Intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: superior relief?

Outcome of childhood epistaxis with treatment of allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled study

The purpose of this study is to (1) to determine if treatment of underlying allergic rhinitis (AR) in children will affect epistaxis outcome, (2) to compare efficacy of three outpatient AR treatment regimens in epistaxis outcomes, and (3) to investigate potential factors in the pathogenesis of epistaxis with underlying AR. A single-blind randomized-controlled study was conducted in the Otolaryngology clinic in KK Women's and Children's Hospital. Sixty children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis, were randomized to three different AR treatments: treatment 1, antihistamine (20 patients); treatment 2, nasal steroid spray (20 patients); and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray (20 patients). Epistaxis severity and frequency were assessed. Pre-treatment, 95% of patients within each of the three treatment groups described epistaxis symptoms. Post-treatment, there was improvement in epistaxis outcome (resolution of epistaxis) with 20% (4/20), 40% (8/20), and 60% (12/20) of patients in treatment groups 1 (antihistamine), 2 (nasal steroid spray), and 3 (combined therapy) respectively, who reported resolution of epistaxis. Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray resulted in greater improvement of epistaxis severity and frequency. Combined therapy (treatment 3) resulted in the best epistaxis outcome at 1-month follow-up. Majority (90%) reported nose-picking/rubbing behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal corticosteroids are superior to oral antihistamines in relieving itch or rhinorrhea in AR. Intranasal corticosteroids may be important in treating epistaxis with underlying AR, because digital trauma from itch/rhinorrhea-related nose-picking/rubbing frequently leads to epistaxis. Results from this study will be important to primary and emergency physicians, community pediatricians, and pediatric allergists and otolaryngologists.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Childhood epistaxis commonly co-exists with allergic rhinitis (AR), causing significant symptoms and distress to patients. • There are currently no studies reporti ng on epistaxis outcome aft er treatment of underlying AR.

WHAT IS NEW

• This is a single-blind randomized-controlled study of 60 children aged below 18 years with underlying untreated AR, with first presentation of epistaxis to a children's hospital in Singapore Patients were randomized to three different regimens to treat AR: treatment 1, antihistamine; treatment 2, nasal steroid spray; and treatment 3, both antihistamine and nasal steroid spray. • Treatment regimens containing nasal steroid spray improved epistaxis outcomes, with combined therapy of antihistamine and nasal steroid spray resulting in the best outcome for resolution of epistaxis among the three treatment regimens.

Intranasal Corticosteroids: Topical Potency, Systemic Activity and Therapeutic Index

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

Once-Daily Administration of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Patient Preference, and Cost

Background

The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy, safety, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of once-daily budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS), fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS), mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), and triamcinolone aqueous nasal spray (TANS) for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adult patients.

Methods

A MEDLINE search (1966 to January 2004) was conducted to identify potentially relevant English language articles. Pertinent abstracts from recent allergy society meetings were identified also. The medical subject heading search terms included were intranasal corticosteroid (INS), nasal steroid, BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS and AR. Selected studies were randomized, controlled, comparison trials of patients with AR treated with once-daily BANS, MFNS, FPNS, or TANS.

Results

All four INSs administered once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of AR in adult patients, with similar efficacy and adverse event profiles. No differences were seen between INSs in systemic effects, except for significantly lower overnight urinary cortisol levels in healthy volunteers treated with FPNS compared with placebo. Based on sensory attributes, patients preferred BANS and TANS versus MFNS and FPNS. BANS was associated with more days of treatment per prescription at a lower cost per day for adults compared with the other INSs and is the only INS with a pregnancy category B rating.

Conclusion

BANS, FPNS, MFNS, and TANS have similar efficacy and safety profiles. Differences in sensory attributes, documented safety during pregnancy, and cost may contribute to better patient acceptance of one INS versus another and promote better adherence to therapy.

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.

