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

Comparative efficacy of intranasal mometasone furoate monotherapy or combination therapy with montelukast in pediatric adenoid hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Adenoid hypertrophy (AH) is a prevalent pediatric condition associated with nasal obstruction, sleep-disordered breathing, and related comorbidities. This study evaluated comparative efficacies of Mometasone Furoate (MF) monotherapy and MF-Montelukast combination therapy in pediatric AH.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from their inception to August 22, 2024, and five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with pediatric patients (age <15 years, n = 416) with clinically diagnosed AH, managed with MF monotherapy or MF-montelukast combination therapy, were identified. Outcomes included changes in x-ray adenoids/nasopharynx ratio, endoscopic adenoid obstruction, total symptom score, and individualized symptoms scores of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, mouth breathing, and snoring. Although safety data, including neuropsychiatric adverse effects of montelukast, were of interest, they were not reported in the included studies.

RESULTS

Compared to MF-monotherapy, MF-montelukast combination therapy significantly improved (mean difference [95 % confidence interval], p-value) adenoids/nasopharynx ratio (-7.01 [-8.96 to -5.07], <0.001), total symptom score (-1.05 [-1.51 to -0.59], <0.001), rhinorrhea (-0.92 [-1.50 to -0.34], 0.002), mouth breathing (-0.67 [-1.27 to -0.08], 0.02), and endoscopic Grade 4 adenoid obstruction (relative risk 0.25 [0.07-0.84], 0.03); no intergroup differences were noted in nasal obstruction (-0.06 [-0.26 to 0.14], 0.56), snoring (-0.56 [-1.19 to 0.08], 0.08), and endoscopic Grade 3 adenoid obstruction (relative risk 0.70 [0.45-1.09], 0.11).

CONCLUSION

MF-montelukast combination therapy is superior to MF monotherapy in reducing AH symptoms. However, Montelukast has an FDA black box warning due to potential neuropsychiatric side effects, including suicidal thoughts, depression and behavioral changes. None of the included studies systematically assessed these adverse effects highlighting a critical gap in safety evaluation. High-quality RCT-based research is required to evaluate long-term efficacy, safety, dosage, and cost-effectiveness.

Efficacy and safety of various corticosteroids in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids were recommended as first-line drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) children. A variety of corticosteroids were available for clinical choice; however, which could relieve the clinical symptoms of patients to the greatest extent was currently unknown. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different corticosteroids in treating children with AR, which might provide a basis for more rational clinical treatment decisions.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched, and the retrieval time range was the time from their inception to November 2023. The literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias of included studies were completed independently by two reviewers. A frequentist NMA was performed with Stata17.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs covering 10,897 participants were included. In the improvement of reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol presented the best efficacy. Regarding the incidence of adverse reactions, mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFANS) and BDP showed a good safety profile. In terms of the influence of cortisol (urinary free cortisol, plasma cortisol) and growth, no significant difference was observed between the different groups.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that BDP nasal aerosol and FFNS had best efficacy; MFANS and BDP had the best safety profile. However, this conclusion was less convincing because of the limited numbers of patients/controls and study quality.

Nasal Disorders

Nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, and epistaxis are common presenting concerns in primary care clinics. Nasal disorders affect the quality of life for many children and families. Rarely, these complaints may represent a life-threatening condition among infant obligate nasal breathers or cases of unusual pathology. The most common causes of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction vary by age and include physiologic, infectious, allergic, foreign body, irritant, and traumatic causes. Less commonly, children may have congenital malformations, sinonasal masses, or autoimmune disease. The most common causes of epistaxis are inflammatory, environmental, and traumatic causes and medication misuse, but rarely, children may have predisposing anatomic, hematologic, or vascular abnormalities or even sinonasal tumors. In this article, we provide a thorough review of the common nasal disorders treated every day in primary care clinics and mention briefly some of the rare but serious cases that may be overlooked without considering a full differential diagnosis.

Farit NA. The Efficacy of Elonide Nasal Corticosteroids in Managing Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

Background: Mometasone furoate nasal spray is efficacious in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms. The objectives of this study were, firstly, to compare the efficacy of Elonide to Nasonex® and a placebo and secondly, to investigate the side effects of Elonide. Method: This was a prospective, single-centered, double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 163 participants from the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), were randomized into three treatment groups receiving Elonide (n = 56), Nasonex® (n = 54), and placebo (n = 53) nasal sprays using an online randomizer (Random.org). Treatment was administered for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Total Nasal Resistance (TNR), and the secondary outcomes were the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQOLQ) score. Side effects were recorded. Results: There were significant improvements for all groups from baseline. The Elonide group had the greatest mean difference for all primary and secondary outcomes compared to Nasonex® and the placebo (0.77 ± 2.44 vs. 0.35 ± 1.16, p = 1.00 vs. 0.17 ± 0.82, p = 0.01). Elonide is non-inferior to Nasonex (p = 1.00) and superior to the placebo (p < 0.05). The highest side effects reported were for Nasonex (n = 14, 26%), followed by the placebo (n = 8, 16%) and Elonide (n = 6, 12%); headaches (n = 9, 17%) and sore throat (n = 9, 17%) were the most common. Conclusions: Elonide has similar efficacy to Nasonex® when compared to a placebo in the treatment of AR in adults. Elonide is safe and tolerable, with fewer side effects and no adverse side effects.

