Intranasal fluticasone propionate. A reappraisal of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the treatment of rhinitis

Comparison of the efficacy of combined budesonide and fexofenadine versus combined fluticasone propionate and fexofenadine on the expression of class-4 semaphorins and their receptors in the peripheral blood cells of patients with allergic rhinitis

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated disease. This study aimed to evaluate the gene expression levels of class 4 semaphorins and their receptors in AR patients before and after treatment with budesonide and fexofenadine (B/F) compared to fluticasone propionate and fexofenadine (FP/F).

Methods

In this study, 29 AR patients (age 34.4 ± 1.2 years, 18 men and 11 women) were treated with B/F, and 24 AR patients (age 32.8 ± 1.9 years, 15 men and 9 women) were treated with FP/F for one month. Before and after treatment, peripheral blood samples were taken from patients. The expression levels of SEMA4A, SEMA4C, SEMA4D, Plexin-B2, and Plexin-D1 genes were measured using the qPCR method. In addition, the serum levels of IgE were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

The expression levels of SEMA4A (P = 0.011), 4C (P = 0.017), Plexin-B2 (P = 0.0005), and Plexin-D1 (P = 0.008) remarkably increased in AR patients treated with B/F. Our results show a significant reduction in the gene expression levels of SEMA4A (P = 0.002), 4C (P = 0.014), 4D (P = 0.003), Plexin-B2 (P = 0.033), and Plexin-D1 (P = 0.035) after treatment with FP/F. The serum levels of IgE increased in FP/F treated group (P = 0.017) and conversely decreased in the treated group with B/F (P = 0.019). Moreover, the percentages of eosinophils were reduced in both FP/F and B/F groups (P = 0.015 and P = 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion

In conclusion, concomitant use of fexofenadine and fluticasone propionate reduced SEMA4A, 4C, 4D, Plexin-B2, and Plexin-D1, while the SEMA4A, 4C, Plexin-B2, and Plexin-D1 gene expression levels were increased in the patient group treated with B/F.

EXHANCE-12: 1-year study of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) in chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Inadequate efficacy of current intranasal steroids in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is attributable to ineffective and/or inconsistent drug delivery to target anatomic sites. A new exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) may improve outcomes by significantly increasing superior/posterior corticosteroid delivery. A study was conducted to assess the long-term efficacy and safety outcomes of EDS-FLU in individuals with CRS.

METHODS

This was a 12-month, multicenter, single-arm study evaluating the safety and efficacy of EDS-FLU 372 μg twice daily in CRS patients (with [n = 34] or without [n = 189] nasal polyps [NP]). Efficacy assessments by serial nasal endoscopy and patient report included: 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), NP grade, standardized surgical indicator assessment, Lund-Kennedy score, and Patient Global Impression of Change. Adverse event (AE) evaluations included nasal endoscopy. Additional safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients who received EDS-FLU, 96% reported prior corticosteroid use and 29% prior sinus surgery. The EDS-FLU AE profile was similar to conventional intranasal steroids studied in similar populations. Most patients (87%) reported symptom improvement. Through 12 months, mean SNOT-22 scores improved by -21.5 and -21.1 for CRS with and without NP, respectively. Among patients with NP, 54.2% had polyp elimination in at least 1 nostril and 83.3% had ≥1-point improvement in polyp grade.

CONCLUSION

Over 1 year of treatment in CRS with and without NP, EDS-FLU 372 μg twice daily was well tolerated and produced improvements across a broad range of objective and subjective measures. EDS-FLU may be a desirable new option for patients with this condition.

The Effects of Fluticasone Propionate on Nasal Epithelial Potential Difference

Background

Human airway epithelium maintains homeostasis of the fluid and salt composition at the airway surface by a regulated transport of sodium and chloride ions. The volume and composition of airway surface liquid have been shown to be important in the pathogenesis of cystic fibrosis, nasal inflammatory disease, and nasal polyposis. The presence of functional epithelial sodium and chloride channels in the airway epithelium can be evaluated electrically by measuring the voltage across the nasal epithelium (Vt). Because fluticasone propionate is commonly used to treat nasal inflammatory diseases, we tested its effect on the nasal ion transport.

Methods

A single-blind prospective trial was performed on 12 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomized to receive either fluticasone propionate or normal saline nasal spray twice daily for 2 weeks. We measured the nasal voltage at baseline, days 3 and 14, and 2 weeks after cessation of treatment. The basal voltage, the change in voltage after perfusion with amiloride (sodium channel blocker), and the change in voltage after perfusion with isoproterenol in a low-chloride buffer (chloride channel activator) were recorded. Saccharin clearance times were measured also.

Results

Two-week treatment with fluticasone propionate resulted in a significant increase in the change in Vt after perfusion with amiloride. There was no significant change in the group treated with normal saline. These findings also were observed on day 3 and were reversed completely after the 2-week washout period. The increase in amiloride-sensitive Vt did not result in a decrease in mucociliary clearance.

Conclusions

This study suggests that one effect of fluticasone propionate use on nasal mucosa in normal volunteers is increased epithelial sodium absorption.