Seasonal patterns of oral antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroid purchases from Australian community pharmacies: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

To explore patterns in the purchase of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) oral antihistamines (OAHs) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) by patients, from pharmacies in different geographical regions of Australia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data from 20.0% of the pharmacies in Australia that link doctor prescriptions and OTC information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment during 2013 and 2014 were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 12 months. Of treatments purchased, 75.9% were OAHs and 16.6% were INCSs. OTC purchases of both treatments exceeded purchases through prescription. OTC OAHs purchasing patterns were seasonal and almost identical in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and New South Wales, and similar seasonal patterns for OTC INCSs were noted in most regions except for South Australia and Tasmania. Prescription purchasing patterns of both OAHs and INCSs remained unchanged throughout the year in most regions.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale retrospective observational study identified seasonal purchasing patterns of OTC and prescription OAHs and INCSs in a real-world setting. It highlighted that seasonality only affects OTC purchasing patterns of OAHs and INCSs across Australia and that practitioner prescribing remains unchanged, suggesting that it is only for persistent disease.

Costs of perennial allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma increase with severity and poor disease control

BACKGROUND

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) represents a global and public health problem, due to its prevalence, morbidity, and impact on the quality of life. PAR is frequently associated with allergic asthma (AA). Costs of PAR with or without AA are poorly documented.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to detail medical resource utilization (MRU) and related direct cost for PAR, with or without concomitant AA, in France.

METHODS

Using Electronic Health Records (EHRs), we identified in 2010 two cohorts of PAR patients, based on General Practitioners' diagnoses and prescribing data, with and without concomitant AA. For each patient, the EHRs were linked to corresponding claims data with MRU and costs during years 2011 to 2013. Predefined subgroup analyses were performed according to severity of PAR and level of AA control.

RESULTS

The median annual cost reimbursed by social security system for a patient with PAR, and no AA was 159€ in 2013. This varied from 111€ to 188€ depending on PAR severity. For patients with PAR and concomitant AA, the median annual cost varied between 266€ and 375€, and drug treatment accounted for 42-55% of the costs, depending on asthma control.

CONCLUSION

This study linking diagnoses from EHRs to claims data collected valid information on PAR management, with or without concomitant AA, and on related costs. There was a clear increase in costs with severity of PAR and control of AA.

Medication-related costs of rhinitis in Australia: a NostraData cross-sectional study of pharmacy purchases

Purpose

There is a relative paucity of research regarding medication expenditure associated with multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia. To describe 1) the nature and extent of multiple-therapy use for rhinitis in Australia using data on therapies purchased with prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) and 2) additional costs incurred by multiple-therapy use compared with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy alone.

Patients and methods

A retrospective observational study was carried out using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data available from 20% of pharmacies in Australia that links doctor prescriptions and OTC purchase information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment, with or without additional asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy, by patients during 2013 and 2014 were assessed.

Results

In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 24 months. The majority of rhinitis therapy transactions were single-therapy purchases without additional asthma/COPD therapy. Of the single therapies purchased, 73% were oral antihistamines (OAHs) and 15% were INCS therapy. Dual-therapy purchases of INCSs and OAHs accounted for 40% of multiple-therapy purchases. Patients frequently purchased OAHs, nonsteroidal nasal sprays, and eye drops for allergic conjunctivitis alongside INCSs, resulting in higher financial costs (up to AU$21 per treatment episode) compared with INCS monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study highlighted the significant burden posed on community pharmacy to address the needs of people with rhinitis symptoms, and the failure to translate the evidence that INCSs are the most effective monotherapy for moderate to severe and/or persistent rhinitis into clinical practice in light of the lack of evidence supporting combination of INCS and OAH therapy. Health care professional engagement, especially at the pharmacy level, will be extremely important if we wish to ensure that the purchase of rhinitis treatment is in accordance with guidelines and that their use is optimal.

Intranasal azelastine and mometasone exhibit a synergistic effect on a murine model of allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-allergic effects of the combination of azelastine and mometasone with those of either agent alone in a Dermatophagoides farinae (Derf)-induced murine model of allergic rhinitis (AR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty BALB/c mice were divided into five groups: azelastine (A), mometasone (M), a combination of azelastine and mometasone (MA), Derf, and control. Derf served as the allergen. Allergic symptom scores, eosinophil counts, and serum Derf-specific IgE levels were measured. The mucosal levels of mRNAs encoding interferon (IFN)-γ, T-bet, interleukin (IL)-4, GATA-3, Foxp3, IL-17, and ROR-γt were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The T-bet, GATA-3, Foxp3, and ROR-γt results were confirmed by Western blotting.