Intranasal Schirmer Test in Allergic Rhinitis: Relationship to Symptom Scores and Role in Determining Response to Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The Intranasal Schirmer test (INS) is an easy to administer test that can yield objective measurement of the quantity of nasal secretion and has been studied in patients with various nasal and systemic pathologies; however, the role of INS in patients with allergic rhinitis remains unclear. Our aim was to determine the relationship between various allergic symptoms and the Intranasal Schirmer Test (INS) score and to evaluate the utility of INS in determining treatment effect in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This prospective study included patients with allergic rhinitis who were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups (nasal steroid only, oral antihistamine only, nasal steroid and oral antihistamine). For all patients, Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was used to measure symptom severity and INS was administered before and after treatment. Pre-treatment and post treatment TNSS and INS scores were compared between different treatment groups and within each group.

RESULTS

The study included 120 patients, with 40 patients in each group. There were significant differences both in pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity score with changes of INS scores between treatment groups (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity scores and the INS score in each treatment group (P < .001). There was also a significant positive correlation between INS score and TNSS (r = .591 and P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The Intranasal Schirmer Test can be used as an objective tool for patients with allergic rhinitis as an adjunct to subjective patient symptom reports and can also be used to determine the response to treatment.

Rhinorrhea and increased chloride secretion through the CFTR chloride channel-a systematic review

PURPOSE

Allergic and non-allergic rhinorrhea in the forms of acute or chronic rhinosinusitis can mean a watery nasal discharge that is disabling. Primary objective was to review the evidence supporting the hypothesis that rhinorrhea is due to increased chloride secretion through the CFTR chloride channel.

METHODS

The structure of the evidence review followed the EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines. Databases searched from inception to February 2022 included Pubmed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library using keywords "Rhinorrhea", "chloride", "chloride channel", "CFTR" and "randomized controlled trial". Quality assessment was according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.

RESULTS

49 articles were included. They included randomized controlled trials out of which subsets of data with the outcome of rhinorrhea on 6038 participants were analysed and in vitro and animal studies. The review revealed that drugs, which activate CFTR are associated with rhinorrhea. Viruses, which cause rhinorrhea like rhinovirus were found to activate CFTR. The chloride concentration in nasal fluid showed an increase in patients with viral upper respiratory tract infection. Increased hydrostatic tissue pressure, which is an activator of CFTR was observed in allergic upper airway inflammation. In this condition exhaled breath condensate chlorine concentration was found to be significantly increased. Drugs, which can reduce CFTR function including steroids, anti-histamines, sympathomimetic and anticholinergic drugs reduced rhinorrhea in randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

A model of CFTR activation-mediated rhinorrhea explains the effectiveness of anticholinergic, sympathomimetic, anti-histamine and steroid drugs in reducing rhinorrhea and opens up avenues for further improvement of treatment by already known specific CFTR inhibitors.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Intranasal Olopatadine: Mometasone in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal olopatadine hydrochloride-mometasone furoate (OM) combination in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: mometasone + olopatadine, GSP301, mometasone furoate, and olopatadine hydrochloride.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles published in English between January 1987 and August 2022 related to pharmacology, safety, and clinical trials were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2 phase II clinical trials, twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (QDay) intranasal OM demonstrated significant improvements in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and QDay P < 0.001) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001; QDay P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001). In 2 phase III clinical trials, BID OM showed significant improvements in rTNSS vs. placebo (P < 0.001), olopatadine monotherapy (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003), and mometasone monotherapy (P = 0.02 and P = 0.059).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

OM is indicated for treatment of SAR symptoms. Caution with use must be considered for certain high-risk patients, existing tuberculosis; fungal, bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections; or ocular herpes simplex. Due to its quick and sustained onset of action, OM may be an ideal agent for initial treatment of moderate-severe SAR for patients 12 years and older.

CONCLUSION

OM significantly improves SAR symptoms and is a viable treatment option in short-term SAR.

Therapeutic effects of intranasal tocotrienol-rich fraction on rhinitis symptoms in platelet-activating factor induced allergic rhinitis

Background

Platelet-activating factor (PAF) has been suggested to be a potent inflammatory mediator in Allergic rhinitis (AR) pathogenesis. Vitamin E, an essential nutrient that comprises tocopherol and tocotrienol, is known as a potential therapeutic agent for airway allergic inflammation. This study aimed to investigate the beneficial effects of intranasal Tocotrienol-rich fraction (TRF) on PAF-induced AR in a rat model.

Methods

Sprague Dawley rats were randomly assigned into 3 groups: Control, PAF-induced AR and PAF-induced AR with TRF treatment. To induce AR, 50 μl of 16 μg/ml PAF was nasally instilled into each nostril. From day 1 to 7 after AR induction, 10 μl of 16 μg/μl TRF was delivered intranasally to the TRF treatment group. Complete upper skulls were collected for histopathological evaluation on day 8.

Results

The average severity scores of AR were significantly higher in the PAF-induced AR rats compared to both control and PAF-induced AR with TRF treatment. The histologic examination of the nasal structures showed moderate degree of inflammation and polymorphonuclear cells infiltration in the lamina propria, mucosa damage and vascular congestion in the PAF-induced AR rats. TRF was able to ameliorate the AR symptoms by restoring the nasal structures back to normal. H&E staining demonstrated a statistically significant benefit upon TRF treatment, where minimal degree of inflammation, and a reduction in the infiltration of polymorphonuclear cells, mucosa damage and vascular congestion were observed.

