Concomitant montelukast and loratadine as treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

Meta-analysis of the relationship between montelukast use and neuropsychiatric events in patients with allergic airway disease

Use of montelukast, as a cause of neuropsychiatric events, in patients with asthma or allergic rhinitis is controversial, and comprehensive statistical analyses verifying this relationship remain lacking. To better understand the relationship between montelukast and neuropsychiatric events, it is vital to guide patients in the effective use of the drug, especially in children whose mothers are concerned about its side effects. In this study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating montelukast and neuropsychiatric events were retrieved from a literature search of the Medline (1966 to February 2023), Embase (1974 to February 2023), Web of Science, and other related databases. After screening, 18 RCTs were ultimately included in a meta-analysis to merge statistics, which demonstrated no significant increase in neuropsychiatric events compared with placebo. A similar pattern of adverse neuropsychiatric events was observed in patients grouped according to age, with headache being the most common adverse neuropsychiatric event. Overall, montelukast did not significantly increase neuropsychiatric events in patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma compared with placebo. Large-sample RCTs are needed to verify the association between neuropsychiatric events and montelukast use in children, and attention is also devoted to FDA warnings.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Background: Loratadine and montelukast are clinical first-line drugs in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, there is no clear evidence of the efficacy of loratadine combined with montelukast in the treatment of AR. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the loratadine-montelukast combination on AR. Methods: In this meta-analysis, searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search terms included loratadine, montelukast, allergic rhinitis, and clinical trials. Meta-analyses were conducted using Rev Man 5.3 and Stata 15 statistical software. Results: A total of 23 studies with 4,902 participants were enrolled. For the primary outcome, pooled results showed that loratadine-montelukast can significantly reduce total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), when compared with loratadine (SMD, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.65, p < 0.00001), montelukast (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.25, p < 0.0001), or placebo (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.49, p < 0.00001). For secondary outcomes, pooled results showed that compared with loratadine, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, nasal itching, nasal sneezing, nasal rhinorrhea, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaires (RQLQ). Compared with montelukast, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal itching, and nasal sneezing. Compared with placebo, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, and RQLQ. Conclusion: Loratadine-montelukast combination is superior to loratadine monotherapy, montelukast monotherapy, or placebo in improving AR symptoms. Therefore, loratadine-montelukast combination can be an option for patients with moderate-severe AR or poorly response to monotherapy. Systematic review registration number: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42023397519.

Potential Therapeutic Approaches for Chronic Urticaria: Beyond H1-Antihistamines and Biologics

Chronic urticaria is a disease that can significantly impact a patient's quality of life and ability to function. There are effective treatment options, such as nonsedating antihistamines or biologics, but some patients do not respond to these therapies, or the therapies are not available or affordable to all patients. This review aims to summarize potential treatment strategies for patients (1) who do not respond to antihistamines and (2) cannot readily access or do not respond to biologics. The review emphasizes the importance of sound clinical practice, including correct diagnosis of chronic urticaria phenotypes, treatment of associated comorbidities, and consideration of add-on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. Although some treatments may lack high-quality evidence, they may still be justifiable in certain cases, provided that there is shared decision-making, regular reassessment, and early recognition of adverse events.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

Ultrasensitive TLC determination of montlukast and loratadine mixture in human plasma utilizing fluorescence detection at dual pH values: Toward attaining separate maximum fluorescence intensity

A novel selective and highly sensitive TLC densitometric method with reflectance/fluorescence detection was developed to separate and quantify montlukast (MONT) and loratadine (LOR). Separation of the studied drugs was performed on precoated silica gel TLC plates using chloroform-ethyl acetate (8 :2 v/v) as a mobile phase. MONT quantification was carried out by measuring emission using 400 nm optical filter after excitation at 340 nm. Enhancement of the week LOR fluorescence was performed through adequate spraying the chromatograms with 0.2 M perchloric acid leading to enhancing sensitivity by 17 folds compared to the reported HPTLC methods with absorbance detection. The scanner was set at 275 nm excitation wavelength and 400 nm optical filter. Detection of both drugs on the same plate separately at different pH conditions was utilized for the first time. Maximum fluorescence was achieved for each of them and this enhances detection sensitivity for both drugs. The linear regression analysis data of the studied drugs produced a good linear relationship with correlation coefficients of 0.996 for MONT and 0.998 for LOR over the concentration range of 6 - 150 ng/band for MONT and 15 - 120 ng/band for LOR. Limit of detection values were 1.7 and 4.5 ng /band for MONT and LOR respectively. The developed method enabled the detection of MONT and LOR in human plasma samples within linear concentrations ranged from 7 to 140 ng/ band and 16 to 50 ng/ band with detection limits of 1.9 and 4.8 ng/band for MONT and LOR respectively. The analytical performance of the proposed method was evaluated according to the International Council for Harmonization (ICH). The method was successfully applied for the analysis of the studied drugs in spiked human plasma and good recovery percentages were obtained indicating that there is no interference from plasma constituents. Therefore the method can be applied for in vivo analysis and pharmacokinetic study.