Management of Allergic Rhinitisand Sinusitis

Allergic rhinitis and sinusitis are chronic conditions of the airway and cause significant morbidity. Both can require pharmacotherapy with nonprescription products to relieve symptoms or with prescription products to treat the underlying pathophysiology. Because these diseases are prevalent conditions, the pharmacist is in the unique position of being the first health professional contact for many patients. The pharmacist can assist the patient in selection of nonprescription antihistamines, decongestants, and nasal saline sprays as well as provide instruction on the use of steam therapy, aromatic vapors, and warm compresses for the relief of symptoms. Equally important, the pharmacist can encourage patients to seek care from a physician when treatment with intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics, and nonsedating antihistamines are needed.

The effects of topical nasal steroids on continuous positive airway pressure compliance in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), evaluating effects of topical nasal steroids on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine use and nasal symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

Data source: A comprehensive search of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed through April 2016. Manual searches and subject matter expert input were also obtained. Studies assessing effects of nasal steroids on CPAP machine use in adults, which reported quantitative outcome data of CPAP compliance, were included.

RESULTS

Two studies (144 patients) met inclusion criteria. Both were randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCT). Pooled fixed effects analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between both the groups for average duration of CPAP machine use per night. But there was an overall increase in the usage of 0.4 h (95 % confidence interval (CI) (-0.20, 1.00); P = 0.19) in favor of nasal steroids. Difference of percentage of nights with CPAP use was not demonstrated (mean difference 0.06, 95 % CI (-0.27, 0.39); P = 0.71). There was also no significant difference in nasal symptoms (mean difference 0.63, 95 % CI (-0.11, 1.36), P = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Nasal steroids showed benefits on CPAP use, but did not reach statistical significance. Data was based on meta-analysis of RCTs of 4-week follow-up in unselected OSA patients. Future controlled studies with selected group and longer follow-up duration are needed to confirm the benefits of nasal steroid on CPAP compliance in OSA patients.

Comparison of patient preference for sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids are first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

To compare preferences for fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays after 1 week of treatment in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR.

METHODS

Patients with seasonal AR were enrolled (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to active treatment (fluticasone furoate, 110 microg, or fluticasone propionate, 200 microg, followed by crossover treatment for 1 week each) or matched placebo sequence with a 1-week washout before crossover dosing. Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate efficacy was measured by change from baseline during 1 week in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) that assessed severity of rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing. Patient preference for fluticasone furoate or fluticasone propionate was assessed at the end of the study by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty patients from 29 clinical sites in the Unites States were randomized and treated between August 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007. Most patients were white (73%) and female (59%), with a mean age of 38.3 years, and had had seasonal AR for at least 10 years (74%). Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate each reduced the daily rTNSS compared with their respective placebos (least squares mean [SD] difference, -0.8 [0.24], P < .001, and -0.6 [0.24], P = .01, respectively). More patients (P < .001) preferred fluticasone furoate to fluticasone propionate based on attributes of scent or odor (58% vs 27%), aftertaste (60% vs 18%), leaking out of the nose and down the throat (59% vs 21%), and mist gentleness (57% vs 26%). No statistically significant differences were seen in preferences regarding ease of use, delivery method, or device comfort.

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate significantly improved symptoms in adult patients with seasonal AR. Most patients preferred the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate to those of fluticasone propionate after 1 week of treatment.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF.

CONCLUSION

In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Comparative safety and efficacy of 2 formulations of fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are few data on the clinical equivalence of different nasal corticosteroids in persistent allergic rhinitis (AR). Studies measuring plasma concentrations after a single dose may not predict relative systemic bioactivity at steady state.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a test formulation of fluticasone propionate with the innovator using a noninferiority design.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with persistent AR were randomized to completion in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover manner to receive the formulations at 200 microg/d for 4 weeks, with baselines measured after 2-week run-in and washout periods. The primary outcome measure was the Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) score.

RESULTS

Both formulations produced significant improvements in MiniRQLQ scores as change from baseline (P < .001), with a nonsignificant mean difference (test vs innovator) of -0.06 U (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to 0.52 U) and the lower bound of the 95% CI being above the predefined noninferiority limit of -0.7 U. Both formulations produced significant improvements in peak nasal inspiratory flow rates as change from baseline (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.5 L x min(-1) (95% CI, 9.8 to 10.8 L x min(-1)). There were also significant reductions in total nasal symptom scores (P < .01), with a nonsignificant mean difference of 0.4 U (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.1 U). No significant suppression of the 10-hour overnight urinary cortisol to creatinine ratio was seen with either formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The test formulation was noninferior to the innovator for the primary outcome of MiniRQLQ score. The secondary efficacy and safety end points also support the interchangeability of the 2 formulations.

Once daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray is effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate is a new enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with a unique combination of pharmacodynamic and physicochemical properties suitable for topical activity.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients [adults and adolescents >or=12 years of age with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR)] received once-daily (od) treatment for 2 weeks with either fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 microg (n = 141) or placebo nasal spray (n = 144) administered in a unique, side-actuated device. Efficacy measures included total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS). Patients also reported their overall response to therapy and rated their quality of life using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ).

RESULTS

Fluticasone furoate significantly improved the mean change from baseline in daily reflective TNSS compared with placebo (treatment difference of -1.757; P < 0.001). Fluticasone furoate was also significantly more effective in improving the morning predose instantaneous TNSS (treatment difference of -1.898; P < 0.001) and daily reflective TOSS (treatment difference of -0.741; P = 0.001). A significant treatment effect was observed as early as day 1. Compared with placebo-treated patients, fluticasone furoate-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements in overall evaluation of response to therapy (P < 0.001), as well as in overall RQLQ score (P < 0.001). Fluticasone furoate was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray 110 mug od was effective in improving the nasal symptoms of SAR. It also produced significant improvements in ocular symptoms.