Conclusion

TRF exhibited symptomatic relief action in AR potentially due to its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-allergic properties.

Allergic Rhinitis in Children and Adolescents

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder that regularly occurs in children and adolescents. The disease is associated with other allergic diseases, such as asthma, and it carries a heavy burden, with effects on sleep, school performance, and quality of life. Classic symptoms include sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal itching. When the eyes are involved, the term allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is used. Triggers may include airborne pollens, molds, dust mites, and animals. Skin or blood allergy testing can be a useful diagnostic modality that may guide therapy. Immunotherapy can prevent the development of further allergic sensitizations as well as subsequent asthma.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray (GSP301) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = - 0.99; [95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.79]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTNSS (MD = - 1.05; [95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), rTOSS (MD = - 0.50; [95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.29]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTOSS (MD = - 0.64; [95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.26]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), PNSS (MD = - 1.01; [95% CI - 1.32 to - 0.69]; P < 0.01; I² = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = - 0.43; [95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.30]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43-2.45]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run.

Combine therapy as a modern approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one the most common allergic diseases affecting from 10 to 40% of the population in different countries, including Russia. AR is a risk factor of bronchial asthma, other upper airway disease and may decrease patient quality of life, their productivity, increase probability of occupational traumatism, depression and anxiety. AR also presents a substantial economic burden. The rationale to use fixed dose combination of intranasal steroids and topical H1 antihistamines includes suboptimal control of symptoms by monotherapy, its complementary pharmacologic activity and the results of clinical trials. This review focused on fixed dose combination of intranasal mometasone furoate and olopataine. Double blind placebo-controlled and open clinical trials have confirmed that this combination decreased severity of nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal and perennial AR, improved patient quality of life and had a good tolerability. Its efficacy was higher than those of monotherapy. Fast onset of action and sustainable effect on symptoms (during 1 yr) may improve adherence patients to the treatment and control of symptoms of AR.

The subtle nuances of intranasal corticosteroids

Background

In the specialty of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for inflammatory processes within the nasal cavity. All too often, physician prescribing patterns are based on previous training, personal experience, and interactions with industry. The purpose of this commentary is to review the nuances of each intranasal corticosteroid.

Commentary

There are nine intranasal corticosteroids approved for use in Canada. Each are discussed in detail, including their indication, bioavailability, effects on intranasal environment, and factors around patient adherence. Off-label use of budesonide irrigations is also discussed and cost information is presented in reference format for all available intranasal corticosteroids.

Conclusion

Although the efficacy of each intranasal corticosteroid has been shown to be similar, prescribing should be tailored based on bioavailability, intranasal environment, and factors that impact patient adherence such as dosing, cost and tolerability.

Graphical abstract

Applying GRADE for diagnosis revealed methodological challenges: an illustrative example for guideline developers

OBJECTIVE

To identify challenges in the application of GRADE for diagnosis when assessing the certainty of evidence in the test-treatment strategy (diagnostic accuracy, test burden, management effectiveness, natural course, linked evidence) in an illustrative example and to propose solutions to these challenges.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A case study in applying GRADE for diagnosis that looked at the added value of IgE for diagnosing allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the full test-treatment strategy showed a lack of (high-quality) evidence for all elements. In our example, we found a lack of evidence for test burden, natural course, and link between the test result and clinical management. Overall, systematically reviewing the evidence for all elements of a test-treatment strategy is more time-consuming than only considering test accuracy results and management effectiveness. For increasing efficiency, the guideline panel could determine critical elements of the test-treatment strategy that need a systematic review of the evidence. For less critical elements, a guideline panel can rely on gray literature and professional expertise.

CONCLUSION

A lack of high-quality evidence and time investment if the full test-treatment strategy is assessed, creating challenges in applying GRADE for diagnosis. Discussion within guideline panels about critical elements that need to be reviewed might help.

The effect of medical treatment on nasal exhaled nitric oxide (NO) in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis: A randomized control study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the role of nasal nitric oxide (NO) in the management of patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (PER).

METHODS

It was a randomized and comparative study. The study subjects were classified as controls (healthy subjects) or patients with PER based on defined criteria. All clinical, functional and biological data were collected for analyzing. Nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was measured by electroluminescence device. Patients with PER were randomized for treatment with antihistamine (ATH) combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LRA) or only with intranasal steroids (INS).

RESULTS

During two years, 501 subjects were included: 234 control subjects and 267 patients with PER. The levels of nasal NO, total IgE, blood eosinophil counts, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in patients with PER were higher than controls (P < 0.001; P < 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; respectively). There were statistically significant correlations between nasal NO, nasal peak flows, total IgE, and blood eosinophil counts in patients with PER (R = -0.687 and P = 0.0012; R = -0.643 and P = 0.0018; R = 0.432 and P = 0.0024; R = 0.445 and P = 0.002; respectively). After 6 months of treatment, patients treated with INS had greater improvement of clinical symptoms and reduction of nasal NO values than patients treated with ATH + LRA (985 ± 253 vs. 732 ± 298 ppb; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nasal NO measurement is a useful tool for the follow-up of patients with PER. It also helps clinicians to estimate the level of response to treatment in patients with PER.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily and once-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 25 μg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 μg and mometasone 50 μg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 μg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 μg or once-daily 50 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.

