Onset and duration of action of nasal sprays in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients: olopatadine hydrochloride versus mometasone furoate monohydrate

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

Cytological Study of Topical Effect of Azelastine Hydrochloride on the Nasal Mucous Membrane Cells in Various Nasal Rhinitis Types

Previous reports on the benefits of using local therapy with azelastine in rhinitis focus on the assessment of clinical symptoms and the analysis of nasal lavage for the presence of inflammatory cells and the expression of adhesion molecules. Little attention has been paid to studies assessing the effect of azelastine on individual cytotypes of the nasal mucosa, especially epithelial cells, also in the context of inducing morphological changes. The aim of this study was the cytological analysis of swabs taken from the surface of the nasal mucosa of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic/vasomotor rhinitis (NAR/VMR) who were subjected to 4 weeks of therapy with azelastine and then comparing the obtained results with the pre-treatment condition. The technique of obtaining materials for cytoanalysis included sampling, staining of smears, microscopic analysis, and preparation of cytograms. Our studies confirmed the therapeutic benefits of azelastine in both study groups. Significant changes were demonstrated, confirming the regeneration of ciliated cells and the induction of autophagy and apoptosis in epithelial cells. Such changes indicate new mechanisms of action of azelastine, which play a significant role in restoring homeostasis in the nasal mucosa. The presented research also results in a detailed description of cytological changes in both studied rhinitis types, which complements the knowledge regarding prognostic indicators.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

Changes in Tears Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 Level After External Dacryocystorhinostomy in Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to define tears monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) changes after external dacryocystorhinostomy surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tears samples were collected with a Schirmer strip and stored in Eppendorf tubes at -80°C. At the end of the study, the papers were cut into small pieces and incubated with phosphate-buffered saline solution. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 levels were determined by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays kit.

RESULTS

The MCP-1 levels were 498.66±101.35, 576.40±149.78, 422.53±85.94, and 436.96±81.38 ng/L before surgery, in the first week, the first, and third months after surgery, respectively. Its level significantly increased in the first week compared with the preoperative level ( P <0.001). There was a prominent decrease in the postoperative first month ( P <0.001). In the third postoperative month, the mean MCP-1 level was not significantly increased compared with the postoperative first month ( P =0.196).

CONCLUSION

The tears MCP-1 level was significantly decreased after external dacryocystorhinostomy surgery.

Efficacy of N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid versus fluorometholone for treating allergic conjunctivitis in an environmental exposure chamber

Background

Topical mast cell stabilizers were previously shown to treat the signs and symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis safely and effectively in active and placebo‐controlled trials. However, mast cell stabilizers have not been compared to topical corticosteroids for efficacy. We tested the non‐inferiority of a topical mast cell stabilizer, N‐acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid (4.9%, NAAGA), compared to fluorometholone (0.1%, FM) during controlled exposures to the airborne birch pollen allergen, Bet v 1, in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC).

Methods

This randomized, cross‐over, investigator‐blinded study included 24 patients with a history of birch pollen allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomized to 5 days of treatment with NAAGA, then FM (n = 12) or FM, then NAAGA (n = 12). After each treatment, patients were exposed to a fixed airborne concentration of Bet v 1 in ALYATEC EEC. The primary endpoint was the amount of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response (Abelson score ≥5). Groups were compared with a linear model for cross‐over studies. Non‐inferiority was assumed, when the lower bound of the risk ratio confidence interval (CI) was >0.5.

Results

At screening, the mean time‐to‐conjunctival response was 72.5 ± 35.9 min. NAAGA and FM extended the response time to 114.8 ± 55.0 and 116.6 ± 51.5 min respectively. The mean amounts of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response were 1.165 ng after NAAGA and 1.193 ng after FM treatment. The risk ratio for the conjunctival response was 0.977 (95% CI: 0.812; 1.174), which indicated non‐inferiority. Adverse events occurred less frequently with NAAGA (29.2%) than with FM (58.3%).

