|
1
|
Qin JY, Huang G, Pan ZH, Liao LF, Hu HF. Different medications for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2024; 12:98508. [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v12.i4.98508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2024] [Revised: 10/13/2024] [Accepted: 11/12/2024] [Indexed: 12/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While the efficacy of medications such as fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP), and azelastine-fluticasone (AF) has been substantiated in comparison to their respective placebo controls, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative effectiveness of different intranasal agents.
AIM To evaluate the efficacy of FP, FF, and AF in the treatment of adult patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) using a meta-analytic approach.
METHODS A computer search was conducted in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness and safety of FF, FP, and AF in treating SAR. Data on treatment safety and efficacy were extracted and analyzed through meta-analysis.
RESULTS A total of 20 studies were included, comprising 10590 participants. The results of the direct meta-analysis indicated that, compared to placebo, both relative Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and relative Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) significantly decreased post-intervention [mean difference (MD) = -1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.73 to -1.22; MD = -0.66, 95%CI: -0.82 to -0.49], with similar findings observed across the FF, FP, and AF subgroups. The network meta-analysis results showed that for improving rTNSS and rTOSS, the SUCRA values ranking from highest to lowest were AF, FP, FF, and placebo. Improvements in rTNSS and rTOSS with FP, FF, and AF were all significantly greater than those observed with placebo, with AF demonstrating superior efficacy compared to both FP and FF. No statistically significant difference in rTNSS improvement was found between FP and FF, although FP exhibited significantly greater improvement in rTOSS compared to FF.
CONCLUSION In adult patients with SAR, the combination of azelastine and fluticasone shows a significant effect in improving nasal and ocular symptoms, with FP demonstrating marked improvement in ocular symptoms compared to FF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiang-Yuan Qin
- The Third Department of Surgery, Guangxi Armed Police Corps Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
| | - Geng Huang
- Department of Health, Guangxi Armed Police Corps, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
| | - Zhi-Hui Pan
- The Third Department of Surgery, Guangxi Armed Police Corps Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
| | - Lan-Fang Liao
- The Third Department of Surgery, Guangxi Armed Police Corps Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
| | - Heng-Fen Hu
- Medical School, Hunan Vocational and Technical College of Environmental Biology, Hengyang 421005, Hunan Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Czech EJ, Overholser A, Schultz P. Allergic Rhinitis. Med Clin North Am 2024; 108:609-628. [PMID: 38816106 DOI: 10.1016/j.mcna.2023.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2024]
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric J Czech
- Division of Physician Assistant Studies, Department of Family Medicine, The University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, USA; Department of Family Medicine, The University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, USA.
| | - Andrew Overholser
- Division of Physician Assistant Studies, Department of Family Medicine, The University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, USA; Department of Family Medicine, The University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, USA
| | - Paul Schultz
- Department of Family Medicine, The University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, 3333 Glendale Avenue, Toledo, OH 43614, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Kumar B, Deshmukh R. A Review on Novel Therapeutic Modalities and Evidence-based Drug Treatments against Allergic Rhinitis. Curr Pharm Des 2024; 30:887-901. [PMID: 38486383 DOI: 10.2174/0113816128295952240306072100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated atopic disease that occurs due to inhaled antigens in the immediate phase. Misdiagnosis, insufficient treatment, or no treatment at all are frequent problems associated with the widespread condition known as chronic allergic rhinitis. AR symptoms include runny, itchy, stuffy, and sneezing noses. Asthma and nasal polyps, for example, sometimes occur simultaneously in patients. In order for people living with AR to be as comfortable and productive as possible, treatment should center on reducing their symptoms. The online sources and literature, such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Medline, were reviewed to gather information regarding therapeutic modalities of AR and evidence-based treatments for the disease as the objectives of the present study. An increasing number of people are suffering from AR, resulting in a heavy financial and medical burden on healthcare systems around the world. Undertreating AR frequently results in a decline in quality of life. Treatment compliance is a critical challenge in the administration of AR. Innovative therapies are needed for RA to provide patients with symptom alleviation that is less expensive, more effective, and longer duration of action. Evidence-based guidelines are helpful for managing AR illness. Treating AR according to evidence-based standards can help in disease management. AR treatment includes allergen avoidance, drug therapy, immunotherapy, patient education, and follow-up. However, AR treatment with intranasal corticosteroids is more popular. Hence, in this review article, treatment options for AR are discussed in depth. We also discussed the incidence, causes, and new treatments for this clinical condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhupendra Kumar
- Department of Pharmaceutics, Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, GLA University, Mathura, India
| | - Rohitas Deshmukh
- Department of Pharmaceutics, Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, GLA University, Mathura, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Rosi‐Schumacher M, Abbas A, Young PR. Improvement in Nasal Symptoms of Chronic Rhinitis after Cryoablation of the Posterior Nasal Nerve. OTO Open 2023; 7:e77. [PMID: 37854345 PMCID: PMC10580002 DOI: 10.1002/oto2.77] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To determine the efficacy of posterior nasal nerve (PNN) cryoablation for improving the symptoms of chronic rhinitis. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting A private practice. Methods This study evaluated medication usage and adverse effects of in-office PNN cryoablation with a handheld device in patients > 18 years with chronic (>6 months) allergic or nonallergic rhinitis for whom medical management failed. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and mini rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (mRQLQ) scores were compared before and after treatment. Results This study included 127 patients with a mean age of 52.4 ± 16.9 years; 60.6% of patients were female and 49.6% had allergic rhinitis. Mean symptom scores decreased from 5.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.51-6.43) to 3.44 (95% CI, 2.97-3.81, P < .001) after the procedure, with clinically important decreases in 75 (59.1%) patients. For patients with baseline TNSS values of ≥4, 63.5% (66/104) had a clinically important decrease, whereas only 39.1% (9/23) of those with the lower baseline did (P = .04). Mean mRQLQ scores also decreased from 2.51 (95% CI, 2.29-2.72) to 1.28 (95% CI, 1.20-1.47, P < .001) after the procedure. Seventy-eight of 273 (28.6%) medications were discontinued after the procedure. Adverse effects occurred in 18.1% (23/127) of patients with headache as the most common. Conclusion PNN cryoablation improves nasal symptoms and quality of life in patients with chronic rhinitis. Patients with a higher baseline TNSS are more likely to experience significant symptomatic improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mattie Rosi‐Schumacher
