Effects of intranasal azelastine on the response to nasal allergen challenge

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Proton Pump Inhibitors Combined with Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

Background:To explore whether combined with TCM based on classical proton pumpinhibitors PPIs therapy can achieve better efficacy for patients withlaryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Methods: There were 150 laryngopharyngeal refluxpatients enrolled and divided into three groups randomly, with 50 cases in each group.Patients in group A were treated with the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) lansoprazole.Patients in group B were treated with lansoprazole combined with Banxia Houpudecoction, and patients in group C were treated with acupuncture treatments and acombination of Chinese and Western medicine. The reflux symptom index (RSI), refluxfinding score (RFS), and quality of life (36 item short form health survey questionnaire)were assessed before and 4 and 8 weeks after treatment. Results: The RSI and RFSscores of the three groups were significantly reduced after treatment (P < 0.001). Ingroup B and C, they were lower than in group A at 8 weeks (P < 0.01). The SF 36 scoreof 3 groups increased after treatment. At both 4 and 8 weeks (P < 0.001), and patientsin groups B and C scored higher than patients in group A (P < 0.001). The total effectiverate of group B and group C was higher than that of group A (P < 0.05). Conclusion:All three treatments have therapeutic effects on the disease, but the efficacy of a PPIalone is not as good as the combined treatments’ efficacies. Moreover, PPI combinedwith Banxia Houpu decoction and/or acupuncture treatment substantially affects lifeimprovement.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

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.

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.

Azelastine and budesonide (nasal sprays): Effect of combination therapy monitored by acoustic rhinometry and clinical symptom score in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

The aim of this study was to objectively evaluate the effects of intranasal therapy with azelastine (AZE), budesonide (BUD), and combined AZE plus BUD (AZE/BUD) using a nasal provocation test (NPT) and acoustic rhinometry in patients with allergic rhinitis. A randomized, single-blind, crossover study with three treatment sequences was used. Thirty patients with persistent AR received the three treatments using a nasal spray twice daily for 30 days and were evaluated by an NPT with histamine before and after each period of treatment. The treatment comparison, assessed by the nasal responsiveness to histamine, was monitored based on subjective (symptom score) and objective parameters (acoustic rhinometry). The minimal cross-area 2 (MCA2) was measured by acoustic rhinometry at 1, 4, 8, and 12 minutes after NPT for each histamine concentration administered (0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 mg/mL) up to at least a 20% reduction in the MCA2 from baseline (NPT₂₀). The subjects were scored regarding nasal response encompassing histamine dose and time after histamine administration that caused nasal obstruction (NPT₂₀ score) to assess the treatments' effects. Combination therapy produced a significant increase in baseline MCA2, viz., the improvement of nasal patency (p = 0.005). The symptoms score was significantly decreased after treatment with AZE (p = 0.03), BUD (p < 0.0001), and AZE/BUD (p < 0.0001), compared with pretreatment. The NPT₂₀ score was significantly higher (p = 0.0009) after AZE/BUD, compared with AZE and BUD on their own. Thus, AZE therapy combined with BUD might provide more therapeutic benefits than the isolated drugs for improving nasal patency.

A proof-of-concept study of the effect of a novel H3-receptor antagonist in allergen-induced nasal congestion

BACKGROUND

H1-receptor inverse agonists are used effectively for treating several symptoms of allergic rhinitis, including nasal itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing, although most agents are not very effective in treating nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the relative efficacy of a novel selective H3-receptor antagonist, JNJ-39220675, in preventing nasal congestion induced by exposing participants with ragweed allergy to ragweed allergen in an environmental exposure chamber model.

METHODS

In this single-dose, patient-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled, phase IIa cross-over study, 53 participants were randomized to JNJ-39220675 plus placebo, placebo plus pseudoephedrine, or only placebo. The primary efficacy assessment was change in nasal patency assessed by measuring the minimal cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by using acoustic rhinometry. Secondary assessment included total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) over the 8-hour environmental exposure chamber exposure period.

