Safety and tolerability of fluticasone furoate nasal spray once daily in paediatric patients aged 6-11 years with allergic rhinitis: subanalysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre studies

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray for perennial allergic rhinitis in children: a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) versus placebo on nasal symptoms and safety in children with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted with data obtained from Medline and Embase databases up to April 2023. The population of interest was patients aged 2-12 years with perennial AR. The selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing FFNS with placebo. Outcomes of interest included the reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) and safety. To assess the minimal clinically important difference for rTNSS, the Cohen's guideline was used. If the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceeded the threshold of -0.20, effects were considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were selected. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, another evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and another evaluated both the short-term and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction over placebo in rTNSS (SMD -0.18; 95 percent CI -0.35 to -0.01, p = 0.03) in long-term treatment studies, but not in short-term treatment studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD -0.20), these results were considered clinically not relevant. Safety outcomes with FFNS were similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS, 110 μg once daily, compared to placebo, does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptom in children with perennial AR.

Intranasal Steroid Use and Satisfaction in Allergic Rhinitis: A Cross-Sectional Study from an Asian Perspective

BACKGROUND

Intranasal steroid (INS) is the most effective medication class for controlling allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms; however, its effectiveness is limited by patient compliance. Previous studies have explored INS use, compliance, satisfaction, and experience. There is, however, no Asian study on these factors in entirety.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the rate of compliance to usage of INS and explore the reasons for noncompliance in our local population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study on 65 AR patients in a tertiary hospital. Recruited patients were administered a questionnaire to collect data about symptoms, INS use, and concerns they may have. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

The overall compliance rate to INS was 63.1%. Noncompliance was associated with increased frequency of dosing (p = 0.050), presence of sensory attributes (p = 0.041), and forgetfulness (p = 0.049). The top 3 most frequent sensory attributes experienced by patients include throat rundown (29.2%), aftertaste (21.5%), and immediate taste (20.0%). There was a significant difference between brands of INS with regard to sensory attributes experienced (p = 0.003) but no side effects (p = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying risk factors for noncompliance to INS can help health-care providers address difficulties faced by patients and hence increase compliance, allowing better control of AR symptoms.

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.

[Nasally delivered drugs (corticosteroids and vaccines), ultra long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled therapies in an animal model]

Inhaled therapies are widely prescribed. Several aspects of these treatments were considered during the 4th meeting of the aerosol therapy workgroup (GAT) of the French-speaking respiratory society (Société de pneumologie de langue française [SPLF]). In this report, will be detailed the medications delivered by the nasal route, particularly corticosteroids and vaccines as well as the ultra long-acting beta2-agonists, and inhaled therapies for asthma due to allergy to cat dander.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Growth velocity reduced with once-daily fluticasone furoate nasal spray in prepubescent children with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The effect of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) on growth in prepubescent children has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the difference in mean prepubescent growth velocities, as determined by stadiometry, between patients treated continuously for 1 year with FFNS 110 mcg once daily and placebo nasal spray.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 76-week safety study. Nasal symptom assessments were used as a measure of adherence. Eligible patients were ages 5 to <8.5 years at screening and had at least a 1-year clinical history and diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis, including a positive skin test or specific IgE to an appropriate perennial allergen within the past year.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-six patients in the FFNS group and 187 patients in the placebo group completed the entire 52-week treatment period. During treatment, the least squares mean growth velocity was 5.19 cm/y for the FFNS group and 5.46 cm/y for the placebo group; mean difference, -0.270 cm/y (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.06 cm/y). Other safety assessments, including 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion, were comparable between the treatment groups. Daily reflective total nasal symptom scores declined similarly in both the FFNS and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily treatment with FFNS over 52 weeks in prepubescent children resulted in a small reduction in growth velocity compared with placebo. Clinicians will need to balance the reduction in growth observed with FFNS to its potential for clinical benefit.

The safety and efficacy of short-term budesonide delivered via mucosal atomization device for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyposis

BACKGROUND

Budesonide is a potent corticosteroid commonly prescribed for management of inflammation in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The standard for prescribing budesonide is via impregnated nasal saline irrigation (INSI), although recently the mucosal atomization device (MAD) has emerged as a theoretically superior method of distributing medication into the sinuses. The MAD atomizes medication into small droplets and this is thought to enhance absorption and improve bioavailability. However, no studies have shown whether enhanced absorption and improved bioavailability of budesonide via MAD causes adrenal suppression. The objective of this study is to determine whether budesonide via MAD affects the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

METHODS

Twenty CRS patients were recruited from a tertiary rhinology clinic and randomized to take budesonide (1 mg) via MAD or via INSI twice a day for 60 days. The adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test and 22-item Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22) questionnaire were administered on days 1, 30, and 60 of the study. Plasma budesonide and cortisol levels were simultaneously quantified using a high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry technique.

RESULTS

There was no indication of adrenal suppression in either group (n = 20) based on ACTH stimulation test results nor was there significant plasma budesonide levels detected in either group. Quality of life, as indicated by SNOT-22, did not differ between groups at 60 days (p = 0.404; 95% confidence interval [CI], -37.2 to 15.9), but SNOT-22 scores for patients using MAD did show statistically significant improvement at 60 days compared to baseline (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The MAD is likely a safe and effective method of delivering budesonide to the sinuses in the short term.

Paediatric rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.

Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children aged 1 to 18 years

OBJECTIVE

To update the American Academy of Pediatrics clinical practice guideline regarding the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children and adolescents.

METHODS

Analysis of the medical literature published since the last version of the guideline (2001).

