Fluticasone furoate versus placebo in symptoms of grass-pollen allergic rhinitis induced by exposure in the Vienna Challenge Chamber

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Technical standards in allergen exposure chambers worldwide - an EAACI Task Force Report

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non-allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose-finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non-contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed.

Utility of Environmental Exposure Unit Challenge Protocols for the Study of Allergic Rhinitis Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper explores how the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) experimental model can be used to further our understanding of pharmacotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

RECENT FINDINGS

EEUs are used increasingly for the study of combination therapies, immunotherapies, and novel AR treatments. A combined antihistamine/corticosteroid nasal spray formulation was seen to have a faster onset of action relative to the therapies individually in the Environmental Exposure Chamber. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets are both safe and efficacious as evaluated by the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The Kingston EEU found that a novel peptide-based immunotherapy approach to be effective in reducing grass pollen-induced AR. Lastly, nasal filters were determined to reduce seasonal AR symptoms, given out-of-season in the Denmark Environmental Exposure Unit. EEUs are controlled, replicable models that provide valuable insight into the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and dose-related impacts of AR therapeutics, with direct clinical relevance.

ARIA 2019, Allerjik Rinite Tedavi Yaklaşımı-Türkiye

Gerçek yaşamda, çevresel maruziyetlerin de etkilediği rinit ve astım mültimorbidite durumlarında, dijitalleşmiş ve kişiye odaklanan tedaviler için bütünleştirilmiş tedavi yollarının değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir. Gerçek yaşamdaki bu durum mültisipliner bir yaklaşımla basamaklandırılıp, rehberilerinde ülkelerdeki gereksinimlere göre değiştilmesini gerektirebilir. Allerjik rinitte hem farmakoterapi hem immünoterapi açısından acil yeni yaklaşımlara ihtiyaç olduğu görülmüştür. 3. Aralık 2018'de Paris'te bir toplantı yapılmış ve iki ayrı belge hazırlanmıştır. Bu yayında bunlara ait bir özet sunulup, ülkeye ve sağlık sistemine uygun kullanımın çerçevesi oluşturulmak istenmiştir.

ARIA guideline 2019: treatment of allergic rhinitis in the German health system

Background: The number of patients affected by allergies is increasing worldwide. The resulting allergic diseases are leading to significant costs for health care and social systems. Integrated care pathways are needed to enable comprehensive care within the national health systems. The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative develops internationally applicable guidelines for allergic respiratory diseases. Methods: ARIA serves to improve the care of patients with allergies and chronic respiratory diseases. In collaboration with other international initiatives, national associations and patient organizations in the field of allergies and respiratory diseases, real-life integrated care pathways have been developed for a digitally assisted, integrative, individualized treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) with comorbid asthma. In the present work, these integrated care pathways have been adapted to the German situation and health system. Results: The present ICP (integrated care pathway) guideline covers key areas of the care of AR patients with and without asthma. It includes the views of patients and other healthcare providers. Discussion: A comprehensive ICP guideline can reflect real-life care better than traditional guideline models.

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.

Efficacy of the novel nasal steroid S0597 tested in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND

S0597 is a novel glucocorticosteroid that was formulated as an intranasal spray to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In a previous phase 2 study, doses of 100 to 400 μg twice daily were well tolerated and more effective than placebo for improving nasal symptoms induced by grass pollen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a once-daily S0597 nasal spray for treatment of SAR induced by ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure unit (EEU).

METHODS

A single-center, phase 2, randomized, double-blind study in 222 adults with SAR and a positive skin prick test result to short ragweed. Participants underwent ragweed pollen challenge in the EEU at the screening or priming visit and on days 1, 7, and 14 and received 50, 200, or 400 μg of S0597 or placebo in the evening for 13 days. The primary efficacy end point was change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 14.

