Efficacy and Safety of Montelukast+Levocetirizine Combination Therapy Compared to Montelukast Monotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in Children

PURPOSE

The combination therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists and antihistamines may alleviate allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms better than monotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of Monterizine®, a fixed-dose combination of montelukast and levocetirizine, compared to montelukast monotherapy in pediatric patients with AR.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-six children aged 6 to 14 years with perennial AR symptoms were recruited. One hundred forty-seven subjects were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: the mont+levo group (fixed-dose combination of montelukast [5 mg] + levocetirizine [5 mg]) or the mont group (montelukast single agent [5 mg]). Study subjects took the treatment every evening for 4 weeks and recorded their daytime nasal symptom score (DNSS) and nighttime nasal symptom score (NNSS) in a diary every day. Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded, and patients were surveyed as to their overall satisfaction with the therapeutic product they received.

RESULTS

When DNSS and NNSS were assessed individually, daytime nasal congestion symptom scores decreased more in the mont+levo group during the 4-week treatment period than in the mont group (P = 0.0341). The daytime rhinorrhea symptom scores also decreased more in the mont+levo group (P = 0.0469). The nighttime nasal congestion score (severity when awake) decreased more in the mont+levo group than in the mont group (P = 0.0381). Study subjects in the mont+levo group experienced a greater improvement in quality of life than subjects in the mont group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of montelukast and levocetirizine was more effective in reducing both daytime nasal symptoms (nasal congestion and rhinorrhea) and nighttime nasal symptoms (severity of nasal congestion when awake). With fewer AEs and higher overall satisfaction, combination therapy is recommended for pediatric patients with perennial AR.

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.

Are Markers of Allergic Inflammation in Grass Pollen Allergy Influenced by H1 Antihistamines?

Soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) play important roles in allergic rhinitis (AR). Treatment with H1 antihistamines improves AR symptoms and in vitro reduces the levels of adhesion molecules. The aim of the study was to evaluate serum levels of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 in patients with AR to grass pollen and their response to different H1 antihistamines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with grass pollen AR were clinically and biologically evaluated. ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 serum levels were evaluated during pollen season before and after treatment with levocetirizine and desloratadine through the ELISA method.

RESULTS

ICAM-1, VCAM-1, eosinophils, and total IgE were elevated in patients with AR, compared with healthy subjects. Both antihistamines improved specific symptoms of AR and increased patients' quality of life during pollen season after one month of treatment. H1 antihistamines reduced VCAM-1, ICAM-1, and total IgE after one-month treatment but not significantly. Patients with increased baseline values tend to remain with increased values after one-month AH1 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

ICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 levels are higher in patients with grass pollen-induced AR than healthy controls during pollen exposure. Their serum levels tend to remain at high values during pollen season despite antihistaminic therapy.

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.

Relationship between chemokines and T lymphocytes in the context of respiratory allergies (Review)

Allergic diseases have been classified in the last decades using various theories. The main classes of the newest classification in allergic respiratory diseases focus on the characterization of the endotype (which takes into account biomarkers related to determinant pathophysiological mechanisms) and of the phenotype (based on the description of the disease). Th2, Th1 and Th17 lymphocytes and the type of inflammatory response mediated by them represent the basis for Th2 and non-Th2 endotype classification. In addition, new lymphocytes were also used to characterize allergic diseases: Th9 lymphocytes, Th22 lymphocytes, T follicular helper cells (T_FH) lymphocytes and invariant natural killer T (iNKT) lymphocytes. In the last decade, a growing body of evidence focused on chemokines, chemoattractant cytokines, which seems to have an important contribution to the pathogenesis of this pathology. This review presents the interactions between chemokines and Th lymphocytes in the context of Th2/non-Th2 endotype classification of respiratory allergies.

The Effect of Korean Red Ginseng on Symptoms and Inflammation in Patients With Allergic Rhinitis

Korean red ginseng (KRG) has been traditionally used in Korea for health improvement. However, the clinical effect of KRG intake on the symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis remains unknown. Our study was performed to identify the clinical effects of KRG on patients with allergic rhinitis and to examine the effect of KRG on allergic inflammatory reaction. We evaluated 60 patients with allergic rhinitis. All the patients were treated for 4 weeks. The patients were divided into 3 groups, according to the medication. Twenty patients were treated with KRG, 20 patients with the placebo, and 20 patients with the antihistamine. The patients recorded their symptoms in a daily symptom diary card. The patients checked the peak nasal inspiratory flow rate 2 times a day. Total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and serum-specific IgE were measured by ImmunoCap method before and after 4-week medication. The Th2 cytokines interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-10 were checked in the serum before and after the 4-week treatment. The eosinophil counts in the nasal smears were checked. Korean red ginseng group has shown the significant improvement in rhinorrhea, nasal itching, and eye itching. Both the antihistamine and KRG groups showed a significant decrease in total IgE level at the end of treatment. The serum IL-4 level and eosinophil counts in the nasal smears were significantly decreased both in the antihistamine and in the KRG groups. In conclusion, KRG might be a useful treatment modality for patients with allergic rhinitis.

