Omalizumab improves sinonasal outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of allergic status

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often have atopic comorbidities, including elevated IgE levels and comorbid asthma. Omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody, is an effective treatment for CRSwNP, but the impact of allergy or asthma status on response to omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of allergy and asthma status on omalizumab treatment in patients with CRSwNP, this posthoc exploratory analysis assessed sinonasal outcomes from subgroups of patients included in POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the open-label extension (OLE) trials.

METHODS

Patients (N = 249) were grouped by the presence/absence of comorbid allergy (≥ 1 physician-reported allergic rhinitis, allergic sinusitis, food allergy, or atopic dermatitis), presence/absence of comorbid asthma, baseline serum total IgE (≥ 150 or <150 IU/mL), and baseline blood eosinophil levels (>300 or ≤ 300 cells/µL). Sinonasal outcomes were the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22.

RESULTS

During POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the OLE, omalizumab treatment improved the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 score in patients with/without physician-reported allergic comorbidities, with/without asthma, with higher/lower total IgE levels, and with higher/lower blood eosinophil counts. In the OLE, the pattern of improvement was similar in patients who continued or switched to omalizumab.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRSwNP, omalizumab improved sinonasal outcomes independent of allergic status, which suggests that a wide range of patients with different endotypes and phenotypes of CRSwNP may benefit from omalizumab treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03280550, NCT03280537, NCT03478930.

Omalizumab improves sleep and health status for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: An analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have high incidence of sleep impairment. We evaluated the impact of omalizumab treatment on sleep characteristics and associated health status in patients with CRSwNP.

METHODS

Prespecified exploratory analysis assessed outcomes from patients included in the POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 phase 3 clinical trials and the open-label extension. Sleep was assessed by the sleep domain of the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22; MCID > 4 in patients with CRS) and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-Sleep). Health status was assessed by Healthy Days Core Module (HDCM) and sinonasal-specific Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

RESULTS

Omalizumab improved sleep as assessed by the SNOT-22 sleep domain. At week 24, adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -8.5 (-9.9 to -7.1) with omalizumab versus -2.7 (-4.1 to -1.3) with placebo. At week 52 (all patents on OMA), adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -10.1 (-11.4 to -8.7) with omalizumab. Improvements were observed in all eight items of the SNOT-22 sleep domain: difficulty falling asleep, fatigue, frustration/restlessness/irritability, lack good night's sleep, reduced concentration, reduced productivity, wake up tired, and wake up at night. In addition, omalizumab improved six of eight sleep outcomes on the MOS-Sleep scale. There were concurrent improvements in HDCM and PGIC.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab improved sleep and self-reported health status in patients with CRSwNP. This contributes to evidence that omalizumab provides value for patients beyond the reduction of sinonasal symptoms.

Evaluation of the ocular safety associated with the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. Although INCS are generally considered safe and effective, there is a concern that chronic use may lead to ocular adverse effects. Objective: To assess ocular safety of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (EDS-FLU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Methods: Ocular safety data were collected during two randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies with open-label extensions. Ophthalmologists performed tonometry, slit-lamp, and visual acuity examinations to assess intraocular pressure (IOP) and the presence of cataracts. Ocular examinations were conducted before double-blind treatment, at the end of the 16-week double-blind phase, and at the end of the 8-week open-label phase. The results of pooled data from patients who received EDS-FLU 186 µg (n = 160), EDS-FLU 372 µg (n = 161), and EDS-placebo (n = 161) twice daily are reported here. Results: At the end of the double-blind phase, six patients developed elevated average IOP > 21 mm Hg: two patients (1.2%) in the EDS-placebo group, three patients (1.9%) in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and one patient (0.6%) in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. In addition, 6 of 482 patients developed cataracts: 3 patients in the EDS-placebo group, 2 patients in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and 1 patient in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. At the end of the open-label phase, two additional patients showed IOP > 21 mm Hg and two additional patients developed cataracts. Conclusion: No increased risk of elevated IOP was detected with EDS-FLU; the rate of cataract development was similar to EDS-placebo and to that reported with other INCS.Clinical trials NCT01622569 and NCT01624662, <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov">www.clinicaltrials.gov</ext-link>.

Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common undiagnosed chronic condition in children. Moderate/severe AR symptoms significantly impair quality of life, and cause sleep disruption, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Additionally, untreated AR predisposes children to asthma and other chronic conditions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective pharmacologic treatment for AR, oral antihistamines are often preferred. First-generation antihistamines may be chosen to relieve AR symptoms as they are inexpensive and widely available; however, they cause sedative and cardiovascular negative effects due to poor receptor selectivity. Therefore, second-generation antihistamines were developed to reduce adverse effects while retaining efficacy. There are fewer clinical trials in children than adults, therefore, efficacy and safety data is limited, particularly in children under 6 years, highlighting the need to generate these data in young children with AR. Fexofenadine, a highly selective second-generation antihistamine, effectively alleviates symptoms of AR, is non-sedating due to decreased blood-brain barrier permeability, and is devoid of cardiovascular side effects. Importantly, fexofenadine relieves the ocular symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, which occur concomitantly with AR, improving quality of life. Overall, fexofenadine displays a favorable safety profile and results in greater treatment satisfaction in children compared with other second-generation antihistamines. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine with other available first- and second-generation antihistamines in children with AR.