RESULTS

Improvement in TNSS from baseline to day 14 was statistically significant in all S0597 groups compared with placebo. Least-squares mean differences in change from baseline between active treatment and placebo were 1.18, 1.84, and 1.17 for the 50-, 200-, and 400-μg/d S0597 groups, respectively (P < .05). The 200-μg group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all TNSS subscales (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching) compared with placebo at days 7 and 14.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with 50 to 400 μg of S0597 once daily was well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in relieving nasal symptoms of SAR associated with ragweed pollen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01940146.

The improved efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone furoate and levocabastine relative to the individual components in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic disease, which has significant detrimental effect on well-being and quality of life as well as substantial socio-economic impact. Combination pharmacotherapy is utilized by 40-50% of patients to treat their symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intranasal fluticasone furoate (FF)/levocabastine (LEVO) fixed-dose combination (FDC) with each component alone on allergen-induced nasal and ocular symptoms.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way, incomplete block, cross-over, proof-of-concept study in 71 patients with AR, evaluated FF 100 μg, LEVO 200 μg and FDC (FF 100/LEVO 200 μg), once daily via intranasal spray for 8 days. On days 1 and 8, total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) were assessed every 15 min during a 4-h allergen exposure in the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The primary endpoint was Day 8 weighted mean TNSS.

RESULTS

After 8 days, FDC resulted in both statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean TNSS compared with FF and LEVO alone [adjusted mean differences (95% CI): FDC vs. FF: -2.26 (-2.90, -1.62); FDC vs. LEVO: -2.57 (-3.21, -1.93)]. All active treatments were significantly superior to placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% CI) from placebo: FDC: -4.1 (-4.86, -3.34); FF: -1.84 (-2.66, -1.03); LEVO: -1.53 (-2.34, -0.72)]. Onset of action was rapid following FDC and LEVO treatment with an approximate two unit reduction in mean TNSS from pre-dose levels by 30 min and 1 h. Mean TOSS was also reduced following all active treatments relative to placebo (range 0.6-0.8 unit reduction). All treatments were equally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results suggest that once daily FF/LEVO FDC could provide a clinical therapeutic advantage to existing standard monotherapies in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AR, and support progression to evaluation in larger phase III clinical studies.

Novel, Alternative, and Controversial Therapies of Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. This condition affects 10% to 40% of the population and is responsible for billions of spent health care dollars and impairment in quality of life for those affected. Currently available medical and vaccine therapies are effective for a large segment of this population; however, a subset of patients still has difficult-to-control rhinitis. This article reviews the current progress being made in novel drug and vaccine development and delves into alternative medical, surgical, and homeopathic strategies that may be promising adjunctive treatments for the difficult-to-treat rhinitis patient.

Randomized phase 1 study of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ inhibitor idelalisib in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase p110δ isoform (PI3K p110δ) activity is essential for mast cell activation, suggesting that inhibition of PI3K p110δ might be useful in treating allergic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the effect of the PI3K p110δ-selective inhibitor idelalisib on allergic responses.

METHODS

This phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover study was conducted with the Vienna Challenge Chamber. Grass pollen-induced allergic symptoms were documented during screening. Eligible subjects received idelalisib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo for 7 days, with allergen challenge on day 7. After a 2-week washout period, subjects received the alternate treatment and repeated allergen challenge. Study measures included safety, nasal and nonnasal symptoms, nasal airflow, nasal secretions, basophil activation, and plasma cytokine levels.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients with allergic rhinitis received idelalisib/placebo (n = 21) or placebo/idelalisib (n = 20). Idelalisib treatment was well tolerated. Mean total nasal symptom scores were lower during the combined idelalisib treatment periods compared with placebo (treatment difference [idelalisib - placebo], -1.78; 95% CI, -2.53 to -1.03; P < .001). Statistically significant differences were also observed for the combined treatment periods for total symptom scores, nasal airflow, nasal secretion weight, and nasal congestion scores. The percentage of ex vivo-activated basophils (CD63(+)/CCR3(+) cells; after stimulation with grass pollen) was substantially lower for idelalisib-treated compared with placebo-treated subjects. Plasma CCL17 and CCL22 levels were reduced after idelalisib treatment.