Efficacy of Montelukast in Allergic Rhinitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In treating allergic rhinitis, montelukast has the potential to be used as an alternative or addition to an oral antihistamine or intranasal corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of montelukast in treating allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from 1966 to 21 January 2019. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing montelukast with placebo or other standard treatments. The primary outcomes assessed were daytime nasal symptom score (DNS) and night-time nasal symptom score (NNS). The secondary outcomes assessed were composite nasal symptom score (CSS), daytime eyes symptom score (DES), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQLQ). The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies of 10387 participants met the inclusion criteria. Montelukast was more effective than placebo in improving DNS (mean difference [MD] - 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.15 to - 0.08; p < 0.001), NNS (MD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.13 to - 0.05; p < 0.001), CSS (MD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.11 to - 0.06; p < 0.001), DES (MD - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.02; p < 0.030), and RQLQ (MD - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.49 to - 0.20; p < 0.001). Oral antihistamine was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.13; p = 0.002), CSS (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07; p = 0.27), DES (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0-0.12; p = 0.040), and RQLQ (MD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.12; p = 0.430). Montelukast was superior to oral antihistamine in improving NNS (MD -0.03, 95% CI - 0.08 to 0.03; p = 0.330). Intranasal fluticasone spray was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.44-0.99; p < 0.001) and NNS (MD 0.63, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p < 0.001). Combined montelukast and oral antihistamine was superior to oral antihistamine in improving DNS (MD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.27 to - 0.03; p = 0.010), NNS (MD - 0.16, 95% CI - 0.28 to - 0.05; p = 0.006), CSS (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.25 to - 0.01; p = 0.070), DES (MD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.06; p = 0.180), and RQLQ (MD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.08; p = 0.290). Combined montelukast and OAH was superior to montelukast in improving DNS (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.21; p < 0.001), NNS (MD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.09 to 0.19; p = 0.510), CSS (MD 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.17; p = 0.007), DES (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0-0.36; p = 0.050), and RQLQ (MD 0.07 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.29; p = 0.530).

CONCLUSIONS

Montelukast is more effective than placebo in treating the overall symptoms of allergic rhinitis while the combined therapy of montelukast and an oral antihistamine is superior to either montelukast or an oral antihistamine alone.

Management of allergic rhinitis with leukotriene receptor antagonists versus selective H1-antihistamines: a meta-analysis of current evidence

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies remain regarding the effectiveness and safety of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and selective H1-antihistamines (SAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the medications.

METHODS

Relevant head-to-head comparative RCTs were retrieved by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library databases from inception to April 20, 2020. A random-effects model was applied to pool the results. Subgroup analyses were performed for seasonal and perennial AR.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs comprising 4458 patients were included. LTRAs were inferior to SAHs in terms of the daytime nasal symptoms score (mean difference [MD]: 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.08, p = 0.003, I² = 89%) and daytime eye symptoms score (MD: 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08, p = 0.009, I² = 89%), but were superior in terms of the nighttime symptoms score (MD: - 0.04, 95% CI - 0.06 to - 0.02, p < 0.001, I² = 85%). The effects of the two treatments on the composite symptom score (MD: 0.02, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.05, p = 0.30, I² = 91%) and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire (RQLQ) (MD: 0.01, 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.07, p = 0.71, I² = 99%) were similar. Incidences of adverse events were comparable (odds ratio [OR]: 0.97, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.25, p = 0.98, I² = 0%). These results were mainly obtained from studies on seasonal AR. No significant publication bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both treatments are safe and effective in improving the quality of life (QoL) in AR patients, LTRAs are more effective in improving nighttime symptoms but less effective in improving daytime nasal symptoms compared to SAHs.

Pharmacological Effects of Novel Peptide Drugs on Allergic Rhinitis at the Small Ribonucleic Acids Level

Using an allergic rhinitis (AR) model, we evaluated the pharmacological effects of novel peptide drugs (P-ONE and P-TWO) at the small RNA (sRNA) level. Using high-throughput sequencing, we assessed the sRNA expression profile of the negative control, AR antagonist (positive control), P-ONE, and P-TWO groups. By functional clustering and Gene Ontology and KEGG pathway analyses, we found that sRNA target genes have a specific enrichment pattern and may contribute to the effects of the novel peptides. Small RNA sequencing confirmed the biological foundations of novel and traditional AR treatments and suggested unique pharmacological effects. Our findings will facilitate evaluation of the pathogenesis of AR and of the pharmacological mechanisms of novel peptide drugs.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Current and Future Treatments of Rhinitis and Sinusitis

Advances in understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of both rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis have resulted in new treatment options, especially for chronic rhinosinusitis. A review of relevant medical and surgical clinical studies shows that intranasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, and allergen immunotherapy continue to be the best treatments for chronic rhinitis. Dupilumab is the first biologic approved for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab may have a future role in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Novel corticosteroid delivery devices such as an exhalation delivery system for fluticasone and bioabsorbable sinus implants provide enhanced and localized distribution of corticosteroids. Surgical management tailored to the underlying disease process improves clinical outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyposis. Advances in the understanding of the heterogeneous nature of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis have resulted in more precise treatments. Improving the understanding of different endotypes should provide better knowledge to determine appropriate current and new therapies to treat these diseases.