Meta-analyses of the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (SAR/PAR) include pharmacotherapies and allergy immunotherapy. These meta-analyses evaluated the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-tablets) versus placebo on nasal symptoms associated with SAR and PAR.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were identified from systematic PubMED/EMBASE searches through 7/18/2019 (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018105632). The primary outcome was mean numerical difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; 0-12) between active treatment and placebo at the end of the assessment period. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated the mean difference for each medication group weighted by the inverse of the trial variance. Publication bias assessments and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Rescue symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy was prohibited in most pharmacotherapy trials but was allowed in all SLIT-tablet trials. For adult/adolescent SAR, the mean numerical difference (95% CI) in TNSS versus placebo was: intranasal corticosteroids (INCS)=1.38 (1.18, 1.58; 39 trials); combination intranasal antihistamine/INCS=1.34 (1.15, 1.54; 4 trials); intranasal antihistamines=0.72 (0.56, 0.89; 13 trials); oral antihistamine=0.62 (0.35, 0.90; 18 trials); SLIT-tablets=0.57 (0.41, 0.73; 4 trials); and montelukast=0.48 (0.36, 0.60; 10 trials). For adult/adolescent PAR, mean difference in TNSS versus placebo (95% CI) was: INCS=0.82 (0.66, 0.97; 14 trials); SLIT-tablets=0.65 (0.42, 0.88; 3 trials); and oral antihistamine=0.27 (0.11, 0.42; 3 trials). The number of eligible trials limited meta-analyses for pediatric SAR/PAR.

CONCLUSIONS

All treatments significantly improved nasal symptoms versus placebo. SLIT-tablets provided improvement in TNSS despite access to rescue symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy. Extensive trial heterogeneity and strong indications of publication bias preclude the comparison of treatment effects among treatment classes.

Prevalence and Burden of Chronic Cough in the United States

BACKGROUND

Chronic cough is a common complaint but there are little population-based data on its burden in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of chronic cough and its burden on individuals and the health care system.

METHODS

This was a survey of respondents who completed the 2018 National Health and Wellness Survey and questions about sleep and health care resource use. Chronic cough was defined as having a daily cough for 8 or more weeks. Respondents without chronic cough were selected through propensity score matching. Chronic cough prevalence was estimated using poststratification sampling weights calculated using U.S. Census data and post-data Horvitz-Thompson sampling weights to adjust for sampling bias.

RESULTS

Of 74,977 National Health and Wellness Survey respondents, 3,654 had experienced chronic cough in the previous 12 months, for a weighted prevalence of 5.0%. Respondents with chronic cough were older and more predominantly female than respondents without chronic cough (both P < .001). Compared with matched respondents without chronic cough, those with chronic cough had lower mean scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey v2 physical (P < .001) and mental (P < .001) component summary scores. More respondents with chronic cough than matched controls experienced severe anxiety and severe depression in the past 2 weeks, work productivity impairment, impaired sleep quality and daytime sleepiness, as well as more emergency department visits and hospitalizations in the past 6 months (P < .001 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of chronic cough manifests itself as reduced health-related quality of life, increased anxiety and depression, impaired sleep and work productivity, and greater health care utilization.

Shifts in allergy practice in a COVID-19 world: Implications of pre-COVID-19 national health care provider and patient surveys of treatments for nasal allergies

Background: Most U.S. patient and health care provider surveys with regard to nasal allergy treatments were conducted before sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets and allergy immunotherapy (AIT) shared decision-making tools were available. Objective: Patient and health care provider surveys with regard to current perceptions of nasal allergy burden, symptoms, and treatments were conducted to compare with previous surveys and provide insight into the use of SLIT-tablets and AIT shared decision-making tools. Methods: From November-December 2019, adults (N = 510) diagnosed with nasal allergies and health care providers (N = 304) who treated nasal allergies in the United States completed surveys with regard to nasal allergy management. Results: Of the patient respondents, 42% reported that their symptoms were only somewhat controlled and 48% had avoided activities because of their nasal allergies. In all, 38% were using only over-the-counter (OTC) medications for treatment, and 42%, 7%, and 8% had ever received subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual allergy drops, or SLIT-tablets, respectively; 56% and 85% reported that they had never discussed SCIT or SLIT, respectively, with their health care provider. Of the health care provider respondents, 45%, 58%, and 20% were very likely to discuss OTC medications, SCIT, or SLIT, respectively. Allergists were more inclined to discuss SCIT with their patients than other health care providers (82% versus 33%, respectively). Most allergists (67%) and other health care providers (62%) reported that they did not use an AIT shared decision-making tool, primarily because of unawareness. Conclusion: The patients with nasal allergies continued to report inadequate symptom control and activity impairment. SLIT-tablets and AIT shared decision-making tools were underused. In the coronavirus disease 2019 era, social distancing may limit office visits, which impacts SCIT administration and prompts increased use of telemedicine and a possible advantage for at-home-administered SLIT-tablets over SCIT.

Cabbage and fermented vegetables: From death rate heterogeneity in countries to candidates for mitigation strategies of severe COVID-19

Large differences in COVID‐19 death rates exist between countries and between regions of the same country. Some very low death rate countries such as Eastern Asia, Central Europe, or the Balkans have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented foods. Although biases exist when examining ecological studies, fermented vegetables or cabbage have been associated with low death rates in European countries. SARS‐CoV‐2 binds to its receptor, the angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). As a result of SARS‐CoV‐2 binding, ACE2 downregulation enhances the angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT₁R) axis associated with oxidative stress. This leads to insulin resistance as well as lung and endothelial damage, two severe outcomes of COVID‐19. The nuclear factor (erythroid‐derived 2)‐like 2 (Nrf2) is the most potent antioxidant in humans and can block in particular the AT₁R axis. Cabbage contains precursors of sulforaphane, the most active natural activator of Nrf2. Fermented vegetables contain many lactobacilli, which are also potent Nrf2 activators. Three examples are: kimchi in Korea, westernized foods, and the slum paradox. It is proposed that fermented cabbage is a proof‐of‐concept of dietary manipulations that may enhance Nrf2‐associated antioxidant effects, helpful in mitigating COVID‐19 severity.

ARIA digital anamorphosis: Digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.

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.