CONCLUSION

Idelalisib treatment was well tolerated in patients with allergic rhinitis and appears to reduce allergic responses clinically and immunologically after an environmental allergen challenge.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

Efficacy and safety of a novel nasal steroid, S0597, in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a significant global burden with increasing prevalence. Although intranasal glucocorticosteroids are effective, older agents can have limiting side effects. S0597, a novel intranasal glucocorticosteroid, has demonstrated good safety and tolerability during preclinical and phase 1 studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of S0597 nasal spray vs placebo in patients with seasonal AR.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-center study randomized 159 patients 18 to 65 years old (mean age 37.8 years) with a positive skin prick test reaction for Dactylis glomerata to receive S0597 at 200, 400, or 800 μg/d or placebo for 15 days. On days 1 (baseline), 15, and 16, patients underwent a 4-hour pollen challenge to evaluate treatment efficacy measured by the change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to days 15 and 16 and changes in TNSS subscales and nasal secretion.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in TNSS from baseline to days 15 and 16 were observed with all S0597 doses vs placebo (P = .0005 overall), with the greatest improvements observed in the highest-dose group (P < .0001). Significant decreases were observed in each S0597 dose group vs placebo for TNSS subscales and nasal secretion. Improvements in nasal secretion were related to dose, with the greatest decreases from baseline in the 800-μg/d group on days 15 and 16 (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with S0597 at 200, 400, and 800 μg/d by 2 divided doses for 2 weeks was safe and significantly more effective than placebo for improving nasal symptoms associated with grass pollen-induced seasonal AR in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01614691.

Onset and dose-related efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets in an environmental exposure chamber

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of effect of sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis is uncertain, partly because there are few well-controlled trials with well-defined doses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the dose-related efficacy and onset of action of the HDM sublingual immunotherapy tablet MK-8237 (Merck/ALK-Abelló) using the Vienna Challenge Chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, single-site trial, adults with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and with or without asthma (n = 124) received 12 developmental units (DU) of MK-8237, 6 DU of MK-8237, or placebo daily for 24 weeks. Subjects underwent 6-hour exposure challenges at screening and weeks 8, 16, and 24. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS) during chamber challenge at week 24 was the primary end point. The TNSS was the sum of 4 nasal symptom scores (maximum = 12). Total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs; 2 symptoms; maximum = 6) and total symptom scores (TSSs; TSS = TNSS plus TOSS; maximum = 18) were secondary end points.

RESULTS

Dose- and time-dependent improvements with MK-8237 versus placebo were observed. At week 24, TNSS improvement relative to placebo was 48.6% (95% CI, 35.3% to 60.2%) with 12 DU of MK-8237 and 26.6% (95% CI, 11.2% to 39.6%) with 6 DU of MK-8237. Statistically significant improvements for TNSSs were also observed at weeks 8 (12 DU of MK-8237) and 16 (6 and 12 DU of MK-8237) and for TOSSs and TSSs by both doses at week 24. MK-8237 was well tolerated. No investigator-assessed anaphylactic allergic reactions or reactions requiring epinephrine were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MK-8237, 12 DU, reduced nasal and ocular symptoms and exceeded World Allergy Organization-established clinical efficacy criteria (≥20% improvement vs placebo). The onset of action for 12 DU of MK-8237 was week 8. MK-8237, 12 DU, is appropriate for further evaluation to determine the magnitude of effect in an uncontrolled allergen exposure environment.

