Effects of intranasal corticosteroid on nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge in persistent allergic rhinitis

WITHDRAWN: Topical steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

Review withdrawn from Issue 4, 2016. Replaced by new reviews 'Intranasal steroids versus placebo or no intervention for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016a) and 'Different types of intranasal steroids for chronic rhinosinusitis' (Chong 2016b).

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Effects of intranasal salmeterol and fluticasone given alone and in combination in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

β(2)-Agonists have previously been shown to be effective inhibitors of mediator release from airway mucosal mast cells.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of intranasal salmeterol and fluticasone propionate alone and in combination on the response to nasal adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge to assess mast cell activation.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with persistent allergic rhinitis completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-way crossover trial. They received once daily treatment with placebo, salmeterol, 50 μg, fluticasone propionate, 500 μg, or fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination, 500/50 μg, delivered via an antistatic spacer with nasal adapter for 1 week each, with trough measurements being made 12 hours after the first and last dose. The primary outcome was the maximum percentage decrease in peak nasal inspiratory flow after nasal AMP challenge.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome there was significant protection after single and long-term dosing with fluticasone alone and fluticasone-salmeterol combination, whereas salmeterol alone only afforded protection after the first dose. Fluticasone-salmeterol combination and fluticasone but not salmeterol conferred significant chronic dosing effects on secondary outcomes of nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life. There was no potentiation of the response to fluticasone by salmeterol on any outcomes when given in combination.

CONCLUSION

Chronic dosing with fluticasone but not salmeterol confers anti-inflammatory activity against nasal AMP challenge, but there was no potentiation of fluticasone when given in combination with salmeterol. Thus, salmeterol may not be an effective treatment for use in allergic rhinitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01388595.

Topical steroid for chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroid is used as part of a comprehensive medical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) without polyps. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to show a clear overall benefit. Trials studying the efficacy of topical corticosteroid use various delivery methods in patients who have or have not had sinus surgery, which directly impacts on topical delivery and distribution.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical steroid in patients with CRS without nasal polyps and perform a meta-analysis of symptom improvement data, including subgroup analysis by sinus surgery status and topical delivery methods.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 9 July 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials in which a topically administered corticosteroid was compared with either a placebo, no treatment or alternative topically administered corticosteroid for the treatment of CRS without polyps in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed the search results and selected trials meeting the eligibility criteria, obtaining full texts and contacting authors where necessary. We documented our justification for the exclusion of studies. Two authors extracted data using a pre-determined standardised data form.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (590 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The trials were of low (six trials) and medium (four trials) risk of bias. The primary outcome was sino-nasal symptoms. When compared to placebo, topical steroid improved symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; five trials, n = 286) and had a greater proportion of responders (risk ratio 1.69; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.37, P = 0.002; four trials, n = 263). With a limited number of studies, the subgroup analyses of patients who had received sinus surgery versus those who had not was not significant (P = 0.35). Subgroup analyses by topical delivery method revealed more benefit when steroid was administered directly to the sinuses than with simple nasal delivery (P = 0.04). There were no differences between groups for quality of life and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical steroid is a beneficial treatment for CRS without polyps and the adverse effects are minor. It may be included in a comprehensive treatment of CRS without polyps. Direct delivery of steroid to the sinuses may bring more beneficial effect. Further studies comparing different topical drug delivery methods to the sinuses, with appropriate treatment duration (longer than 12 weeks), are required.

The minimal clinically important difference in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

When presented with results from clinical measurements or research findings, clinicians must first make an interpretation of their importance, not only in statistical terms, but also the 'clinical importance' given the size of the change observed. To do this, they require an understanding of the relationship between their outcome measures, and the patient's perception of change. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) illustrates this relationship by calculating the smallest change in a given outcome that is meaningful to a patient. There are few reports of calculated MCIDs in the Rhinology literature.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate MCIDs for common subjective and objective outcome measures in allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

Nine randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials in intermittent and persistent AR (pooled subjects, n=204) were analysed using anchor- and distribution-based approaches, applying regression and meta-analysis techniques.

RESULTS

MCIDs were obtained for the Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire: 0.4 units, peak nasal inspiratory flow: 5 L/min and total nasal symptoms score: 0.55 units. Nasal NO measurement changes had no correlation with patient perceptions of benefit.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of MCIDs were obtained for common subjective and objective rhinological outcomes. MCIDs can and should be applied by physicians interpreting research findings, as well as researchers reporting their findings. We can then be confident that our changes in practice will be of perceptible benefit to the patient.