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.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy on Allergic Rhinitis and Safety of a Combination Therapy of Montelukast and Levocetirizine in Patients With Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of montelukast and levocetirizine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis with mild to moderate asthma compared with the efficacy and safety of montelukast alone.

METHODS

This study was a 4-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, Phase III trial. After a 1-week placebo run-in period, the subjects were randomized to receive montelukast (10 mg/day, n = 112) or montelukast (10 mg/day)/levocetirizine (5 mg/day) (n = 116) treatment for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was mean daytime nasal symptom score. Other efficacy end points included mean nighttime nasal symptom score, mean composite symptom score, overall assessment of allergic rhinitis by both subjects and physicians, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV₁/FVC, asthma control test score, and the frequency of rescue medication used during the treatment period.

FINDINGS

Of 333 patients screened for this study, 228 eligible patients were randomized to treatment. The mean (SD) age of patients was 43.32 (15.02) years, and two thirds of subjects were female (66.67%). The demographic characteristics were similar between the treatment groups. Compared with the montelukast group, the montelukast/levocetirizine group reported significant reductions in mean daytime nasal symptom score (least squares mean [SE] of combination vs montelukast, -0.98 [0.06] vs -0.81 [0.06]; P = 0.045). For all other allergic rhinitis efficacy end points, the montelukast/levocetirizine group showed greater improvement than the montelukast group. Similar results were observed in overall assessment scores and in FEV₁, FVC, FEV₁/FVC, and asthma control test score changes from baseline for the 2 treatment groups. Montelukast/levocetirizine was well tolerated, and the safety profile was similar to that observed in the montelukast group.

IMPLICATIONS

The fixed-dose combination of montelukast and levocetirizine was effective and safe in treating perennial allergic rhinitis in patients with asthma compared with montelukast alone. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02552667.

Montelukast Effectively Treats the Nighttime Impact of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Nighttime problems constitute a significant burden on the quality of life of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of montelukast on nighttime AR symptoms.

Methods

In seven multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trials, nighttime problems were assessed as the nighttime symptoms score (NSS), an average of three individual symptom scores: difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakening, and nasal congestion on awakening (each rated 0 = none to 3 = severe). Patients (aged 15–82 years) were randomized to receive montelukast, 10 mg (n = 1751), placebo (n = 1557), or the positive control loratadine, 10 mg (n = 1616).

Results

In a combined analysis, changes from baseline (mean ± SE) in NSS were -0.28 ± 0.01, -0.16 ± 0.01, and —0.24 ± 0.01 for the montelukast, placebo, and loratadine groups, respectively. Difference versus placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline were —0.11 (95% confidence interval, -0.14, -0.08; p ≤ 0.001) for montelukast and -0.09 (-0.12, -0.06; p ≤ 0.001) for loratadine. Strong baseline correlations (R > 0.70; p < 0.001) of NSS and two of its individual symptoms with the sleep domain of the validated Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire support the validity and importance of measuring nighttime morbidity in SAR. Furthermore, a clinically important benefit of montelukast on the nighttime impact of SAR was shown using an analysis anchored on the Patient's Global Evaluation.

Conclusion

These data underscore the importance of nighttime problems in patients with SAR and the need to treat nighttime symptoms. In these studies, montelukast significantly improved the NSS, a clinically relevant and valid measure in patients with SAR.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

The leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast and its possible role in the cardiovascular field

BACKGROUND

Cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTC4, LTD4, and LTE4) are pro-inflammatory mediators of the 5-lipooxygenase (5-LO) pathway, that play an important role in bronchoconstriction, but can also enhance endothelial cell permeability and myocardial contractility, and are involved in many other inflammatory conditions. In the late 1990s, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) were introduced in therapy for asthma and later on, approved for the relief of the symptoms of allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and urticaria. In addition, it has been shown that LTRAs may have a potential role in preventing atherosclerosis progression.