New therapies for allergic rhinitis

Because of its burden on patient's lives and its impact on asthma, allergic rhinitis must be treated properly with more effective and safer treatments. According to guidelines by Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), the classification, pathogenesis, and treatment of allergic rhinitis are well defined. Currently, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids are considered the cornerstone of first-line therapy. However, new formulations of available drugs (e.g., loratadine and rupatadine oral solution, ebastine fast-dissolving tablets, and the combination of intranasal fluticasone propionate and azelastine hydrochloride), recently discovered molecules (e.g., ciclesonide, bilastine, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors), immunologic targets (e.g., omalizumab), and unconventional treatments (e.g., homeopathic treatments) are currently under investigation and represent a new frontier in modern medicine and in allergic rhinitis management. The aim of this review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment, paying particular attention to clinical trials published within the past 20 months that assessed the efficacy and safety of new formulations of available drugs or new molecules.

Efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray and levocetirizine in patients with Japanese cedar pollinosis subjected to an artificial exposure chamber

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the clinical efficacy of a combination therapy of levocetirizine (LCTZ) and fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), compared with LCTZ monotherapy, for the suppression of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms induced in an artificial exposure chamber.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-way cross-over comparative study performed in 42 Japanese cedar pollinosis patients. These subjects received (1) LCTZ plus FFNS (combination group), (2) LCTZ plus FFNS placebo (monotherapy group), or (3) LCTZ placebo plus FFNS placebo (placebo group) once on the night prior to exposure, with a 1-week washout period between exposures. Nasal (sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and itchy nose) and ocular (eye itching and tearing) symptoms were recorded every 15 min, and the number of sneezes, nose blowing events, and the amount of nasal secretions were measured during exposure. The primary end-point was the cumulative incidence of SAR symptoms during exposure and the 'ime to occurrence of symptoms'. The secondary end-points were the total nasal symptom score, the ocular symptom score, the amount of nasal discharge, and the number of sneezes and nose blowing events.

RESULTS

At all the measurement points, the lowest cumulative incidences for the nasal symptoms were observed in the combination group, followed by the monotherapy and placebo groups. All the subjects in the placebo group developed nasal symptoms within 2 h after pollen exposure, while three and eight subjects in the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively, did not develop any nasal symptoms during exposure. In addition, combination therapy delayed the onset of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrated that combination therapy with FFNS and LCTZ significantly suppressed the induced SAR symptoms and delayed the onset of symptoms compared with LCTZ monotherapy and placebo. Although the conditions of the allergen challenge study using an exposure chamber are different from those in real life, combination therapy with FF and LCTZ was confirmed to be an effective treatment for SAR.

The CRTH2 antagonist OC000459 reduces nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic subjects exposed to grass pollen, a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

CRTH2 mediates activation of Th2 cells, eosinophils and basophils in response to prostaglandin D(2). The CRTH2 antagonist OC000459 has previously been demonstrated to reduce airway inflammation and improve lung function in moderate persistent asthma. The objective of the present study was to determine the involvement of CRTH2 in promoting nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic subjects exposed to grass pollen.

METHODS

A single centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study was conducted in 35 male subjects allergic to grass pollen comparing OC000459 200 mg bid with placebo for 8 days. Subjects were exposed to grass pollen (≥ 1400 grains/m(3)) for 6 h on the 2nd and 8th days of treatment and assessed for nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, other symptoms, nasal secretion weight and rhinomanometry over the 6-h period. After a washout period of 3 weeks, subjects were switched to the alternative treatment for a further 8 days. The trial was registered on the clinical trials.gov database (Identifier NCT01448902).

RESULTS

During the first treatment period, treatment with OC000459 significantly reduced both nasal and ocular symptoms in allergic subjects compared with placebo after challenge with grass pollen. A significant effect was observed on the 2nd day of dosing which was increased on the 8th day of dosing. The therapeutic effects of OC000459 persisted into the second treatment period despite a 3-week washout phase. The safety profile of OC000459 was similar to that of placebo.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with OC000459 was well tolerated and led to a significant and persistent reduction in the symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis.