RESULTS

Smaller decreases in minimal cross-sectional area were observed after JNJ-39220675 (least square mean difference, -0.126; P = .06) and pseudoephedrine (least square mean difference, -0.195; P = .004) treatment compared with placebo. The means for the baseline-adjusted area under the curve of TNSSs were significantly smaller for JNJ-39220675 (P = .0003) and pseudoephedrine (P = .04) versus placebo. JNJ-39220675 was significantly effective in treating all 4 individual symptoms (P ≤ .05 for all scores) compared with placebo, whereas pseudoephedrine only showed a trend for improvement in individual symptom scores of the TNSS. Insomnia was the most frequent adverse event (17.3%) associated with JNJ-39220675 treatment.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic treatment with the H3-antagonist JNJ-39220675 relieved allergen-induced nasal congestion by using standard nasal symptom scoring; however, in contrast to pseudoephedrine, it only showed a trend for increasing nasal patency by using objective measures.

Evidence of Maxillary Sinus Inflammation in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Objective. Allergic rhinitis has been frequently associated with both acute and chronic sinusitis. Previous studies have shown an influx of eosinophils into the maxillary sinus after nasal challenge with allergen. The objective of this study was to determine, in humans, if the development of seasonal allergic inflammation, secondary to natural allergen exposure, leads to similar inflammation within the maxillary sinus.

Study Design. Prospective, longitudinal study.

Setting. Academic medical center and research laboratory.

Subjects and Methods. Eighteen subjects were evaluated in and out of the ragweed allergy season using subjective measures (nasal symptoms, quality of life), nasal secretory response to methacholine challenge, and evaluation of biomarkers in nasal and sinus lavages.

Results. The subjects became symptomatic during the season and reported worse quality of life and increased nasal reactivity to methacholine. The total number of eosinophils obtained by nasal lavage during the season (median= 35,691) was significantly higher compared with out of season (median = 2811, P ≤ .02). Similarly, there were significantly more eosinophils, albeit to a lesser magnitude, in the maxillary sinus during the season (median = 4248) compared with the out-of-season samples (median = 370, P ≤ .02).

Conclusion. The authors provide evidence that natural exposure to pollen during an individual’s allergy season leads to both nasal and sinus inflammation, strengthening the association between allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The mechanism of this inflammatory response needs to be elucidated.

Local cytokines and clinical symptoms in children with allergic rhinitis after different treatments

Background

Therapy for allergic rhinitis aims to control symptoms and improve the quality of life. The treatment of allergic rhinitis includes allergen avoidance, environmental controls, pharmacologic treatment, and specific immunotherapy.

Objectives

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical changes and the levels of interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and interleukin-5 (IL-5) in nasal lavage fluid from children with allergic rhinitis after different types of pharmacologic treatment (mometasone, montelukast, or desloratadine).

Methods

Twenty-four children aged from six to 12 years with moderate persistent allergic rhinitis were randomized into three groups receiving monotherapy treatment over four weeks: nasal corticosteroid (mometasone), leukotriene modifier (montelukast), or antihistamine (desloratadine). The perception of symptom improvement during the medication use was evaluated at the end of the treatment. Samples of nasal lavage fluid were collected before and after treatment for measuring IFN-γ and IL-5 cytokines by ELISA.

Results

All parents perceived an improvement in symptoms. Significant enhancement was seen in the mometasone group compared to those with montelukast (P = 0.01) and desloratadine (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found among the three groups in the levels of IL-5 and IFN-γ in nasal fluid at baseline or after treatment. Only the group treated with mometasone showed a slight but significant reduction in IL-5 levels after the treatment period as compared with levels before the treatment (P = 0.0469).

Conclusion

The group treated with mometasone showed better improvement of clinical symptoms and a slight reduction in IL-5 levels in the nasal fluid. This may indirectly reflect the relative immunomodulatory effects of the drugs tested.

The effects of the nasal antihistamines olopatadine and azelastine in nasal allergen provocation

BACKGROUND

Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model.

METHODS

The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids.

RESULTS

Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.

Use of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of congestion and sleep disturbance in pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis affects a large number of children and exerts a considerable socioeconomic impact. It is underdiagnosed and inadequately treated, which predisposes children to potentially serious comorbidities. Allergic rhinitis symptoms may create nighttime breathing problems and sleep disturbances and have a negative effect on a child's ability to learn in the classroom. Although antihistamines have shown efficacy in relieving many symptoms, they have little effect on nasal congestion. This article summarizes the advantages of intranasal corticosteroids, including their effectiveness against congestion and excellent safety profile. Intranasal corticosteroids with minimal systemic bioavailability provide topical drug delivery that minimizes the potential for systemic side-effects.