Deposition characteristics of a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride plus fluticasone propionate in an anatomic model of the human nasal cavity

Background: Intranasal antihistamines and steroids should be delivered in a volume and with a technique that allow for optimal drug retention within the entire nasal cavity, maximize local absorption by the nasal mucosa, and, subsequently, increase the potential for the most desirable local availability and therapeutic effect. Objective: This in vitro evaluation simulated nasal medication deposition and evaluated the extent of runoff. MP-AzeFlu, a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) plus fluticasone propionate (FP), was compared with sequential sprays of available commercial products with the individual medication components. Methods: A model of a normal adult human nasal cavity was used to visualize deposition of nasal spray products. A single spray of MP-AzeFlu (0.137 mL [137 μg of AZE/50 μg of FP]) or single sequential sprays of AZE nasal spray (0.137 mL [137 μg]) followed by brand name or generic FP nasal spray (0.100 mL [50 μg]) were manually actuated into the model. The interior was coated with a water-sensitive dye that changes to magenta when exposed to aqueous-based formulations. A slight vacuum was applied during spray delivery to simulate sniffing. The results were photographed by using anterior and lateral views. Results: Three replicates of MP-AzeFlu showed no dripping from the front of the nostril or backflow from the nasal cavity. However, three replicates of AZE nasal spray, followed by a brand name or generic FP nasal spray, showed significant dripping from the front of the nostril and backflow from the nasal cavity. Conclusion: A single spray of MP-AzeFlu resulted in no runoff compared with sequential dosing of the two other therapeutic products. Product runoff is likely due to the volume exceeding the capacity of the nasal cavity model. Furthermore, the common clinical dosing regimen of two sprays per nostril of each of the individual components would promote even greater increased undesirable flooding and leakage.

Correlation between work impairment, scores of rhinitis severity and asthma using the MASK-air® App

BACKGROUND

In allergic rhinitis, a relevant outcome providing information on the effectiveness of interventions is needed. In MASK-air (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network), a visual analogue scale (VAS) for work is used as a relevant outcome. This study aimed to assess the performance of the work VAS work by comparing VAS work with other VAS measurements and symptom-medication scores obtained concurrently.

METHODS

All consecutive MASK-air users in 23 countries from 1 June 2016 to 31 October 2018 were included (14 189 users; 205 904 days). Geolocalized users self-assessed daily symptom control using the touchscreen functionality on their smart phone to click on VAS scores (ranging from 0 to 100) for overall symptoms (global), nose, eyes, asthma and work. Two symptom-medication scores were used: the modified EAACI CSMS score and the MASK control score for rhinitis. To assess data quality, the intra-individual response variability (IRV) index was calculated.

RESULTS

A strong correlation was observed between VAS work and other VAS. The highest levels for correlation with VAS work and variance explained in VAS work were found with VAS global, followed by VAS nose, eye and asthma. In comparison with VAS global, the mCSMS and MASK control score showed a lower correlation with VAS work. Results are unlikely to be explained by a low quality of data arising from repeated VAS measures.

CONCLUSIONS

VAS work correlates with other outcomes (VAS global, nose, eye and asthma) but less well with a symptom-medication score. VAS work should be considered as a potentially useful AR outcome in intervention studies.

Efficacy of once-daily tiotropium Respimat in adults with asthma at GINA Steps 2-5

Tiotropium Respimat is an efficacious add-on to maintenance treatment in patients with symptomatic asthma. Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy recommends tiotropium for patients at Steps 4-5. To assess the clinical benefits of tiotropium Respimat across asthma severities, GINA Steps 2-5, a post hoc analysis of five double-blind trials (12-48-weeks; patients aged 18-75 years) investigated the effect of tiotropium Respimat, 5 μg or 2.5 μg, versus placebo, on peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) within 3 h post-dose (FEV_1(0-3h)) response, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 (ACQ-7) responder rate. GINA step grouping was based on patients' background treatment regimen. Baseline characteristics of patients (N = 2926) were balanced between treatments. Tiotropium Respimat showed consistent improvements in lung function across GINA steps; placebo-corrected peak FEV_1(0-3h) improvements after tiotropium Respimat 5 μg and 2.5 μg were: Step 2 (Week 8), 135 mL (95% confidence interval: 84, 187) and 155 mL (103, 206); Step 3 (Week 24), 187 mL (139, 235) and 235 mL (187, 283); Step 4 (Week 24), 111 mL (63, 159) and 181 mL (35, 326); Step 5 (Week 24; 5 μg only), 164 mL (5, 323). Asthma control improved with tiotropium Respimat versus placebo, showing statistical significance (nominal P value) with tiotropium Respimat 5 μg at Step 4 (odds ratio 1.36 [1.03, 1.78]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. In conclusion, tiotropium Respimat add-on therapy improves lung function, and may improve asthma control, in adults across disease severities.

Next-generation ARIA care pathways for rhinitis and asthma: a model for multimorbid chronic diseases

BACKGROUND

In all societies, the burden and cost of allergic and chronic respiratory diseases are increasing rapidly. Most economies are struggling to deliver modern health care effectively. There is a need to support the transformation of the health care system into integrated care with organizational health literacy.

MAIN BODY

As an example for chronic disease care, MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK), a new project of the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative, and POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health), in collaboration with professional and patient organizations in the field of allergy and airway diseases, are proposing real-life ICPs centred around the patient with rhinitis, and using mHealth to monitor environmental exposure. Three aspects of care pathways are being developed: (i) Patient participation, health literacy and self-care through technology-assisted "patient activation", (ii) Implementation of care pathways by pharmacists and (iii) Next-generation guidelines assessing the recommendations of GRADE guidelines in rhinitis and asthma using real-world evidence (RWE) obtained through mobile technology. The EU and global political agendas are of great importance in supporting the digital transformation of health and care, and MASK has been recognized by DG Santé as a Good Practice in the field of digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care.

