Comparative efficacy of azelastine nasal spray and terfenadine in seasonal and perennial rhinitis

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.

Recent pharmacological developments in the treatment of perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a major negative impact on patients' quality of life (QoL) and carries a high socio economic burden. This is particularly the case for patients who experience symptoms for extended periods of time (i.e. those with perennial (PAR) or persistent AR (PER), depending on the classification system used). This review covers available pharmacological advances and recent developments in the treatment of PAR or PER.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacological AR treatment is used to reduce symptom burden and help restore patients' normal daily routine. Traditionally, non-sedating antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) were the two drug classes recommended for use first line. These, along with antileukotrienes, decongestants, mast cell stabilizers and anticholinergics, constituted the bulk of the AR treatment arsenal. MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Solna, Sweden) is the most recent addition to that arsenal. It is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered in a single spray and has surpassed available therapies in terms of symptom control and treatment response. Other relatively new treatments for PAR or PER include H3 antihistamines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, cellulose powders and micro-emulsions, novel biomolecular formulations and omalizumab. Each of these new additions is reviewed here.

EXPERT OPINION

A new AR drug class has recently been introduced (i.e. RO1AD58). Currently MP-AzeFlu is the only treatment option within this drug class. It can be estimated that combination treatments like MP-AzeFlu will become the mainstay of PAR and PER therapy since use will result in better compliance, improved efficacy over INS and a faster response together with good levels of tolerability. The challenge is to find other equally, or more effective, combination treatments, as has been the therapeutic standard in bronchial asthma for decades. The potential of biologics, as well as TLR-agonists and other new treatment options needs to be further evaluated.

Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database.

PATIENTS

Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46).

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Histamine skin test reactivity following single and multiple doses of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether azelastine nasal spray suppresses the dermal response to epicutaneous histamine in allergic patients and the duration of suppression after azelastine use is discontinued.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were entered into this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril twice daily) or placebo nasal spray for 14 days. Skin tests were performed 5 hours after the first dose of study drugs to determine the effect of a single dose of azelastine nasal spray on the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. At the end of the 14-day treatment period, skin tests were performed 5 hours after the last dose of study drugs and at 24-hour intervals thereafter, until each patient's wheal-and-flare response to histamine (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL) returned to within 20% of baseline values.

RESULTS

A single dose of azelastine nasal spray did not significantly alter the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. The wheal response was within 20% of the baseline value in 82% and 88% (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL of histamine, respectively) of the patients 5 hours after discontinuing 14 days of treatment with azelastine nasal spray. Wheal responses were within 20% of baseline values 48 hours after treatment was discontinued, whereas flare responses returned to within 20% of baseline within 48 hours in 92% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Azelastine nasal spray should be discontinued for at least 48 hours before beginning allergy skin test procedures.

Topical azelastine in perennial allergic conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

Azelastine is a selective H(1)-receptor antagonist that inhibits histamine release and interferes with activation of several other mediators of allergic inflammation. Together with demonstrated efficacy in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, azelastine indicated a therapeutic potential for perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC). The present study aimed to evaluate azelastine eye drops in patients with PAC compared to placebo.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multinational trial in 22 centres randomised 139 patients to twice-daily treatment for 6 weeks with masked 0.05% azelastine eye drops, matching masked placebo, or open-label levocabastine. Randomisation required a sum itching and conjunctival redness score of at least 3 (0-6 scale) after 1 week of placebo. The change in sum score was evaluated during treatment.

RESULTS

Azelastine significantly improved itching and conjunctival redness compared to placebo (p < 0.001) with global tolerability that was not substantially different from placebo. On day 7, the mean symptoms sum score improved with azelastine by 1.9 +/- 1.1 and with levocabastine by 1.5 +/- 1.2 compared to placebo (0.6 +/- 1.1) from baseline values of 3.7-3.8. The sum scores continued to improve up to day 42. Daily patient logs confirmed the clinically assessed scores. Most frequent adverse events following azelastine were bitter taste and application site reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical azelastine progressively improved itching and conjunctival redness in PAC patients compared to placebo and was at least as effective as levocabastine. Rapid relief is consistent with H(1)-receptor antagonist action, while continued improvement up to 6 weeks may be consistent with mechanisms involving other mediators of allergic inflammation.