RESULTS

Nose-rubbing motions; the levels of mRNAs encoding IL-4, GATA-3, and ROR-γt; and tissue eosinophil count were reduced in the MA compared with those in the Derf group (all P values <0.05). The levels of mRNAs encoding GATA3 and IL-4 mRNA [synthesized by T helper (Th)2 cells] were reduced and that of mRNA encoding Foxp3 was increased in the MA compared with those in the Derf and A groups. Western blotting confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

We found that the combination of intranasal azelastine and mometasone synergistically suppressed Th17 responses and (reciprocally) elevated Treg responses. Therefore, this combination not only ameliorated allergic inflammation by suppressing Th2 responses, but also usefully modified the Treg/Th17 balance.

Current recommendations and emerging options for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases and represents a global health problem, currently affecting up to 30% of the general population, with a continuously increasing prevalence and significant comorbidities and complications. The aim of this review is to provide an update on AR treatment, with a focus on current therapies defined by AR and its impact on asthma guidelines and with a particular emphasis on new and future therapeutic perspectives.

Clinical benefits of combination treatment with mometasone furoate nasal spray and loratadine vs monotherapy with mometasone furoate in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines are the drug classes most often prescribed to treat allergic rhinitis (AR). Treatment guidelines recommend a combination of these agents for moderate-to-severe AR. However, clinical studies have found that combining an antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid provides few or no advantages over monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) plus loratadine with that of monotherapy with the individual agents in patients 12 years and older with at least a 2-year history of seasonal AR.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical study, 702 patients were randomized to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, plus loratadine, 10 mg (n = 169); mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg (n = 176); loratadine, 10 mg (n = 181); or placebo (n = 176) once daily for 15 days. Primary efficacy variables were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total symptom score (TSS) as recorded on diary cards.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed between mometasone furoate NS plus loratadine and mometasone furoate NS monotherapy for the primary efficacy variables. For TNSS and TSS, all 3 active drug therapies were more effective than placebo (P < or = .02). Both mometasone furoate NS treatment regimens were more effective than loratadine or placebo for TNSS (P < .01 for both) and TSS (P < or = .03 for both), whereas loratadine was more effective than placebo for TNSS only (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with mometasone furoate NS and loratadine provided benefits similar to monotherapy with mometasone furoate NS for the symptoms of seasonal AR. Therefore, mometasone furoate NS monotherapy was shown to be an effective treatment for seasonal AR.

Mono- oder Kombinationstherapie mit einem Antihistaminikum

BACKGROUND

The guidelines of German and European associations of allergology recommend the treatment of severe allergic rhinitis with a combination of oral antihistamines and nasal steroids. Many patients face this option rather skeptically, so that ENT specialists mostly use antihistamine monotherapy with a higher dosage. This increased dose may cause drowsiness, as has been demonstrated for cetirizine and loratadine. However, ebastine is a non-sedating antihistamine. Furthermore, it has been shown that improved clinical efficacy can be attained with an increased dosage of 20 mg daily in comparison to the usual dosage of 10 mg/day without increasing the rate of side effects.

METHODS

In this prospective post-marketing survey, the treatment of 4,307 patients with allergic rhinitis was documented during the pollen season 2005. The severity of rhinitis symptoms and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded.

RESULTS

Treatment with 20 mg ebastine daily as monotherapy led to a significantly greater reduction in symptoms (P=0.002) than the combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

This outcome could be attributed to an assumed better compliance in patients with monotherapy.

Topical glucocorticosteroids in rhinitis: clinical aspects

The introduction of nasal glucocorticosteroids, 30 years ago, has been the most important therapeutic progress in rhinitis management since the introduction of the first generation of antihistamines. Our knowledge of the mode of action of glucocorticosteroids in the nose has improved as the airway mucous membrane of the nose is easily accessible for investigation. However, the exact mechanism behind the marked clinical effect remains unclear. Topical glucocorticosteroids are highly effective in diseases characterized by eosinophil-dominated inflammation (allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis), but not in diseases characterized by neutrophil-dominated inflammation (common cold, infectious rhinosinusitis). Experience for 30 years and a long series of controlled studies have shown that the treatment is highly effective and that the side effects are few and benign. Intranasal glucocorticosteroids can therefore be considered as first-line treatment for allergic and non-allergic, non-infectious rhinitis and nasal polyps.