Effect of loteprednol etabonate nasal spray suspension on seasonal allergic rhinitis assessed by allergen challenge in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND

Loteprednol etabonate (LE) is a novel soft steroid that was designed to improve the benefit/risk ratio of topical corticosteroid therapy. This study assesses the clinical efficacy and safety of three different doses of LE nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

In this single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial 165 subjects with SAR to grass pollen received daily single doses of either 100, 200, 400 microg LE nasal spray, or placebo for 14 days. The patients underwent three 4-h allergen challenges with grass pollen in an environmental exposure unit at a screening visit (baseline) and on days 7 and 14 of treatment. Standardized nasal symptom scores were obtained every 20 min. Nasal flow, nasal secretions, and FEV(1) were measured every hour during allergen challenges.

RESULTS

After 14 days of treatment, patients who received 400 microg LE had significantly lower total nasal symptom scores compared with those receiving placebo (P = 0.007). LE400 reduced rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, the amount of nasal secretions, and improved nasal flow as compared with placebo (P < 0.05). LE100 and LE200 were not significantly different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Loteprednol 400 microg once daily is superior to placebo and the only effective dose tested in improving nasal symptoms and objective parameters in patients with SAR.

Effect of fluticasone propionate nasal spray on bioavailability of intranasal hydromorphone hydrochloride in patients with allergic rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the nasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate on the bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of single-dose intranasal hydromorphone hydrochloride in patients with allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Randomized, three-way, crossover pharmacokinetic study.

SETTING

University clinical research unit.

PATIENTS

Twelve patients with allergic rhinitis.

INTERVENTION

Hydromorphone hydrochloride 2.0 mg was administered by intravenous infusion (treatment A), intranasal spray without allergic rhinitis treatment (treatment B), and intranasal spray after 6 days of fluticasone propionate (treatment C). Blood samples were collected serially from 0-16 hours.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by noncompartmental methods. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for statistical analysis. Mean (% coefficient of variation) absolute bioavailability of intranasal hydromorphone was 51.9% (28.2) and 46.9% (30.3) in patients with allergic rhinitis with and without treatment with fluticasone propionate, respectively. Mean maximum concentration (Cmax) values were 3.02 and 3.56 ng/ml, respectively. No statistical differences in Cmax and area under the concentration versus time curve were detected between intranasal treatments. Bioavailability values for both intranasal treatments were lower than those in healthy volunteers (57%). Median time to Cmax (Tmax) values were significantly different (p=0.02) for treatments B and C (15 and 30 min, respectively) using rank-transformed Tmax for ANOVA. Adverse effects were consistent with known effects of hydromorphone administered by other routes, with the exception of bad taste after intranasal administration.

CONCLUSION

Hydromorphone was rapidly absorbed after nasal administration, with maximum concentrations occurring for most subjects within 30 minutes. Allergic rhinitis may affect pain management strategies for intranasal hydromorphone, with a delay in onset of action for patients treated with fluticasone propionate.

Comparison of intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: a review of randomized, controlled trials

For several years there has been discussion of whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids. No well documented, clinically relevant differences seem to exist for individual nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Likewise, the current body of literature does not seem to favor any specific intranasal corticosteroid. When comparing efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, present data favor intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not support antihistamines as superior in treating conjunctivitis associated with allergic rhinitis. Safety data from comparative studies in allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide additional beneficial effects to intranasal corticosteroids alone. Considering present data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis, when compared with antihistamines.

Comparisons of two Intranasal Corticosteroid Preparations in Treating Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVES: Intranasal corticosteroid preparations can relieve symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Different aqueous corticosteroid forms have been developed for intranasal use. The objectives of this study were to compare efficacy and safety between fluticasone propionate and budesonide in the treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS: The study was conducted in a prospective and randomized manner; a total of 24 adult patients were enrolled. All patients received MAST allergen test at entry and again at 2 months after treatments. Fourteen patients received fluticasone propionate 200 μg once daily, and 10 patients received budesonide 200 μg twice daily. To investigate the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and budesonide, a subjective scoring system was designed to evaluate the symptom improvement of patients. Adverse events were recorded on a diary card then were analyzed. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: Analysis on patient-based symptom scores revealed that both fluticasone propionate and budesonide were equally efficacious in improving the symptoms of nasal blockage, sneezing, nasal itching, and watery rhinorrhea. There were no significant side effects reported for both groups during this follow-up period. However, analysis showed that the fluticasone propionate group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in some MAST allergen tests ( Candida, mite, house dust; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Clinically, fluticasone propionate 200 μg once daily was efficacious as budesonide 200 μg twice daily in the relief of allergic rhinitis symptoms. However, fluticasone propionate can achieve greater immunologic improvement. Both preparations showed no evidence of short-term side effects.