Allergic Rhinitis in Children and Adolescents

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder that regularly occurs in children and adolescents. The disease is associated with other allergic diseases, such as asthma, and it carries a heavy burden, with effects on sleep, school performance, and quality of life. Classic symptoms include sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal itching. When the eyes are involved, the term allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is used. Triggers may include airborne pollens, molds, dust mites, and animals. Skin or blood allergy testing can be a useful diagnostic modality that may guide therapy. Immunotherapy can prevent the development of further allergic sensitizations as well as subsequent asthma.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 μg), mometasone (25 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Effect of topical mometasone furoate on adenoidal lymphoid tissue: a light microscopic study

Background

Adenoid hypertrophy is a common cause of upper airway obstruction, and adenoidectomy is one of the most frequently performed operations in children. Topical nasal steroids can act directly on nasopharyngeal lymphoid tissue to decrease its reactive inflammatory changes and potentially reduce its size.

Objective

To study the light microscopic changes in adenoidal lymphoid tissue after one month of topical steroid use.

Methods

Twenty-six children with adenoid hypertrophy grade 3 scheduled for adenoidectomy were randomly divided into two equal groups: one group received mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (Nasonex) 100 mcg/day for four weeks, and a control group received nasal normal saline 0.9 per cent for four weeks. The removed adenoids were examined histopathologically.

Results

Adenoidal tissue from the mometasone group had less reactive germinal centres and less spongiosis compared to the control group. The latter showed proliferating, reactive, variable sized and shaped lymphoid follicles, with congested blood vessels in the interfollicular areas.

Conclusion

The use of intranasal mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (Nasonex) for one month reduced adenoidal tissue reactive cellular changes and its vascularity. This is, however, a pilot study; a longer treatment period is needed to assess the effect of treatment on adenoidal size.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

Medical Treatment of Nasal Airway Obstruction

Nasal obstruction is a common, and potentially debilitating, problem. It is caused by a combination of structural factors and/or mucosal swelling/inflammation. The medical treatment of nasal obstruction is aimed at decreasing mucosal inflammation and edema and is generally guided by the underlying cause. Several different drug classes are commonly used in the treatment of nasal obstruction, each with different indications, and pros and cons to their use. This article discusses the most commonly used therapies for nasal obstruction. Current evidence on the efficacy and side effect profile of each therapy is reviewed.

Rhinosinusitis and Allergies in Elderly Patients

The sinonasal tract plays important roles in respiration, olfaction, and defense against external pathogens. Like many organ systems, the nose and sinuses undergo several changes with advancing age that can play a role in the development of disease. This article discusses the physiology of the aging sinonasal tract and reviews the common diseases affecting older patients, such as rhinitis and rhinosinusitis.

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.

Contemporary Pharmacotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and allergic rhinitis (AR) are chronic conditions causing nasal inflammation. CRS is increasingly recognized as a chronic inflammatory process rather than a chronic infection. Although the primary initiating factors in CRS remain unclear, AR is driven by IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to environmental allergens. Understanding the underlying inflammatory pathways and disease endotypes are driving innovation toward novel pharmacotherapies targeting critical mediators implicated in CRS and AR, including IL-4, IL-13, IL-5, IgE, and epithelial initiators IL-33 and TSLP. Extensive investigations are needed to determine the role, timing, predictive prognostic factors and long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Intranasal Steroid Use for Otitis Media with Effusion: Ongoing Opportunities for Quality Improvement

Objectives Our objectives were (1) to assess patterns of intranasal steroid administration when otitis media with effusion (OME) has been diagnosed in children, (2) to investigate whether usage varies according to visit setting, and (3) to determine if practice gaps are such that quality improvement could be tracked. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis of an administrative database. Subjects and Methods National Ambulatory and Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, 2005 to 2012; univariate, multivariate, and stratified analyses of intranasal steroid usage were performed. The primary outcome was intranasal steroid administration, and the primary predictor was a diagnosis of OME. The impact of location of service was also analyzed. Results Data representing 1,943,177,903 visits demonstrated that intranasal steroids were administered in 10.0% of visits in which OME was diagnosed, in comparison to 3.5% of visits in which OME was not diagnosed (univariate odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-5.08; P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other confounding conditions, multivariate analysis demonstrated that OME remained associated with an increase in intranasal steroid usage (odds ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.60-8.01; P = .002). This practice pattern was more prevalent in the ambulatory office setting (risk difference 6.6%, P < .001) and less seen in a hospital-based office or emergency department. Conclusion Despite randomized controlled trials showing a lack of efficacy for isolated OME, nasal steroids continue to be used in treating children with OME in the United States. Related quality improvement opportunities to prevent usage of an ineffective treatment exist.

Costs and savings associated with a pharmacists prescribing for minor ailments program in Saskatchewan

BACKGROUND

Health care systems around the world have started to develop pharmacists prescribing for minor ailments (PPMA) programs. These programs aim to improve the efficiency of care, reduce physician visits, and increase the accessibility to prescription medication (Rx). This study performed an economic impact analysis of the pharmacists prescribing for minor ailments program in Saskatchewan.

METHODS

We measured costs for the program and the alternative scenario (i.e. no PPMA program) from a public payer and societal perspective, using primary data on pharmacists prescribing consultations in Saskatchewan. Furthermore, we calculated public payer and societal savings, and return on investment ratios for the program, as well as projecting the costs and benefits over the next 5 years.