Classification and management of allergic rhinitis patients in general practice during pollen season

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) represents a major challenge in primary care. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) group proposed a new classification for AR and developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of this disease. We conducted this study to further characterize the classes of AR described by ARIA, and to evaluate whether the management of AR in general practice is in accordance with the ARIA guidelines.

METHODS

During the pollen season of 2003, 95 Belgian general practitioners (GPs) enrolled 804 patients who presented with symptoms of AR. For each patient, a questionnaire comprising the clinical presentation and management was completed.

RESULTS

In 64% of the patients, AR was classified as intermittent and in 36% as persistent. Persistent rhinitis caused more discomfort than intermittent rhinitis. Only 50% of the patients had ever undergone allergy testing. Among them, 51% were allergic to both seasonal and perennial allergens. Eighty-two per cent of the persistent rhinitics were allergic to at least one seasonal allergen and 72% of the intermittent rhinitics to at least one perennial allergen. When compared strictly with the ARIA recommendations, 49% of the patients with mild and/or intermittent AR were overtreated, whereas about 30% of those with moderate/severe persistent rhinitis were undertreated.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that the previous classification of AR into 'seasonal' and 'perennial' is not satisfactory and that intermittent and persistent AR are not equivalent to seasonal and perennial AR respectively. Furthermore, persistent rhinitis has been shown to be a distinct disease entity. Further efforts are required to disseminate and implement evidence-based diagnostic and treatment guidelines for AR in primary care practice.

Glucocorticosteroids in allergic inflammation: clinical benefits in allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media

Allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are among the most common health problems encountered in general practice. Although frequently trivialized, they affect the quality of life, represent a significant socioeconomic burden, and are associated with some serious complications. In addition, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media are often considered as comorbidities. These disorders involve an inflammatory process of the respiratory mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses, or middle ear. Because of their well-known anti-inflammatory effects, the role of glucocorticosteroids in the management of these three disorders has been questioned, evaluated, and, in some cases, established.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Evaluation of patients' preferences for triamcinolone acetonide aqueous, fluticasone propionate, and mometasone furoate nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare product attributes, preferences, and expected compliance associated with triamcinolone acetonide aqueous (TAA-AQ), fluticasone propionate (FP), and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from 2 randomized, double-blind crossover studies with identical design were pooled (N = 215). Patients completed a 14-item sensory attributes questionnaire immediately after each product, and stated their preference and expected compliance with a prescription after receiving all products.

RESULTS

Compared with FP and MF, TAA-AQ was associated with significantly less odor and greater liking of odor ( P < 0.001); and less taste, less dryness of nose/throat, less aftertaste, and greater overall liking ( P < 0.05). Significantly more patients preferred most a prescription of TAA-AQ (50.0%) versus FP (25.0%; P < 0.001) and MF (25.0%; P < 0.001), and would "definitely comply" with TAA-AQ (62.5%) versus FP (49.0%; P < 0.01) and MF (51.0%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

TAA-AQ was associated with significantly more positive sensory attributes, higher preference, and better expected compliance than FP and MF.

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients' preferences for the sensory attributes of an intranasal corticosteroid may affect adherence to treatment.

Randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing fluticasone aqueous nasal spray in mono-therapy, fluticasone plus cetirizine, fluticasone plus montelukast and cetirizine plus montelukast for seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are considered to be particularly effective in reducing nasal congestion and are therefore recommended as first-line treatment in allergic rhinitis patients with moderate to severe and/or persistent symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) 200 microg given once daily, administered in mono-therapy or combined therapy with a H1 receptor antagonist (cetirizine, CTZ) or with a leukotriene antagonist (montelukast, MSK), and the combined therapy of CTZ plus MSK in the treatment of patients affected by allergic rhinitis to Parietaria during natural pollen exposure. In addition, we examined the effect of the treatment on eosinophil counts and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in nasal lavage performed at beginning of season, during season and at the end of the season.