Conclusion

In patients with allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen, NAAGA was non‐inferior to FM in exposures to airborne Bet v 1. The EEC was a good model for simulating real‐life airborne allergen exposure and for demonstrating the efficacy and safety of eye drops for treating allergic conjunctivitis.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray (GSP301) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = - 0.99; [95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.79]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTNSS (MD = - 1.05; [95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), rTOSS (MD = - 0.50; [95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.29]; P < 0.01; I² = 0), iTOSS (MD = - 0.64; [95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.26]; P < 0.01; I² > 50%), PNSS (MD = - 1.01; [95% CI - 1.32 to - 0.69]; P < 0.01; I² = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = - 0.43; [95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.30]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43-2.45]; P < 0.01; I² = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run.

Combine therapy as a modern approach to treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one the most common allergic diseases affecting from 10 to 40% of the population in different countries, including Russia. AR is a risk factor of bronchial asthma, other upper airway disease and may decrease patient quality of life, their productivity, increase probability of occupational traumatism, depression and anxiety. AR also presents a substantial economic burden. The rationale to use fixed dose combination of intranasal steroids and topical H1 antihistamines includes suboptimal control of symptoms by monotherapy, its complementary pharmacologic activity and the results of clinical trials. This review focused on fixed dose combination of intranasal mometasone furoate and olopataine. Double blind placebo-controlled and open clinical trials have confirmed that this combination decreased severity of nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal and perennial AR, improved patient quality of life and had a good tolerability. Its efficacy was higher than those of monotherapy. Fast onset of action and sustainable effect on symptoms (during 1 yr) may improve adherence patients to the treatment and control of symptoms of AR.

Birch allergen challenges in allergic conjunctivitis using standard conjunctival allergen challenge and environmental exposure chamber

BACKGROUND

Environmental exposure chambers (EECs) have been used extensively to study allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Few studies have been published using EECs in conjunctivitis only, and none have used conjunctival allergen challenge as a selection criterion. The present study validated ALYATEC EEC in allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with a positive conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) were exposed to 60 ng/m3 of Bet v 1 in an EEC on two consecutive days for a maximum of 4 h to validate EEC exposure to birch. Reproducibility was tested among seven of the patients. A conjunctival positive scoring during the CAC and the EEC exposure was defined as a Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) ≥ 5.

RESULTS

Fifty percent of patients had a conjunctival positive scoring during first exposure and 75% during second exposure. The mean time to a conjunctival response was 81.2 ± 33.9 min and 101.6 ± 57 (P > 0.05) during first and second exposure, respectively. No difference in TOSS occurred between the two exposures. The time necessary to obtain a positive response during the CAC was significantly shorter than with the EEC. The estimated quantity of Bet v 1 inducing a positive response was 0.07 ± 0.03 ng (exposure 1), 0.07 ± 0.07 ng (exposure 2), 980 ± 784 ng (CAC). Conjunctival positive scoring and quantity of Bet v 1 was reproducible in all six EEC exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

Early conjunctival responses induced by birch allergen exposures in EEC were different than from those identified with direct instillation during CAC. EEC appears to be closer to natural exposure than CAC.

Environmental exposure unit simulates natural seasonal birch pollen exposures while maximizing change in allergic symptoms

BACKGROUND

Birch pollen is a prevalent aeroallergen during the springtime allergy season. In field studies, variable allergen exposure and environmental factors can affect data quality while environmental exposure units (EEUs) deliver controlled, standardized, and reproducible allergen exposures.

OBJECTIVE

To inform study design for EEU trials evaluating antiallergic therapies.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 76 participants with birch allergy experienced 3 exposures to birch pollen: (1) an out-of-season EEU challenge (two 3-hour sessions on consecutive days); (2) a natural seasonal exposure; and (3) an in-season EEU challenge (3-hour exposure for 2 weeks after birch pollen season initiation).