Implementation of guidelines for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a common disease altering quality of life. Its treatment is well established and guidelines have been proposed. However, their efficacy has never been tested. The aim of the study was to validate the guidelines of the International Consensus on Rhinitis in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A multicenter, multinational, open label, parallel, randomized study compared two therapeutic strategies in seasonal allergic rhinitis during a 3-week treatment. General practitioners were randomized into two groups. In the first group of 224 patients, doctors followed guidelines from the International Consensus on Rhinitis. Depending on the severity of nasal and ocular symptoms defined using visual analogue scales, patients received ebastine (an oral antihistamine), triamcinolone acetonide (a topical corticosteroid) and/or ophthalmic nedocromil sodium (a topical ocular cromone). In the second group of 241 patients, general practitioners had a free choice of treatment. The primary efficacy end points were quality of life measured using the standardized rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) and the symptom-medication scores assessed daily with an electronic dairy system.

RESULTS

Adjusted mean total symptom scores over 21 days were 4.93 in the guidelines strategy group compared with 7.48 in the free-choice treatment group (P = 0.0001). Mean total scores in the RQLQ decreased by 2.19 in the guidelines group compared with a decrease of 1.79 in the free-choice treatment group (P = 0.0001). At 21 days, the least square mean difference in improvement in overall scores for RQLQ in the guidelines group compared with the free-choice treatment group was 0.53, which was greater than the minimal important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis often present severe symptoms which are not well recognized or controlled by physicians using their own criteria of severity and treatment. Using a simple method for the evaluation of the severity and a simple therapeutic scheme based on International Guidelines, patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis presented a significant improvement by comparison with those receiving a non-standardized treatment.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids are accepted as safe and effective first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Several intranasal corticosteroids are available: beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. All are efficacious in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis and as prophylaxis for perennial allergic rhinitis. In general, they relieve nasal congestion and itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing that occur in the early and late phases of allergic response, with studies showing almost complete prevention of late-phase symptoms. The rationale for topical intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis is that adequate drug concentrations can be achieved at receptor sites in the nasal mucosa. This leads to symptom control and reduces the risk of systemic adverse effects. Adverse reactions usually are limited to the nasal mucosa, such as dryness, burning and stinging, and sneezing, together with headache and epistaxis in 5-10% of patients regardless of formulation or compound. Differences among agents are limited to potency, patient preference, dosing regimens, and delivery, device and vehicle.

Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: superior relief?

Whether first-line pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis should be antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids has been discussed for several years. First-generation antihistamines are rarely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, mainly because of sedative and anticholinergic adverse effects. On the basis of clinical evidence of efficacy, no second-generation antihistamine seems preferable to another. Similarly, comparisons of topical and oral antihistamines have been unable to demonstrate superior efficacy for one method of administration over the other. Current data documents no striking differences in efficacy and safety parameters between intranasal corticosteroids. When the efficacy of antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are compared in patients with allergic rhinitis, present data favours intranasal corticosteroids. Interestingly, data do not show antihistamines as superior for the treatment of conjunctivitis. Safety data from comparative studies in patients with allergic rhinitis do not indicate differences between antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids. Combining antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis does not provide any additional effect to intranasal corticosteroids alone. On the basis of current data, intranasal corticosteroids seem to offer superior relief in allergic rhinitis than antihistamines.

The phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor roflumilast is effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The beneficial effects of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors in allergic asthma have been shown in previous preclinical and clinical studies. Because allergic rhinitis and asthma share several epidemiologic and pathophysiologic factors, PDE4 inhibitors might also be effective in allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of oral roflumilast (500 microg/day) in allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover study, 25 subjects (16 male, 9 female; median age, 28 years) with histories of allergic rhinitis but asymptomatic at screening received roflumilast (500 microg once daily) and placebo for 9 days each with a washout period of at least 14 days in between treatment periods. In each of the treatment periods, controlled intranasal allergen provocation with pollen extracts was performed daily beginning the third day of treatment, each time approximately 2 hours after study drug administration. Five and 30 minutes after each allergen provocation, rhinal airflow was measured by means of anterior rhinomanometry and the subjective symptoms obstruction, itching, and rhinorrhea were assessed by means of a standardized visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Rhinal airflow improved almost consistently during the 9 days of roflumilast treatment, and it was significantly higher at study day 9 on roflumilast in comparison with placebo, a result also found for itching and rhinorrhea. With respect to the subjective obstruction score, a significant difference in comparison with placebo could be demonstrated within 4 days.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a PDE4 inhibitor, roflumilast, effectively controls symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Thus PDE4 inhibitors might be a future treatment option not only in allergic asthma but also in allergic rhinitis or the combination of the 2 diseases.

Pharmacokinetics of intranasal corticosteroids

Topical administration of corticosteroids can reduce the total dose of corticosteroid required to treat the patient and minimize side effects. This logic has led to the development of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) for allergic and perennial rhinitis. The second generation of these compounds includes beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, and triamcinolone acetonide. There is evidence that the INCS are effective in rhinitis; however, there is concern about the potential for these compounds to cause growth suppression. In one study, beclomethasone dipropionate significantly reduced growth in children; however, treatment of children with mometasone furoate nasal spray for 1 year showed no signs of growth suppression. It is evident that the differences among INCS lie in their pharmacokinetics. Structural differences among the various INCS influence their metabolism. The goal of INCS therapy is to have a high ratio of topical to systemic activity. The drug delivery device, absorption of the drug, and drug distribution all contribute to effective topical activity of an INCS. In addition, individual drug metabolism and elimination (half-life and drug clearance) also contribute to the therapeutic index of a drug. Overall, the second-generation INCS cause minimal systemic effects at recommended doses.