RESULTS

Overall, we found that from a societal perspective, the Saskatchewan PPMA program saved the province approximately $546,832 in 2014, while according to the public payer perspective, the program was only marginally cost-saving in 2014. After 5 years of implementation, from a societal perspective, cumulative cost savings were projected to be $3,482,660, and the return on investment ratio was estimated to be 2.53.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that this type of program may prove cost-saving and lead to improved access to the health care system in Canada, especially if savings to society are considered. This type of PPMA program may prove economically feasible and beneficial in many countries considering expanding pharmacists scope of practice.

Safety and efficacy of short-term oral immunotherapy with Cry j 1-galactomannan conjugate for Japanese cedar pollinosis: a randomized controlled trial

Current allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) for pollinosis requires long-term treatment with potentially severe side effects. Therefore, development of an AIT that is safe and more convenient with a shorter regimen is needed. This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized 55 participants with Japanese cedar pollinosis (JCP) to active or placebo groups to test the safety and efficacy of short-term oral immunotherapy (OIT) with Cry j 1-galactomannan conjugate for JCP. Mean symptom-medication score as the primary outcome in the active group improved 27.8% relative to the placebo group during the entire pollen season. As the secondary outcomes, mean medication score in active group improved significantly, by 56.2%, compared with placebo during the entire pollen season. Mean total symptom score was similar between active and placebo groups during the entire pollen season. There were no severe treatment-emergent adverse events in the active and placebo groups. Therefore short-term OIT with Cry j 1-galactomannan conjugate is safe, and effective for reducing the amount of medication use for JCP.

Medications for Allergic Rhinitis

Objectives Adherence to the allergic rhinitis clinical practice guideline is being considered as a potential focus for national performance metrics. To help inform this discussion, we assessed patient- and clinician-reported medication administration among nationally representative populations of patients with allergic rhinitis. Study Design Cross-sectional analyses. Setting and Subjects Home health assessments, ambulatory visits. Methods Participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were assessed. The primary outcomes were the percentage of patients reporting receipt of antihistamines and/or nasal steroids among those with allergy-related symptoms and the percentage for whom a clinician administered these medications when diagnosing allergic rhinitis. Secondary outcomes included assessments of those with worse quality of life, confirmatory allergy testing, and leukotriene receptor antagonist use. Results Within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 29.2 million patients were diagnosed with "hay fever," while 92.2 million were diagnosed with "allergies." Patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis reported that antihistamines or nasal steroids were prescribed in 21.1% to 24.0% of cases. Leukotriene receptor antagonists were given to 1.7% of those without asthma or use of other allergy medications. Within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, observations representing 149.5 million visits for allergic rhinitis demonstrated that nasal steroids were administered in 29.6% of cases, while nonsedating and sedating antihistamines were given in 22.4% and 17.2%, respectively. Conclusions Despite a high prevalence of allergic rhinitis, per patient report and clinician entry, a substantial number of affected patients do not receive antihistamines and nasal steroids.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a common respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchoconstriction and airway hyperresponsiveness and symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness. Allergic rhinitis is a common comorbidity in asthma and glucocorticoids are the key stone in the treatment of both diseases. Mometasone furoate is a potent synthetic steroid with a very high receptor affinity and a low bioavailability and shown to be superior compared to other inhaled corticosteroids. It is not clear whether the use of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is associated with an improvement in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

This current paper reviews the current knowledge on the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of asthma and includes clinical trials in which both subjective and objective outcomes are assessed.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, only few clinical studies have investigated the effect of nasal steroids in the treatment of asthma. The studies investigating the effect of MFNS report contradicting results, although the most well-designed study to answer this question finds no improvement in asthma control. Thus, it seems unlikely that asthma guidelines will be influenced by the current knowledge on the effect of MFNS in the treatment of asthma.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a systematic review

The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure.

Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications.

Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors.

Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries “mometasone furoate”, “rhinitis”, “sinusitis”, “asthma”, “polyposis”, “otitis media with effusion”, and “adenoid hypertrophy” we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria.

Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review.

MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia.

Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES.

In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations.

In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough.

The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children.

As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug.

Conclusions: MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.

Mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis: a non-inferiority study (PUMA)

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis is considered the most prevalent respiratory disease in Brazil and worldwide, with great impact on quality of life, affecting social life, sleep, and also performance at school and at work.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of two formulations containing mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis after four weeks of treatment.

Methods

Phase III, randomized, non-inferiority, national, open study comparing mometasone furoate in two presentations (control drug and investigational drug). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with reduction of at least 0.55 in nasal index score (NIS) after four weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included total nasal index score score after four and 12 weeks of treatment; individual scores for symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal pruritus; as well as score for pruritus, lacrimation, and ocular redness after four and 12 weeks of treatment. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number NCT01372865.

Results

The efficacy primary analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of the investigational drug in relation to the control drug, since the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) of 95% for the difference between the success rates after four weeks of treatment (12.6%) was below the non-inferiority margin provided during the determination of the sample size (13.7%). Adverse events were infrequent and with mild intensity in most cases.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of investigational drug in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis were similar to the reference product, demonstrating its non-inferiority.