RESULTS

The total nasal symptom score, total ocular symptom score, and total symptom score (TSS = total nasal symptom score plus total ocular symptom score) were assessed every 30 minutes and daily during EEU and natural exposures. A high association between TSSs and day 2 of the out-of-season and in-season EEU challenges was noted, with a good association between the maximum TSS during the natural and in-season EEU challenges, and natural season and day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (P < .001 for all). Participants had higher maximum change from the baseline TSS during day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (12.4) vs the following: (1) first day (9.8); (2) in-season EEU challenge (8.4); and (3) natural seasonal exposure (7.6) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSION

A strong association was seen between the presence of allergy symptoms and exposure to birch pollen in the EEU (maximum change in symptom scores during day 2) and in the field. A hybrid trial design may be useful to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of novel antiallergic therapies requiring fewer participants and shorter timelines and expediting treatment availability.

The Nose as a Route for Therapy: Part 1. Pharmacotherapy

This article reviews nasal structure and function in the light of intranasal pharmacotherapy. The nose provides an accessible, fast route for local treatment of nose and sinus diseases, with lower doses than are necessary systemically and few adverse effects. It can also be used for other medications as it has sufficient surface area protected from local damage by mucociliary clearance, absence of digestive enzymes, responsive blood flow, and provides a rapid route to the central nervous system.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Utility of Environmental Exposure Unit Challenge Protocols for the Study of Allergic Rhinitis Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper explores how the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) experimental model can be used to further our understanding of pharmacotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

RECENT FINDINGS

EEUs are used increasingly for the study of combination therapies, immunotherapies, and novel AR treatments. A combined antihistamine/corticosteroid nasal spray formulation was seen to have a faster onset of action relative to the therapies individually in the Environmental Exposure Chamber. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets are both safe and efficacious as evaluated by the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The Kingston EEU found that a novel peptide-based immunotherapy approach to be effective in reducing grass pollen-induced AR. Lastly, nasal filters were determined to reduce seasonal AR symptoms, given out-of-season in the Denmark Environmental Exposure Unit. EEUs are controlled, replicable models that provide valuable insight into the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and dose-related impacts of AR therapeutics, with direct clinical relevance.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2019 and beyond

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 μg), mometasone (25 μg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study

BACKGROUND

GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

Cost-effectiveness of allergic rhinitis treatment: An exploratory study

Allergic rhinitis is serious public health problems and one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of clinically relevant treatment options for allergic rhinitis using evidence-based literature. In addition, we aimed to develop recommendations for allergic rhinitis treatment based on health economic facts. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed from 2009 to 2014 to identify all therapeutic options described in the current literature and selected randomized controlled trials that used a symptom score, had at least one placebo control group and used adult patients. We analyzed the side effects and the number of cases in which treatment was discontinued for each treatment option. Local antihistamines were the most cost-effective local therapy and are recommended due to the low number of complications. Regarding systemic therapies, although the use of oral steroids is indeed significantly cost-effective, this treatment was found to be associated with strong side effects. Sublingual immunotherapy was identified as the most cost-effective immunotherapy and exhibits a good side-effect profile. Overall, local therapy with antihistamines was found to be the most cost-effective option of all therapies. This study showed that there are only minor differences between sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy. Based on our results, we recommend the use of an international, uniform nasal symptom score to facilitate the comparison of clinical trials on allergic rhinitis in the future.

Current approaches to the discovery of novel inhaled medicines

Inhaled administration is underutilised because the drug discovery process is viewed as challenging, risky, and expensive. However, unmet medical need continues to grow, and significant opportunities exist to discover novel inhaled medicines delivering the required lung concentrations while minimising systemic exposure. This profile could be achieved by a combination of properties, including lung retention and low oral bioavailability. Property-based rules exist for orally administered compounds, but there has been limited progress defining in silico predictors to guide the discovery of novel inhaled drugs. Recently, the use of informative cell- and tissue-based screens has greatly facilitated the identification of compounds with optimal characteristics for inhaled delivery. Here, we address opportunities for novel inhaled drugs, and the key challenges and uncertainties hampering progress.

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber

BACKGROUND

A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP).

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP.

CONCLUSION

MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

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.