Twenty-Four–hour Duration of Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Clinical Evidence and Relevance

Background

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms are often most severe and/or disruptive during overnight and morning hours, resulting in cognitive/performance impairments and reduced quality of life throughout the following day. Surveys of allergy patients and health care practitioners reveal a common perception that intranasal steroids (INSs), many of which are dosed q.d., fail to adequately relieve symptoms for a full 24 hours. This review assessed whether perceptions of the 24-hour duration of action of INSs correspond with duration of action documented in clinical literature.

Methods

SAR clinical trial literature of the last 5 years was reviewed to identify studies of INSs incorporating morning instantaneous (A.M. NOW) or instantaneous assessments of 24-hour duration of action.

Results

In numerous placebo-controlled trials of INSs in patients with SAR, treatment was associated with significantly greater improvements in A.M. NOW symptoms from baseline versus placebo. For congestion, this is noteworthy, because patients often cite this symptom, especially in the morning, as the most bothersome symptom. Comparison of A.M. NOW and daily scores suggests minimal drop in efficacy at 24 hours postdose. In several studies, INS treatment was found superior to intranasal or oral antihistamines in A.M. NOW symptom improvement.

Conclusion

Once-daily INSs have potential for effective 24-hour symptom relief; however, there is an apparent disconnect between these findings and patient/physician perceptions. This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by less-than-ideal treatment adherence among “real-world” patients versus subjects treated in clinical trials. Proactive counseling can encourage proper INS use and help maximize treatment benefits.

A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is the latest glucocorticoid officially approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. FF has shown the highest affinity and selectivity for the glucocorticoid receptors as well the longest tissue retention compared with other available intranasal steroids; these new pharmacologic characteristics provide the basis for its potent and prolonged anti-inflammatory activity at the target site.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review achieved through PubMed and Medline research methods supports the clinical efficacy of FF versus placebo in reducing ocular and nasal symptoms related to allergic rhinitis (at the recommended starting doses of 110 μg once daily for adults and adolescents and 55 μg once daily for children), with a good safety profile. Moreover, the present review also compares FF with other intranasal steroids: FF represents a molecular evolution of fluticasone propionate (FP), and there is scientific evidence of therapeutic advantages over FP.

EXPERT OPINION

Fluticasone furoate is a promising molecule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis as it fits fully all the official guidelines' criteria. It is now being considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacological model for glucocorticoids due to its satisfying safety/tolerability profile, both in adults and children, leads FF to be considered as a topical steroid that is quite close to the ideal pharmacologic model for glucocorticoids. More studies should be directed to assess the improvement of quality of life in subjects with allergic rhinitis treated with FF, in comparison with other intranasal steroids and even H1-antihistamines; in addition, it could be also interesting to analyze eventual, additional effects of FF in patients with bronchial asthma, which is frequently associated with allergic rhinitis.

The allergen challenge chamber: a valuable tool for optimizing the clinical development of pollen immunotherapy

The clinical development of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis because of pollen is complicated by seasonal, geographical and subject-related variability in allergen exposure. Using an allergen challenge chamber (ACC), a room that enables reproducible challenges with controlled levels of inhalant allergens for several hours, these factors can be controlled. The ACC has often been used to evaluate symptomatic medications but is underexploited in the field of allergen immunotherapy. When used in conjunction with a programme of natural-exposure trials, the ACC enables researchers to (i) facilitate the allergen immunotherapy dose-finding process, (ii) accelerate the transition from Phase I/II to Phase III trials, (iii) characterize the onset and maintenance of action, (iv) avoid the confounding effects of rescue medication, (v) better characterize the baseline or pretreatment characteristics of trial subjects, (vi) perform better-standardized physical and laboratory measurements during an acute challenge, (vii) simplify trial logistics and use smaller numbers of subjects than would be required in equivalent natural-exposure studies and (viii) support (but not replace) Phase III natural-exposure trials for the investigation into long-term and disease-modifying effects. ACC studies can further increase levels of evidence for allergen immunotherapy--the only current therapy potentially capable of modifying the underlying allergic disease.