CONCLUSION

In 20 years, ARIA has considerably evolved from the first multimorbidity guideline in respiratory diseases to the digital transformation of health and care with a strong political involvement.

Peak expiratory flow as an endpoint for clinical trials in asthma: a comparison with FEV1

Background

The primary lung function endpoint in clinical trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma is usually forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The objective of our analysis was to assess whether peak expiratory flow (PEF) is a suitable alternative primary lung function endpoint.

Methods

For this assessment, we calculated post hoc the correlation between pre-dose FEV₁ and pre-dose PEF measured under supervision in the clinic and, for both lung function parameters, the correlations between supervised clinic and unsupervised home measurements, using the results from the 8 Phase III parallel-group trials of the global clinical development programme with tiotropium Respimat® in patients with asthma aged 12 to 75 years.

Results

Across all 8 trials included in this analysis, changes in lung function from baseline correlated well between pre-dose FEV₁ and pre-dose PEF when both were measured under supervision in the clinic. Correlation between supervised in-clinic and unsupervised home measurements was stronger for pre-dose PEF than for pre-dose FEV₁.

Conclusions

Pre-dose PEF measured at home could be an alternative primary lung function endpoint for trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma. Using home-measured PEF could facilitate trial conduct and improve the convenience for patients by relocating scheduled assessments from the clinic to the patient’s home.

Trial registration

Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years: RubaTinA-asthma® (NCT01257230), PensieTinA-asthma® (NCT01277523).

Adults aged 18 to 75 years: GraziaTinA-asthma® (NCT01316380), MezzoTinA-asthma® (NCT01172808/NCT01172821), CadenTinA-asthma® (NCT01340209), PrimoTinA-asthma® (NCT00772538/NCT00776984).

All from Clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1119-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Shared decision making for the allergist

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and online patient decision aid resources.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion.

RESULTS

There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis.

CONCLUSION

Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.

The Effectiveness of Oral Azelastine in the Management of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

Azelastine, a phthalazinone derivative, is a chemically novel antiallergy compound that inhibits inflammatory responses in the upper and lower airway. Previous clinical trials demonstrated the effectiveness of azelastine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The objective of this double-blind trial was to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral azelastine compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. A total of 192 patients (between 13 and 60 years of age) who satisfied a minimum symptom score during a single-blind placebo evaluation period were randomized to receive one of three treatments: 2 mg of azelastine b.i.d., 1.34 mg of clemastine fumarate b.i.d., or placebo b.i.d. for a 4-week double-blind treatment period. In the primary efficacy analysis, rhinitis symptoms were analyzed as a Total Symptom Complex severity score (nose blows, runny nose, sneezes, stuffy nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes/ears/throat). After 2 and 4 weeks of therapy, the azelastine group had greater mean percent improvements than the placebo group in the Total Symptom Complex severity scores. The overall and endpoint improvements for the azelastine group were statistically significant (P ≤ .026) versus placebo. Improvements in individual rhinitis symptoms for the azelastine group were superior to placebo for nose blows, runny nose, sneezes, itchy nose, and itchy eyes/ears/throat. Azelastine was well tolerated. Clemastine was also significantly more effective than placebo and was well tolerated. The results support oral azelastine's safety and effectiveness in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Montelukast Effectively Treats the Nighttime Impact of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Background

Nighttime problems constitute a significant burden on the quality of life of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of montelukast on nighttime AR symptoms.

Methods

In seven multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trials, nighttime problems were assessed as the nighttime symptoms score (NSS), an average of three individual symptom scores: difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakening, and nasal congestion on awakening (each rated 0 = none to 3 = severe). Patients (aged 15–82 years) were randomized to receive montelukast, 10 mg (n = 1751), placebo (n = 1557), or the positive control loratadine, 10 mg (n = 1616).

Results

In a combined analysis, changes from baseline (mean ± SE) in NSS were -0.28 ± 0.01, -0.16 ± 0.01, and —0.24 ± 0.01 for the montelukast, placebo, and loratadine groups, respectively. Difference versus placebo in least-squares mean change from baseline were —0.11 (95% confidence interval, -0.14, -0.08; p ≤ 0.001) for montelukast and -0.09 (-0.12, -0.06; p ≤ 0.001) for loratadine. Strong baseline correlations (R > 0.70; p < 0.001) of NSS and two of its individual symptoms with the sleep domain of the validated Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire support the validity and importance of measuring nighttime morbidity in SAR. Furthermore, a clinically important benefit of montelukast on the nighttime impact of SAR was shown using an analysis anchored on the Patient's Global Evaluation.

Conclusion

These data underscore the importance of nighttime problems in patients with SAR and the need to treat nighttime symptoms. In these studies, montelukast significantly improved the NSS, a clinically relevant and valid measure in patients with SAR.

A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Levocabastine-Oxymetazoline Nasal Spray with Levocabastine and Oxymetazoline Alone in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