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at BuffaloState University of New YorkBuffaloNew YorkUSA
| | - Adam Abbas
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at BuffaloState University of New YorkBuffaloNew YorkUSA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Mehmood Y, Shahid H, Abbas M, Farooq U, Alshehri S, Alam P, Shakeel F, Ghoneim MM. Developing Nanosuspension Loaded with Azelastine for Potential Nasal Drug Delivery: Determination of Proinflammatory Interleukin IL-4 mRNA Expression and Industrial Scale-Up Strategy. ACS OMEGA 2023; 8:23812-23824. [PMID: 37426214 PMCID: PMC10324090 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c02186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/11/2023]
Abstract
In order to increase bioavailability and intranasal absorbance, the current work set out to create azelastine nasal spray based on nanosuspension. Chondroitin was utilized as a polymer to prepare azelastine nanosuspension through the precipitation procedure. A size of 500 nm and a polydispersity index of 0.276 with a negative potential (-20 mV) were achieved. X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermal analysis including differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis, in vitro release, and diffusion studies were used to characterize the optimized nanosuspension. MTT assay was used to assess the viability of the cells, and hemolysis assay was used to assess the blood compatibility. Using RNA extraction and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, the levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-4, which is most closely related to cytokines in allergic rhinitis, were measured in mouse lungs. The drug dissolution and diffusion study indicated 2.0-fold increase compared to pure reference sample. Therefore, the azelastine nanosuspension could be suggested as a practical and simple nanosystem for intranasal delivery with improved permeability and bioavailability. The outcome obtained in this study indicated that azelastine nanosuspension has great potential to treat allergic rhinitis as intranasal treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasir Mehmood
- Department
of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government College University Faisalabad, P. O. Box 38000, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
- Riphah
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (RIPS), Riphah International University, Faisalabad, P. O. Box 38000, Punjab 44000, Pakistan
| | - Hira Shahid
- Department
of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government College University Faisalabad, P. O. Box 38000, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
| | - Muhammad Abbas
- Imran
Adress College of Pharmacy, P. O. Box 51310, Sialkot 51310, Pakistan
| | - Umar Farooq
- Faculty
of Pharmacy, Grand Asian University, P. O. Box 51310, Sialkot, 51040 Punjab, Pakistan
| | - Sultan Alshehri
- Department
of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, King
Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
| | - Prawez Alam
- Department
of Pharmacognosy, College of Pharmacy, Prince
Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
| | - Faiyaz Shakeel
- Department
of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, King
Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
| | - Mohammed M. Ghoneim
- Department
of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, AlMaarefa University, Ad Diriyah 13713, Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Allergic Rhinitis. Prim Care 2023; 50:159-178. [PMID: 37105599 DOI: 10.1016/j.pop.2023.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.
Collapse
|
|
7
|
A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023. THE JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY. IN PRACTICE 2023; 11:773-796. [PMID: 36894277 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 01/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 03/09/2023]
Abstract
An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Yang SI, Lee IH, Kim M, Ryu G, Kang SY, Kim MA, Lee SM, Kim HJ, Park DY, Lee YJ, Kim DK, Kim SW, Kim DH, Jun YJ, Park SC, Kim BS, Chung SJ, Lee HJ, Kim HB, Choi JH, Choi GS, Yang HJ. KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy. ALLERGY, ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH 2023; 15:19-31. [PMID: 36693355 PMCID: PMC9880301 DOI: 10.4168/aair.2023.15.1.19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Song-I Yang
- Department of Pediatrics, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea
| | - Il Hwan Lee
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Minji Kim
- Department of Pediatrics, Chungnam National University Sejong Hospital, Sejong, Korea
| | - Gwanghui Ryu
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sung-Yoon Kang
- Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Mi-Ae Kim
- Department of Pulmonology, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Sang Min Lee
- Division of Pulmonology and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
| | - Hyun-Jung Kim
- Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do-Yang Park
- Department of Otolaryngology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
| | - Yong Ju Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
| | - Dong-Kyu Kim
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.,Institute of New Frontier Research, Division of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Soo Whan Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do Hyun Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
| | - Young Joon Jun
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck surgery, Uijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University, Uijeongbu, Korea
| | - Sang Chul Park
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Bong-Seong Kim
- Department of Pediatrics, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea
| | - Soo Jie Chung
- Department of Pulmonology and Allergy, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong, Korea.,Allergy and Clinical Immunology Research Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Hyun Jong Lee
- Lee and Hong ENT Sleep and Cosmetic Center, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hyo-Bin Kim
- Department of Pediatrics, Asthma and Allergy Center, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong-Hee Choi
- Department of Pulmonology and Allergy, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong, Korea.,Allergy and Clinical Immunology Research Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea
| | - Gil-Soon Choi
- Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
| | - Hyeon-Jong Yang
- Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Center, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Pharmakotherapie bei allergischer Rhinitis und Asthma bronchiale. ALLERGO JOURNAL 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s15007-022-5060-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
|
10
|
Different Methods and Formulations of Drugs and Vaccines for Nasal Administration. Pharmaceutics 2022; 14:pharmaceutics14051073. [PMID: 35631663 PMCID: PMC9144811 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Nasal drug delivery is advantageous when compared with other routes of drug delivery as it avoids the hepatic first-pass effect, blood–brain barrier penetration, and compliance issues with parenteral administration. However, nasal administration also has some limitations, such as its low bioavailability due to metabolism on the mucosal surface, and irreversible damage to the nasal mucosa due to the ingredients added into the formula. Moreover, the method of nasal administration is not applicable to all drugs. The current review presents the nasal anatomy and mucosal environment for the nasal delivery of vaccines and drugs, as well as presents various methods for enhancing nasal absorption, and different drug carriers and delivery devices to improve nasal drug delivery. It also presents future prospects on the nasal drug delivery of vaccines and drugs.