METHODS

One hundred patients aged 12-50 years (mean+/-SD 31.8+/-9.6) with a history of moderate to severe Parietaria pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis were selected. A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, placebo (PLA)-controlled, parallel-group study design was used. Patients were treated FPANS 200 microg once daily (n=20) or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus CTZ (10 mg) in the morning (n=20), or with FPANS 200 microg once daily, plus MSK (10 mg) in the evening (n=20) or with CTZ (10 mg) in the morning plus MSK in the evening (n=20) or matched PLA (n=20). Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on eosinophil counts and ECP in nasal lavage.

RESULTS

All treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA in terms of total symptom, rhinorrhea, sneezing and nasal itching scores. Concerning nasal congestion on waking and daily only the groups treated with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy showed significant differences compared with PLA. Comparing the group treated with FPANS alone and the groups treated with FPANS plus CTZ, we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003). The comparison between FPANS plus CTZ and FPANS plus MSK showed significant difference for nasal itching (P=0.003). Finally, there were significant differences between the group treated with FPANS and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK for total symptom score (P=0.009), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and nasal congestion daily (P<0.001). Also the comparisons between the group treated with FPANS plus CTZ and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK demonstrated significant differences (P<0.001) for total symptom, for nasal congestion on waking and for nasal congestion on daily, for rhinorrhea (P=0.04) and for nasal itching (P=0.003) scores. Concerning the comparison between the group treated with FPANS plus MSK and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK we found significant differences for total symptom score (P=0.005), for nasal congestion on waking (P<0.001) and for nasal congestion on daily (P<0.001). No other differences were observed between the groups. Concerning blood eosinophil counts, significant differences were found between the treatments with FPANS in mono-therapy or in combined therapy with PLA group during and at the end of the season (P=0.0003 and P<0.0001, respectively). Concerning eosinophils and ECP in nasal lavage, all treatments showed significant differences (P<0.001) compared with PLA. Besides, there were significant differences (P<0.001) between the groups treated with FPANS alone or in combined therapy and the group treated with CTZ plus MSK.

CONCLUSION

The results of this comparative study demonstrate that FPANS is highly effective for treating patients affected by allergic rhinitis, with efficacy exceeding that of CTZ plus MSK in combined therapy. In addition, the regular combined therapy of FPANS plus CTZ or plus MSK would not seem to offer substantial advantage with respect to FPANS in mono-therapy in patients affected by seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in allergic rhinitis

Leukotriene modifiers have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of asthma. Because of this success, and the fact that leukotrienes can be recovered not only from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid but also nasal lavage fluid, some researchers have suggested that these medications may also be useful for treating allergic rhinitis. Because the upper and lower airways are linked physically, there has been an assumption that therapy for upper and lower airway disease should be similar. This critical appraisal examines available data both supporting and refuting the emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although many studies have shown an improvement in nasal symptoms when comparing a leukotriene modifier with placebo, few studies have conclusively shown that a leukotriene modifier is any more effective in treating allergic rhinitis than an antihistamine. Results from several reported studies suggest that the addition of a leukotriene antagonist to an antihistamine is no more efficacious than antihistamine alone. However, many of these studies were small and/or primarily designed to examine the asthmatic response, with nasal symptoms being a lesser endpoint. To better understand how, where, and when leukotriene modifiers should be used in the armamentarium of therapies for allergic rhinitis, larger clinical investigations designed specifically to study allergic rhinitis need to be undertaken. We conclude that currently, the data do not support widespread use of a leukotriene modifier with or without an antihistamine in place of an intranasal corticosteroid with or without an antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

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.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Specific immunotherapy [correction of immunotheraphy] of allergic diseases: a three years perspective observational study