Do psychosocial sleep interventions improve infant sleep or maternal mood in the postnatal period? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Sleep complaints are common amongst mothers of infants and insufficient, inefficient or fragmented sleep is associated with postnatal depression. The aim of this review is to determine whether psychosocial sleep-focused interventions offered in the perinatal period improve infant sleep or maternal mood. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE and CINAHL with no date restriction. We reviewed 1097 articles, resulting in nine papers (n = 1,656) that fit the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the analyses. The primary outcome was infant sleep, defined as maternal reports of infant nocturnal total sleep time and number of night-time wakes. The secondary outcome was maternal mood. The meta-analysis indicated improvements in reported infant nocturnal total sleep time (Hedge's g = 0.204, p < 0.01). However, there was no evidence for reducing infant night wakes (Hedge's g = 0.103, p = 0.134). There was evidence of maternal mood improvements (Hedge's g = 0.152, p = 0.014), however, this could have been influenced by publication bias. Psychosocial sleep interventions appear to impact the amount of sleep that a mother reports her baby to have, although the infants continue to wake as frequently. More research is needed to confirm whether sleep-related improvements can translate into improvements in maternal mood.

Focusing the mechanism of action to dissect the different treatments of respiratory allergy

The treatment of respiratory allergy is based on several drugs with different mechanisms of action, which encompass an effect only on symptoms, limited factors of inflammation or the whole process of inflammation. Dissecting the different treatments by their mechanism of action is relevant for the management of allergic patients. Corticosteroids, administered as nasal sprays in rhinitis or by inhalation devices in asthma, and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are the most effective treatments for respiratory allergy, achieving the control on inflammation by a number of cellular and molecular mechanisms. What distinguishes corticosteroids from AIT is the duration of clinical outcomes that ends with treatment withdrawal for the former but persists after stopping for AIT, due to its disease-modifying effect.

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.

Intranasal glucocorticosteroids - not only in allergic rhinitis In the 40th anniversary of intranasal glucocorticosteroids' introduction

It has been 40 years since Niels Mygind's publication in British Medical Journal on intranasal application of beclomethasone dipropionate aerosol in allergic rhinitis (AR). Since then a new era in treatment of allergic and nonallergic upper airway diseases began. This publication presents current concepts on application of intranasal glucocorticosteroids (inGCS) in treatment of upper airway diseases and in particular of AR and rhinosinusitis. Nonquestionable advantage of inGCS is their strong anti-inflammatory local action with little impact on general health responsible for few and benign side effects. Main way of action of glucocorticosteroids is connected with binding to the intracellular glucocorticosteroid receptor and its impact on nuclear cytoplasmic transcriptional factors. Glucocorticosteroids suppress gene expression of factors responsible for generating and supporting inflammatory processes, proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines production, and adhesive molecules expression. It appears that glucocorticosteroids have also other mechanisms of action, non-involving intracellular receptors, leading to inhibition of early and late phase of allergic reaction. At the moment the following glucocorticosteroids are registered in Poland: beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, and mometasone furoate. Furoates earn special attention as their lateral furoate ester chain makes the molecules highly lipophilic, and hence easily absorbed by nasal mucous membranes, epithelium and cell membrane phospholipids. This minimizes their general action and maximizes local action. According to current state of knowledge topical glucocorticosteroids are used in the following upper airway diseases with different inflammatory mechanisms: AR, non-AR, particularly NARES, acute rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps, adenoid hypertrophy and rhinitis in bronchial asthma.

Early interventional treatment with intranasal mometasone furoate in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety and effectiveness of early interventional treatment (EIT) with intranasal corticosteroids for seasonal allergic rhinitis. We designed a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week trial of EIT with mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) for Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis (JCCP).

METHODS

A total of 50 JCCP patients received MFNS (200μg once daily: n = 25) or placebo (n = 25) starting on February 1, 2010. Treatments continued until the end of April. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) between the MFNS and placebo groups. The secondary endpoints included comparisons of QOL, daytime sleepiness, nasal ECP levels, and safety.

RESULTS

Continuous dispersion of Japanese cedar pollen began on February 22. Although the placebo group showed a significant worsening of symptoms after the start of the continuous dispersion, no worsening occurred in the MFNS group. A significant difference in the TNSS between the two groups was seen starting at 4 weeks after the treatment. Similar results were seen for QOL and sleepiness. Nasal ECP levels in March were significantly lower in the MFNS group. A total of 56% of the MFNS group progressed to a persistent allergic rhinitis state in accordance with the ARIA classification, as opposed to 84% of the placebo group. MFNS was well tolerated, and the plasma cortisol concentrations were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EIT with MFNS for JCCP is both safe and effective. This treatment can potentially lessen symptoms and help pollinosis patients remain in the intermittent state.

Effects of intranasal mometasone furoate on itchy ear and palate in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal steroids relieve nasal symptoms and ocular itch in allergic rhinitis. Itchy ear and palate are also common and bothersome symptoms but have received little attention in clinical trials of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray in alleviating itchy ear and palate in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of mometasone furoate nasal spray, 200 μg/d. Participants rated ear and palate itching from baseline through treatment day 15 as follows: 0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; and 3, severe.