PURPOSE

The aims of this short review are to delineate the potential cardiovascular protective role of a LTRA, montelukast, beyond its traditional use, and to foster the design of appropriate clinical trials to test this hypothesis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

What it is known about leukotriene receptor antagonists? •Leukotriene receptor antagonist, such as montelukast and zafirlukast, is used in asthma, COPD, and allergic rhinitis. • Montelukast is the most prescribed CysLT₁ antagonist used in asthmatic patients. • Different in vivo animal studies have shown that leukotriene receptor antagonists can prevent the atherosclerosis progression, and have a protective role after cerebral ischemia. What we still need to know? • Today, there is a need for conducting clinical trials to assess the role of montelukast in reducing cardiovascular risk and to further understand the mechanism of action behind this effect.

Position statement of the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology on the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes, and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory sinonasal diseases

Introduction

Inflammatory conditions of the nose and paranasal sinuses are very prevalent in the general population, resulting in marked loss of quality of life in affected patients, as well as significant work, leisure, and social activity losses. These patients require specific and specialized treatment. A wide range of oral medications are available.

Objective

The present document is aimed to clarify, for professionals treating patients with inflammatory sinonasal diseases, both specialists and general practitioners, specific oral therapies in noninfectious nasal inflammatory conditions.

Methods

The methodology used to create this article included the search for the key words: oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, antileukotrienes, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in the last 5 years. Since no relevant article was found for the text on the subject of interest in the last 5 years, the search was extended for another 5 years, and so on, according to the authors’ needs.

Results

Relevant literature was found regarding the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and oral corticosteroids in these conditions. The Brazilian Academy of Rhinology emphasizes, after extensive discussion by the collegiate, key points in the treatment with these drugs.

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for the use of these drugs; however, final considerations about the role of each of them have been made.

Comparison of systemic reactions in rush, cluster, and standard-build aeroallergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Given the choice of standard, cluster, and rush build-up for aeroallergen immunotherapy, standard-build immunotherapy has generally been preferred because of a perceived high rate of systemic reactions (SRs) associated with cluster and rush immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the incidence of SRs during standard, cluster, and rush build-up immunotherapy in an allergy practice during a 5-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted among patients receiving standard-build, 8- to 10-step cluster, or 2-day rush immunotherapy from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, at Family Allergy & Asthma clinics in Louisville, Kentucky. Investigators excluded reactions that occurred during skin prick testing, venom immunotherapy, and not-true SRs, and identified the build-up method, age, sex, date of reaction, vial concentration, and presence of asthma. Per-shot and per-patient incidence of SRs was computed from these data.

RESULTS

During our review period, 2,549,643 injections were administered to 11,982 patients. Per-shot incidence of SR was 0.01%, 0.06%, and 0.33% for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, respectively; per-patient incidence of SR was 2.84%, 2.52%, and 11.86% for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, respectively. A total of 42% of SRs were grade 1, 43% were grade 2, 12% were grade 3, and 3% were grade 4. No fatalities were reported. A total of 70% of total SRs, 75% of cluster SR, and 55% of rush SR occurred in females, with an emergent peak in SR from May to October.

CONCLUSION

Compared with previously published rates, we observed a decrease in the incidence of SR for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, with peak seasonality from May to October and a female predominance.

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.

The efficacy and safety of H1-antihistamine versus Montelukast for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In order to verify the differences of effectiveness and safety between SAHs and Montelukast, and to find out potential uncared-for problems, we performed a systematic review and Meta-analysis to proceed a qualitative describe and quantitative assessment.

METHODS

We searched the databases of Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Nature and Science as well as Wanfang data and CNKI from 2000 to March 2016, using key words "Montelukast SAH" or "H1-antihistamine Montelukast", or "Loratadine Montelukast", or "Desloratadine Montelukast", or "Levocetirizine Montelukast", or "Cetirizen Montelukast", or "Fexofenadine Montelukast". And also we included studies through relevant citations in related literature. Meta-analysis and bias of risk were performed. We analyzed Heterogeneity and publish bias as well.

RESULT

Montelukast seems more effective in nighttime symptoms compare with SAHs (P=0.008, MD=-0.04, 95%CI: -0.08, -0.01). No significant difference was found between Montelukast and SAHs in CSS (P=0.10, MD=0.03, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.07). Montelukast and SAHs combined therapy was more effective than Montelukast DNSS (P=0.0006, MD=0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.24) but not in CSS (P=0.04, MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00, 0.15; Bonferroni correction α=0.017).

CONCLUSION

Montelukast has a significant influence in improving patients' nasal symptoms quality of live but is not as effective as SAHs, and may have a slight advantage over SAHs in relieving nighttime symptoms significantly. Combined therapy is more effective in improving patients' day time symptom than Montelukast. Probably, patients might have a lower asthenia incidence rate when using Montelukas.