Redness response phenotypes of allergic conjunctivitis in an allergen challenge chamber

BACKGROUND

There are few direct data concerning symptom dynamics of allergic conjunctivitis (AC) in an allergen challenge chamber (ACC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the AC dynamics on subsequent exposures to ragweed pollen (RW) in individuals with allergic rhinitis in an ACC. To determine whether consecutive exposures in an ACC have any persistent detrimental ocular physical effects.

METHODS

Participants underwent 3 exposures to RW in an ACC. Ocular symptoms of itching and tearing were self-assessed. Ocular redness and lid swelling were assessed by trained ophthalmic technicians. Complete ophthalmic examinations (COEs) were performed by an ophthalmologist.

RESULTS

A total of 188 of 201 participants (93%) developed an ocular redness score of 2 or more in each eye in ACC exposure 1. Reproducibility of redness occurred in approximately 70% of individuals completing ACC exposures 1 through 3. There were no significant changes between baseline COE and end of study COE. Phenotypes were identified by redness responses during and after exposure. Baseline total ocular symptom scores, at 24 hours after a priming exposure, were identified as late-phase reactions rather than enhanced sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

When assessed by trained professionals, AC was present with a very high frequency in selected individuals allergic to RW monitored in an ACC. Intrasubject reproducibility of redness was consistent across 3 ACC allergen exposures. Phenotypes were identified as early-phase responses, protracted early-phase responses, dual responses, and late-phase responses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02079649.

Efficacy of the novel nasal steroid S0597 tested in an environmental exposure unit

BACKGROUND

S0597 is a novel glucocorticosteroid that was formulated as an intranasal spray to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In a previous phase 2 study, doses of 100 to 400 μg twice daily were well tolerated and more effective than placebo for improving nasal symptoms induced by grass pollen.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a once-daily S0597 nasal spray for treatment of SAR induced by ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure unit (EEU).

METHODS

A single-center, phase 2, randomized, double-blind study in 222 adults with SAR and a positive skin prick test result to short ragweed. Participants underwent ragweed pollen challenge in the EEU at the screening or priming visit and on days 1, 7, and 14 and received 50, 200, or 400 μg of S0597 or placebo in the evening for 13 days. The primary efficacy end point was change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 14.

RESULTS

Improvement in TNSS from baseline to day 14 was statistically significant in all S0597 groups compared with placebo. Least-squares mean differences in change from baseline between active treatment and placebo were 1.18, 1.84, and 1.17 for the 50-, 200-, and 400-μg/d S0597 groups, respectively (P < .05). The 200-μg group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all TNSS subscales (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching) compared with placebo at days 7 and 14.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with 50 to 400 μg of S0597 once daily was well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in relieving nasal symptoms of SAR associated with ragweed pollen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01940146.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.

Efficacy and safety of a novel nasal steroid, S0597, in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a significant global burden with increasing prevalence. Although intranasal glucocorticosteroids are effective, older agents can have limiting side effects. S0597, a novel intranasal glucocorticosteroid, has demonstrated good safety and tolerability during preclinical and phase 1 studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different doses of S0597 nasal spray vs placebo in patients with seasonal AR.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-center study randomized 159 patients 18 to 65 years old (mean age 37.8 years) with a positive skin prick test reaction for Dactylis glomerata to receive S0597 at 200, 400, or 800 μg/d or placebo for 15 days. On days 1 (baseline), 15, and 16, patients underwent a 4-hour pollen challenge to evaluate treatment efficacy measured by the change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to days 15 and 16 and changes in TNSS subscales and nasal secretion.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in TNSS from baseline to days 15 and 16 were observed with all S0597 doses vs placebo (P = .0005 overall), with the greatest improvements observed in the highest-dose group (P < .0001). Significant decreases were observed in each S0597 dose group vs placebo for TNSS subscales and nasal secretion. Improvements in nasal secretion were related to dose, with the greatest decreases from baseline in the 800-μg/d group on days 15 and 16 (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with S0597 at 200, 400, and 800 μg/d by 2 divided doses for 2 weeks was safe and significantly more effective than placebo for improving nasal symptoms associated with grass pollen-induced seasonal AR in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01614691.