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Chitsuthipakorn W, Hoang MP, Kanjanawasee D, Seresirikachorn K, Snidvongs K. Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2022; 12:1480-1502. [PMID: 35446512 DOI: 10.1002/alr.23015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Revised: 03/05/2022] [Accepted: 04/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments. METHODS Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. RESULTS Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS. CONCLUSION After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wirach Chitsuthipakorn
- Center of Excellence in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.,College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Minh P Hoang
- Department of Otolaryngology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.,Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Endoscopic Nasal and Sinus Surgery Excellence Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Dichapong Kanjanawasee
- Center of Research Excellence in Allergy and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Biodesign Innovation Center, Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Kachorn Seresirikachorn
- Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Endoscopic Nasal and Sinus Surgery Excellence Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Kornkiat Snidvongs
- Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.,Endoscopic Nasal and Sinus Surgery Excellence Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Watts AM, West NP, Smith PK, Zhang P, Cripps AW, Cox AJ. Nasal immune gene expression in response to azelastine and fluticasone propionate combination or monotherapy. Immun Inflamm Dis 2022; 10:e571. [PMID: 34813682 PMCID: PMC8926499 DOI: 10.1002/iid3.571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Revised: 10/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The combination of the antihistamine azelastine (AZE) with the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) in a single spray, has been reported to be significantly more effective at reducing allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms than treatment with either corticosteroid or antihistamine monotherapy. However, the biological basis for enhanced symptom relief is not known. This study aimed to compare gene expression profiles (760 immune genes, performed with the NanoString nCounter) from peripheral blood and nasal brushing/lavage lysate samples in response to nasal spray treatment. METHODS Moderate/severe persistent dust mite AR sufferers received either AZE (125 μg/spray) nasal spray (n = 16), FP (50 μg/spray) nasal spray (n = 14) or combination spray AZE/FP (125 μg AZE and 50 μg FP/spray) (n = 14) for 7 days, twice daily. Self-reported symptom questionnaires were completed daily for the study duration. Gene expression analysis (760 immune genes) was performed with the NanoString nCounter on purified RNA from peripheral blood and nasal brushing/lavage lysate samples. RESULTS In nasal samples, 206 genes were significantly differentially expressed following FP treatment; 182 genes downregulated (-2.57 to -0.45 Log2 fold change [FC]), 24 genes upregulated (0.49-1.40 Log2 FC). In response to AZE/FP, only 16 genes were significantly differentially expressed; 10 genes downregulated (-1.53 to -0.58 Log2 FC), six genes upregulated (1.07-1.62 Log2 FC). Following AZE treatment only five genes were significantly differentially expressed; one gene downregulated (-1.68 Log2 FC), four genes upregulated (0.59-1.19 Log2 FC). Immune gene changes in peripheral blood samples following treatment were minimal. AR symptoms improved under all treatments, but improvements were less pronounced following AZE treatment. CONCLUSION AZE/FP, FP, and AZE had diverse effects on immune gene expression profiles in nasal mucosa samples. The moderate number of genes modulated by AZE/FP indicates alternative pathways in reducing AR symptoms whilst avoiding extensive local immune suppression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annabelle M. Watts
- School of Medical ScienceGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
| | - Nicholas P. West
- School of Medical ScienceGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
- Menzies Health Institute of QueenslandGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
| | - Peter K. Smith
- Queensland Allergy Services ClinicSouthportQueenslandAustralia
| | - Ping Zhang
- Menzies Health Institute of QueenslandGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
| | - Allan W. Cripps
- Menzies Health Institute of QueenslandGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
- School of MedicineGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
| | - Amanda J. Cox
- School of Medical ScienceGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
- Menzies Health Institute of QueenslandGriffith UniversitySouthportQueenslandAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to summarise the evidence for efficacy of combination treatment of intranasal corticosteroid spray with oxymetazoline hydrochloride nasal spray for chronic rhinitis. METHOD Nine databases were systematically searched from study inception in September 2016 to 1 June 2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed. RESULTS A total of 130 studies were screened, and 4 randomised controlled trials comprising 838 patients met inclusion criteria. The study found superior improvement of nasal congestion from onset of treatment to completion in intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride groups compared with control groups. Intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride use resulted in higher nasal volume (standard error of mean 1, 15.8 + 1.1 ml; p < .03) compared with either placebo (12.1 + 0.9 ml) or oxymetazoline hydrochloride (12.4 + 0.8 ml) alone (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION Intranasal corticosteroid spray and oxymetazoline hydrochloride combination treatment may be superior in reducing rhinitis symptoms compared with either intranasal corticosteroid spray or oxymetazoline hydrochloride alone, without inducing rhinitis medicamentosa.
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Zhang K, Li AR, Miglani A, Nguyen SA, Schlosser RJ. Effect of Medical Therapy in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2021; 36:269-280. [PMID: 34546814 DOI: 10.1177/19458924211041438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR); however, appraisal of treatment effect has been heterogenous, and few studies have interpreted these outcomes in context with measures of nasal airflow. OBJECTIVE To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for common therapy classes for AR to assess standardized treatment effect on validated patient-reported outcomes and physiologic measures of airflow. METHODS A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane library databases to identify randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Treatment effects of INCS, POAH, and ASIT on total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were analyzed by meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-two studies with 4673 AR patients were identified, with 5 INCS, 8 POAH, and 9 ASIT trials. INCS improved TNSS (mean difference [MD] 0.90; P = .002) and PNIF (MD 13.31 L/min [P = .0007]. POAH improved quality of life assessed by RQLQ [MD 0.36; P < .001], but no improvement was found in PNIF. ASIT improved RQLQ [MD 0.65; P < .001], with a trend toward improvement in TNSS. CONCLUSION Overall, INCS resulted in a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in symptom scores and physiologic measures in AR. POAH and ASIT both improved symptom scores and quality of life, but their impacts upon nasal airflow are uncertain. There is a lack of studies assessing the effect of INCS on quality of life and the effect of POAH on symptom severity, particularly for mild AR. Future studies should assess the effect of treatment for each of these patient-reported measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathy Zhang
- 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Andraia R Li
- 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Amar Miglani
- 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Shaun A Nguyen
- 2345Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Clinical efficacy and safety of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 279:2457-2464. [PMID: 34415405 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-07048-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 08/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE MP-AzeFlu is a novel option for therapy of allergic rhinitis (AR). The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MP-AzeFlu for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, compared to placebo and azelastine monotherapy. METHODS The PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of using MP-AzeFlu nasal spray on July 26, 2019. In these studies, we selected patients with clinical symptom scores. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed by I2. RESULTS Among the 336 citations retrieved, 6 articles with over 6000 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis revealed that MP-AzeFlu was superior to placebo ( - 2.43 [95%CI, - 2.73 to - 2.14], P < 0.00001) and azelastine ( - 1.27 [95% CI, - 1.57 to - 0.97], P < 0.00001) in reflective total nasal symptom score. In the MP-AzeFlu group, the instantaneous total nasal symptom score ( - 2.56 [95% CI, - 3.02 to - 2.10], P < 0.00001) and the reflective total ocular symptom score ( - 1.22 [95% CI, - 1.57 to - 0.87], P < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSION MP-AzeFlu is as safe and mild as placebo and azelastine, which also is associated with symptom relief and the improvement of quality of life in AR patients. MP-AzeFlu can provide better clinical benefits than two currently available first-line intranasal therapies. It is an ideal therapy for AR patients.
