inflammation.

Intranasal fluticasone propionate is effective for perennial nonallergic rhinitis with or without eosinophilia

BACKGROUND

Although response to intranasal corticosteroid therapy has been reported in patients with nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilic syndrome (NARES), efficacy specifically in non-NARES patients has not been fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate (FP) in the treatment of patients with perennial nonallergic rhinitis, with and without nasal eosinophilia.

METHODS

Data from 983 patients in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PNAR trials were integrated. Patients received a total daily dose of FP 200 microg (n = 332), FP 400 microg (n = 325), or placebo (n = 326) for 28 days. Patients were > or =12 years of age with perennial rhinitis and negative skin tests to all allergens relevant to the geographic region. Nasal eosinophils were evaluated using a five-point scale. Patients were classified as non-NARES with a point score of 0 (n = 674; 69%); patients with a point score between I and 4 were classified as NARES (n = 309; 31%). Efficacy of FP was evaluated by the mean change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS), a sum of patient ratings of nasal obstruction, postnasal drip, and rhinorrhea.

RESULTS

Patients with either NARES or non-NARES had similar statistically significant improvement with FP 200 microg or 400 microg compared with placebo; thus, the total group comprising both varieties of rhinitis responded to FP. In the total population, both FP treatment groups showed significantly greater improvement in TNSS compared with placebo during each week of treatment (P < or = 0.002), with mean changes in TNSS for day 22 to day 28 ranging from -84 and -85 in the FP 200 microg and FP 400 microg groups, respectively, to -64 in the placebo group. The three study treatment groups had similar proportions of non-NARES (68 to 69%) and NARES (31 to 32%) patients at baseline. In the non-NARES subgroup, mean changes in TNSS for each treatment group were similar to changes seen in the total population. In the NARES subgroup, mean changes in TNSS for the FP 200 microg and placebo groups were similar to changes seen in the total population; mean change in TNSS for the FP 400 microg group was somewhat greater than changes seen in the total population.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal FP is an effective treatment for perennial nonallergic rhinitis with or without nasal eosinophilia (NARES or non-NARES).

New insights into the second generation antihistamines

Second generation antihistamines are recognised as being highly effective treatments for allergy-based disease and are among the most frequently prescribed and safest drugs in the world. However, consideration of the therapeutic index or the benefit/risk ratio of the H1 receptor antagonists is of paramount importance when prescribing this class of compounds as they are used to treat non-life threatening conditions. There are many second generation antihistamines available and at first examination these appear to be comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. However, the newer antihistamines in fact represent a heterogeneous group of compounds, having markedly differing chemical structures, adverse effects, half-life, tissue distribution and metabolism, spectrum of antihistaminic properties, and varying degrees of anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to the latter, there is growing awareness that some of these compounds might represent useful adjunct medications in asthma therapy. In terms of safety issues, the current second generation grouping includes compounds with proven cardiotoxic effects and others with the potential for adverse drug interactions. Moreover, some of the second generation H1 antagonists have given cause for concern regarding their potential to cause a degree of somnolence in some individuals. It can be argued, therefore, that the present second generation grouping is too large and indistinct since this was based primarily on the concept of separating the first generation sedating compounds from nonsedating H1 antagonists. Although it is too early to talk about a third generation grouping of antihistamines, future membership of such a classification could be based on a low volume of distribution coupled with a lack of sedating effects, drug interactions and cardiotoxicity.