How Could We Influence Systemic Inflammation in Allergic Rhinitis? The Role of H1 Antihistamines

The aim of the study was the analysis of adhesion molecules' profile (ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and E-selectin) in patients with allergic rhinitis and the influence of H1 antihistamines on those markers. Seventy-nine patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR) and 30 healthy volunteers were included in the study. The patients with PAR were treated with desloratadine 5 mg/day or levocetirizine 5 mg/day for 4 weeks. The clinical (rhinitis symptoms and total symptoms score (TSS), type of sensitization) and biological evaluation (total IgE, eosinophils, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and E-selectin) as well as fractionate nitric oxide in exhaled air (FeNO) measurement was performed before and after treatment. The plasmatic levels of ICAM-1, VCAM-1, total IgE, and eosinophils and FeNO were significantly increased in patients with PAR compared to healthy volunteers. H1 antihistamines significantly improved TSS, with no differences between the investigated drugs. There was a significant decrease of eosinophils, total IgE, and FeNO after treatment. H1 antihistamines significantly decreased the plasmatic levels of ICAM-1 and E-selectin but not VCAM-1 compared to basal values. There is no difference between levocetirizine and desloratadine in the reduction of CAMs. A systemic inflammation characterized by increased levels of CAMs is present in patients with PAR. H1 antihistamines improve symptoms and reduce CAMs and FeNO levels after 1 month of treatment. H1 antihistamines might reduce the systemic inflammation which could be responsible to asthma occurrence in patients with PAR.

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.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

Clinically relevant outcome measures for new pharmacotherapy, allergen avoidance and immunotherapy trials in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview on both primary and secondary measures of efficacy of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) patients. In particular, this review highlights similarities and differences regarding endpoints in trials involving allergen immunotherapy (AIT), pharmacotherapy and allergen avoidance and addresses unmet needs regarding these measures in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) proposed a standard for the definition of the primary endpoint for AIT trials in ARC and, moreover, emphasized the advantages and disadvantages as well as unmet needs considering outcome measures for this treatment. Recently, as an (indirect) comparison of clinical efficacy of different interventions, the relative clinical impact (RCI) has been used to determine the percentage reduction of symptom scores in active versus placebo treatment.

SUMMARY

Several primary and secondary clinical endpoints of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in ARC patients such as AIT or pharmacotherapy have been proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Moreover, recommendations for the implication of these endpoints in clinical trials have been promoted by academia such as the World Allergy Organization (WAO) or the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI).However, an urgent need for the future will be a thorough international harmonization regarding the definition of clinical endpoints, timing of assessments of clinical efficacy and determination of the clinically meaningful and relevant magnitude of efficacy of therapeutic interventions for clinical trials in ARC patients.

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.

Azelastine enhances the clinical efficacy of glucocorticoid by modulating MKP-1 expression in allergic rhinitis

Azelastine was suggested as a supplementary choice of glucocorticoid for the control of moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the underlying mechanism has not been completely understood. In this study, primary cultured nasal epithelial cells and bronchial epithelial cells were stimulated with proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β and IL-17A) and anti-inflammatory agents (azelastine and budesonide) in vitro. The expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) was examined using qPCR and ELISA, respectively. Moreover, the additive effects of azelastine and budesonide nasal spray on nasal ICAM-1 level and total nasal symptom scores were evaluated in six uncontrolled severe AR patients by budesonide nasal spray alone. We found azelastine significantly inhibited cytokine-induced ICAM-1 upregulation, which is reversed by MKP-1 silencing. Azelastine and budesonide additively increased MKP-1 expression and inhibited ICAM-1 expression in vitro. After treatment for two consecutive weeks, combined azelastine and budesonide nasal spray significantly decreased nasal ICAM-1 level and TNSS in six uncontrolled AR patients. Our findings suggested that azelastine is able to additively enhance the anti-inflammatory effect of budesonide by modulating MKP-1 expression, which may implicate in the treatment of uncontrolled severe AR.