RESULTS

A total of 962 study participants received mometasone furoate nasal spray or placebo. Baseline least squares mean itchy ear and palate score was 1.81 for participants receiving mometasone furoate nasal spray (n = 480) and 1.85 for participants receiving placebo (n = 482). Mometasone furoate nasal spray was associated with a greater decrease in itchy and ear palate score vs placebo during the 15-day study period (least squares mean change, -0.73 vs -0.45; P < .001). The difference reached significance on day 2 and persisted through day 15 (P ≤ .01 for each day). Results were similar in a subgroup of patients (n = 305) with moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline. Adverse events with mometasone furoate nasal spray were similar to those observed in other studies of intranasal steroid therapy.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings suggest that mometasone furoate nasal spray effectively treats itchy ear and palate in individuals with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Itchy ear and palate is a relevant end point for future clinical trials of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

While nasal congestion has been identified as one of the most bothersome and prevalent symptoms of allergic rhinitis, it is underappreciated that many patients find rhinorrhea also to be bothersome. Rhinorrhea as a symptom of allergic rhinitis virtually never occurs alone; about 97% of patients with allergic rhinitis suffer from at least two symptoms, a finding that underscores the advantage of treating a broad range of symptoms with a single medication. Along with sneezing and nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea is a classic acute symptom of allergic rhinitis; it appears as a late-phase symptom as well. In this review, the characterization and epidemiology of rhinorrhea, the pathophysiology of rhinorrhea in allergic rhinitis, the roles played by mediators in early- and late-phase rhinorrhea, the prevalence and impact of this symptom, and the efficacy and safety of available treatment options are all discussed in context of relevant literature. A review of the clinical studies assessing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) for rhinorrhea is presented. Many clinical studies and several meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that, in addition to being safe and well-tolerated, INS are more effective than other agents (including oral and intranasal antihistamines) across the spectrum of AR symptoms, including rhinorrhea and nasal congestion.

Impact of mometasone furoate nasal spray on individual ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are a mainstay of treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) nasal symptoms. The INS mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) has well-documented efficacy and safety for the treatment and prophylaxis of nasal symptoms of seasonal AR (SAR) and for the treatment of nasal symptoms of perennial AR (PAR). Increasing interest has focused on whether INSs, including MFNS, may have beneficial effects on the ocular symptoms frequently associated with AR.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the efficacy of MFNS 200 mcg daily in relieving ocular allergy symptoms, including itching/burning, redness, and tearing/watering in both SAR and PAR. Four PAR studies and six SAR studies are included in the analysis. A fixed-effect inverse variance model was used to calculate weighted mean differences, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison, and a combined overall treatment effect (Z) with P-value.

RESULTS

In both analyses of SAR and PAR studies, including 3132 patients, all individual ocular symptoms were reduced in patients treated with MFNS. Overall treatment effect was significant for all three individual ocular symptoms in the SAR studies (Z = 9.18 for tearing, Z = 10.15 for itching, and Z = 8.88 for redness; P < 0.00001 for all) and in the PAR studies (Z = 5.94, P < 0.00001 for tearing; Z = 2.43, P = 0.02 for itching; and Z = 2.42, P = 0.02 for redness).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the growing body of literature supporting the positive class effect of INSs, including MFNS, on ocular symptoms associated with SAR and PAR.

Prospective validation of 'Allergy-Control-SCORE(TM)': a novel symptom-medication score for clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Combined symptom and medication scores (SMS) are recommended as primary endpoints in clinical trials. Several SMS have been created, but none has been formally validated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity of the 'Allergy-Control-SCORE© (ACS)', a novel instrument to assess patient's allergy severity by recording symptoms and rescue medication.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-one consenting subjects (age 18-65 year), including 81 patients with allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and/or asthma and 40 healthy controls, participated in the study. They recorded daily nasal, eye, and lung symptoms using a 4-point scale (none, mild, moderate, and severe) and use of anti-symptomatic medication. Pollen counts were monitored during the study period. Symptom and medication scores values were compared to global allergy severity, quality of life, and allergy-related medical consultations. Feasibility was tested through a questionnaire on comprehensibility, easiness of use, and completeness. Retest reliability was assessed by testing consistency, in relation to pollen exposure, and for values recorded during each of 2 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

Convergent reliability analysis indicated a highly significant correlation between ACS© and global allergy severity (P < 0.0001), quality of life (P < 0.0001), and allergy-related medical consultations (P < 0.0001). Scores were highly related to pollen counts. Allergy-Control-SCORE© showed a good retest reliability (r = 0.81; P < 0.0001) and discriminated extremely well between patients with allergy and healthy controls (6.1 ± 4.8 vs 0.2 ± 0.5; t = 10.82; P < 0.0001) with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 87%. Study participants evaluated the feasibility of the SMS as excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergy-Control-SCORE© is a valid and reliable instrument to assess allergy severity in clinical trials and observational studies of respiratory allergic diseases.

Effects of mometasone furoate on the quality of life: a randomized placebo-controlled trial in persistent allergic rhinitis and intermittent asthma using the Rhinasthma questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis, especially when persistent (PER) and associated with asthma heavily impairs patients' quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) on the QoL of patients with PER and asthma, using the Rhinasthma questionnaire (EUDRACT n. 2007-004683-45).