A total of 1015 patients participated in three 1-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials undertaken to assess the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of twice daily administration of a nasal spray containing a combination of levocabastine (0.5 mg/mL) and oxymetazoline (0.5 mg/mL) (levocabastine-D) versus that of either agent alone in the treatment of ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis. As these studies shared a common protocol, the data have been pooled. Patient assessments revealed that the mean change in area under the curve (AUC) from baseline over the entire treatment period was significantly greater in patients treated with levocabastine or levocabastine-D than in those receiving placebo for all symptoms evaluated (nasal congestion; P < 0.05 and sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, ocular symptoms, total key symptoms, total all symptoms; P < 0.001). Corresponding changes in patients treated with oxymetazoline alone did not attain statistical significance. Day-by-day analysis demonstrated that the beneficial effects seen with levocabastine and levocabastine-D were maintained throughout the treatment period for all symptoms except nasal congestion (Days 1 and 2 only); oxymetazoline provided significant relief from nasal congestion only and only on the first day of treatment. Investigator assessments revealed similar trends. Global evaluations of therapeutic efficacy revealed that 44% of levocabastine-treated patients and 52% of patients treated with levocabastine-D considered therapeutic efficacy to be excellent or good compared with 39% of those on oxymetazoline and 26% on placebo (P < 0.01 versus placebo). Adverse experiences were reported by 30% of levocabastine-treated patients, 40% of patients treated with levocabastine-D and oxymetazoline, and 32% of placebo controls, with no statistically significant intergroup differences in incidence or type. In conclusion, twice daily levocabastine nasal spray is effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis with an adverse effect profile comparable with that of placebo. Addition of oxymetazoline to the topical antihistamine does not appear to provide significant additional clinical benefit compared to that observed with levocabastine alone, and tachyphylaxis to the decongestant effect of the topical vasoconstrictor occurs within days of treatment initiation.

Nasal Cytology in Clinical Practice

Analysis of the nasal cytology provides information regarding the pathophysiology and response to therapy of the airway. This paper reviews the techniques for obtaining and interpreting specimens. The discussion focuses on the epithelial and inflammatory cells and the patterns seen in allergic, infectious and structural nasal disorders.

Once- versus Twice-Daily Fluticasone Propionate Aqueous Nasal Spray for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

A new potent topical corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, has proved effective when administered twice daily for seasonal allergic rhinitis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a once-daily dosage with twice-daily administration of fluticasone propionate. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted in adults with moderate to severe symptoms of allergic rhinitis during the autumn pollen season. Patients were treated for 4 weeks with fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray, 200 μg once daily or 100 μg twice daily or matching placebo. Fluticasone propionate administered once daily in the morning was as effective as the twice-daily dosage regimen, and both regimens were more effective than placebo. Nasal symptoms were improved by the second day of treatment and continued to improve throughout the study. Nasal eosinophils were reduced in more patients treated with either regimen of fluticasone propionate compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in frequency and nature in all three groups. There was no evidence of hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis effects; mean morning plasma cortisol concentrations and response to cosyntropin stimulation remained within normal ranges and were similar across groups. We conclude that fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray administered once daily is safe and as effective as a twice-daily dosage regimen for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis.

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.

A review of the efficacy and safety of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms in adults and adolescents with asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite current guidelines, many patients with asthma remain symptomatic, particularly those intolerant of, unresponsive to, or uncontrolled by long-acting beta 2-agonists (LABAs). Tiotropium bromide, delivered through the Respimat soft-mist inhaler in 2 puffs of 1.25 micrograms each, is approved for the long-term, maintenance treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥6 years.

OBJECTIVE

An overview of the use of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms in adults and adolescents with varying degrees of asthma severity. The role of the parasympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of asthma, the development of tiotropium for respiratory disease, and the value of the Respimat inhaler are also discussed.

METHODS

A literature search of all phase II and phase III trials of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms.

RESULTS

Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms was studied in five phase III studies: three studies in adults and two in adolescents aged 12-17 years. Tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms demonstrated efficacy in adults and adolescents with mild, moderate, or severe asthma, showing significant improvements in lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS plus LABA use. The adverse event profile of tiotropium was very acceptable, with safety similar to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms has positive attributes that include efficacy, a safety profile similar to placebo, once-daily dosing, administration by inhalation, and delivery in the easy-to-use and consistent-dosing Respimat device. However, more data are needed on the effects of tiotropium on clinical outcomes, patients' day-to-day lives, and real-world effectiveness.

Hot Topics in Primary Care: Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Guide for Primary Care

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the only potential disease-modifying treatment for allergic disease, has been used for more than a century. Hankin et al showed significant reduction in pharmacy, outpatient, and inpatient resources in the 6 months following vs the 6 months preceding AIT in Medicaid-enrolled children with allergic rhinitis (AR). A 2013 analysis showed sustained cost reduction over 18 months in patients with AR treated with AIT compared with matched control subjects not treated with AIT.

ARIA 2016: Care pathways implementing emerging technologies for predictive medicine in rhinitis and asthma across the life cycle

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA—disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally—is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease.

Findings from an Online Survey Assessing the Burden and Management of Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in US Patients

BACKGROUND

Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) affects ≥16% of the US population annually. Telephone and in-office surveys have demonstrated negative effects of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms on sleep, daily activities, productivity, concentration, and emotions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the patient-perceived burden of SARC in relation to newer treatments, increased access to treatments, and changing management protocols.

METHODS

An online survey of symptom experience, impact on daily life, and management was conducted in US respondents who suffer (or whose child suffers) from SARC symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 1001 surveys were completed: 500 adults (≥18 years old) and 501 children (12-17 years old, documented by their parents). Similar to earlier AR surveys, SARC symptoms negatively affected the patient's (and family's) quality of life, and were most severe in the spring. Before being treated, >50% of respondents reported daily symptoms during their season; 75% to 80% considered their symptoms moderate to severe. Patients saw a variety of health care professionals (including pharmacists) and used over-the-counter and prescription medications for symptoms. Those using prescription medications were generally more satisfied with treatment and less likely to switch or discontinue treatment. Nasal and/or ocular symptoms drove adherence, seeing a health care professional, and reviewing and/or changing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with SARC report moderate-to-severe symptoms that significantly impair their quality of life. However, patients appear to be taking more responsibility for their (child's) condition, and patient expectations for therapy are increasingly being met. Continued efforts will be needed to examine the contribution of better information and/or increased access to and availability of medications to control the disease.

Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses

BACKGROUND

Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 μg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs.

RESULTS

In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.