Montelukast, current indications and prospective future applications

INTRODUCTION

Montelukast is recommended for the treatment of asthma, exercise -induced bronchospasm and allergic rhinitis. Several trials demonstrated potential therapeutic effects in other respiratory conditions, and different animal-model-based studies explored potential pharmacological actions in non-respiratory conditions.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical investigations on the pharmacotherapeutic effects of montelukast, in addition to in-vivo studies on animal models of non-respiratory diseases. The data discussed in this review were mainly obtained from clinical randomized trials, real-life studies, and studies based on animal models as approve of concept. As a condition, all of the discussed articles were published in journals cited by Pubmed. Expert commentary: The current clinical data are in favor of montelukast use in the management of chronic asthma as an add-on or alternative therapy to the inhaled corticosteroids. Further clinical trials are required to confirm the effectiveness and feasibility of montelukast for the treatment of conditions other than the current clinical indications.

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.

Antileukotrienes in upper airway inflammatory diseases

Leukotrienes (LTs) are a family of inflammatory mediators including LTA4, LTB4, LTC4, LTD4, and LTE4. By competitive binding to the cysteinyl LT1 (CysLT1) receptor, LT receptor antagonist drugs, such as montelukast, zafirlukast, and pranlukast, block the effects of CysLTs, improving the symptoms of some chronic respiratory diseases, particularly bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis. We reviewed the efficacy of antileukotrienes in upper airway inflammatory diseases. An update on the use of antileukotrienes in upper airway diseases in children and adults is presented with a detailed literature survey. Data on LTs, antileukotrienes, and antileukotrienes in chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, asthma, and allergic rhinitis are presented. Antileukotriene drugs are classified into two groups: CysLT receptor antagonists (zafirlukast, pranlukast, and montelukast) and LT synthesis inhibitors (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors such as zileuton, ZD2138, Bay X 1005, and MK-0591). CysLTs have important proinflammatory and profibrotic effects that contribute to the extensive hyperplastic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis (NP) that characterise these disorders. Patients who receive zafirlukast or zileuton tend to show objective improvements in, or at least stabilisation of, NP. Montelukast treatment may lead to clinical subjective improvement in NP. Montelukast treatment after sinus surgery can lead to a significant reduction in eosinophilic cationic protein levels in serum, with a beneficial effect on nasal and pulmonary symptoms and less impact in NP. Combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists treatments are most effective for preventing exacerbations among paediatric asthma patients. Treatments with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, combined inhaled corticosteroids and LT receptor antagonists, and low-dose inhaled corticosteroids have been reported to be equally effective. Antileukotrienes have also been reported to be effective for allergic rhinitis.

Phenotype-based Discovery of 2-[(E)-2-(Quinolin-2-yl)vinyl]phenol as a Novel Regulator of Ocular Angiogenesis

Retinal angiogenesis is tightly regulated to meet oxygenation and nutritional requirements. In diseases such as proliferative diabetic retinopathy and neovascular age-related macular degeneration, uncontrolled angiogenesis can lead to blindness. Our goal is to better understand the molecular processes controlling retinal angiogenesis and discover novel drugs that inhibit retinal neovascularization. Phenotype-based chemical screens were performed using the ChemBridge Diverset(TM)library and inhibition of hyaloid vessel angiogenesis in Tg(fli1:EGFP) zebrafish. 2-[(E)-2-(Quinolin-2-yl)vinyl]phenol, (quininib) robustly inhibits developmental angiogenesis at 4-10 μmin zebrafish and significantly inhibits angiogenic tubule formation in HMEC-1 cells, angiogenic sprouting in aortic ring explants, and retinal revascularization in oxygen-induced retinopathy mice. Quininib is well tolerated in zebrafish, human cell lines, and murine eyes. Profiling screens of 153 angiogenic and inflammatory targets revealed that quininib does not directly target VEGF receptors but antagonizes cysteinyl leukotriene receptors 1 and 2 (CysLT1-2) at micromolar IC50values. In summary, quininib is a novel anti-angiogenic small-molecule CysLT receptor antagonist. Quininib inhibits angiogenesis in a range of cell and tissue systems, revealing novel physiological roles for CysLT signaling. Quininib has potential as a novel therapeutic agent to treat ocular neovascular pathologies and may complement current anti-VEGF biological agents.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

The efficacy and safety of selective H1-antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

Background

Both selective H₁-antihistamine (SAH) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) have been shown to be effective in treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is optimal. This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR.

Materials and Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for all eligible studies that compared the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR up to September 7, 2014. The pooled mean difference (MD), odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.

Results

Nine studies with 5781 SAR patients were included. The results showed that SAH is superior to LTRA in terms of the daytime eye symptoms score (DESS) and composite symptoms score (CSS) for SAR (MD = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10, P = 0.000, I² = 99%; MD = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.010, I² = 98%), whereas LTRA overmatched SAH with respect to the night-time symptoms score (NSS) (MD = −0.04, 95% CI, −0.05 to −0.02, P = 0.000, I² = 97%). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that the dose, duration and gender of the patients might impact the comparisons of the effects of SAH and LTRA on their efficacy for SAR.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggested that SAH and LTRA have similar effects and safety for SAR, but SAH is more appropriate for daytime nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus and sneezing), while LTRA is better suited for nighttime symptoms (difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakenings, and nasal congestion on awakening), respectively. Meanwhile, the dose, duration and gender of patients may influence the anti-SAR effects of SAH and LTRA.