Effect of levocetirizine on nasal provocation testing with adenosine monophosphate compared with allergen challenge in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

End-organ hyperreactivity is an important feature of the allergic airway. There are no data directly comparing the responsiveness to treatment of different nasal provocation tests (NPT).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effect of levocetirizine on nasal adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) with specific allergen challenge in patients with intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

Patients with AR were randomized in double-blind cross-over fashion to receive single doses of levocetirizine 5 mg or identical placebo, with nasal challenge performed 12 h after dosing. Sixteen participants completed per protocol. Nasal AMP or allergen challenge was conducted on separate days with 1- and 2-week washout periods in between, respectively. Measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were made over 60 min after each challenge. The primary end-point was the provocative concentration of AMP or allergen causing a 20% drop in the PNIF (PC(20)).

RESULTS

The time-profile for PNIF recovery [area under the 60 min time-response curve as % PNIF change (min)] were significantly attenuated for AMP challenge, as mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 11.57 (3.87, 19.25), P=0.005 and for allergen challenge: 17.82 (0.11, 35.53), P=0.04. A highly significant correlation was shown between methods for the area under the curve: (R=0.86, P<0.001). A statistically significant correlation was also seen for the PC(20): (R=0.94, P<0.001). PC(20) improvement amounted to a 1.26 (95% CI 0.16, 2.35) and 0.16 (95% CI -0.41, 0.73) doubling-dilution shifts for allergen and AMP challenges, respectively. Bland-Altman plots confirmed good agreement between methods.

CONCLUSION

A high correlation and statistical agreement has been demonstrated between AMP and allergen challenge for all outcome measures. In particular, the recovery profile after NPT is a sensitive and discriminatory measure of anti-allergic treatment.

Efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials

RATIONALE

Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) thus allowing for a meta-analysis to determine the overall treatment effect.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, LILACS, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases up to 31 October, 2007 was carried out. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of MFNS in patients with AR compared to placebo were included. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), individual nasal symptoms, total non-nasal symptom scores (TNNSS) and nasal airflow were analysed as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Meta-analysis was performed with the random or the fixed effect models depending on heterogeneity, by using revman 5 software.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Sixteen of the 113 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. For MFNS efficacy on TNSS, 2998 participants were analysed: 1534 received MFNS and 1464 placebo. Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a significant reduction in TNSS (SMD -0.49, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.38; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 50.1%). A significant effect on SMD for nasal stuffiness/congestion (-0.41; 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.27), rhinorrhoea (-0.44; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), sneezing (-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.23) and nasal itching (-0.39; 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.25) was also demonstrated. Mometasone furoate nasal spray treated subjects also showed a significant reduction in TNNSS (-0.30; 95% CI: -0.43 to -0.18). The proportion of patients with adverse events was similar for MFNS and placebo (0.99; 95% CI: 0.81-1.20; P = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides a level Ia evidence for the efficacy of MFSN in the treatment of AR vs placebo. Adverse events frequency was similar in both groups.

Multiallergen nasal challenges in nonallergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that some patients with nonallergic rhinitis may have "localized allergy" of the nasal mucosa. Nasal challenges with aeroallergens can help determine whether a patient is clinically allergic via an IgE-mediated pathway.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of localized allergy in patients with negative skin prick test results via nasal challenges with an array of allergens.

METHODS

Twenty individuals with perennial rhinitis and negative epicutaneous test results to common perennial aeroallergens underwent nasal challenges to glycerin, Alternaria, cockroach, timothy grass, cat hair, and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Total symptom scores, peak nasal inspiratory flow rates, and nasal eosinophil counts were determined.

RESULTS

Of 20 patients with nonallergic rhinitis, 4 were hyperresponsive to glycerin and were not subsequently challenged. Eleven patients had negative nasal challenges. Five patients developed positive challenges (total symptom score > or = 5) to 7 allergens. These 5 patients returned for nasal provocation testing to their offending allergens, and these repeated challenges were negative. Three control subjects with allergic rhinitis developed positive challenges after nasal allergen challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some individuals with nonallergic rhinitis can have positive nasal allergen challenges, these results were not reproducible in the present patient population.