In order evaluate the long-term benefit of Specific ImmunoTherapy (SIT), administered either subcutaneously or sublingually, in comparison with drug therapy, in terms of efficacy, tolerability and patients' adherence to the treatment, a three year perspective, observational study was carried out over tree years in a rather large number of allergic subjects. One hundred and ten patients of both sex (50F, 60M; age: 22.4 - 35.5 years) were admitted. Sixty of them were rhinitics, some with concomitant mild intermittent asthma or conjunctivitis; 43 had a persistent asthma, often with concomitant rhinitis. Seven had urticaria. Sixty patients were treated with the allergoid sublingual SIT (in tablets) plus drugs on demand, 19 with the subcutaneous SIT (depot, aluminium hydroxide subcutaneous SIT) and 31 with the pharmacological therapy alone, mainly nasal steroids and antihistamines. The treatment efficacy, evaluated after 36 months, by symptoms and drug consumption reduction, was statistically better in the group assigned to the allergoid sublingual SIT than in the other two groups. This was the case also for the tolerability, the patient's compliance and the physicians' and patients' opinion. The present findings, obtained by a non-randomized study, show that the allergoid sublingual SIT was very appreciated by both patients and physicians for the good effectiveness and the high degree of safety guaranteed, in addition to its simplicity of use.

Allergic rhinitis: systemic inflammation and implications for management

Allergic rhinitis triggers a systemic increase of inflammation. Within minutes of allergen exposure, immune cells release histamine, proteases, cysteinyl leukotrienes, prostaglandins, and cytokines. Some produce the early symptoms, while others augment the production, systemic circulation, and subsequent infiltration of the nasal mucosa with inflammatory cells that sustain the symptoms. Systemic circulation of inflammatory cells permits their infiltration into other tissues where chemoattractant and adhesion molecules already exist. Consequently, allergic rhinitis is linked to comorbid conditions: asthma, chronic hyperplastic eosinophilic sinusitis, nasal polyposis, and serous otitis media. Effective therapy should be directed at underlying inflammation and its systemic manifestations. It should improve the rhinitis and the comorbid conditions. Antihistamines relieve early symptoms by blocking basophil- and mast cell-generated histamine, but they do not significantly influence the pro-inflammatory loop. They are often little better than placebo. Oral corticosteroids provide the systemic anti-inflammatory efficacy, but their toxicity precludes such an approach. Intranasal corticosteroids effectively target the local inflammatory processes of rhinitis, reducing local inflammatory cells within the nares, but they do not directly access tissues involved in the comorbid conditions. Leukotriene modifiers have both systemic anti-inflammatory effects and an acceptable safety profile.

Delayed genomic and acute nongenomic action of glucocorticosteroids in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticosteroids are effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, a disease characterized by a variety of symptoms, e.g. rhinorrhea and itching. The time course of symptomatic relief for allergic rhinitis by steroids has not been examined in detail to date, although the onset of steroid action is one of the main discriminations between genomic and nongenomic actions of steroids. We therefore investigated the time course of subjective and objective measures of nasal affection after steroid administration in patients with allergic rhinitis following specific allergen challenge.

METHODS

Six female and 18 male volunteers (median age 26 years) with a history of allergic rhinitis but currently free of symptoms were included in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-period crossover study. A single dose of either betamethasone (60 mg), methylprednisolone (400 mg) or placebo was given intravenously, 5 min after intranasal allergen provocation. After 10, 20, 60, 150 and 240 min, nasal itching and nasal obstruction were assessed using a standardized visual analogue scale. In addition, nasal airflow was measured by anterior rhinomanometry.

RESULTS

Nasal itching was markedly reduced following either of the two steroids within 10 min after administration of study drug. Itching was depressed by 38% following betamethasone (P<0.05) and by 18% following methylprednisolone (P=0.07) compared with placebo. Nasal airflow and nasal obstruction were not significantly altered by steroids during the first 2 h of the study. However, after 150 min, nasal airflow was 21% rsp. 19% higher after methylprednisolone and betamethasone (P<0.05) compared with placebo. After 240 min, nasal airflow was increased by 20% following betamethasone (P<0.05) and by 19% following methylprednisolone. Nasal obstruction was also beneficially affected by both steroids 150 and 240 min after administration compared with placebo (P<0.05 for both time points following betamethasone).

CONCLUSION

This study for the first time shows rapid in vivo effects of external glucocorticosteroids in humans. Itching, a pathophysiologically complex sensation, is favourably influenced by steroids within 10 min, therefore presumably via nongenomic mechanisms. Though no detailed mechanisms can be derived from this study, steroid interaction with receptors in the central nervous system may play an important role in mediating this effect.