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Du K, Qing H, Zheng M, Wang X, Zhang L. Intranasal antihistamine is superior to oral H 1 antihistamine as an add-on therapy to intranasal corticosteroid for treating allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2020; 125:589-596.e3. [PMID: 32650045 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2020.06.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2020] [Revised: 06/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, a combination of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) plus oral H1 antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal H1 antihistamine (INAH) therapy is frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The superiority of the 2 combined treatments needs to be further examined. OBJECTIVE To identify the better of the 2 therapeutic strategies for treating AR. METHODS A literature review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, meta-analyses of the total nasal symptom scores and individual nasal symptom scores were pooled based on studies that compared concomitant H1 antihistamines plus INCS with INCS alone in the treatment of AR. The pooled results were expressed as weighted mean differences between the treatments. For each selected study, we calculated the relative clinical impact based on the total nasal symptom scores as follows: 100 × (ScoreMonotherapy - ScoreCombined therapy) / ScoreMonotherapy. RESULTS A total of 13 publications met our selection criteria, with 5066 patients. The pooled results revealed no significant weighted mean difference on the total nasal symptom scores between concomitant OAH plus INCS and INCS alone. As for the individual symptoms, the most common symptom that revealed remission was rhinorrhea, which was after OAH in combination with INCS. The combination therapy of INAH and INCS was superior to INCS alone. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean relative clinical impact of INAH plus INCS was significantly higher than that of OAH plus INCS. CONCLUSION Intranasal H1 antihistamines have an add-on effect on intranasal corticosteroids, and the combination of intranasal H1 antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid is superior to that of oral H1 antihistamines plus intranasal corticosteroid in improving nasal symptoms for patients with AR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kun Du
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Hui Qing
- Department of Allergy, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Ming Zheng
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiangdong Wang
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Nasal Diseases, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
| | - Luo Zhang
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Department of Allergy, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Nasal Diseases, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Asmanov AI, Pivneva ND, Zlobina NV, Pampura AN. [Allergic rhinitis in children: from diagnosis to therapy]. Vestn Otorinolaringol 2020; 85:74-78. [PMID: 32241994 DOI: 10.17116/otorino20208501174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis, according to modern data, affects up to a quarter of the population of developed countries. The disease affects not only the nasal mucosa, but also affects the receptors and mediators of inflammation in the bone marrow. A significant decrease in the quality of life of patients against the background of exacerbation of allergic rhinitis makes us look for new approaches to both the treatment of attacks and their prevention. Correction, including surgical, of concomitant pathology of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses significantly improves the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For a long time, surgical treatment of concomitant pathology of the nasal cavity in children was extremely limited due to the risk of damage to the growth zones and, as a consequence, a high probability of recurrence of deformation of the structures of the nose and paranasal sinuses. With the development of endoscopic methods of surgical treatment of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, operations with minimal invasiveness and, as a consequence, safe at any age were introduced into practice. Surgical intervention on the structures of the lymphoid pharyngeal ring in children with allergic rhinitis is causing heated debate in the pediatric community to date. The article considers modern approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in children. Topical problems of conservative and surgical treatment are discussed. Special attention is paid to the safety of various treatment regimens. The discussed practical issues of tactics of treatment of allergic rhinitis are relevant for both pediatric allergists and ENT pediatricians.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A I Asmanov
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Academician Veltishchev Research Clinical Institute of Pediatrics, Moscow, Russia, 125412; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia, 117997
| | - N D Pivneva
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Academician Veltishchev Research Clinical Institute of Pediatrics, Moscow, Russia, 125412; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia, 117997
| | - N V Zlobina
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Academician Veltishchev Research Clinical Institute of Pediatrics, Moscow, Russia, 125412
| | - A N Pampura
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Academician Veltishchev Research Clinical Institute of Pediatrics, Moscow, Russia, 125412
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Klimek L, Casper I, Bergmann KC, Biedermann T, Bousquet J, Hellings P, Jung K, Merk H, Olze H, Mösges R, Schlenter W, Gröger M, Ring J, Chaker A, Pfaar O, Wehrmann W, Zuberbier T, Becker S. Die Therapie der allergischen Rhinitis in der Routineversorgung: evidenzbasierte Nutzenbewertung der kombinierten Anwendung mehrerer Wirkstoffe. ALLERGO JOURNAL 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s15007-020-2551-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
|
19
|
Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Amrol DJ, Baroody FM, Bernstein JA, Craig TJ, Dinakar C, Ellis AK, Finegold I, Golden DBK, Greenhawt MJ, Hagan JB, Horner CC, Khan DA, Lang DM, Larenas-Linnemann DES, Lieberman JA, Meltzer EO, Oppenheimer JJ, Rank MA, Shaker MS, Shaw JL, Steven GC, Stukus DR, Wang J, Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Dinakar C, Ellis AK, Golden DBK, Greenhawt MJ, Horner CC, Khan DA, Lang DM, Lieberman JA, Oppenheimer JJ, Rank MA, Shaker MS, Stukus DR, Wang J, Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Amrol DJ, Baroody FM, Bernstein JA, Craig TJ, Finegold I, Hagan JB, Larenas-Linnemann DES, Meltzer EO, Shaw JL, Steven GC. Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020; 146:721-767. [PMID: 32707227 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 180] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2020] [Revised: 06/22/2020] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark S Dykewicz
- Section of Allergy and Immunology, Division of Infectious Diseases, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Mo.
