Evolving paradigm in the management of allergic rhinitis-associated ocular symptoms: role of intranasal corticosteroids

Prevention of omalizumab for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is an allergic disease that is characterized by conjunctival and nasal symptoms such as edema and congestion of conjunctiva, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and blocked nose. Seasonal ARC (SARC) is usually induced by seasonal allergens and often occurs at specific times during the year. Traditional treatments of SARC include nasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, and mast cell membrane stabilizers. Biological agents such as omalizumab have also been proved effective in the treatment of SARC.

Objectives

We aim to certify the preventative efficacy of omalizumab for SARC and explore its influence factors.

Methods

Medical records of 64 SARC patients were retrospectively analyzed, and generalized linear models were used to analyze influence factors of efficacy of omalizumab.

Results

Compared with forepassed pollen season without omalizumab treatment, the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) of ARC with pre-seasonal omalizumab was significantly lower (with omalizumab: 0.67[0.00,1.83], without omalizumab: 4.00[2.83,4.96], p<0.001, max score=6). Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the influence factor of preventative efficacy of omalizumab. The CSMS with omalizumab treatment were not significantly different among different age, gender, dosage, number of injections, and injection date subgroups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Pre-seasonal omalizumab treatment could significantly relieve SARC related symptoms and reduce medication use. This preventative efficacy would not be influenced by the dosage and number of injections of omalizumab. A single dose of 150mg omalizumab could achieve a satisfactory outcome.

Ocular symptoms improvement from intranasal triamcinolone compared with placebo and intranasal fluticasone propionate: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a prevalent disease, which can be classed as seasonal (SAR) or perennial. In addition to nasal symptoms, up to 75% of sufferers experience itching, redness, and tearing of the eyes. Intranasal corticosteroids are effective in controlling the allergic nasal symptoms, and increasing evidence suggests that they also can relieve some of the allergic ocular symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the magnitude of efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) compared with placebo or fluticasone propionate (FP) on ocular symptom improvement in patients with SAR.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of summary data from 8 randomized, double- or single-blind trials, assessing mean change in total or individual (tearing, redness, and itching) eye symptoms was conducted. Trials that administered a daily dose of 220 μg TAA vs placebo or 200 μg FP over at least 2 weeks' duration, in patients aged 12 years or older with SAR, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Total eye symptom reduction after 2 weeks was greater with TAA than placebo, with a mean treatment difference of -0.32 (95% CI, -0.444 to -0.203). In addition, significant reductions in tearing, but not itching or redness, were observed after TAA treatment compared with placebo. No significant treatment difference was seen between TAA and FP in total ocular symptoms at any of the time points measured (weeks 1, 2, 3, and overall). All treatments exhibited similar safety profiles and were deemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis demonstrated the positive clinical improvements TAA has on total ocular allergy symptoms, especially tearing, in addition to its recognized nasal symptom efficacy in SAR.

Symptomatic treatment of pollen-related allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

About 12% of children are affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). Although the main symptomatic treatments are intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) (daily or on demand) and oral antihistamines, it remains unclear which treatment provides the best relief of symptoms. Therefore, this study examines whether daily use of INCS is superior to on-demand use or to oral antihistamines on demand.

METHODS

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial in children (aged 6-18 years) with pollen-related AR. Patients received either INCS daily (fluticasone propionate), INCS on demand (fluticasone propionate) or oral antihistamine on demand (levocetirizine) for 3 months during the grass pollen season. A daily online symptom diary on both nose and eye symptoms was completed. The primary outcome was the percentage of symptom-free days.

RESULTS

A total of 150 children were randomized. The percentage symptom-free days was in favour of INCS on demand (30%) compared with INCS daily (22%), that is 8% difference (95% CI -5 to +21%; not significant). The antihistamine on-demand group had 15% symptom-free days, that is 7% difference compared to INCS daily (95% CI -6 to +19%;, not significant). Patients in the INCS on-demand group used on average 61% less fluticasone than patients in the INCS daily group during the study period (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial with three parallel treatment groups shows that INCS daily was not superior to INCS on demand or to antihistamine on demand regarding the number of symptom-free days. An on-demand INCS strategy has the advantage of a lower overall corticosteroid exposure and less costs.