The economic burden of allergic rhinitis: a critical evaluation of the literature

Although a large number of economic analyses of allergic rhinitis have been published, there are relatively few empirically based studies, particularly outside the US. The majority of these analyses can be classified as burden-of-illness studies. Most estimates of the annual cost of allergic rhinitis range from dollars US 2-5 billion (2003 values). The wide range of estimates can be attributed to differences in identifying patients with allergic rhinitis, differences in cost assignment, limitations associated with available data and difficulties in assigning indirect costs (associated with reduced productivity) of allergic rhinitis. Approximately one-third of burden-of-illness studies include direct and indirect costs of allergic rhinitis, about one-third focus on direct costs only, and the remaining one-third focus exclusively on indirect costs due to reduced productivity. Indirect costs attributable to allergic rhinitis were higher in studies only estimating indirect costs (dollars US 5.5-9.7 billion) than in those estimating both direct and indirect costs (dollars US 1.7-4.3 billion). Although there are many economic evaluations of allergic rhinitis treatments in the published medical literature, very few represent formal cost-effectiveness evaluations that compare the incremental costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies. Those that are incremental cost-effectiveness analyses have several limitations, including small samples, short study periods and the lack of a standardized measure of effectiveness. To date, the medical literature is lacking a comprehensive economic evaluation of general treatment strategies for allergic rhinitis. In undertaking such an analysis, serious consideration must be given to the study population of interest, the choice of appropriate comparators, the perspective from which the analysis is conducted, the target audience, the changing healthcare marketplace and the selection of a measure of effectiveness that incorporates both positive and negative aspects of treatments for allergic rhinitis. Future work would benefit from the development of a consensus on a summary measure of effectiveness that could be used in cost-effectiveness analyses of therapies for allergic rhinitis as well as additional empirical work to measure the association between severity of disease and its impact on worker productivity.

The effect of budesonide on the cytokine pattern in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A T(H)2-polarized cytokine pattern has been demonstrated in allergic rhinitis. Budesonide represents an effective topical corticosteroid in the management of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cytokine pattern and symptoms in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis before and after treatment with intranasal budesonide.

METHODS

All patients received budesonide aqueous nasal spray or placebo for 2 weeks. The study was double-blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, and randomized. Nasal lavage was performed in all patients before and after treatment. A panel of cytokines, including interleukin 4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-6, was measured by immunoassay on fluids recovered from nasal lavage. Total symptom score (including rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and nasal obstruction) was evaluated before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with perennial allergic rhinitis were evaluated (13 men and 7 women; mean age, 24.7 years). Budesonide aqueous nasal spray treatment showed a significant decrease of IL-4 (P = .007), IL-5 (P = .04), and IL-6 levels (P = .009). Budesonide aqueous nasal spray treatment also induced significant symptom relief (P = .006). Placebo treatment did not significantly affect the evaluated parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that budesonide aqueous nasal spray is effective in exerting immunomodulatory activity by reducing cytokine pattern and relieving symptoms. These findings are evidence of the effects of intranasal budesonide in treating perennial allergic rhinitis.

Rhinosinusitis

Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common health care complaints in this country. The burden on affected individuals in terms of decreased productivity, absenteeism from the workplace, and diminished quality of life, when added to the cost of care and the growing public health menace of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, makes rhinosinusitis a serious disease that warrants precise diagnosis and effective therapy. Technologic innovations in endoscopy and imaging have improved understanding of sinus pathophysiology, but diagnosis remains clinical and treatment empiric. Recognized pitfalls in acute rhinosinusitis management are injudicious use of antibiotics and antihistamines. Chronic rhinosinusitis is a complex, multifactorial disorder, not simply an infectious disease. In many patients, noninfectious inflammation and structural problems play an important role. Medical management should include an intranasal corticosteroid in addition to an appropriate antibiotic. Otolaryngology referral is indicated for complications of acute infection, immunocompromised patients, nasal polyps, and chronic rhinosinusitis having substantial effect on quality of life. Modern surgical principles that focus on obstructive pathology in the OMC region are efficacious but rarely curative. Developments in the fields of immunology, molecular biology, and genetics will lead to more effective treatment options.