Paediatric issues relating to the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis in children has risen significantly over the last two decades. Important comorbidities like asthma have grown in parallel due to a complex mix of environmental and genetic factors. These conditions have similar allergic inflammatory mechanisms, which raises the possibility of treating both conditions by targeting shared inflammatory mediators pharmacologically. The first line treatment for paediatric allergic rhinitis is a topical nasal corticosteroid or a non-sedating antihistamine. Available intranasal corticosteroids show superior symptom control to second-generation antihistamines. However, most topical steroids and non-sedating antihistamines have equivalent clinical efficacy within their respective classes, so the choice of agent depends on safety and tolerability. Ideally, topical nasal steroids should exhibit high local receptor binding affinity and low systemic bioavailability, allied with a lack of long-term growth suppression in children and adolescents. Regular use of topical steroids is advisable, but intermittent and prophylactic use is also effective. Second-generation antihistamines are effective and some have no adverse cardiac or sedative effects. Non-sedating antihistamine treatment can ameliorate rhinitis-induced decrements in learning. alpha-Adrenergic nasal decongestants provide short-term benefit, but topical agents can cause rebound symptoms. Prophylactic treatment with chromones is safe and effective, but multiple daily dosing is needed. Ipratroprium bromide nasal spray is useful as an intermittent therapy for mild disease or as add-on treatment, but its effect is limited to the control of rhinorrhoea. Children with allergic rhinitis should receive pharmacotherapy if allergen avoidance measures are ineffective, ideally with a topical intranasal steroid or a second-generation antihistamine.

Comparison of the effects of fluticasone propionate, aqueous nasal spray and levocabastine on inflammatory cells in nasal lavage and clinical activity during the pollen season in seasonal rhinitics

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for allergic rhinitis include antihistamines, decongestants, anticholinergics, cromolyn sodium and corticosteroids. As the nose is a small organ, comprising less than 1% of total body mass and surface area, it seems logical to confine treatment of rhinitis to the diseased organ.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of therapy with intranasal fluticasone propionate (FP), both on subjective symptoms and pathophysiological mechanisms, in rhinitis patients during pollen season when the patients were symptomatic.

METHODS

We used a double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled, randomized, double dummy, parallel group study of the effect of 6 weeks treatment. The double-blind comparison was made between the following three treatments: FP aqueous nasal spray, 200 microg taken once daily, levocabastine (LEV) nasal spray, 200 microg taken twice daily and PLA nasal spray. Clinical evaluation and the levels of cells and mediators in nasal washing were performed before and after treatments. Twenty-four patients (11 men and 13 women, aged 17-50 years, mean age 30.1 +/- 8.5) with strictly seasonal allergic rhinitis to Parietaria entered the study. Clinical evaluation and the levels of inflammatory cells (eosinophils and activated eosinophils, i.e. EG2+) and their mediators (tryptase, eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil protein X and neutrophil myeloperoxidase) in nasal-lavage were performed before and after treatments.

RESULTS

Treatment with FP significantly increased, with respect to placebo, the percentage of days without sneezing (P < 0. 001), nasal blockage (P < 0.001), rhinorrhea (P < 0.001), nasal itching (P < 0.001). Furthermore, treatment with FP showed additional benefits with respect to LEV. The percentage of days without nasal blockage was significantly higher in the FP group that in the placebo group (P = 0.018). The same applied to rhinorrhea (P = 0.009). The percentages of days without sneezing and itching were instead not significantly different between the two groups. As expected, no significant differences were observed in baseline medians of the rhinitis symptom scores as well as in mean values of all mediators and eosinophils in nasal lavages of the various groups under study. After treatment the mean of subjective symptoms as well as all values in nasal lavage level fell significantly only in the FP group, whereas no significant changes were observed either in LEV or PLA groups. Accordingly, significant differences were observed at the end of the treatments between the values of fluticasone group vs LEV and PLA group values. Significant correlations between these values and symptom scores were found, according with literature data suggesting a pathogenetic role for these mediators and eosinophils in rhinitis.

CONCLUSION

FP (200 microg once daily) affords a significant degree of improvement in rhinitis control during pollen season, as measured by subjective and objective parameters, compared with LEV (200 microg twice daily) and PLA. The therapeutic benefits of intranasal FP are reflected in, and may be caused by, the decrease in nasal inflammatory cells.