| | - Dana V Wallace
- Department of Medicine, Nova Southeastern Allopathic Medical School, Fort Lauderdale, Fla
| | - David J Amrol
- Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
| | - Fuad M Baroody
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill
| | - Jonathan A Bernstein
- Allergy Section, Division of Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Timothy J Craig
- Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pa
| | - Chitra Dinakar
- Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif
| | - Anne K Ellis
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ira Finegold
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai West, New York, NY
| | - David B K Golden
- Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md
| | - Matthew J Greenhawt
- Section of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Colorado, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo
| | - John B Hagan
- Division of Allergic Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
| | - Caroline C Horner
- Division of Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Washington University, St Louis, Mo
| | - David A Khan
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex
| | - David M Lang
- Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | - Jay A Lieberman
- Division of Pulmonology Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tenn
| | - Eli O Meltzer
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, Calif; Allergy and Asthma Medical Group and Research Center, San Diego, Calif
| | - John J Oppenheimer
- Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine and Allergic & Immunologic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ; Pulmonary and Allergy Associates, Morristown, NJ
| | - Matthew A Rank
- Division of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Scottsdale, Ariz
| | - Marcus S Shaker
- Department of Pediatrics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
| | | | | | - David R Stukus
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Julie Wang
- Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, The Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Hossenbaccus L, Linton S, Garvey S, Ellis AK. Towards definitive management of allergic rhinitis: best use of new and established therapies. ALLERGY, ASTHMA, AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY : OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE CANADIAN SOCIETY OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY 2020; 16:39. [PMID: 32508939 PMCID: PMC7251701 DOI: 10.1186/s13223-020-00436-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa impacting up to 25% of Canadians. The standard of care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account patient preferences, the severity of the disease, and most essentially involves a shared decision-making process between patient and provider. BODY Since their introduction in the 1940s, antihistamines (AHs) have been the most utilized class of medications for the treatment of AR. First-generation AHs are associated with adverse central nervous system (CNS) and anticholinergic side effects. On the market in the 1980s, newer generation AHs have improved safety and efficacy. Compared to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have significantly greater efficacy but longer onset of action. Intranasal AH and INCS combinations offer a single medication option that offers broader disease coverage and faster symptom control. However, cost and twice-per-day dosing remain a major limitation. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying option and can be provided through subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes. While SCIT has been the definitive management option for many years, SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) have also been proven to be safe and efficacious. CONCLUSION There is a range of available treatment options for AR that reflect the varying disease length and severity. For mild to moderate AR, newer generation AHs should be the first-line treatment, while INCS are mainstay treatments for moderate to severe AR. In patients who do not respond to INCS, a combination of intranasal AH/INCS (AZE/FP) should be considered, assuming that cost is not a limiting factor. While SCIT remains the option with the most available allergens that can be targeted, it has the potential for severe systemic adverse effects and requires weekly visits for administration during the first 4 to 6 months. SLIT-T is a newer approach that provides the ease of being self-administered and presents a reduced risk for systemic reactions. In any case, standard care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account disease severity and patient preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lubnaa Hossenbaccus
- Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
- Allergy Research Unit, Kingston General Health Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| | - Sophia Linton
- Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
- Allergy Research Unit, Kingston General Health Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| | - Sarah Garvey
- Allergy Research Unit, Kingston General Health Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| | - Anne K. Ellis
- Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
- Allergy Research Unit, Kingston General Health Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Bjermer L, Westman M, Holmström M, Wickman MC. The complex pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis: scientific rationale for the development of an alternative treatment option. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2019; 15:24. [PMID: 31015846 PMCID: PMC6469109 DOI: 10.1186/s13223-018-0314-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2018] [Accepted: 12/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a global health problem and can be challenging to treat. Many of the current symptomatic treatments for AR have been available for decades, yet there has been little improvement in patient quality of life or symptom burden over the years. In this review, we ask why this might be and explore the pathophysiological gaps that exist within the various AR treatment classes. We focus on the benefits and drawbacks of different treatment options and delivery routes for AR treatments and consider how, given what is known about AR pathophysiology and symptomatology, patients may be offered more effective treatment options for rapid, effective, and sustained AR control. In particular, we consider how a new AR preparation, MP-AzeFlu (Dymista®, Meda, Sweden), comprising a formulation of an intranasal antihistamine (azelastine hydrochloride), an intranasal corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate), and excipients delivered in a single spray, may offer benefits over and above single and multiple AR therapy options. We review the evidence in support of this treatment across the spectrum of AR disease. The concept of AR control is also reviewed within the context of new European Union and Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif-Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leif Bjermer
- 1Department of Respiratory Medicine & Allergology, Skane University Hospital, 22185, Lund, Sweden
| | - Marit Westman
- 2Dept. of ENT-diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.,3Immunology and Allergy Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Mats Holmström
- 4Dept. of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Magnus C Wickman