Comparison of once daily fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray with once daily budesonide reservoir powder device in patients with perennial rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing the corticosteroids fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide (BUD) in both perennial and seasonal rhinitis have shown no consistent difference between treatments. However, the therapeutic outcomes may have been influenced by study design.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of FP aqueous nasal spray (ANS; 200 microg/day) with BUD reservoir powder device (RPD; 200 microg/day) on rhinitis symptoms, productivity loss and device preference in patients with perennial rhinitis.

METHODS

After a 2-week run-in period, 440 patients were randomized to receive either FPANS, BUD RPD or matched placebo (ANS or RPD) for 8 weeks, followed by an open-label 4-week follow-up treatment with FPANS. Patients completed diary card visual analogue scores for nasal symptoms, and questionnaires on satisfaction with the treatment and preferred choice of device.

RESULTS

During weeks 1-4, the visual analogue total nasal symptom scores (VATNS) in the FPANS group were significantly lower than scores in the BUD RPD group (mean difference = -17.8; 95% CI = -34.4, -1.3; P = 0.036). FPANS also significantly reduced the VATNS compared with the ANS placebo at all time-points assessed (P < or = 0.005). BUD RPD did not significantly differ from the RPD placebo at weeks 5-8 (P = 0.167), or the ANS placebo at any time-point (P < or = 0.151). Over the 8-week treatment period FPANS was significantly more effective than BUD RPD at reducing sneezing (mean difference = -4.4; 95% CI = -8.6, -0.3; P = 0.036) and nasal itching (mean difference = -5.3; 95% CI = -9.9, -0.8; P = 0.022), and was significantly superior to the ANS placebo for all symptoms assessed at weeks 1-4 and 1-8 (P < 0.016). At the same time-points BUD RPD was no better at alleviating nasal itching than the RPD placebo (P < or = 0.306), and compared with the ANS placebo, significantly reduced only one symptom; nasal blockage (P < or = 0.016). After 8 weeks of treatment, patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD (P < 0.001), and at 12 weeks a significantly greater number of patients were satisfied with FPANS treatment compared with BUD RPD (P = 0.0019) or the respective placebos (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

FPANS and BUD RPD are effective therapies with a good safety profile for the treatment of perennial rhinitis but, in this direct placebo-controlled comparison, FPANS was more efficacious than BUD RPD, and the patients preferred the ANS device to the RPD.

Comparison of the systemic availability of fluticasone propionate in healthy volunteers and patients with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to compare the systemic exposure to inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) after administration of either single or repeated dose regimens via dry powder and metered-dose inhalers in patients with asthma and healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND

The pharmacokinetics of FP, a topically active glucocorticoid administered by inhalation for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis, are well characterised in healthy volunteers. As asthma is characterised by pathophysiological changes in the lung, it may be inappropriate to use data from studies in healthy volunteers to predict the deposition and absorption of FP in patients with asthma.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Pooled data from 13 pharmacokinetic studies showed that the systemic availability of FP (measured as area under the plasma FP concentration-time curve) after single or multiple administration by inhalation was 2 to 3 times lower in patients with asthma than in healthy volunteers. This observation correlated well with the systemic effects of FP in the 2 groups. Reduction in 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion after inhalation of FP (determined in 9 of the studies) was greater in healthy volunteers than in patients with asthma. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression caused by systemic exposure to FP in adults with asthma is therefore substantially less than that in healthy volunteers.

CONCLUSION

Differences in the deposition of FP in the lungs of patients with asthma, probably caused by obstructed inspiratory airflow, may explain this observation.

Impact of allergic rhinitis treatment on quality of life

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the nasal passages. It affects approximately 20% of the population, is a significant health and economic burden, and severely impairs quality of life. Two main instruments, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form health survey (SF-36) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) have been used to assess quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis. Antihistamines, corticosteroids, anticholinergic agents, decongestants, cromoglycates, and immunotherapy are used to treat patients with allergic rhinitis. Of these, antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the most efficacious and frequently utilised medications. Studies have demonstrated improvements in quality of life with both of these medications in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Patient and physician perspectives on the impact and management of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis

Patient and physician perspectives on the impact and management of perennial (PAR) and seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) were studied. In all, 2139 subjects were questioned about their medical conditions, severity and frequency of symptoms and satisfaction with treatment. A group of general practitioners (GPs) were also invited to discuss their experiences in the management of rhinitis. In this UK survey, allergic rhinitis was more common than asthma, hypertension, skin rashes, eczema and diabetes. The prevalence of SAR and PAR was 15% and 2%, respectively. Sneezing and runny nose were the most common symptoms and GPs were the main contact for advice and treatment (54% of patients). Symptoms were well-controlled in 32% of patients. Allergic rhinitis affected work, home and social life in 29%, 34% and 30% of patients, respectively. The GPs considered PAR to be more difficult to treat than SAR, and GP and patient level of satisfaction in the treatment of PAR was low. This suggests that education of patients and physicians on the benefits of allergen avoidance, and the selective use of the highly effective therapies available on prescription could improve the level of satisfaction with therapy. Adherence to current guidelines on the management of rhinitis could lead to an effective, structured treatment plan for patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate nasal drops 400 microgram once daily compared with placebo for the treatment of bilateral polyposis in adults