Management of allergic rhinitis with a combination antihistamine/anti-inflammatory agent

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistamine treatment for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Besides histamine antagonism, azelastine affects other chemical mediators of the inflammatory response including leukotrienes and kinins. This article reviews and discusses the antihistaminic and anti-inflammatory properties of azelastine and the results of pharmacokinetic studies and controlled clinical trials.

The effect of antiallergic intranasal formulations on ciliary beat frequency of human nasal epithelium in vitro

The nasal mucociliary clearance is an important defense mechanism of the upper respiratory tract. It is known to be influenced by many pharmacologic substances. We investigated the effects of three topical intranasal antiallergic formulations containing disodium cromoglycate (DNCG), dimethindene maleate (DMM), and azelastine-HCL (AZL) on nasal ciliary beat frequency (CBF) in vitro. Nasal ciliated cells were harvested from 16 healthy volunteers. Cells were diluted 1:10 in culture medium and incubated with a placebo formulation (PLAC), containing 0.022% benzalkonium chloride, which was part of all formulations, a registered 2% formulation of DNCG, a 0.1% formulation of DMM, and a registered 0.1% formulation of AZL. After an incubation period of 20 min, CBF was registered by a photoelectric measurement device. Under control conditions (CONTROL), CBF was 11.4 +/- 1.3 Hz. PLAC reduced CBF to 9.7 +/- 2.3 Hz (NS). DNCG reduced CBF to 9.7 +/- 2 Hz (NS). DMM reduced CBF to 7.2 +/- 1.7 Hz (P < or = 0.05 vs CONTROL, NS vs PLAC), and AZL reduced CBF to 0.9 +/- 1.8 Hz (P < or = 0.001 vs CONTROL, P < or = 0.001 vs DNCG, P < or = 0.001 vs PLAC). In conclusion, a possible influence of antiallergic intranasal formulations on nasal ciliary function has to be considered in clinical application.

Intranasal azelastine. A review of its efficacy in the management of allergic rhinitis

Azelastine, a phthalazinone compound, is a second generation histamine H1 receptor antagonist which has shown clinical efficacy in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinitis when administered as either an oral or intranasal formulation. It is thought to improve both the early and late phase symptoms of rhinitis through a combination of antihistaminic, antiallergic and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Symptom improvements are evident as early as 30 minutes, after intranasal administration of azelastine [2 puffs per nostril (0.56mg)] and are apparent for up to 12 hours in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The effect on nasal blockage is variable: in some studies objective and/or subjective assessment showed a reduction in blockage, whereas in other studies there was no improvement. Intranasal azelastine 1 puff per nostril twice daily is generally as effective as standard doses of other antihistamine agents including intranasal levocabastine and oral cetirizine, ebastine, loratadine and terfenadine at reducing the overall symptoms of rhinitis. The relative efficacies of azelastine and intranasal corticosteroids (beclomethasone and budesonide) remain unclear. However, overall, the corticosteroids tended to improve rhinitis symptoms to a greater extent than the antihistamine. Azelastine was well tolerated in clinical trials and postmarketing surveys. The most frequently reported adverse events were bitter taste, application site irritation and rhinitis. The incidence of sedation did not differ significantly between azelastine and placebo recipients and preliminary report showed cardiovascular parameters were not significantly altered in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily intranasal azelastine offers an effective and well tolerated alternative to other antihistamine agents currently recommended for the symptomatic relief of mild to severe SAR and PAR in adults and children (aged > or = 12 years in the US; aged > or = 6 years in some European countries including the UK). The rapid onset, confined topical activity and reduced sedation demonstrated by the intranasal formulation of azelastine may offer an advantage over other antihistamine agents, although this has yet to be confirmed.