- 5Department of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.,Sach's Children's Hospital, 118 83 Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Debbaneh PM, Bareiss AK, Wise SK, McCoul ED. Intranasal Azelastine and Fluticasone as Combination Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 161:412-418. [DOI: 10.1177/0194599819841883] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Objective Combination therapy with intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate is an option for treatment of allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines existing literature to determine efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis compared to monotherapy. Data Sources The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials using AzeFlu nasal spray. Review Methods Randomized, controlled trials that reported symptom relief of allergic rhinitis in males and females of all ages were included. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard. Results Systematic review identified 8 articles suitable for review. The risk of bias was generally low. All studies exhibited a greater decrease in patient-reported symptom scores in patients treated with combination therapy compared to monotherapy or placebo. Meta-analysis revealed superiority of combination therapy in reducing Total Nasal Symptom Score compared to placebo (mean change from baseline: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.82 to −1.99; P < .001; I 2 = 60%), azelastine (mean change from baseline: −1.40; 95% CI, −1.82 to −0.98; P < .001; I 2 = 0%), and fluticasone (mean change from baseline: −0.74; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.31; P < .001; I 2 = 12%). Conclusion Current evidence supports both efficacy and superiority of combination intranasal azelastine and fluticasone in reducing patient-reported symptom scores in patients with allergic rhinitis. Combination nasal spray should be considered as second-line therapy in patients with allergic rhinitis that is not controlled with monotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter M. Debbaneh
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Anna K. Bareiss
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Sarah K. Wise
- Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Edward D. McCoul
- Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
- Ochsner Clinical School, University of Queensland School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
- Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Watts AM, Cripps AW, West NP, Cox AJ. Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents. Front Pharmacol 2019; 10:294. [PMID: 31001114 PMCID: PMC6455085 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00294] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2019] [Accepted: 03/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annabelle M. Watts
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
| | - Allan W. Cripps
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
| | - Nicholas P. West
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
| | - Amanda J. Cox
- Menzies Health Institute Queensland, School of Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Klimek L, Sperl A, Becker S, Mösges R, Tomazic PV. Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2018; 20:83-89. [PMID: 30439290 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2018.1543401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option. AREAS COVERED This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies. EXPERT OPINION Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ludger Klimek
- a Center for Rhinology and Allergology , Wiesbaden , Germany
| | - Annette Sperl
- a Center for Rhinology and Allergology , Wiesbaden , Germany
| | - Sven Becker
- b Department of Otorhinolaryngology , Mainz University Hospital , Mainz , Germany
| | - Ralph Mösges
- c CRI - Clinical Research International Ltd ., Cologne , Germany
| | - Peter Valentin Tomazic
- d Department of General Otorhinolaryngology , Medical University of Graz , Graz , Austria
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Patel P, Salapatek AM, Tantry SK. Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2018; 122:160-166.e1. [PMID: 30321655 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2018.10.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2018] [Revised: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 10/09/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 μg of olopatadine and 25 μg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 μg of olopatadine and 50 μg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 μg of azelastine and 50 μg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 μg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Piyush Patel
- Inflamax Research Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Moraga-Espinoza D, Warnken Z, Moore A, Williams RO, Smyth HDC. A modified USP induction port to characterize nasal spray plume geometry and predict turbinate deposition under flow. Int J Pharm 2018; 548:305-313. [PMID: 29960037 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.06.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2018] [Revised: 06/25/2018] [Accepted: 06/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
There is currently no in vitro technique for assessing plume geometry of nasal sprays under airflow conditions. However, a majority of FDA approved nasal products recommend that patients inhale during actuation. Therefore, a reproducible in vitro test that measures plume angles under physiologically relevant inhalation flow rates would be useful. The purpose of this study was to adapt the recently described Plume Induction Port Evaluator (PIPE) apparatus for nasal sprays under flow and correlate these with nasal cast deposition patterns. Mass Median Plume Angles (MMPAs) of four nasal spray formulations with increasing viscosities were determined using the PIPE apparatus in the absence and presence of airflow. MMPAs were then correlated to drug deposition within 3D printed nasal casts using airflow. We evaluated different inhalation instructions obtained from the package insert of nasal products. MMPAs significantly reduced (narrower angles) when using flow for the three formulations with the lowest viscosities. An increase in the turbinate deposition was observed in the nasal casts when just one of the nostrils was closed during inhalation, except by the highest viscosity formulation. The turbinate deposition numerically correlated with changes in the plume angles observed using PIPE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Moraga-Espinoza
- Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States; Escuela de Química y Farmacia, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile; Centro de Investigación Farmacopea Chilena, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
| | - Zachary Warnken
- Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Amanda Moore
- Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Robert O Williams
- Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Hugh D C Smyth
- Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Wise SK, Lin SY, Toskala E, Orlandi RR, Akdis CA, Alt JA, Azar A, Baroody FM, Bachert C, Canonica GW, Chacko T, Cingi C, Ciprandi G, Corey J, Cox LS, Creticos PS, Custovic A, Damask C, DeConde A, DelGaudio JM, Ebert CS, Eloy JA, Flanagan CE, Fokkens WJ, Franzese C, Gosepath J, Halderman A, Hamilton RG, Hoffman HJ, Hohlfeld JM, Houser SM, Hwang PH, Incorvaia C, Jarvis D, Khalid AN, Kilpeläinen M, Kingdom TT, Krouse H, Larenas-Linnemann D, Laury AM, Lee SE, Levy JM, Luong AU, Marple BF, McCoul ED, McMains KC, Melén E, Mims JW, Moscato G, Mullol J, Nelson HS, Patadia M, Pawankar R, Pfaar O, Platt MP, Reisacher W, Rondón C, Rudmik L, Ryan M, Sastre J, Schlosser RJ, Settipane RA, Sharma HP, Sheikh A, Smith TL, Tantilipikorn P, Tversky JR, Veling MC, Wang DY, Westman M, Wickman M, Zacharek M. International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2018; 8:108-352. [PMID: 29438602 PMCID: PMC7286723 DOI: 10.1002/alr.22073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 240] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2017] [Revised: 12/01/2017] [Accepted: 12/01/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Cezmi A. Akdis
- Allergy/Asthma, Swiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research, Switzerland
| | | | - Antoine Azar
- Allergy/Immunology, Johns Hopkins University, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Cemal Cingi
- Otolaryngology, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Adam DeConde
- Otolaryngology, University of California San Diego, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Jan Gosepath
- Otorhinolaryngology, Helios Kliniken Wiesbaden, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Jens M. Hohlfeld
- Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Airway Research Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, German Center for Lung Research, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Amber U. Luong
- Otolaryngology, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, USA
| | | | | | | | - Erik Melén
- Pediatric Allergy, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