BACKGROUND

Chronic eosinophilic rhinosinusitis underlies a range of respiratory disorders including nasal polyposis. Surgical and medical methods are used to control polyps, with topical steroids commonly being used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Fluticasone propionate nasal drops (FPND) is a formulation developed specifically for an effective and well tolerated corticosteroid treatment of nasal polyposis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and tolerability of FPND in the treatment of bilateral nasal polyposis in adults.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study compared FPND 400 microgram once daily (o.d.) with placebo for 12 weeks in adult patients with mild to moderate bilateral polyposis. The primary efficacy endpoint was visual assessment of polyp size by the physician at monthly clinic visits. Nasal blockage, rhinitis, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), olfactory function and requirement for polypectomy were also assessed at visits. The patients kept diary card records of symptoms, PNIF, and use of rescue antihistamine. Additional safety data were provided by a 12-week open extension, when all patients received FPND 400 microgram o.d.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks double-blind treatment with FPND (n = 52) or placebo (n = 52), polyp size was reduced in 27% and 16% of patients, respectively; clinical reduction of nasal blockage significantly favoured FPND over placebo (55% vs 22%; P = 0.002), and clinic PNIF had increased significantly with FPND (by 52 L/min vs -3 L/min for placebo; P < 0.001). Diary card measurements showed significant benefits of FPND vs placebo for daily PNIF, nasal blockage, rhinitis and use of loratadine rescue medication. Both treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred during randomized treatment. Epistaxis was more frequent with FPND than placebo but was generally mild and did not result in withdrawals. Mean serum cortisol levels did not change significantly with either treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study showed FPND 400 microgram o.d. to be an effective and well tolerated treatment for bilateral nasal polyposis in adults.

Preventive treatment of intranasal fluticasone propionate reduces cytokine mRNA expressing cells before and during a single nasal allergen provocation

BACKGROUND

The local production and release of a number of cytokines regulate allergic upper airway inflammation. Medication is usually used at the presentation of the first symptoms. There are, however, clues that it is advisable to start taking the corticosteroid before the grass pollen season begins.

METHODS

This single allergen provocation study was conducted in autumn, out of the hay fever season. Nasal mucosa biopsies were taken twice before provocation (before and after 4 weeks of preventive treatment) and three times after allergen provocation (1 h, 24 h and 1 week). The preventive treatment used was fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) (n = 10) or a placebo (n = 9). Eosinophils and mRNA positive cells (in situ hybridization for IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-13, IFNgamma, RANTES and TNFalpha) were counted in the biopsies.

RESULTS

Preventive treatment with FPANS out of season resulted in a decrease in eosinophils and mRNA positive cells for IL-5 and IL-6. After allergen provocation, levels of most of the measured cytokines (IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, IL-13, IFNgamma, RANTES and TNFalpha) and eosinophils were reduced using corticosteroids. The numbers of cells (eosinophils, IL-3, IL-6 and IL-8) correlated with nasal symptoms. Significant correlations in the early and late allergic phase were found between eosinophils and cytokines (IL-3, IL-10 and IL-13).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that preventive treatment with FPANS prior to contact with grass pollen is effective in reducing the increase of cytokine mRNA positive cells in reaction to grass pollen contact.

Intranasal fluticasone propionate does not prevent acute otitis media during viral upper respiratory infection in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common complication of a viral upper respiratory infection (URI) in children. The virus-induced host inflammatory response in the nasopharynx plays a key role in the pathogenesis of AOM. Suppression of this inflammatory process might prevent the development of AOM as a complication.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the effect of intranasally administered fluticasone propionate on prevention of AOM during a viral respiratory infection.

METHODS

A total of 210 children (mean age, 2.1 years; range, 0.7-3.9 years) with normal middle ear status and URI of 48 hours' duration or less were randomly allocated to receive either fluticasone (100 microg twice daily) or placebo for 7 days. The specific viral cause of the infection was determined from nasopharyngeal aspirates obtained at the first visit. The children were re-examined at the end of the 7-day medication period.

RESULTS

In the fluticasone group AOM developed in 40 (38.1%) of 105 children compared with 29 (28.2%) of 103 children receiving placebo (P =.13). The viral cause of the respiratory infection was determined in 167 (86.1%) of 194 children from whom a nasopharyngeal aspirate was obtained. In children with rhinovirus infection, AOM developed significantly more often in the fluticasone group (45.7%) than in the placebo group (14.7%, P =.005).

CONCLUSION

Intranasally administered fluticasone does not prevent the development of AOM during URI but may increase the incidence of AOM during rhinovirus infection.

Allergic rhinitis: treating the adult

Allergic rhinitis is now recognized as a chronic medical condition that markedly affects patient quality of life and is a cause of substantial medical care expenditures. Effective treatment of adults with allergic rhinitis usually requires an integrated regimen that combines allergen avoidance measures, pharmacotherapy, and possible specific-allergen immunotherapy. This approach can control bothersome symptoms with minimal adverse effects in most patients. New medications, such as anti-immunoglobulin E therapy and cytokine antagonists, may provide relief to patients who are refractory to or do not tolerate currently available treatments.