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.

Investigational drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is characterized by paroxysms of sneezing, rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction. Its prevalence is increasing in industrialized countries worldwide and imposes a significant economic burden as a result of reduced school performance, work productivity and medical expenses. Allergic rhinitis impairs the quality of life of those affected, and current treatment regimens are inadequate for those whose symptoms are severe or refractory to standard drug therapies. They mainly include symptom control with intranasal glucocorticoids, oral and intranasal antihistamines.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the most current literature on research that has focused on improving the efficacy of current treatment regimens and developing new drugs. It also provides the reader with an improved understanding of the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis, including the inflammatory mediators and cell types involved, which has led to novel treatment options that are under investigation. These new drugs aim to alter the immunologic response to allergens in order to achieve greater clinical efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

It is our opinion that despite developments in new therapies, a multidrug approach is vital for successful treatment of allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, immunotherapy in the form of sublingual immunotherapy is a promising additional therapeutic approach that will potentially make immunotherapy available to a wider selection of eligible patients with allergic rhinitis.

Pollen starch granules in bronchial inflammation

BACKGROUND

Pollen grains with a diameter of more than 10 μm preferentially deposit in the upper airways. Their contribution to lower airway inflammation is unclear. One hypothesis is that lower airway inflammation is mainly caused by allergen containing pollen starch granules, which are released from the pollen grains and can easily enter the peripheral airways because of their smaller size.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the differential effect of pollen grains and pollen starch granules on nasal symptoms and lower airway inflammation.

METHODS

In a 2-period crossover design, 30 patients with allergic rhinitis and mild intermittent asthma underwent 2 allergen challenges on consecutive days in an environmental challenge chamber with either a mixture of pollen grains plus starch granules or starch granules only. End points were the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nasal secretion weight, nasal flow, spirometry, and exhaled nitric oxide (eNO).

RESULTS

The presence of pollen grains had a significant and considerable effect on increase in TNSS and secretion weight and on decrease in nasal flow. Starch granules alone only had minimal effects on nasal symptoms. Challenges with starch granules significantly increased eNO. Pollen had no effect on eNO.

CONCLUSION

Pollen grains cause nasal symptoms but do not augment lower airway inflammation, whereas starch granules trigger lower airway inflammation but hardly induce nasal symptoms.

Responses to ragweed pollen in a pollen challenge chamber versus seasonal exposure identify allergic rhinoconjunctivitis endotypes

BACKGROUND

The level of concordance between allergic symptoms induced on exposure to pollen in a pollen challenge chamber (PCC) versus the natural season is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to test the hypothesis that the symptom levels of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis elicited after out-of-season exposure to short ragweed in a PCC and during the natural season for giant ragweed pollen are highly correlated.

METHODS

Thirty-one ragweed-sensitive participants recorded symptoms for 15 days during the natural giant ragweed season in San Antonio, Texas. Twenty-six of these participants were challenged to short ragweed pollen in a PCC for 3 hours per day for up to 4 days.

RESULTS

In the PCC participants were dichotomized into those in whom low versus high levels of symptoms developed slowly or rapidly (ie, slow/low vs rapid/high). Each successive exposure visit associated with a progressive increase in symptom levels that approximated those experienced during the natural season. Hierarchic clustering identified 3 endotypes: endotypes I and II reflected concordantly low (n= 7) versus high (n = 14) total symptom scores (TSSs) in both the natural season and the PCC, respectively. Accordingly, the correlation between the TSSs recorded in the natural season and in the PCC for these 21 participants was very high. Although participants with endotype III (n = 5) had greater TSSs in the natural season than in the PCC, the degree of correlation between the TSSs remained high.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings affirm our hypothesis, underscore the high cross-reactivity between distinct pollens, and highlight the utility of the PCC to identify novel allergy endotypes that might have contrasting mechanistic underpinnings and potentially therapeutic responses.