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis: a critical review of leukotriene receptor antagonists compared with other treatments

OBJECTIVE

To review the mechanisms and clinical efficacy of leukotriene receptor antagonists, which are investigational therapies for allergic rhinitis, compared with intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines, which are the most commonly prescribed pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Computer-assisted MEDLINE searches for articles and manual searches of conference proceedings on intranasal corticosteroid, antihistamine, leukotriene receptor antagonist, leukotriene modifier, zafirlukast, montelukast, allergic rhinitis, rhinitis, and asthma.

SELECTION

Published articles and pertinent abstracts on the topics identified above were selected. Head-to-head comparator trials as well as data from placebo-controlled trials were selected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The studies published to date demonstrate that leukotriene receptor antagonists are sometimes more effective than placebo, are no more effective than nonsedating antihistamines, and are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist and an antihistamine has not been proven to be more effective than either agent alone. This review reveals several inconsistencies that require resolution. First, whereas leukotriene receptor antagonists are predicted on the basis of their mechanism of action to improve nasal congestion significantly, clinical studies reveal leukotriene receptor antagonists to be no better than antihistamines at improving congestion. Second, leukotriene receptor antagonists would not be expected on the basis of their putative mechanism of action or nasal challenge data to improve significantly sneezing, nasal itching, or drainage. However, some studies show improvement in these symptoms during treatment with leukotriene receptor antagonists. Considered in aggregate, the data available to date do not clearly support a unique role of leukotriene receptor antagonists in the treatment of allergic rhinitis whether or not it is accompanied by asthma.

Desloratadine: a nonsedating antihistamine

OBJECTIVE

To review information on desloratadine, a nonsedating antihistamine.

DATA SOURCES

An English-language MEDLINE search was conducted (1966-July 2002). References of identified articles were subsequently reviewed for additional data. Schering Corporation provided unpublished information.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

Articles and abstracts pertaining to desloratadine were considered for inclusion, with emphasis on randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Desloratadine is approved for the treatment of symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR), and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) in patients aged > or =12 years. In placebo-controlled trials, desloratadine demonstrated superior efficacy as a once-daily treatment of SAR, PAR, and CIU. Data suggest that desloratadine has antiinflammatory and decongestant activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Desloratadine appears to be a "me-too" agent, with no major differences compared with other second-generation antihistamines.

[Effect of topical administration of beclomethasone dipropionate on symptoms of chronic rhinitis]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of topical administration of corticosteroid beclomethasone dipropionate on common nasal symptoms in moderate allergic and non-allergic hyperreactive eosinophilic rhinitis, and in allergic and non-allergic hyperreactive eosinophilic rhinitis associated with bilateral moderate nasal polyposis. The study was prospective and controlled. During the study 106 patients were examined, out of whom 66 were treated, while 40 had no therapy. Beclomethasone diproprionate nasal spray was administered in the daily dose of 400 micrograms. Patients with isolated rhinitis underwent 3 otorhinolaryngologic examinations during the six-week treatment. Patients with nasal polyposis underwent 4 otorhinolaryngologic examinations during six-month treatment. One-week therapy showed highly significant decrease of the average score of symptoms of isolated rhinitis in relation to basal condition. No further significant change was noted after six-week therapy. Six-week therapy of nasal polyposis exerted significantly reduced score of symptoms in relation to basic condition. During further treatment no significant reduction of symptoms was noted. Follow-up period of all control subgroups showed no significant change of symptom scores. Topical therapy with beclomethasone dipropionate represented a significant medication of the first therapeutic line in moderate isolated eosinophilic rhinitis, as well as in moderate bilateral eosinophilic nasal polyposis.

Respiratory allergy

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma are common respiratory allergic disorders which are increasing globally more in developed countries. Although much has been written about childhood asthma and guidelines published by various international and national fora, not much information is available on AR. This is most common in children, is a significant risk factor for developing asthma, is a common comorbidity with asthma and affects quality of life. This paper highlights the risk factors for developing respiratory allergy asthma and AR, linkages between them and the management issues, particularly in relation to the allergic or allergological aspects as they have important bearing on management of children suffering from respiratory allergy. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is re-emerging as useful therapy which alone has the potential to modify the natural history of disease and prevent the 'allergic march'. Timely diagnosis, correct management including timely referrals can ensure good quality life for those suffering from respiratory allergies.