Pharmaceuticals--cost or investment? An employer's perspective

Employers are becoming increasingly concerned about rising pharmaceutical costs. Are improved health and cost outcomes achieved as a result of increasing pharmaceutical costs? One should approach this issue with a holistic view that considers the overall impact that disease conditions have on health and productivity. To illustrate, we first identified the "top ten" most expensive physical and mental health concerns facing American businesses, using data from over 60 firms from the 1996 MarketScan Private Pay Fee-For-Service Research Database. For some of these top ten conditions, the literature already addresses the drug cost versus investment issue, with mixed results. For conditions in which uncertainty prevails and for other high-cost conditions, empirical analyses should address the drug cost versus investment issue to minimize the risk of a penny-wise and pound-foolish payment/coverage policy. A similar strategy should be applied to individual corporate diagnostic assessments.

Dose-related efficacy and tolerability of fluticasone propionate nasal drops 400 microg once daily and twice daily in the treatment of bilateral nasal polyposis: a placebo-controlled randomized study in adult patients

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids are the accepted medical adjunct to surgery in patients suffering from nasal polyposis. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a potent, topically active corticosteroid which has been formulated as nasal drops specifically for the treatment of polyposis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate dose-related efficacy and tolerability of FP nasal drops (FPND) in the treatment of mild to moderate bilateral polyposis; in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre international study.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 142) with bilateral nasal polyps were randomized to receive either FPND 400 microg once daily (o.d.), FPND 400 microg twice daily (b.i.d.) or placebo for 12 weeks. The majority then entered a further 12 week open period during which all patients received FPND 400 microg o.d. The primary efficacy endpoint was the physicians' visual assessment of polyp size. Secondary clinical endpoints were nasal blockage and overall rhinitis (0-3 scores), peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), olfactory function tests, and requirement for polypectomy. The patients also kept twice daily records of symptom scores, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

At the end of the 12 week randomized treatment period, polyp size was reduced significantly by FPND 400 microg b.i.d. as compared with placebo (P = 0.006). Clinical assessments of nasal blockage and overall rhinitis showed significant improvements at several stages of treatment with both doses of FPND. Clinic PNIF was also improved significantly by both doses of FPND in comparison with placebo, and FPND 400 microg b.i.d. was significantly more effective than 400 microg o.d. (P = 0.045). Patient diary card scores supported the clinical assessments. Two patients on placebo required polypectomy and all treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

FPND 400 microg once or twice daily is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bilateral nasal polyposis.

Effect of topical corticosteroids on seasonal increases in epithelial eosinophils and mast cells in allergic rhinitis: a comparison of nasal brush and biopsy methods

BACKGROUND

Nasal brushing and nasal biopsy are well-tolerated sampling techniques. Seasonal grass pollen-induced rhinitis is characterized by epithelial mast cell infiltration and seasonal increases in both epithelial and sub-mucosal eosinophils.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ability of the nasal brush and nasal biopsy techniques to detect natural seasonal increases in eosinophils and mast cells, and to assess the influence of topical corticosteroid.

METHODS

Nasal brush samples and nasal biopsies were collected from 46 grass pollen-sensitive seasonal rhinitis patients before the grass pollen season and at the peak of the pollen season following 6 weeks' treatment with either fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (200 microg, twice daily) or placebo nasal spray.

RESULTS

Placebo patients showed seasonal increases in epithelial eosinophils both with nasal brushing (P < 0.0001) and biopsy (P < 0.001). Epithelial mast cell numbers also increased during the pollen season as detectable by brushing (P < 0.0001) and biopsy (P < 0.03). Changes in cell numbers measured by nasal brushing correlated with those observed with nasal biopsy, both for eosinophils and mast cells (P < 0.05). Sub-mucosal eosinophils but not mast cells also increased during the pollen season (P < 0.002). Nasal brushing and biopsy revealed that fluticasone treatment inhibited seasonal increases in epithelial eosinophils (P < 0.00001) and epithelial infiltration by mast cells (nasal brushing P < 0.00001 and nasal biopsy P < 0.01). Fluticasone also inhibited seasonal increases in sub-mucosal eosinophils (P < 0.001) and significantly reduced nasal symptoms (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nasal brushing harvests sufficient inflammatory cells from the surface of the nasal mucosa to be used in lieu of nasal biopsies in observation of the effect of drugs on the nasal epithelium.

A review of the preclinical and clinical data of newer intranasal steroids used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

The anti-inflammatory activity of corticosteroids has prompted the exploration of their use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The development of intranasal steroids has resulted in several agents with quick actions, localized effects, and great efficacy in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and the prophylactic management of perennial rhinitis. This article presents a concise review of the preclinical and clinical evidence with these new agents and provides data-based guidance for the selection of optimal agents. The survey reveals that mometasone furoate, a new inhaled steroid with topical activity, has the greatest binding affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor, followed by fluticasone propionate, budesonide, triamcinolone acetonide, and dexamethasone. Mometasone furoate also has strong anti-inflammatory activity, with IL-4 and IL-5 inhibition activities equivalent to those of fluticasone propionate. Clinically, both mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate appear to be well tolerated, to have quick onsets of action, and to be equivalent in efficacy in the treatment of seasonal allergic and perennial rhinitis. Of the intranasal steroids currently available, mometasone furoate has been shown to have the least systemic availability and, consequently, is expected to have the fewest systemic side effects. Some suppression of overnight cortisol levels has been reported with fluticasone propionate (indicative of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression).