| | | | | | - Joaquim Mullol
- Otolaryngology, Universitat de Barcelona, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Spain
| | | | | | | | - Oliver Pfaar
- Rhinology/Allergy, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Center for Rhinology and Allergology, Wiesbaden, Germany
| | | | | | - Carmen Rondón
- Allergy, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Spain
| | - Luke Rudmik
- Otolaryngology, University of Calgary, Canada
| | - Matthew Ryan
- Otolaryngology, University of Texas Southwestern, USA
| | - Joaquin Sastre
- Allergology, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Jiminez Diaz, Spain
| | | | | | - Hemant P. Sharma
- Allergy/Immunology, Children's National Health System, George Washington University School of Medicine, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - De Yun Wang
- Otolaryngology, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV, Baroody F, Bernstein J, Craig T, Finegold I, Huang F, Larenas-Linnemann D, Meltzer E, Steven G, Bernstein DI, Blessing-Moore J, Dinakar C, Greenhawt M, Horner CC, Khan DA, Lang D, Oppenheimer J, Portnoy JM, Randolph CR, Rank MA, Dykewicz MS, Wallace DV. Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: An evidence-based focused 2017 guideline update. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2017; 119:489-511.e41. [PMID: 29103802 DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2017.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2017] [Accepted: 08/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
|
29
|
Gonzalez-Estrada A, Reddy K, Dimov V, Eidelman F. Olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18:1137-1143. [PMID: 28656804 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2017.1346085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Olopatadine hydrochloride is an antihistamine and mast cell stabilizer available as oral, intranasal and ocular preparations. Most of the practical applications of olopatadine therapy focus on the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis via intranasal and ocular routes. Areas covered: This article was created from a comprehensive literature search with information taken from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical trials of children and adults. The articles that have been selected, evaluate the use of intranasal and ocular antihistamines and their role in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Expert opinion: Olopatadine is significantly more effective than placebos in relieving the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It can function both as a viable alternative or addition to first line therapies such as intranasal steroids and oral antihistamines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada
- a Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine , East Tennessee Statement , Johnson City , TN , USA
| | - Keerthi Reddy
- b Department of Pediatrics , East Tennessee Statement , Johnson City , TN , USA
| | - Ves Dimov
- c Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology , Cleveland Clinic , Weston , FL , USA
| | - Frank Eidelman
- c Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology , Cleveland Clinic , Weston , FL , USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Kim DH, Kim BY, Shin JH, Kim SW, Kim SW. Intranasal azelastine and mometasone exhibit a synergistic effect on a murine model of allergic rhinitis. Am J Otolaryngol 2017; 38:198-203. [PMID: 28117118 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2016] [Accepted: 01/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the anti-allergic effects of the combination of azelastine and mometasone with those of either agent alone in a Dermatophagoides farinae (Derf)-induced murine model of allergic rhinitis (AR). MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty BALB/c mice were divided into five groups: azelastine (A), mometasone (M), a combination of azelastine and mometasone (MA), Derf, and control. Derf served as the allergen. Allergic symptom scores, eosinophil counts, and serum Derf-specific IgE levels were measured. The mucosal levels of mRNAs encoding interferon (IFN)-γ, T-bet, interleukin (IL)-4, GATA-3, Foxp3, IL-17, and ROR-γt were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The T-bet, GATA-3, Foxp3, and ROR-γt results were confirmed by Western blotting. RESULTS Nose-rubbing motions; the levels of mRNAs encoding IL-4, GATA-3, and ROR-γt; and tissue eosinophil count were reduced in the MA compared with those in the Derf group (all P values <0.05). The levels of mRNAs encoding GATA3 and IL-4 mRNA [synthesized by T helper (Th)2 cells] were reduced and that of mRNA encoding Foxp3 was increased in the MA compared with those in the Derf and A groups. Western blotting confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION We found that the combination of intranasal azelastine and mometasone synergistically suppressed Th17 responses and (reciprocally) elevated Treg responses. Therefore, this combination not only ameliorated allergic inflammation by suppressing Th2 responses, but also usefully modified the Treg/Th17 balance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Do Hyun Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Boo-Young Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ji-Hyeon Shin
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Sung Won Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Soo Whan Kim
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Nosulya EV, Kim IA. [The modern strategies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis]. Vestn Otorinolaringol 2016; 81:74-76. [PMID: 27213663 DOI: 10.17116/otorino201681274-76] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The present literature review had the objective to analyze the published data concerning the effectiveness of intranasal administration of antihistamine preparations and intranasal glucocorticoids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical significance and the further prospects for the application of a fixed combination of these medications including azelastineplusmometasonefuroateas the first choice therapy of moderately severe and severe manifestations of allergic rhinitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E V Nosulya
- Russian Medical Academy of Post-Graduate Education, Moscow, Russia, 125367
| | - I A Kim
- Russian Medical Academy of Post-Graduate Education, Moscow, Russia, 125367
| |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Altıntoprak N, Kar M, Bayar Muluk N, Oktemer T, Ipci K, Birdane L, Aricigil M, Senturk M, Bafaqeeh SA, Cingi C. Update on local allergic rhinitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 87:105-9. [PMID: 27368453 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
We here provide an update on the literature regarding local allergic rhinitis (LAR). In reviewing LAR, we have included an updated definition, classifications, mechanisms, comorbidities, and recommendations for diagnosis and treatment for LAR, as well as the defined research areas for future evidence-based studies. LAR is a localised nasal allergic response in the absence of systemic atopy characterised by local production of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies, a TH2 pattern of mucosal cell infiltration during natural exposure to aeroallergens, and a positive nasal allergen provocation test response, with the release of inflammatory mediators. The localised allergic response of LAR is an important topic for the study of allergies. This review provides an update on the current knowledge of LAR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Murat Kar
- Kumluca State Hospital, ENT Clinics, Antalya, Turkey.
| | - Nuray Bayar Muluk
- Kirikkale University, Medical Faculty, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kirikkale, Turkey.
| | - Tugba Oktemer
- Private Polatlı Can Hospital, ENT Clinics, Polatli/Ankara, Turkey.
| | - Kagan Ipci
- Ankara Koru Hospital, ENT Clinics, Ankara, Turkey.
| | - Leman Birdane
- Yunus Emre State Hospital, ENT Clinics, Eskisehir, Turkey.
| | - Mitat Aricigil
- Necmettin Erbakan University, Meram Medical Faculty, ENT Department, Konya, Turkey.
| | - Mehmet Senturk
- Konya Training and Research Hospital, ENT Clinics, Konya, Turkey.
| | | | - Cemal Cingi
- Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Medical Faculty, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Eskisehir, Turkey.