A randomized double-blind placebo controlled study of azelastine nasal spray in children with perennial rhinitis

One hundred and twenty five children (median age 8.71 years) suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis were treated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group study comparing azelastine nasal spray 0.14 mg/nostril twice daily (0.56 mg/day) and placebo nasal spray. Medication was given for a period of 6 weeks which followed a 2 week placebo washout period in all patients. Subjects were aged between 5 and 12 and were skin prick positive to either house dust mites and/or cat or dog dander. Concomitant anti allergic treatment was not permitted during the study. Severity of rhinitis symptoms was scored daily by the child or his/her parents on a diary card using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for each evaluated symptom: 0, absent-100, could not be worse. Mean weekly scores were calculated. Symptoms evaluated were: sneezing, nasal blockage, nasal itch and rhinorrhea. In addition, at each clinic visit the investigator evaluated symptoms using a verbal score of 0, no symptom-3, severe. Compared to the baseline, for each of the six study weeks, the reduction in the VAS scores for all four symptoms was statistically greater for the azelastine group compared to the placebo group. The investigator's assessment at clinic visits bore out these results. Both azelastine nasal spray and placebo were well tolerated, no serious adverse events were reported. During the treatment phase of the study a total of 36 adverse events were reported by 25 patients (azelastine 10, placebo 15). The most frequently occurring events were pharyngitis (azelastine 5, placebo 3), cough (azelastine 3, placebo 1) and bronchitis (azelastine 1, placebo 3). In conclusion, azelastine has been shown to be effective in the treatment of perennial rhinitis in children aged 5-12 years and to be superior to placebo in the relief of all symptoms assessed, namely sneezing, nasal blockage, nasal itch and rhinorrhea.

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of two concentrations of azelastine eye drops in seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine eye drops twice daily administered for 14 days to patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. A total of 278 patients were recruited and 226 patients were evaluable for per protocol analysis. The target parameter was the response rate. Four eye symptoms, including the main symptom (itching) were recorded by patients in diaries and eight symptoms were assessed by physicians before and after seven and 14 days of treatment. Severity of symptoms was measured on a four-point scale. The response rates for itching (improvement of at least one score point within the first three days) according to patient assessment were 43% for placebo, 52% for 0.025% and 56% for 0.05% azelastine (NS). However, a more objective assessment of the three main eye symptoms by physicians showed a concentration-dependent improvement in response rate compared with placebo (a decrease of > or = 3 points from a baseline total score of > or = 6), which reached statistical significance for 0.05% azelastine on Day 7 (p < 0.002). In the evaluable patient population, the scores of the three main eye symptoms as well as of all eight recorded eye symptoms, as assessed by the physician, were significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the 0.05% azelastine eye drops group in comparison with the placebo group at Day 7. Inefficacy was the cause of withdrawal in five and three patients on 0.025% and 0.05% azelastine, respectively, and in six patients on placebo. Adverse drug effects, mainly a mild, transient irritation and a bitter or unpleasant taste, were reported by 14% (0.025%), 20% (0.05%) and 15% (placebo) of the patients. No serious side-effects occurred. Azelastine eye drops are effective and well tolerated at a concentration of 0.05% for the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Antihistamines: topical vs oral administration

The pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis is complex, involving not only histamine and mast cell-derived tryptase, but also eosinophil- and neutrophil-derived mediators, cytokines, and intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAM-1). It is surprising that antihistamines, which block only one component of the process, have proved so effective in the management of allergic rhinitis. Research has therefore focused on whether antihistamines have additional pharmacological activities. In vitro studies have shown that high concentrations of second generation antihistamines can block inflammatory mediator release from basophils and mast cells, and reduce ICAM-1 expression in epithelial cell lines. In vivo studies have also shown an effect on the allergen-induced inflammatory reaction; both oral and intranasal antihistamines cause a reduction in nasal symptoms and inflammatory cell influx. Oral terfenadine and cetirizine and intranasal levocabastine and azelastine have also demonstrated a lowering of ICAM-1 expression on epithelial cells. With regard to clinical efficacy, topical levocabastine (0.5 mg/mL eye drop solution and 0.5 mg/mL nasal spray) was shown to be more effective than oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily) in relieving ocular itch (P = 0.02) and reducing nasal symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In a further study, levocabastine eye drops were as effective and well tolerated as sodium cromoglycate in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Intranasal azelastine (0.28 mg twice daily) showed a trend for superior relief of rhinorrhoea and nasal obstruction compared with oral terfenadine (60 mg twice daily). In addition, intranasal azelastine (0.28 mg twice daily) resulted in significant reductions in sneezing, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea and itching in perennial rhinitis, compared with the lower efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate (0.1 mg twice daily). As well as benefits in efficacy, topical administration is associated with improved safety. Some antihistamines, particularly those metabolized in the liver, are associated with occasional reports of severe side-effects. It is therefore logical to administer antihistamines directly to the target organ.