The new topical steroid ciclesonide is effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study was performed to investigate the efficacy of ciclesonide nasal spray in allergic rhinitis at the dose level of 200 micrograms per nostril. Twenty-four subjects (13 males, 11 females; median age: 28 years) with a history of allergic rhinitis but free of symptoms at screening entered the study. Ciclesonide and placebo were given for 7 days each with a washout period of at least 14 days in between. In both treatment periods, controlled intranasal allergen provocation with pollen extracts was performed on the 2 days before start of treatment (days -2 and -1) and on all treatment days (days 1 to 7) about 2 hours after administration of the study medication. At 5 and 30 minutes after each allergen provocation, rhinal airflow was measured by anterior rhinomanometry, and the subjective symptoms of obstruction, itching, and rhinorrhea were assessed by means of a standardized visual analog scale. Rhinal airflow improved significantly from day 5, while the subjective symptom of obstruction improved from day 2. Itching and rhinorrhea also improved significantly. The local and systemic tolerability of ciclesonide nasal spray was excellent. The results of this study clearly indicate that the new topical steroid ciclesonide is effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis without producing local or systemic side effects.

Clinical performance of fluticasone propionate nasal drops

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal drops were investigated in two multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Patients received FP 400 microg once or twice daily for 12 weeks and then FP 400 microg once daily for a further 12 weeks. FP 400 microg significantly reduced polyp size and improved peak nasal inspiratory flow, rhinitis symptoms and sense of smell when administered twice daily. Significant reductions in polyp size were not achieved with once daily administration, but clinical benefits were observed for peak nasal inspiratory flow. Both dosing regimens were well tolerated, with an overall incidence of adverse events which was similar to placebo.

Impact on quality of life during an allergen challenge research trial

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QOL) issues resulting from participation in an allergy research trial, or indeed any clinical trial, is not documented in the medical literature.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether participating in a trial where allergic symptoms are induced has a significant impact on subjects' QOL, and to quantify extent and duration.

METHODS

Subjects were recruited from a trial utilizing a controlled allergen environment to assess anti-allergic medications. A QOL survey (consisting of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ] & the SF-36) was completed at screening, on study day, and approximately 2 weeks post-study. Follow-up was sought from subjects' whose QOL was significantly worse than baseline.

RESULTS

Of 219 trial participants, 206 completed both screening and study surveys; 141 returned at least one follow-up survey; and 136 constructed the final dataset. Mean overall scores at follow-up via RQLQ were significantly better than screening (P < .001). Significant decreases in QOL from baseline on study day occurred in social function on the SF-36 (P = .026) and in domains of sleep (P = .019), non-nasal symptoms (P = .05), ocular symptoms (P < .001), and nasal symptoms (P < .001) on the RQLQ. Average post-study follow-up was 17.1 days (range = 5 to 55 days).

CONCLUSION

Subjects participating in a trial involving allergic symptom induction experienced a decrease of QOL in parameters specific to rhinoconjunctivitis and social function. Subjects' QOL returned to or improved over baseline within 2 1/2 weeks. Positive QOL findings are important to studies where symptoms are induced and also have relevance to standard Phase 3 drug trials.

Use of nasal steroids in managing allergic rhinitis

Intranasal steroids are highly effective drugs for treating patients with allergic rhinitis. First-line use of intranasal steroids is becoming increasingly common, and intranasal steroids can be used alone or in combination with other therapies to achieve optimal improvement in rhinitis symptoms. The major adverse effect of intranasal steroids is local irritation. This article reviews the mechanism of action of corticosteroids, the effects of intranasal steroids on chemical mediators of inflammation, and the risks and benefits associated with their use.

Sinusitis in the common cold

BACKGROUND

Acute community-acquired sinusitis is considered a bacterial complication of the common cold. Radiologic abnormalities in sinuses occur, however, in most patients with upper respiratory virus infections.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of the occurrence, clinical profile, laboratory findings, and outcome of radiologically confirmed sinusitis was carried out as part of a common cold study in young adults.

METHODS

Clinical examinations and radiography of the paranasal sinuses were carried out on days 1, 7, and 21 in 197 patients with the common cold. The symptoms were recorded on diary cards on days 1 to 20. Ten viruses and 5 bacteria were studied as etiologic agents of common cold as reported earlier. Serum C reactive protein concentrations, erythrocyte sedimentation rates, and total white blood cell counts with differentials were determined in 40 randomized subjects on day 7. The effect of 6 days of intranasal fluticasone propionate treatment of the common cold in the prevention of sinusitis was analyzed.

RESULTS

On day 7, 39% of patients with the common cold in the placebo group (n = 98) had sinusitis, which we would prefer to call viral sinusitis. The symptoms of patients with sinusitis and those without it were not clinically distinguishable. Viral infection was detected in 81.6% of patients with sinusitis. No significantly increased levels of antibodies to bacteria were detected. Serum C reactive protein concentrations, erythrocyte sedimentation rates, and white blood cell counts were low in patients with sinusitis. All patients made a clinical recovery within 21 days without antibiotic treatment. Fluticasone propionate treatment tended to prevent paranasal sinusitis, especially in rhinovirus-positive subjects.

CONCLUSION

Viral sinusitis frequently occurs in the early days of the common cold, but it is a self-limited illness. The sinuses should not be imaged in patients with the common cold if the signs and symptoms of illness gradually become less severe and no specific signs suggestive of bacterial sinusitis occur.