Nasal ocular reflexes and eye symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic patients often complain of eye symptoms during the allergy season. A possible mechanism for these eye symptoms is a nasal ocular reflex.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate eye symptoms after nasal allergen challenge.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, clinical trial, 20 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were challenged in 1 nostril with antigen, and the response was monitored in both nostrils and in both eyes. Symptoms were recorded. Filter paper disks (intranasally) and Schirmer strips (intraocularly) were used for collecting secretions, which were subsequently eluted for the measurement of histamine and albumin levels. Patients were treated once topically at the site of challenge with azelastine or placebo.

RESULTS

After placebo treatment, ipsilateral nasal challenge caused nasal symptoms and an increase in secretion weights; both were blocked by treatment with azelastine. Histamine and albumin levels increased only at the site of nasal challenge. Azelastine pretreatment inhibited the increase in albumin but not histamine levels. Symptoms of itchy and watery eyes increased significantly compared with symptoms with sham challenge after nasal allergen and were blocked by azelastine use. Ocular secretion weights increased bilaterally after placebo use and were not inhibited by azelastine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal allergen challenge releases histamine at the site of the challenge, which probably initiates a nasonasal and a nasal ocular reflex. This reflex is reduced by an H1-receptor antagonist applied at the site of the challenge. The eye symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis probably arise, in part, from a naso-ocular reflex.

The importance of rhinitis on sleep, daytime somnolence, productivity and fatigue

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of treatment of allergic rhinitis should include improvement of daytime and nighttime symptoms, sleep, and quality of life. Congestion from allergic rhinitis is associated with decreased learning and productivity at work and school and a reduced quality of life. The release of inflammatory mediators and activation of inflammatory cells results in nasal congestion, causing disrupted sleep and subsequent daytime somnolence.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review presents evidence that allergic rhinitis causes sleep disruption, and discusses the pathophysiology of this process. The medications used to treat allergic rhinitis and their ability to improve sleep in patients with allergic rhinitis are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Some allergic rhinitis medications can be sedating; therefore, it is important to treat allergic rhinitis with medications that improve symptoms while producing few adverse effects. Medications such as the second-generation antihistamines and anticholinergic drugs are well tolerated, but have little effect on congestion. Intranasal corticosteroids reduce congestion, improve sleep and sleep problems, and reduce daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and inflammation. Recently, montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, has been added to the therapies approved for allergic rhinitis. Montelukast significantly improves both daytime and nighttime symptoms.

Experimental models for the evaluation of treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experimental models used for the clinical evaluation of treatments for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed clinical studies and review articles were selected from the PubMed database using the following relevant keywords: allergic rhinitis in combination with efficacy, wheal and flare, nasal challenge, park, cat room, or exposure unit. Regulatory guidance documents on allergic rhinitis were also included.

STUDY SELECTION

The authors' knowledge of the field was used to limit references with emphasis on recent randomized and controlled studies. References of historical significance were also included.

RESULTS

Traditional outpatient studies are universally accepted in the evaluation of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Experimental models provide ancillary information on efficacy at different stages of treatment development. Skin histamine and allergen challenge, as well as direct nasal challenge with histamine and allergen, are often used as early steps in assessing drug efficacy. Exposure units, park settings, and cat rooms better approximate real life by drawing on the natural mode of allergen exposure and delivering the sensitizing allergen to allergic individuals in the ambient air. Park studies make use of allergens in the outdoors, whereas cat rooms and exposure units present the sensitizing allergens indoors, with the latter providing consistent predetermined allergen levels. Exposure unit and park studies are acknowledged for the determination of onset of action and are also suited to the measurement of duration of effect and other measures of efficacy. Onset and duration of effect are 2 important pharmacodynamic properties of antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as determined by the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma and the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology workshop group.

CONCLUSIONS

All challenge models serve as important instruments in the evaluation of antiallergic medications and provide additional information to complement traditional studies.

An evaluation of peripheral blood eosinophil/basophil progenitors following nasal allergen challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a single nasal allergen challenge on peripheral blood eosinophil/basophil (Eo/B) progenitor cells and induced sputum eosinophil counts in subjects with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Sixteen adults entered a sequential nasal control and allergen challenge study, outside the pollen season. Blind assessment of peripheral blood Eo/B progenitor colony forming units (CFU), induced sputum and nasal lavage cell counts was made before and 24 h after both challenges. Subjects recorded their rhinitis symptoms and nasal peak inspiratory flow, hourly at home, following both challenges.