METHODS

Patients with moderate/severe PER and intermittent asthma were randomized to MFNS (alcohol-free) 200 μg/day or placebo for 28 days. Rhinasthma was completed at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4. The total five symptom score (T5SS) for rhinitis, the asthma symptom score and the sum of the two [global symptoms score (GSS)] were recorded daily. The primary outcome was the change in the Rhinasthma global summary (GS) at the end of treatment. Secondary end-points were (a) the change from baseline to end of treatment of each Rhinasthma factor: upper airways (UAs), lower airways (LAs) and respiratory allergy impact; (b) the change from baseline to end of treatment of the T5SS and of the GSS and (c) the use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Fifty-two adults were randomized. Compared with placebo, MFNS produced a significant change in the Rhinasthma GS (-10.4 vs. 0.4; P<0.01). MFNS also achieved a significant improvement of the UA (-16.6 vs. 0.1; P<0.001), LA (-10.8 vs. 1.1; P<0.001) and GSS (-6.7 vs. -3.1; P=0.019). The change of the T5SS was greater in the MFNS group but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PER rhinitis and intermittent asthma, MFNS improves the QoL and the burden of respiratory symptoms. Treating rhinitis may affect the asthma-related QoL.

Efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray in children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of children by age 6 years. Perennial AR (PAR) causes sleep disturbance, diminishes concentration in school, impairs psychosocial functioning, and reduces quality of life. This study evaluated efficacy and long-term safety of the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in children with PAR.

METHODS

This study comprised a double-blind, 4-week efficacy and safety period followed by a 6-month, open-label safety period. Primary efficacy variable during the double-blind period was mean change in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 15. Other efficacy variables during this phase included subject-evaluated TNSS, individual nasal symptoms, and total symptom score (TSS, nasal and non-nasal symptoms, summed). Physician-evaluated improvement in overall condition of PAR was assessed during the open-label period. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Subjects aged 3-11 years with PAR (n = 381) were randomized to MFNS 100 microg (n = 190) or placebo (n = 191) daily for 4 weeks; 357 subjects continued into the open-label period, receiving MFNS only. Between baseline and day 15, significantly greater mean changes were seen with MFNS-treated patients than placebo in physician-evaluated TNSS (-2.8, -39%, vs. -2.2, -32%; p = 0.02). Statistically significant improvements in MFNS versus placebo were reported for subject-evaluated TNSS, TSS, and individual nasal symptom scores (p < or = 0.03 for all). Improvement continued through the open-label period. Subjects treated with MFNS in both periods experienced a 45% further reduction in TSS in this study phase, while those who switched from placebo to MFNS saw a further 49% decrease. MFNS was well-tolerated in both periods. The most frequently reported treatment-related AEs during the double-blind period for MFNS and placebo, respectively, were epistaxis, seven (4%) and nine (5%); sneezing, five (3%) and seven (4%); headache, six (3%) and five (3%). During the open-label period, the AEs reported most often were epistaxis 37 (10%), headache nine (3%), and rhinitis 12 (3%).

LIMITATIONS

Studies in children present unique challenges because subjects are too young to grasp subjective concepts such as symptom severity, especially as rated on a numbered scale. In addition, the 6-month extension of the placebo-controlled phase used a single agent. It is also possible that subjects' symptoms could have abated independent of mometasone furoate treatment.

CONCLUSION

MFNS 100 microg/day effectively reduces TNSS, TSS (including ocular symptoms), and individual symptoms associated with PAR and is well-tolerated for up to 6 months in children aged 3-11 years with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Allergic conjunctivitis and the impact of allergic rhinitis

Although nasal allergy has been prominent in allergy research, ocular allergy is increasingly recognized as a distinct symptom complex that imposes its own disease burden and reduction in patients' quality of life. In the past year, knowledge of the relationships between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis has increased. Allergic conjunctivitis is highly prevalent and has a close epidemiologic relationship with allergic rhinitis. Both conditions also exhibit similar pathophysiologic mechanisms. Pathways of communication are thought to increase the likelihood of an inflammatory reaction at both sites following allergen exposure of nasal or ocular tissue. Clinical trials of intranasal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis. Newer intranasal steroids decrease ocular symptoms, potentially achieving efficacy by suppressing the naso-ocular reflex, downregulation of inflammatory cell expression, or restoration of nasolacrimal duct patency. Proposed pathophysiologic interactions between allergic rhinitis and ocular allergy underscore the need for therapies with efficacy in both symptom sets.

Objective improvement in nasal congestion and nasal hyperreactivity with use of nasal steroids in persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the action of topical nasal steroid in nasal congestion and nasal hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with persistent allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Twenty atopic children and adolescents (6 to 18 years) with moderate-to-severe persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR) were treated with mometasone furoate (100 microg once a day) for 21 days. At the beginning and end of treatment, the following were recorded: a) nasal symptoms score; b) several parameters of nasal congestion measured by acoustic rhinometry (SRE 2000 Rhinometrics); c) degree of nasal hyper-reactivity to histamine (concentration of histamine necessary to induce at least 100% increase in total nasal resistance during nasal provocation test). Data were compared with those from 20 controls.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, PAR patients had significantly higher score of symptoms, as well as higher degree of nasal hyper-reactivity and lower nasal volumes. After treatment, there was a significant decrease in the mean nasal symptoms score (8.0 versus 3.8; p < 0.001) and in the nasal hyper-reactivity (histamine concentration: 0.72 mg/ml versus 2.60 mg/ml; p < 0.001). Congestion improvement was observed by the increase in all acoustic rhinometry parameters. Among all studied volumes, the volume in the segment between 2 and 5 cm showed the highest mean increase (19.8%).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with topical nasal steroid objectively reduced nasal congestion and nasal histamine hyper-reactivity in children and adolescents with PAR.