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.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in Japanese children 2 to <15 years of age with perennial allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) is a glucocorticoid developed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). This study aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and systemic exposure of FFNS in Japanese children with perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, 61 children aged 2 to <15 years were treated with FFNS 55 μg, once daily for 12 weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were scored by parents/guardians/patients and recorded in a patient's daily diary. In addition, rhinoscopy findings, including mucosal swelling, were scored by the investigators as an efficacy measure. As a safety measure, adverse events and clinical laboratory data were evaluated.

RESULTS

An adverse event was reported by 67% of patients during the treatment and follow-up period, all of which were mild in intensity. The most commonly reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis and acute sinusitis (acute rhinosinusitis). There were no serious adverse events. FFNS 55 μg improved nasal symptom scores and rhinoscopy findings compared with the baseline. Ocular symptom scores were also improved compared with the baseline in FFNS 55 μg in a sub-group of patients with any ocular symptoms at baseline. FFNS 55 μg was shown to be well tolerated over the 12-week treatment period. Majority of patients receiving FFNS 55 μg had unquantifiable plasma levels of fluticasone furoate (FF).

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve-week treatment with FFNS 55 μg, once daily, is well tolerated and effective with low systemic exposure in Japanese children aged 2 to <15 years with PAR.

Diagnosis and treatment of nasal and ocular allergies: the Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is managed by a number of health care professional specialties, whose practice styles may vary.

OBJECTIVE

To survey patients and health care professionals about the diagnosis and treatment of ARC.

METHODS

The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys were telephone surveys of randomly selected patients and health care professionals in the United States in 2012. Participants were 2,765 people ever diagnosed as having nasal and/or ocular allergies and 500 practitioners in 7 specialties who were treating ARC.

RESULTS

Adult respondents to the patient survey reported that their allergies had been diagnosed most often by physicians in family practice (46%) rather than by allergists/immunologists (17%) or otolaryngologists (11%). Children's allergies had been diagnosed most often by pediatricians (41%) and family practitioners (22%). Most respondents with conditions diagnosed by an allergist/immunologist (94.9%) or otolaryngologist (62.7%) had been given an allergy test, but the test was not given to most patients with conditions diagnosed by family practitioners (61.3%) or pediatricians (64.9%). Most patients (75.8%) were treating their allergies with over-the-counter medications, and 53.5% were taking prescription medications. Allergen immunotherapy was being used by 33% (adult) or 28% (child) patients of allergist/immunologists, 25% (adult) or 24% (child) patients of otolaryngologists, and 8% and 10% of patients of family practitioners and pediatricians, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most patients took nonprescription medications for their allergy symptoms or were treated by general practitioners, who did not use allergy testing when diagnosing ARC. Most patients seen by allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists were evaluated with allergy tests, and most allergen immunotherapy was provided by allergy specialists.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray reduces the ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), a potent intranasal corticosteroid with proved efficacy in relieving nasal allergic rhinitis symptoms, has demonstrated effectiveness in improving ocular symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in retrospective analyses.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of MFNS in reducing total ocular symptom scores (TOSSs) and individual ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

METHODS

Subjects 12 years or older (n = 429) with moderate-to-severe baseline symptoms were randomized to MFNS, 200 microg once daily, or placebo in this 15-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. Subjects evaluated morning instantaneous TOSSs and daily reflective TOSSs, total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs; both instantaneous TNSSs and reflective TNSSs, respectively), and individual ocular and nasal symptoms. Mean changes from baseline averaged over days 2 to 15 (instantaneous) and days 1 to 15 (reflective) were calculated. Quality of life was assessed by using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire.