RESULTS

The diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis is made when a child with an acute upper respiratory tract infection (URI) presents with (1) persistent illness (nasal discharge [of any quality] or daytime cough or both lasting more than 10 days without improvement), (2) a worsening course (worsening or new onset of nasal discharge, daytime cough, or fever after initial improvement), or (3) severe onset (concurrent fever[temperature ≥39°C/102.2°F] and purulent nasal discharge for at least 3 consecutive days). Clinicians should not obtain imaging studies of any kind to distinguish acute bacterial sinusitis from viral URI, because they do not contribute to the diagnosis; however, a contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan of the paranasal sinuses should be obtained whenever a child is suspected of having orbital or central nervous system complications. The clinician should prescribe antibiotic therapy for acute bacterial sinusitis in children with severe onset or worsening course. The clinician should either prescribe antibiotic therapy or offer additional observation for 3 days to children with persistent illness. Amoxicillin with or without clavulanate is the firstline treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis. Clinicians should reassess initial management if there is either a caregiver report of worsening(progression of initial signs/symptoms or appearance of new signs/symptoms) or failure to improve within 72 hours of initial management.If the diagnosis of acute bacterial sinusitis is confirmed in a child with worsening symptoms or failure to improve, then clinicians may change the antibiotic therapy for the child initially managed with antibiotic or initiate antibiotic treatment of the child initially managed with observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in this revision include the addition of a clinical presentation designated as “worsening course,” an option to treat immediately or observe children with persistent symptoms for 3 days before treating, and a review of evidence indicating that imaging is not necessary in children with uncomplicated acute bacterial sinusitis.

Current and future directions in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common pediatric problem that significantly affects sleep, learning, performance, and quality of life. In addition, it is associated with significant comorbidities and complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an update on the epidemiology, comorbidities, pathophysiology, current treatment, and future direction of pediatric AR.

METHODS

Literature reviews in each of these areas were conducted, and the results were incorporated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AR is increasing in the pediatric population and is associated with significant morbidity, comorbidities, and complications. The mainstay of current treatment strategies includes allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen specific immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, diagnosis will be improved by microarrayed recombinant allergen testing and therapy will be expanded to include emerging treatments such as sublingual immunotherapy and combination products.

Safety of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of nasal polyps in children

BACKGROUND

Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) improves nasal symptoms and reduces polyp size in adults with nasal polyposis. This 4-month, multinational, randomized, double-blind study was conducted to assess the safety of MFNS in pediatric subjects aged 6-17 yr.

METHODS

Subjects aged 6-11 yr with bilateral nasal polyps received MFNS 100 μg once or twice daily or placebo; those aged 12-17 yr received MFNS 200 μg once or twice daily or placebo. End-points included change in 24-h urinary free cortisol (primary), change in 24-h urinary free cortisol corrected for creatinine (key secondary), and adverse events. Efficacy parameters included polyp size, nasal symptoms, and investigator-evaluated therapeutic response, although the study was not powered for statistical analysis of efficacy.

RESULTS

Least squares baseline mean urinary free cortisol level (nmol/24 h) for both age groups combined (N = 127) was 49.5 in the MFNS once-daily group, 39.6 in the MFNS twice-daily group, and 49.8 in the placebo group. Change in 24-h urinary free cortisol did not significantly differ among MFNS- and placebo-treated subjects. Least squares mean 24-h urinary free cortisol levels corrected for creatinine also showed no significant differences among MFNS- and placebo-treated subjects. No safety issues emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study confirm the safety profile of MFNS in pediatric patients with bilateral nasal polyps over 4 months, even at double the recommended pediatric dosage for allergic rhinitis.

No mucosal atrophy and reduced inflammatory cells: active-controlled trial with yearlong fluticasone furoate nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) are well tolerated and more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Effects of FFNS on the nasal histology have not been previously reported. This study examines the effects of FFNS and MFNS, administered daily for 1 year, on the nasal mucosa in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized 1:1 to q.d., open-label treatment with FFNS, 110 μg, or MFNS, 200 μg, for 1 year. These groups and a healthy control group that did not receive study medication underwent nasal biopsies at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

The nasal biopsy population comprised 96 participants (37 using FFNS, 42 using MFNS, and 17 healthy controls). Epithelial thickness did not change appreciably from baseline to week 52 in any of the groups and mean change from baseline did not differ between FFNS and MFNS (least square mean difference, -0.001 mm, 95% confidence interval, -0.007, 0.006). Although not tested for significance, improvements over baseline were observed in epithelial histology in the FFNS group with more epithelium including intact columnar and ciliated epithelial cells. No appreciable change in the percentage of goblet cells was established. FFNS and MFNS were associated with decreases in epithelial and subepithelial nasal mucosal eosinophils and basophils from baseline to week 52. The percentage of subjects with no inflammatory cells at week 52 was 49 and 33% for eosinophils and 46 and 24% for basophils, for FFNS and MFNS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Yearlong therapy with either FFNS or MFNS showed no changes in epithelial thickness or the percentage of goblet cells as well as a reduction in inflammatory cell infiltrate. FFNS was associated with improvements in epithelial histology. These data support the long-term safety of FFNS in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: Profile of an enhanced-affinity corticosteroid in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Of the classes of pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment and are recommended in practice guidelines as first-line pharmacotherapy for rhinitis with prominent nasal congestion. The enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone furoate nasal spray (GW685698X), is one of the newest additions to the armamentarium for allergic rhinitis. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on fluticasone furoate nasal spray and discusses its place in pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Important attributes of fluticasone furoate in seasonal allergic rhinitis include low systemic bioavailability (<0.5%), onset of symptom relief as early as eight hours after initiation of treatment, 24-hour symptom relief with once-daily dosing, comprehensive coverage of both nasal and ocular symptoms, safety and tolerability with daily use, and availability in a side-actuated device that makes medication delivery simple and consistent. With these attributes, fluticasone furoate nasal spray has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction and compliance and reduce the need for polypharmacy in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.