MACVIA clinical decision algorithm in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on several factors, including age, prominent symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost. Allergen exposure and the resulting symptoms vary, and treatment adjustment is required. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might be beneficial for the assessment of disease control. CDSSs should be based on the best evidence and algorithms to aid patients and health care professionals to jointly determine treatment and its step-up or step-down strategy depending on AR control. Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif en Languedoc-Roussillon (MACVIA-LR [fighting chronic diseases for active and healthy ageing]), one of the reference sites of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, has initiated an allergy sentinel network (the MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network). A CDSS is currently being developed to optimize AR control. An algorithm developed by consensus is presented in this article. This algorithm should be confirmed by appropriate trials.

Efficacy of MP-AzeFlu in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Importance of paediatric symptom assessment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single spray) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and explore the importance of child symptom severity assessment in paediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) trials.

METHODS

A total of 348 children (4-11 years) with moderate/severe SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Efficacy was assessed by changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual symptom scores over 14 days (children 6-11 years; n = 304), recorded by either children or caregivers. To determine whether a by-proxy effect existed, efficacy outcomes were assessed according to degree of child/caregiver rating. Moreover, total Paediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A statistically superior, clinically relevant efficacy signal of MP-AzeFlu versus placebo was apparent for PRQLQ overall score (diff: -0.29, 95% CI -0.55, -0.03; p = 0.027), but not for rTNSS (diff: -0.80; 95% CI: -1.75; 0.15; p = 0.099). However, as the extent of children's self-rating increased, so too did the treatment difference between MP-AzeFlu and placebo; MP-AzeFlu provided significantly better relief than placebo for rTNSS (p = 0.002), rTOSS (p = 0.009) and each individual nasal and ocular symptom assessed (except rhinorrhoea; p = 0.064) when children mostly rated their own symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu is an effective treatment for AR in childhood. Caregivers are less able than children to accurately assess response to treatment with available tools. A simple paediatric-specific tool to assess efficacy in AR trials in children is needed.

Roflumilast for asthma: Safety findings from a pooled analysis of ten clinical studies

BACKGROUND

The safety profile of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has been extensively researched in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Adverse events (AEs) including headache, diarrhoea and weight loss have been reported. Much less is known about the safety of roflumilast treatment in patients with bronchial asthma.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of roflumilast using safety data from one open-label and ten pooled placebo-controlled phase II and III clinical studies completed between 1997 and 2005.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The studies were conducted at sites in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australasia and Asia and study length varied from 4 to 40 weeks. Data for 5169 patients between 12 and 70 years of age, of whom 2851 received roflumilast at doses of 125, 250 and 500 μg, were analyzed. At randomization patients had a forced expiratory flow of 45-100%.

RESULTS

Headache was the most frequent AE with an incidence rate of 50 and 29.2 per 100 patient-years in the 500 μg roflumilast and placebo groups, respectively. Gastrointestinal AEs were common. Nausea and diarrhoea occurred in 28.7 and 28.3 per 100 patient-years in the 500 μg roflumilast and placebo groups, respectively. The extent of weight loss in roflumilast-treated patients was small. AEs reported in 465 patients in the 4-week open-label follow-up study reflected those of the pooled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity and incidence of AEs reported from this pooled safety analysis confirm that roflumilast is generally well tolerated by patients with asthma. This reflects the general safety profile reported previously in patients with COPD. All studies were funded by Takeda. Trial registration numbers available on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00073177, NCT00076076, NCT00163527.

Phenylephrine hydrochloride modified-release tablets for nasal congestion: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Over-the-counter phenylephrine hydrochloride (PEH) is used for relief of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis; however, data to support its efficacy are lacking. The US Food and Drug Administration recommended clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH in patients with this condition.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH 30-mg modified-release (MR) tablets in patients with nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group study.

METHODS

Eligible adults at least 18 years old with documented hypersensitivity to fall pollen allergens were randomized to PEH-MR or placebo every 12 hours for 7 days from August 30 to October 12, 2011. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Secondary end points included changes in other symptom score assessments, time to maximal effect, duration of effect, and quality of life. Safety assessments included adverse events, serious adverse events, vital signs, physical examination, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Of 575 patients, 288 received PEH-MR and 287 received placebo. No significant beneficial difference was detected between PEH-MR and placebo for the primary end point (PEH-MR, mean -0.394, SD 0.4880; placebo, mean -0.412, SD 0.5383; P = .2655). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for most secondary end points or quality of life. Overall, 89 of 575 patients (15.5%), equally distributed between the PEH-MR and placebo groups, experienced at least 1 treatment-emergency adverse event.

CONCLUSION

PEH-MR 30-mg tablets taken orally every 12 hours for 7 days is not more efficacious than placebo in relieving nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01413958, protocol CL2011-06.

Objective and subjective responses to a mechanical external nasal dilator in healthy children and children with nasal congestion

BACKGROUND

Nasal congestion is a frequent symptom of allergic rhinitis. Mechanical external nasal dilators (MEND) can be applied to the outside of the nose to provide temporary relief from nasal stuffiness.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the objective and subjective benefits and tolerability of MEND in healthy children and in children with nasal congestion due to allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Two studies were performed, one in healthy children and one in children with nasal congestion. The study of healthy children was a single-center, randomized, crossover study of two pediatric MEND variants, "tan" and "stars." The study of children with nasal congestion was a single-center assessment of the stars MEND. In both studies, nasal patency was measured via peak nasal inspiratory flow in the seated position and in the supine position at baseline and after the pediatric MEND was affixed to the nose. Assessment questions were administered at baseline and after MEND application, while seated and while supine, to evaluate subjective reduction in nasal blockage and tolerability.