Cysteinyl leukotrienes and their receptors; emerging concepts

Cysteinyl leukotrienes (cys-LTs) are potent mediators of inflammation derived from arachidonic acid through the 5-lipoxygenase/leukotriene C4 synthase pathway. The derivation of their chemical structures and identification of their pharmacologic properties predated the cloning of their classical receptors and the development of drugs that modify their synthesis and actions. Recent studies have revealed unanticipated insights into the regulation of cys-LT synthesis, the function of the cys-LTs in innate and adaptive immunity and human disease, and the identification of a new receptor for the cys-LTs. This review highlights these studies and summarizes their potential pathobiologic and therapeutic implications.

Pharmacogenetics of the G protein-coupled receptors

Pharmacogenetics investigates the influence of genetic variants on physiological phenotypes related to drug response and disease, while pharmacogenomics takes a genome-wide approach to advancing this knowledge. Both play an important role in identifying responders and nonresponders to medication, avoiding adverse drug reactions, and optimizing drug dose for the individual. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the primary target of therapeutic drugs and have been the focus of these studies. With the advance of genomic technologies, there has been a substantial increase in the inventory of naturally occurring rare and common GPCR variants. These variants include single-nucleotide polymorphisms and insertion or deletions that have potential to alter GPCR expression of function. In vivo and in vitro studies have determined functional roles for many GPCR variants, but genetic association studies that define the physiological impact of the majority of these common variants are still limited. Despite the breadth of pharmacogenetic data available, GPCR variants have not been included in drug labeling and are only occasionally considered in optimizing clinical use of GPCR-targeted agents. In this chapter, pharmacogenetic and genomic studies on GPCR variants are reviewed with respect to a subset of GPCR systems, including the adrenergic, calcium sensing, cysteinyl leukotriene, cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors, and the de-orphanized receptors such as GPR55. The nature of the disruption to receptor function is discussed with respect to regulation of gene expression, expression on the cell surface (affected by receptor trafficking, dimerization, desensitization/downregulation), or perturbation of receptor function (altered ligand binding, G protein coupling, constitutive activity). The large body of experimental data generated on structure and function relationships and receptor-ligand interactions are being harnessed for the in silico functional prediction of naturally occurring GPCR variants. We provide information on online resources dedicated to GPCRs and present applications of publically available computational tools for pharmacogenetic studies of GPCRs. As the breadth of GPCR pharmacogenomic data becomes clearer, the opportunity for routine assessment of GPCR variants to predict disease risk, drug response, and potential adverse drug effects will become possible.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual tablets of house dust mite allergen extracts in adults with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Preliminary studies have suggested the efficacy of sublingual tablets of house dust mite (HDM) extracts in adults with allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of HDM sublingual tablets over 1 treatment year and the subsequent immunotherapy-free year.

METHODS

Adults with HDM-associated allergic rhinitis were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to receive 500 index of reactivity (IR) tablets, 300IR tablets, or placebo administered once daily for 1 year and were followed for the subsequent year. The primary efficacy variable was the Average Adjusted Symptom Score over the year 1 primary period (ie, October 1 to December 31). Symptoms and rescue medication scores, onset of action, patient-reported outcomes, and safety were secondary variables. The same end points were evaluated during the immunotherapy-free year. The primary efficacy end point was analyzed by using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Five hundred nine participants were randomized, and 427 continued in the immunotherapy-free year. Both the 500IR and 300IR HDM sublingual tablets significantly reduced mean Average Adjusted Symptom Scores compared with placebo by -20.2% (P = .0066) and -17.9% (P = .0150), respectively. Efficacy of both doses was maintained during the treatment-free follow-up phase. The onset of action was at 4 months. Participants' global evaluation of treatment success was significantly higher in the 500IR and 300IR groups compared with the placebo group (P = .0206 and P = .0001, respectively). Adverse events were generally application-site reactions. There were no reports of anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve months of treatment with 500IR and 300IR sublingual tablets of HDM allergen extracts was efficacious and well tolerated. Efficacy was maintained during the treatment-free follow-up year.

Wheal and flare reactions in skin prick tests of patients treated with montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines

Background

Because antileukotrienes may inhibit inflammation, it is plausible that montelukast administered for a long time could suppress skin wheal and flare reaction, and thus, it should be discarded prior to the tests. This study assessed the effect of long-lasting treatment with montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines on wheal and flare in skin pricks tests (SPT) in patients sensitized to perennial allergens.

