Budesonide aqueous nasal spray and pressurized metered dose inhaler in the treatment of adult patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal Steroid Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common medical condition in children. It is associated with significant morbidity because symptoms can adversely affect quality of life. The goals of treatment of AR are to provide effective prevention as well as symptom alleviation. Pharmacotherapy is often necessary for the reduction of symptoms and the associated morbidity. Intranasal steroids (INS) are highly effective drugs for treatment of AR and are more efficacious compared to other medications used to treat AR such as antihistamines and leukotriene modifiers. Several formulations of INS are available, all of which have approximately the same efficacy and safety profile. The most common adverse effect is local irritation. Systemic absorption from nasal mucosa is low and thus systemic effects are rare. However, prolonged use of INS, especially in patients who are also using oral or inhaled steroids, can result in hypothalamic-pituitary-axis suppression. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(1):e43-e48.].

The effect of nasally administered budesonide respules on adrenal cortex function in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether nasal administration of budesonide in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis for 30 days suppresses adrenal function and to assess its clinical efficacy.

DESIGN

An open-label prospective study.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENTS

We assessed adrenal function in 9 patients using the cosyntropin test before and after budesonide therapy.

INTERVENTION

Budesonide respule therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Scores from the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 (SNOT-20), a tool for assessing rhinosinusitis health and quality of life, were used to assess efficacy of budesonide treatment.

RESULTS

All of our patients showed adequate adrenal response to cosyntropin stimulation before and after the budesonide trial. The mean difference in SNOT-20 scores was -1 (95% confidence interval, -1.77 to -0.23; P = .02), indicating clinically significant improvement after therapy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that using budesonide nasal wash may be clinically effective in decreasing the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis and does so without suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Formulation considerations of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To examine how various aspects of an intranasal corticosteroid (INS) formulation may influence the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INS therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search of the literature was conducted for studies on allergic rhinitis published between January 1977 and January 2006 using the keywords intranasal corticosteroid, preservatives, benzalkonium chloride, and tonicity.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective studies, retrospective studies, and case reports were selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

Currently available INSs are effective first-line treatments for allergic rhinitis. Differences in patient preference for a particular INS are largely attributable to sensory attributes of the nasal spray, which arise from characteristics of the formulation. Additives and preservatives can cause tolerability issues by irritating the mucosal membranes and causing nasal drying, or they can confer an unpleasant odor or taste to an INS formulation. The relative osmotic pressure, or tonicity, of an INS can modulate nasal absorption and retention, thereby potentially influencing the clinical efficacy. Characteristics such as delivery device and spray volume can affect a patient's perception and experience with a particular INS. Newer INSs, such as ciclesonide, are in development for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and consideration of the formulation characteristics of these agents is an important part of the development process.

CONCLUSIONS

INSs are an effective treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis; however, there is room for formulation improvement. Optimization of formulation may increase the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INSs.

Growth velocity in children with perennial allergic rhinitis treated with budesonide aqueous nasal spray

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines recommend intranasal corticosteroids as first-line treatment for managing persistent symptoms of moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR). However, in children, long-term continual treatment with corticosteroids has raised concerns about potential growth suppression.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of the recommended once-daily dose of budesonide aqueous nasal spray on growth velocity, as measured with stadiometry, in children with perennial AR.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 229 prepubertal children (mean age, 5.9 years; age range, 4-8 years) with perennial AR were randomized (2:1) to receive budesonide aqueous nasal spray, 64 microg (32 microg per nostril) once daily, or placebo for 1 year. The change from baseline in growth velocity, height after treatment, and the percentage of patients whose percentile for height decreased from baseline to the end of treatment were evaluated.

RESULTS

Growth velocity was not significantly different between the 2 groups. The least-squares mean +/- SE growth velocity during treatment was 5.91 +/- 0.11 cm per year for children receiving budesonide and 6.19 +/- 0.16 cm per year for those receiving placebo. The mean difference in growth velocity between the 2 groups was 0.27 +/- 0.18 cm per year (95% confidence interval, -0.07 to 0.62 cm per year). After treatment, the mean +/- SD height was 128.8 +/- 8.7 cm for children receiving budesonide and 128.2 +/- 8.8 for those receiving placebo. The percentage of children whose percentile for height decreased during treatment was not significantly different between the 2 groups (budesonide, 59%, placebo, 54%; P = .64). The incidence and types of adverse events and the mean 24-hour urinary cortisol-creatinine ratio were similar for the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with budesonide aqueous nasal spray, 64 microg once daily, for 1 year did not suppress growth velocity compared with placebo and was well tolerated in prepubertal children with perennial AR.

Systemic availability of budesonide after nasal administration of three different formulations: pressurized aerosol, aqueous pump spray, and powder

AIMS

The present study was undertaken to determine the absolute systemic availability of budesonide from three different devices for nasal administration: pressurized aerosol, aqueous pump spray, and powder.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy, non-smoking, volunteers participated in this open, randomized, and crossover study. All subjects received budesonide as an intravenous dose of 400 microg, and as three, single-dose, intranasal administrations: pressurized aerosol 800 microg, aqueous pump spray 400 microg, and powder 800 microg. Blood was sampled for 10 h after each administration and budesonide was assayed in plasma by liquid chromatography plus mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

The mean [95% CI] systemic availability of budesonide with reference to the metered dose was: 13 [10; 15]%, 29 [23; 37]%, and 20 [16; 23]%, and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was attained at (tmax) 2.0, 0.7, and 0.4 h after administration for the pressurized aerosol, aqueous pump spray, and powder, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of budesonide was more rapid and more complete, and the systemic availability of the drug was significantly higher from the aqueous pump spray and powder than from the pressurized aerosol.

Efficacy of an aqueous and a powder formulation of nasal budesonide compared in patients with nasal polyps

Nasal polyps are commonly treated surgically. Intranasal administration of topical corticosteroids has gained increased acceptance as a treatment alternative. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of treatment of two formulations of budesonide with placebo on nasal polyps. At four Danish clinics 138 patients suffering from moderate or severe nasal polyps were randomized to a twice daily treatment with Rhinocort Aqua 128 micrograms, Rhinocort Turbuhaler 140 micrograms or placebo (Astra Draco, Sweden) for 6 weeks. Polyp size (primary efficacy variable), nasal symptoms, sense of smell, and patients' overall evaluation of treatment of efficacy were assessed by scores. Polyp size was reduced significantly in both budesonide treated groups compared with placebo, but there was no statistical difference between the two actively treated groups. Patients' nasal symptom scores was significantly more reduced in the Aqua compared to the Turbuhaler treated group, and both reduced symptom scores were significantly better compared to placebo. Sense of smell was significantly improved in the actively treated groups compared to placebo. The proportion of patients rating substantial or total control over symptoms after 6 weeks treatment was 60.9% and 48.2% in the Aqua and Turbuhaler-treated groups, respectively, which was significantly better compared with 29.8% in the placebo-treated group. Rhinocort Aqua and Rhinocort Turbuhaler were equally well tolerated.