RESULTS

Thirty healthy and 26 children with nasal congestion were assessed. Pediatric MENDs showed a statistically significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow for both healthy children and children with nasal congestion while seated and for healthy children while recumbent. Pediatric MENDs were perceived as decreasing nasal obstruction in both healthy children and children with nasal congestion in both positions, and there were statistically significant improvements in most subjective measures. Pediatric MENDs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric MENDs provided significant objective increases in nasal patency in healthy children and children with nasal congestion in the seated position and also subjective reduction in nasal airway stuffiness in both seated and supine positions; they were also well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 μg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 μg (80 μg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations.

RESULTS

Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide at 160 μg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

Safety and tolerability of inhaled loxapine in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic, delivered with a novel inhalation delivery device developed for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was evaluated in subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Separate randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trials compared two administrations of inhaled loxapine (10 mg) 10 hr apart with placebo in 52 subjects with asthma and in 53 subjects with COPD. A thermally-generated drug aerosol of loxapine was delivered to the deep lung for rapid systemic absorption. Controller medications were continued throughout the study, but quick-relief bronchodilators were withheld from 6-8 hr before through 34 hr after dose 1, unless indicated as rescue.

RESULTS

All airway adverse events (AEs) were of mild or moderate severity. Symptomatic bronchospasm occurred in 53.8% of subjects with asthma after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and in 19.2% of COPD subjects after inhaled loxapine and 11.1% after placebo. Subjects required inhaled albuterol as follows: asthma: 53.8% after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and COPD: 23.1% after inhaled loxapine and 14.8% after placebo. Respiratory signs/symptoms requiring treatment responded to rescue bronchodilator [forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) return to within 10% of baseline] within 1 hr in 11 of 15 events in asthma subjects and four of seven events in COPD subjects, the remainder by the last spirometry.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with either asthma or COPD, FEV(1) decline and bronchospasm can occur following inhaled loxapine, but more frequently in asthmatic subjects. Most subjects with bronchospasm responded to rescue bronchodilator within 1 hr. No treatment-related serious AE occurred. Although inhaled loxapine is contraindicated in patients with active airways disease per the current approved US labeling, these studies demonstrated that rescue bronchodilator mitigated the symptomatic bronchospasms that may occur in case of inadvertent use.

MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis (MASK-rhinitis): the new generation guideline implementation

Several unmet needs have been identified in allergic rhinitis: identification of the time of onset of the pollen season, optimal control of rhinitis and comorbidities, patient stratification, multidisciplinary team for integrated care pathways, innovation in clinical trials and, above all, patient empowerment. MASK-rhinitis (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis) is a simple system centred around the patient which was devised to fill many of these gaps using Information and Communications Technology (ICT) tools and a clinical decision support system (CDSS) based on the most widely used guideline in allergic rhinitis and its asthma comorbidity (ARIA 2015 revision). It is one of the implementation systems of Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA). Three tools are used for the electronic monitoring of allergic diseases: a cell phone-based daily visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment of disease control, CARAT (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test) and e-Allergy screening (premedical system of early diagnosis of allergy and asthma based on online tools). These tools are combined with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) and are available in many languages. An e-CRF and an e-learning tool complete MASK. MASK is flexible and other tools can be added. It appears to be an advanced, global and integrated ICT answer for many unmet needs in allergic diseases which will improve policies and standards.

Oral Phenylephrine HCl for Nasal Congestion in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Open-label, Placebo-controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Phenylephrine hydrochloride (PE HCl) is widely used for the treatment of nasal congestion, but efficacy at the 10-mg dose is not known for certain. The Food and Drug Administration has requested that sufficiently powered, multicenter, dose-ranging studies be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of PE HCl.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate subjective nasal congestion symptom relief and safety of 4 different doses of PE HCl immediate-release 10-mg tablets and placebo in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

This multicenter, phase 2, parallel, open-label trial randomized 539 adults with SAR (but otherwise healthy) to 7 days of treatment with either PE HCl 10-mg tablets at fixed doses of 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline over the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated.

RESULTS

None of the PE HCl treatment groups had a statistically significant change from baseline in instantaneous or reflective nasal congestion scores compared with the placebo group. PE HCl was well tolerated at doses of up to 30 mg. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 18.4% of the participants, the most common being headache (3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PE HCl, at doses of up to 40 mg every 4 hours, is not significantly better than placebo at relieving nasal congestion in adults with SAR. The phenylephrine section of the Food and Drug Administration monograph on over-the-counter cold, cough, allergy, bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic products should be revised accordingly.

Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) by providing direct delivery of medication to the nasal mucosa, reducing the potential for systemic adverse effects, decreasing burden of disease, and improving quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review currently available intranasal sprays indicated for maintenance therapy of AR in the United States: intranasal antihistamines (INAH); intranasal corticosteroids (INCS); and MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of the INAH, azelastine hydrochloride, and the INCS, fluticasone propionate.

METHODS

MEDLINE searches were conducted to identify placebo-controlled studies of commercially available prescription nasal sprays at U.S.-approved doses and indications, and published after an earlier systematic review of AR treatment. Inclusion criteria were ≥20 subjects; duration of ≥2 weeks for seasonal (or episodic) AR, ≥4 weeks for perennial (or persistent) AR, and reporting a total nasal symptom score as a primary or secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 pediatric, 16 adult/adolescent. There were 4 perennial AR studies (381 children, 1607 adults) and 16 seasonal AR trials (3081 children, 6548 adults). In these studies, 2451 subjects (481 children, 1970 adults) received an INCS, 3001 (1116 children, 1885 adults) received an INAH, and 346 adult subjects received MP-AzeFlu. All active treatments were well tolerated and effective as measured by the reduction in nasal symptoms. Head-to-head comparisons were only available for MP-AzeFlu versus the individual active agent components. MP-AzeFlu provided significantly greater symptom relief than either azelastine or fluticasone propionate alone and with an onset starting at 30 minutes after the dose.

