New formulation of aqueous flunisolide nasal spray in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: comparative assessment of safety, tolerability, and efficacy

Acute and chronic in vivo effects of exposure to nicotine and propylene glycol from an E-cigarette on mucociliary clearance in a murine model

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of an acute (1 week) and chronic (3 weeks) exposure to E-cigarette (E-cig) emissions on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in murine lungs.

METHODS

C57BL/6 male mice (age 10.5 ± 2.4 weeks) were exposed for 20 min/day to E-cigarette aerosol generated by a Joyetech 510-T^® E-cig containing either 0% nicotine (N)/propylene glycol (PG) for 1 week (n = 6), or 3 weeks (n = 9), or 2.4% N/PG for one week (n = 6), or 3 weeks (n = 9), followed by measurement of MCC. Control mice (n = 15) were not exposed to PG alone, or N/PG. MCC was assessed by gamma camera following aspiration of ^99mtechnetium aerosol and was expressed as the amount of radioactivity removed from both lungs over 6 hours (MCC6hrs). Venous blood was assayed for cotinine levels in control mice and in mice exposed for 3-weeks to PG alone and N/PG.

RESULTS

MCC6hrs in control mice and in mice acutely exposed to PG alone and N/PG was similar, averaging (±1 standard deviation) 8.6 ± 5.2%, 7.5 ± 2.8% and 11.2 ± 5.9%, respectively. In contrast, chronic exposure to PG alone stimulated MCC6hrs (17.2 ± 8.0)% and this stimulation was significantly blunted following chronic exposure to N/PG (8.7 ± 4.6)% (p < .05). Serum cotinine levels were <0.5 ng/ml in control mice and in mice exposed to PG alone, whereas, N/PG exposed mice averaged 14.6 ± 12.0 ng/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

In this murine model, a chronic, daily, 20 min-exposure to N/PG, but not an acute exposure, slowed MCC, compared to exposure to PG alone and led to systemic absorption of nicotine.

The mountain cedar model in clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis use the mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) season as the predominate model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical trials of rhinoconjunctivitis using mountain cedar, to present analysis of pollen counts during 18 seasons, and to discuss the model.

METHODS

The medical literature was searched for clinical trials performed using mountain cedar either in or out of season. Pollen counts were recorded and analyzed for the duration of 18 seasons.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were identified. Of these, 1 evaluated onset of allergy, 8 were immunotherapy trials, 28 were pharmaceutical clinical trials, and 1 studied symptoms elicited in a pollen challenge chamber trial. Many generic equivalency trials are unreported. In the 18 years of counts in the Texas Hill Country, a dependable and intense pollen density was present in every season. The combination of dependable seasons without confounding pollens, the large number of allergic patients, and the ability to concentrate resources in one geographic area has made mountain cedar allergy a mainstay for therapeutic trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Mountain cedar allergy presents a dependable and durable model of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Impact of allergic rhinitis treatment on quality of life

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

Use of nasal steroids in managing allergic rhinitis

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