Antihistamine therapy in allergic rhinitis

Antihistamines have long been a mainstay in the therapy for allergic rhinitis. Many different oral antihistamines are available for use, and they are classified as first generation or second generation based on their pharmacologic properties and side-effect profiles. The recent introduction of intranasal antihistamines has further expanded the role of antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Certain patient populations, such as children and pregnant or lactating women, require special consideration regarding antihistamine choice and dosing as part of rhinitis therapy.

Olopatadine 0.6% Nasal Spray Protects from Vasomotor Challenge in Patients with Severe Vasomotor Rhinitis

Background

Vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is a hypersensitivity syndrome with heightened reactivity to environmental triggers.

Methods

Twenty-two patients with severe VMR were treated nasally with either normal saline or 0.6% olopatadine and challenged nasally with a hyperosmolar mannitol solution.

Results

Treatment with 0.6% olopatadine resulted in an improvement in instantaneous nasal symptom scores at 5 and 30 minutes (p < 0.01) compared with baseline and at 30 minutes after hyperosmolar challenge compared with saline-pretreated individuals (p < 0.01). There was also an improvement in nasal peak inspiratory flow rate at 30 minutes after hyperosmolar challenge compared with saline-pretreated individuals (p < 0.01.

Conclusion

In this patient population 0.6% olopatadine appears to be efficacious in symptom reduction in VMR and protects from hyperosmolar challenge.

Anti-allergic drug testing in an environmental challenge chamber is suitable both in and out of the relevant pollen season

BACKGROUND

An environmental challenge chamber (ECC) is a useful tool to expose allergic patients to relevant allergens in a controlled indoor setting and to test anti-allergic treatment. Hitherto, ECC studies with grass pollen are conducted primarily outside of the pollen season to avoid the influence of natural pollen exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether an established anti-allergic treatment, a combination of cetirizine (CET) and pseudoephedrine (PSE), shows an equivalent treatment effect within and outside of the grass pollen season when tested in an ECC.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, four-way crossover study, the effect of a combination of 10 mg CET and 120 mg PSE compared with placebo on nasal symptoms, nasal flow, and nasal secretion was investigated in 70 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Subjects underwent four 6-hour pollen challenges in an ECC with administration of the drugs after 2 hours. Two challenges were conducted within the grass pollen season and two out of the grass pollen season.

RESULTS

The active treatment significantly improved nasal symptoms and nasal flow and significantly reduced the amount of nasal secretion compared with placebo both within and outside of the pollen season (P < .0001 each). The treatment effect was not different between the seasons (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Controlled allergen provocation in an ECC can be used to test anti-allergic treatment both within and outside of the grass pollen season.

The efficacy of intranasal antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the new use of intranasal antihistamines as first-line therapies, compare and contrast this class of medication with the traditionally available medications, and discuss the potential for intranasal antihistamines to provide relief superior to second-generation oral antihistamines.

DATA SOURCES

Review articles and original research articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, OVID, PubMed (1950 to November 2009), personal files of articles, and bibliographies of located articles that addressed the topic of interest.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were selected for their relevance to intranasal antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinitis. Publications included reviews, treatment guidelines, and clinical studies (primarily randomized controlled trials) of both children and adults.

RESULTS

This panel was charged with reviewing the place of intranasal antihistamines in the spectrum of treatment for allergic rhinitis. Intranasal antihistamines have been shown in numerous randomized, placebo-controlled trials to be more efficacious than the oral antihistamines. Although intranasal corticosteroids are considered by some to be superior to intranasal antihistamines, multiple studies have shown an equal effect of the 2 classes of medication. Both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines have been shown to reduce all symptoms of allergic rhinitis. In addition, some intranasal antihistamines have a more rapid onset of action than intranasal corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

The future of allergy treatment will likely involve a combination of both intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines because of the benefits of local administration and their additive effect on efficacy.

Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray Provides Early, Continuing Relief of Nasal Congestion and Improves Nasal Patency in Allergic Patients

Background

Patients report nasal congestion as the most bothersome seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptom. Measurement of this symptom in previous research has largely been based on subjective patient ratings. This study was designed to measure efficacy, onset, and duration of action of the corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) on nasal congestion using an environmental exposure chamber (EEC) and the objective assessment acoustic rhinometry (AcR).

Methods

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, ragweed-sensitive subjects were exposed to ragweed pollen (3500 ± 500 pollen grains/m3) in an EEC (day 1). Subjects rated instantaneous total nasal symptom score (TNSS), including NSS for congestion (NSS-C). Qualifying subjects received MFNS, 200 micrograms, or placebo and rated postdosing symptoms; a subset received MFNS, 200 micrograms, or placebo q.d. for 6 subsequent days, returning to EEC on day 8. Days 1 and 8 assessments included AcR, TNSS, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire developed for use in the EEC (RQOLQ-EEC).

Results

At day 1, hour 6, patients receiving MFNS (n = 155) reported significantly reduced congestion versus placebo (n = 155) per AcR and NSS-C after one dose, showing numerically superior TNSS change from baseline (p = NS). Among the subset who received 6 additional days of treatment, MFNS (n = 78) yielded significantly lower TNSS versus placebo (n = 77) before day 8 EEC entry and throughout 4-hour exposure (p < 0.05), except at 3.5 hours. AcR showed lower congestion with MFNS versus placebo before day 8 EEC exposure and at 24 and 26 hours after final dose (p < 0.05 for all). AcR and NSS-C correlated at multiple time points. Day 8 RQOLQ-EEC between-group scores were significantly different (p = 0.02) for practical problems.

Conclusion

MFNS, 200 micrograms, showed onset of nasal congestion relief at 6 hours and duration of action beyond 24 hours postdosing. Objective and subjective assessments were correlated in subjects with maximal (placebo) or minimal (MFNS treatment) congestion symptoms; both assessments were correlated with improved QOL.

Olopatadine nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 6 years and older

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Allergic rhinitis is an IgE-mediated condition that produces inflammation of the mucosa of the nose, paranasal sinuses and, frequently, of the ocular conjunctiva. Allergic rhinitis causes a significant disease burden in terms of quality of life, lost productivity and medical treatment costs. One of the newest treatments approved by the FDA is Patanase (olopatadine hydrochloride) Nasal Spray, 665 microg/spray (OLO). Olopatadine is an antihistamine with selective H(1)-receptor antagonist activity.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review details the basic and clinical research on the olopatadine molecule and OLO nasal spray from 1996 to the present day.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a better understanding of the pharmacology of OLO nasal spray, the clinical trial data that have established the efficacy of OLO nasal spray and the overall role of OLO nasal spray in the management of allergic rhinitis.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Olopatadine nasal spray is one of the newest treatments approved by the FDA for the management of allergic rhinitis. OLO has a rapid onset of action, efficacy comparable to intranasal steroid sprays and is approved for seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged > or = 6 years.

Olopatadine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray (Patanase Nasal Spray, Alcon Laboratories, TX, USA) was approved by the US FDA in 2008, and is indicated for the relief of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), also referred to as allergic rhinosinusitis. Olopatadine is an antihistamine with selective H1-receptor antagonist activity. Clinical trials of olopatadine nasal spray have demonstrated safety and efficacy in the treatment of SAR patients. With an onset of action of 30 min, olopatadine nasal spray has also been shown to improve quality of life, ability to perform work and the conduct of usual activities in SAR patients.

Comparison of Azelastine versus Triamcinolone Nasal Spray in Allergic and Nonallergic Rhinitis

Background

Intranasal antihistamine has not been thoroughly studied in the treatment of rhinitis of different etiologies. This study was designed to show the comparative efficacy of nasal antihistamine and nasal corticosteroid in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

Methods

A comparison of the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray (AZENS) versus triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray (TANS) on total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (nPIFR), and nasal cytology was studied in a 2-week randomized parallel-group trial. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were also analyzed.