RESULTS

When comparing the values 24 h after the control vs. the allergen challenge, there were no significant differences in Eo/B progenitor CFU (control (mean, SD): 3.6 (1.0)/10(6) cells; allergen: 4.4 (1.1)/10(6) cells) or sputum eosinophils (control (median, inter-quartile range): 1.0 (0.3-1.7)%; allergen: 0.7 (0.0-1.3)%) despite a significant increase in the percentage (median (inter-quartile range) of eosinophils in nasal lavage (control: 0.6 (0.1-0.9)%; allergen; 1.9 (0.9-8.1)% and significant worsening of nasal peak inspiratory flow and rhinitis symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a significant increase in nasal symptoms and lavage eosinophil counts, a single nasal allergen challenge was not sufficient to elicit a measurable haemopoietic response in circulation, or an increase in sputum eosinophil counts.

Influences of allergic rhinitis on sleep

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is classically characterized by sneezing, pruritus, rhinorrhea, and nasal congestion. These symptoms can lead to impaired nocturnal sleep, and this impairment results in daytime fatigue and somnolence, reducing both learning and work efficiency and decreasing quality of life.

STUDY DESIGN

In addition, the mediators of AR, including histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines, and prostaglandins, may play a role in sleep regulation and, thus, may be directly involved in this impairment independent of nasal obstruction. Recumbency and/or diurnal variation augments turbinate swelling, causing nasal blockage during nocturnal sleep. Medications directed toward reversal of nasal congestion often concomitantly work through suppression of inflammatory mediators and constitute the primary therapy for sleep disturbance associated with allergic rhinitis. Some pharmaceutical interventions that reduce nasal congestion have adverse effects on sleep. Decongestants effectively reduce nasal congestion but frequently produce stimulatory effects and even insomnia. Antihistamines reduce sneezing and pruritus, but are less effective in relieving congestion. Earlier, "first-generation" antihistamines are associated with significant sedation. They also have anticholinergic properties, which can cause dry mouth and make mouth breathing even more uncomfortable in the allergic individual with nasal obstruction. The absence of anticholinergic properties in second-generation, largely nonsedating antihistamines limits their efficacy in rhinorrhea. Azelastine, a topical antihistamine, significantly reduces rhinorrhea and congestion and improves subjective sleep quality, but is also associated with increased sedation. Intranasal corticosteroids and oral leukotriene receptor antagonists effectively reduce rhinorrhea, congestion, and inflammatory mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of these medications at improving subjective sleep quality has been established through multiple randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Cytokine expression in allergic inflammation: systematic review of in vivo challenge studies

BACKGROUND

Allergic inflammatory responses are driven by cells of the immune system that rely on cytokines to regulate the activity of other immune and structural cells.

OBJECTIVE

To review published studies to (1) identify cytokines consistently increased after allergen challenge in atopic patients and (2) investigate temporal variation in cytokine expression.

METHODS

A PUBMED systematic search was used to extract data from studies involving analysis of cytokine expression in fluids or biopsies following in vivo allergen challenge in atopic patients.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 82 studies. There were no consistent reports of cytokine protein increase in fluids of patients at 0-1 h after challenge. At 4-12 h, the chemokines eotaxin, macrophage inflammatory protein-1alpha, RANTES (regulated on activation normal T cell expressed and secreted) and interleukin (IL)-8 have all been consistently reported to be up-regulated. At 18-24 h after challenge, the lymphokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13, as well as the pro-inflammatory cytokines granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and IL-6 are consistently increased when compared with the respective control value. There were no reports of up-regulation in interferon-gamma protein and mRNA and in IL-2 mRNA.

CONCLUSION

The expression of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor is consistently increased in tissues at 4-12 h after challenge. The influence of this cytokine on antigen capture and presentation by dendritic cells should be further investigated. Additionally, allergen challenge studies are needed that investigate the expression of macrophage-derived chemokine and thymus-regulated and activation-regulated chemokine in tissues of atopic patients. Blocking the effects of these lymphocyte-specific chemokines might provide new therapeutic approaches for the control of allergic inflammation.