CONCLUSION

The most recent addition to intranasal sprays for the maintenance therapy of AR is MP-AzeFlu, a single formulation nasal spray of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system. Analysis of clinical data showed this to be the first new intranasal medication that provides greater clinical benefit than an INCS in treating AR.

ICON: chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a public health problem that has a significant socio-economic impact. Moreover, the complexity of this disease due to its heterogeneous nature based on the underlying pathophysiology - leading to different disease variants - further complicates our understanding and directions for the most appropriate targeted treatment strategies. Several International/national guidelines/position papers and/or consensus documents are available that present the current knowledge and treatment strategies for CRS. Yet there are many challenges to the management of CRS especially in the case of the more severe and refractory forms of disease. Therefore, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), a collaboration between EAACI, AAAAI, ACAAI, and WAO, has decided to propose an International Consensus (ICON) on Chronic Rhinosinusitis. The purpose of this ICON on CRS is to highlight the key common messages from the existing guidelines, the differences in recommendations as well as the gaps in our current knowledge of CRS, thus providing a concise reference. In this document we discuss the definition of the disease, its relevance, pharmacoeconomics, pathophysiology, phenotypes and endotypes, genetics and risk factors, natural history and co-morbidities as well as clinical manifestations and treatment options in both adults and children comprising pharmacotherapy, surgical interventions and more recent biological approaches. Finally, we have also highlighted the unmet needs that wait to be addressed through future research.

New intranasal formulations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) have been effectively used for >40 years for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR). Following the Montreal Protocol, the initial aerosol formulations using chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants were phased out. For the past 20 years, aqueous solutions have been the only available option for INS treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved two new nonaqueous aerosol AR treatments that use a hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. In 2012, the first intranasal aqueous combination product was also approved. This article reviews the clinical profiles of HFA beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and HFA ciclesonide (CIC) and the aqueous combination intranasal antihistamine (INA)/INS formulation of azelastine hydrochloride/fluticasone propionate (AZE/FP). The medical literature was searched for clinical trials investigating the use of BDP, CIC, and AZE/FP in SAR and PAR. Clinical trials involving aqueous solutions and CFC propellant or HFA propellant delivery were included. Data from prescribing information and published efficacy and safety data were presented as part of the clinical profile for the reviewed agents. AZE/FP has shown efficacy and safety comparable or greater with the current AR treatment options. Although efficacy comparisons of new HFA formulations have not been investigated in head-to-head clinical trials with aqueous formulations, HFA formulations have shown similar efficacy rates. Furthermore, HFA formulations may have some additional benefits, including a preferable sensory profile for some patients. These new formulations will provide additional options for clinicians and patients to better individualize therapy for control of AR.

Recommendations for the pharmacologic management of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects at least 60 million people in the United States each year, resulting in a major impact on patient quality of life, productivity, and direct and indirect costs. As new therapies, data, and literature emerge in the management of AR, there is a need to communicate and disseminate important information to health care professionals to advance the practice of medicine and lessen the disease burden from AR. Treatment recommendations for AR have not been updated since the 2012 Food and Drug Administration approval of nonaqueous intranasal aerosol agents using hydrofluoroalkane propellants and the first aqueous intranasal combination product. Here, we present an updated algorithm for the pharmacologic treatment of AR that includes these new treatment options. Treatment recommendations are categorized by disease severity (mild versus moderate/severe) and duration of symptoms (episodic versus nonepisodic, with episodic defined as <3 days/wk or for <3 weeks). Preferred treatments are suggested, as well as alternative options for consideration by clinicians in the context of individual patient needs. This recommendation article also outlines the importance of treatment monitoring, which can be conducted using the recently developed Rhinitis Control Assessment Test. Successful therapeutic outcomes depend on multiple factors, including use of the most effective pharmacologic agents as well as patient adherence to therapy. Therefore, it is imperative that rhinitis patients not only receive the most effective therapeutic options, but that they also understand and are able to adhere to the comprehensive treatment regimen. Successful treatment, with all of these considerations in mind, results in better disease outcomes, improved quality of life for patients, and greater economic productivity in the home and workplace.

Nasal deposition of ciclesonide nasal aerosol and mometasone aqueous nasal spray in allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids, such as rundown to the back of the throat, may influence patient treatment preferences. This study compares the nasal deposition and nasal retention of a radiolabeled solution of ciclesonide nasal aerosol (CIC-hydrofluoroalkane [HFA]) with a radiolabeled suspension of mometasone furoate monohydrate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS) in subjects with either perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) or seasonal AR.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-dose, randomized, crossover scintigraphy study, 14 subjects with symptomatic AR received a single dose of radiolabeled 74-μg CIC-HFA (37 μg/spray, 1 spray/each nostril) via a nasal metered-dose inhaler or a single dose of radiolabeled 200-μg MFNS (50 μg/spray, 2 sprays/each nostril), with a minimum 5-day washout period between treatments. Initial deposition (2 minutes postdose) of radiolabeled CIC-HFA and MFNS in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and on nasal wipes, and retention of radioactivity in the nasal cavity and nasal run-out on nasal wipes at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose were quantified with scintigraphy.

RESULTS

At 2 and 10 minutes postdose, deposition of radiolabeled CIC-HFA was significantly higher in the nasal cavity versus radiolabeled MFNS (99.42% versus 86.50% at 2 minutes, p = 0.0046; and 81.10% versus 54.31% at 10 minutes, p < 0.0001, respectively; p values unadjusted for multiplicity). Deposition of radioactivity on nasal wipes was significantly higher with MFNS versus CIC-HFA at all five time points, and posterior losses of radiolabeled formulation were significantly higher with MFNS at 6, 8, and 10 minutes postdose.

CONCLUSION

In this scintigraphic study, significantly higher nasal deposition and retention of radiolabeled aerosol CIC-HFA were observed versus radiolabeled aqueous MFNS in subjects with AR.