Results

The study group consisted of 132 patients (100 women and 32 men) with a mean age of 33.14 ± 12.52 years. Sixty-nine patients had AR and 63 had NAR. Although TNSS including sneezing, itching, rhinorrhea, congestion—but not anosmia—significantly improved in both groups, intranasal azelastine reduced ocular symptoms greatly compared with intranasal triamcinolone (p = 0.05). Patients with NAR seemed to respond more to TANS, whereas AZENS was more useful in AR. The nPIFR improved in AR and NAR, with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Neither intranasal azelastine nor intranasal triamcinolone changed cytology in nasal lavage. Both medications were well tolerated, but AZENS led to more adverse events than TANS (56.9 and 19%, respectively; p = 0.001), mainly because of bitter taste. Scores on each domain of generic HRQoL (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and mini–rhinitis QoL questionnaires, as well as ESS score, significantly improved in both groups, irrespective of rhinitis etiology.

Conclusions

In this first comparative demonstration, AZENS appears to be as effective as triamcinolone in symptom scores, nPIFR, ESS, and HRQoL, equally in AR and NAR.

Azelastine and olopatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature supporting current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Published articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials focusing on the efficacy, safety, and recommended uses of the currently approved nasal antihistamines in the United States: azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%.

RESULTS

Azelastine nasal spray, 0.1%, and olopatadine nasal spray, 0.6%, have rapid onsets of action, are well tolerated, and have clinical efficacy for treating allergic rhinitis that is equal or superior to oral second-generation antihistamines. Both also have a clinically significant effect on nasal congestion. Azelastine is also approved for nonallergic rhinitis. Although older data suggest that intranasal steroids have greater clinical efficacy than nasal antihistamines, more recent comparisons in patients with mild to moderate disease have shown equal or noninferior efficacy. In addition, in contrast to oral antihistamines or leukotriene antagonists, the combination of a nasal antihistamine and intranasal steroid may provide additive benefits for treating patients with more severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The data support current recommendations for nasal antihistamines as first-line therapy for allergic rhinitis. Future studies should address possible as needed use, the use of premixed antihistamine-steroid combinations, and the treatment of mixed rhinitis.

A review of the efficacy of desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine in the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is the most troublesome symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). First-generation and older second-generation antihistamines, while effective against nasal itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea, have limited efficacy in relieving nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

This review included nasal challenge studies and clinical trials that reported the effects on nasal congestion of the newer second-generation antihistamines desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for nasal challenge studies and clinical trials published in English between January 1, 1991, and January 31, 2009, using the following terms, alone or in combination: antihistamines, second-generation antihistamines, allergic rhinitis, intermittent allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, persistent allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, nasal challenge, nasal blockage, and nasal congestion. Studies that were not active or placebo controlled, that did not evaluate change in nasal congestion scores, or that focused on treatments other than desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine for nasal congestion associated with AR were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-six clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. In 11 placebo-controlled trials that included objective assessment of nasal congestion, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine were associated with reductions in the severity of nasal congestion through maintenance of nasal airflow. The mean AUC for nasal airflow over 6 hours was significantly greater with desloratadine compared with placebo in 3 studies (P < 0.05); placebo-controlled trials of fexofenadine and levocetirizine had similar results. In 25 placebo- and active-controlled trials that reported subject-rated symptom scores, the 3 newer antihistamines were efficacious in the treatment of nasal congestion associated with AR. In 10 trials that reported objective and/or subjective measures, desloratadine was associated with significant improvements in nasal congestion compared with placebo (P < or = 0.05), beginning as early as the first 2 hours after allergen challenge. Fexofenadine was associated with significantly lower nasal congestion scores compared with placebo in 4 studies (P <- 0.05); nasal congestion scores were significantly reduced with levocetirizine in 3 placebo-controlled trials (P < or = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In the studies reviewed, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine were effective in relieving the nasal congestion associated with AR compared with placebo. This effect began as early as day 2 and was consistent and progressive throughout treatment. Desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine are appropriate options for the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with AR.