Methods

We conducted a 32-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over and randomized trial that implicated two arms: arm A, 20 patients received levocetirizine, montelukast with or without levocetirizine or placebo; arm B, 20 patients received desloratadine, montelukast with or without desloratadine or placebo. All treatment periods lasted 6 weeks and were separated by 2-week washouts. At baseline and on the last day of each treatment period, SPT were performed in all participants.

Results

Both levocetirizine and desloratadine in monotherapy, or in combination with montelukast, were effective in reducing wheal and flare in SPT. Monotherapy with montelukast did not change the size of the wheal for either histamine or for house dust mites, in either arm of the study, but significantly reduced the size of flare for histamine in arm A. Addition of montelukast to antihistamine did not exceed efficacy of monotherapy with antihistamine in both arms of the study.

Conclusions

Since the size of wheal determines the results of SPT, montelukast, even taken for a long time, does not have to be discarded prior to the tests.

Combination of leukotoriene receptor antagonist with antihistamine has an additive suppressive effect on the up-regulation of H1-receptor mRNA in the nasal mucosa of toluene 2,4-diisocyanate-sensitized rat

An attempt was made to clarify the additive suppressive effects of pranlukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene-receptor (LTR) antagonist, in combination with chlorpheniramine, an antihistamine, on the up-regulation of histamine H1-receptor (H1R) mRNA in toluene 2,4-diisocyanate (TDI)-sensitized rats. Although pre-treatment with pranlukast partially, but significantly, suppressed TDI-induced up-regulation of H1R mRNA and nasal symptoms, pre-treatment with the combination of pranlukast and chlorpheniramine significantly suppressed them in a manner greater than either drug alone. These findings suggest that the additive therapeutic effect of the combination of LTR antagonist and antihistamine is due to their additive suppression of H1R up-regulation.

Role of leukotriene antagonists and antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is the most common atopic disorder seen in ENT clinics. It is diagnosed by history, physical exam and objective testing. Patient education, environmental control measures, pharmacotherapy, and allergen-specific immunotherapy are the cornerstones of allergic rhinitis treatment and can significantly reduce the burden of disease. Current treatment guidelines include antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, oral and intranasal decongestants, intranasal anticholinergics, intranasal cromolyn, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. In the mechanism of allergic rhinitis, histamine is responsible for major allergic rhinitis symptoms such as rhinorrhea, nasal itching and sneezing. Its effect on nasal congestion is less evident. In contrast, leukotrienes result in increase in nasal airway resistance and vascular permeability. Antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists are commonly used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The published literature about combined antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in mono- or combination therapy is reviewed and presented.

Impact of sleep as a specific marker of quality of life in allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disorder, which represents a considerable burden both on individual patients and society. It is associated with bothersome symptoms, which may impair usual daily activities, sleep quality, and productivity. Associated with impaired sleep, quality of life is significantly impaired in AR patients. AR significantly contributes to sleep-disordered breathing through multiple mechanisms, with the greatest impact mediated through nasal obstruction. Sleep impairment is very common in AR patients and has a significant impact on disease-specific measures of general health and quality of life. The degree of sleep disturbance is directly related to the severity of the disease. Nasal congestion also demonstrates circadian rhythm and positional variability, worsening during nighttime hours and in supine position. Increased sleep disordered events lead to poor sleep with fatigue and daytime somnolence, impaired performance, productivity and social functioning, and an increased risk of associated diseases.

Nasal Eosinophilia and Serum Soluble Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis Treated with Montelukast Alone or in Combination with Desloratadine or Levocetirizine

Background

Because intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM) 1 and recruitment of eosinophils are crucial in supporting allergic inflammation, their down-regulation may bring additional benefits in patients’ recovery. We have assessed nasal eosinophilia and serum soluble ICAM-1 (sICAM-1) concentrations in relation to nasal symptoms in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (AR) treated for 6 weeks with either desloratadine, levocetirizine, montelukast alone, or in combination.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, two-arm study, 40 patients with persistent AR were randomized to receive either montelukast and/or levocetirizine or placebo (n = 20) or to receive treatment with montelukast and/or desloratadine or placebo (n = 20). Nasal eosinophilia and concentration of sICAM-1 in peripheral blood were assessed before and on the last day of each treatment period.

Results

All active treatments in both arms of the study resulted in the decrease of sICAM-1 and nasal eosinophilia, which correlated with the severity of nasal symptoms. In the montelukast/levocetirizine arm, montelukast decreased nasal eosinophilia more significantly than levocetirizine, whereas in reduction of sICAM-1 all active treatment options were equally effective. However, in the desloratadine/montelukast arm, the resulting improvement of combination therapy of sICAM-1 and the influx of eosinophils was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The improvement of nasal symptoms in patients with AR treated with antihistamines, with or without montelukast, may additionally result from the reduction of sICAM-1 and nasal eosinophilia. Because the combination therapy may bring inconclusive benefits in this area there is a strong need of further studies to find mechanisms that favor combination therapy.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists in allergic eye disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic eye diseases are common and cause significant morbidity. Leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (AC), commonly seen in conjunction with allergic rhinitis, and in vernal keratoconjunctivitis and atopic keratoconjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the available evidence for an effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) on the ocular symptoms of allergic eye diseases.