RESULTS

MFNS treatment yielded significant reductions from baseline versus placebo in instantaneous TOSSs (-0.34, P = .026, coprimary end point), instantaneous TNSSs (-0.88, P < .001, coprimary end point), reflective TOSSs (-0.44, P = .005), and reflective TNSSs (-1.06, P < .001). Significant decreases in all individual reflective ocular symptoms and instantaneous eye itching/burning and eye watering/tearing were observed for MFNS versus placebo (P < .05). Numeric improvements in instantaneous eye redness were seen but did not reach statistical significance. Improvements in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores and individual symptom domains were achieved with MFNS treatment versus placebo (P < .001). MFNS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study demonstrates that MFNS significantly reduces ocular symptoms in subjects with SAR.

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.

Intranasal corticosteroids: do they improve ocular allergy?

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a commonallergic condition associated with high financial costs and decreased quality of life. Medical treatment options are extensive and include oral, ophthalmic, and intranasal agents. Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) have traditionally been used for chronic management of nasal symptoms, but have also demonstrated an impact on decreasing ocular symptoms of itching, tearing, and redness. Study design, including the method and timing of scoring ocular symptoms, is an important factor affecting whether changes in ocular symptoms are detected in INS clinical trials. INS are thought to exert their influence on the eye through the naso-ocular reflex, and to date their impact on ocular symptoms appears to be a class effect.

Are intranasal corticosteroids all equally consistent in managing ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis?

BACKGROUND

Nasal and ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR) are reported by >70% of patients and have a profound impact on quality of life while also incurring substantial healthcare costs. It has been suggested that intranasal corticosteroids (INS), in addition to effectively treating the nasal components of AR, are effective in treating the ocular symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides a comprehensive, updated assessment of available data in the public domain to determine the consistency of INS efficacy in treating ocular AR symptoms.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE searches, and research of governmental and regulatory institution sources identified 35 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of INS and seasonal AR (SAR) published between 1990 and May 2009 that specifically contained ocular efficacy as part of the study analyses.

RESULTS

Examination of these studies reveals substantial inconsistency of effect of some INS across, and even within, trials, casting doubt on the suggestion that ocular efficacy is a class effect of INS. Conflicting, inconsistent or even negative effects were observed for most INS examined including mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate. Only fluticasone furoate nasal spray, in addition to established efficacy in treating nasal symptoms, demonstrated a consistent positive effect on ocular symptoms of SAR compared with placebo in a large number of patients across all of its prospective studies. Moreover, these results were consistent across different allergy seasons, including grass, ragweed, and mountain cedar seasons, and different geographical locations throughout Europe and the USA.

CONCLUSION

While additional prospective head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of INS in treating ocular symptoms of AR are needed to fully elucidate the benefits of one INS compared with another, data available to date suggest that not all INS are equally consistent in managing ocular symptoms of SAR. Fluticasone furoate is currently the most consistent.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray consistently and significantly improves both the nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a review of the clinical data

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent disorder, which often manifests as both nasal (congestion, sneezing, itching and rhinorrhoea) and ocular (redness, watery eyes, itching and burning) symptoms. Until recently, efficacy against the ocular symptoms of AR has been inconsistent for any single intranasal corticosteroid (INS). Fluticasone furoate is an enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with potent anti-inflammatory activity.

OBJECTIVE

To assess better the efficacy of an INS in the treatment of both the nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal AR (SAR).

METHODS

Data from all four trials of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) in the treatment of SAR are reviewed and critically considered.

RESULTS

FFNS consistently and significantly improved the nasal and ocular symptoms of SAR in patients sensitised to several different seasonal allergens (grass, ragweed and mountain cedar pollen) in all trials. An integrated analysis of the results also confirmed improvements in both nasal and ocular symptom scores in previously under-represented adolescent patients treated with FFNS.

CONCLUSION

FFNS is the first INS to show consistent nasal and ocular efficacy across all SAR trials.