METHODS

Selected studies, identified with systematic review search methods, were single/double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that compared LTRAs with other common treatments.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials, using the LTRA montelukast (in AC only), were identified. Six studies were suitable for meta-analysis, in patients with seasonal AC [treated over a 2-week period, symptoms scored 0 (mild) to 3 (severe)]. These trials were at low risk of bias without significant heterogeneity. Six trials were analyzed and showed that montelukast improved patients' ocular symptoms to a greater extent than placebo, with a difference in mean change-from-baseline score of -0.10 (95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07; P < .00001). Three trials compared montelukast with oral antihistamine. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = .007), in favor of antihistamines. Two trials compared montelukast and oral antihistamine with placebo. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.38 to -0.21; P < .00001), in favor of combination treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In seasonal AC LTRAs are more efficacious than placebo but less efficacious than oral antihistamines in adult patients. Clinical trials should be conducted to determine whether combination treatment with LTRA and oral antihistamine has a synergistic effect. Further research is required to clarify the role of LTRAs in other allergic eye diseases.

Fruit juices as perpetrators of drug interactions: the role of organic anion-transporting polypeptides

Grapefruit juice is widely recognized to cause important drug interactions via inhibition of CYP3A4, and a wider variety of fruit juices have been shown to inhibit influx transporters in enterocytes known as organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATPs). Fruit juice coadministration significantly reduces the oral bioavailability of numerous important medicines relying on this anion transporter pathway for absorption. This article reviews the current literature on interactions between clinically used OATP substrates and fruit juice consumption.

Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness of cell counts in blown nasal secretions

Cell counts in nasal secretions are not used in routine clinical practice to decide on anti-inflammatory or antimicrobial therapy. This study investigated the reproducibility, reliability (validity), and responsiveness of cell counts in blown nasal secretions with a view to implementing this in routine clinical practice. Nasal secretions were obtained from 19 subjects with allergic rhinitis on 3 days in random order (each separated by 1–2 days) by spontaneously blowing their noses (on 2 days) and by a nasal lavage by the modified Grunberg method on the 3rd day. Total and differential cell counts were performed after dispersing the solutions with dithiothreitol as described previously. At the end of the study, subjects had 1 week of open label treatment with nasal corticosteroids if they had nasal eosinophilia or an antibiotic if they had nasal neutrophilia. If the cell counts were normal, they were not treated. The proportion of eosinophil (%) was highly reproducible (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.93), and the total cell count (×106/g) and the proportion of neutrophil (%) were modestly reproducible in blown nasal secretions (ICC, 0.46 and 0.55, respectively). The total cell count was consistently and significantly higher in the blown nasal secretions. The proportion of eosinophils (R_s = 0.4; p < 0.05) and neutrophils (R_s = 0.6; p < 0.05) showed modest correlation in the two types of samples. The responsiveness index for eosinophil count was 4.0 and for neutrophil count was 1.5. Total and differential cell counts can be reliably and reproducibly obtained from spontaneously blown nasal secretions. The cell counts are responsive to treatment and can help identify allergic and infective rhinosinusitis and guide therapy and are easy to implement in routine clinical practice.

Use of montelukast alone or in combination with desloratadine or levocetirizine in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the course of treatment in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (AR) treated with montelukast, levocetirizine, or desloratadine alone or combinations of antihistamine and montelukast.

METHODS

A 32-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-armed study in 40 adult patients with history of persistent AR, clinical allergy to house-dust mites, and a total nasal symptom score of at least 5 (congestion of at least 2) has been performed. Patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nonallergic rhinitis with clinical allergy associated with seasonal allergens, and other serious diseases were excluded. There were four 6-week treatment periods separated by 2-week washout periods. Twenty patients received either montelukast or antihistamine, a combination of montelukast and antihistamine, or placebo. The sequence of treatment was randomly assigned. Nasal symptoms were assessed using a 4-point scale at baseline, daily during the 1st week and on days 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 of treatment.

RESULTS

Montelukast alone, levocetirizine alone, desloratadine alone, and the montelukast/antihistamine combinations significantly improved nasal symptoms during the first 24 hours. Improvement gradually increased during the 6 weeks of treatment, especially in patients receiving montelukast alone or in combination therapy with the antihistamine in both arms. Improvement at 42 days of treatment was significantly greater than that achieved on the 1st day of therapy in patients treated with the combination of montelukast and levocetirizine.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines gave a gradual increase in nasal symptom improvement within 6 weeks of treatment in patients with persistent AR.