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Allergy Medications During Pregnancy. Am J Med Sci 2016; 352:326-31. [PMID: 27650241 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.05.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2016] [Revised: 05/18/2016] [Accepted: 05/31/2016] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Allergic diseases are common in women of childbearing age. Both asthma and atopic conditions may worsen, improve or remain the same during pregnancy. Primary care physicians commonly encounter women receiving multiple medications for pre-existing atopic conditions, who then become pregnant and require medication changes to avoid potential fetal injury or congenital malformations. Each medication should be evaluated; intranasal and inhaled steroids are relatively safe to continue during pregnancy (budesonide is the drug of choice), second-generation antihistamines of choice are cetirizine and loratadine, leukotriene receptor antagonists are safe, sparing use of oral decongestants during the first trimester and omalizumab may be used for both uncontrolled asthma and for antihistamine-resistant urticaria. Medications to avoid during pregnancy include intranasal antihistamines, first-generation antihistamines, mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine and zilueton. Common allergic diseases may develop de novo during pregnancy, such as anaphylaxis.
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Abstract
By 2050, the US aging population will nearly double. It will be increasingly important for health care providers to diagnose and manage rhinitis. Nasal symptoms of rhinorrhea, congestion, sneezing, nasal/ocular pruritus, and postnasal drainage affect up to 32% of older adults, and can impact quality of life. Several underlying factors associated with aging may contribute to the pathogenesis of rhinitis in older adults. Although treatment options for rhinitis exist, special considerations need to be made because comorbidities, limited income, memory loss, and side effects of medications are common in older adults and may impact outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan P Baptist
- Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Michigan, 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Suite H-2100, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA.
| | - Sharmilee Nyenhuis
- Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 840 S. Wood Street MC 719, Chicago, IL 60612, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Murdoch RD, Bareille P, Ignar D, Miller SR, Gupta A, Boardley R, Zieglmayer P, Zieglmayer R, Lemel P, Horak F. The improved efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone furoate and levocabastine relative to the individual components in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Clin Exp Allergy 2016; 45:1346-55. [PMID: 25900517 DOI: 10.1111/cea.12556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 03/23/2015] [Accepted: 04/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic disease, which has significant detrimental effect on well-being and quality of life as well as substantial socio-economic impact. Combination pharmacotherapy is utilized by 40-50% of patients to treat their symptoms. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of intranasal fluticasone furoate (FF)/levocabastine (LEVO) fixed-dose combination (FDC) with each component alone on allergen-induced nasal and ocular symptoms. METHODS A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way, incomplete block, cross-over, proof-of-concept study in 71 patients with AR, evaluated FF 100 μg, LEVO 200 μg and FDC (FF 100/LEVO 200 μg), once daily via intranasal spray for 8 days. On days 1 and 8, total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and total ocular symptom score (TOSS) were assessed every 15 min during a 4-h allergen exposure in the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The primary endpoint was Day 8 weighted mean TNSS. RESULTS After 8 days, FDC resulted in both statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean TNSS compared with FF and LEVO alone [adjusted mean differences (95% CI): FDC vs. FF: -2.26 (-2.90, -1.62); FDC vs. LEVO: -2.57 (-3.21, -1.93)]. All active treatments were significantly superior to placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% CI) from placebo: FDC: -4.1 (-4.86, -3.34); FF: -1.84 (-2.66, -1.03); LEVO: -1.53 (-2.34, -0.72)]. Onset of action was rapid following FDC and LEVO treatment with an approximate two unit reduction in mean TNSS from pre-dose levels by 30 min and 1 h. Mean TOSS was also reduced following all active treatments relative to placebo (range 0.6-0.8 unit reduction). All treatments were equally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE These results suggest that once daily FF/LEVO FDC could provide a clinical therapeutic advantage to existing standard monotherapies in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AR, and support progression to evaluation in larger phase III clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - D Ignar
- GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, Research Triangle Park is the official town name so no town to be entered, NC, USA
| | | | - A Gupta
- Quantitative Sciences India, GlaxoSmithKline, Bangalore, India
| | | | - P Zieglmayer
- Vienna Challenge Chamber, Allergy Centre Vienna West, Vienna, Austria
| | - R Zieglmayer
- Vienna Challenge Chamber, Allergy Centre Vienna West, Vienna, Austria
| | - P Lemel
- Vienna Challenge Chamber, Allergy Centre Vienna West, Vienna, Austria
| | - F Horak
- Vienna Challenge Chamber, Allergy Centre Vienna West, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds? THE JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE 2016; 4:682-688.e6. [PMID: 27084419 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2015] [Revised: 01/19/2016] [Accepted: 02/17/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds. METHODS Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Chauhan B, Gupta M, Chauhan K. Role of antioxidants on the clinical outcome of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY (PROVIDENCE, R.I.) 2016; 7:74-81. [PMID: 27658183 PMCID: PMC5010436 DOI: 10.2500/ar.2016.7.0163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antioxidants have a preventive or therapeutic role in oxygen free radical-mediated cell and tissue damage. The study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effects of antioxidants and intranasal steroid fluticasone furoate (FF) on the clinical outcome of patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (n = 61) were randomly divided into two groups, group A (n = 30) received FF and group B (n = 31) received FF with antioxidants for 6 weeks. Nasal and ocular symptoms were evaluated weekly by using a four-point categoric scale. The efficacy of the study drug was assessed based on the mean change from baseline of the total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and the composite symptom scores. RESULTS The combined therapy (FF with antioxidants) resulted in marked improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in the mean total daytime nasal symptom scores, total nighttime nasal symptom scores, and composite symptom scores of subjects compared with ones treated with intranasal steroid (FF) alone, which highlighted the therapeutic effect of antioxidants in allergic rhinitis. CONCLUSION Significant improvement in clinical outcome was observed in subjects who received antioxidants along with FF. However, because this was an open-label study, the results must be interpreted with caution, and further double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials supplemented with different antioxidants together with intranasal steroids are suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhushan Chauhan
- From the Department of Ear, Nose and Throat, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Punjab, India, and
| | - Manish Gupta
- From the Department of Ear, Nose and Throat, Gian Sagar Medical College and Hospital, Punjab, India, and
| | - Komal Chauhan
- Department of Food Science and Technology, National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, Kundli, Haryana, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Allen A, Murdoch RD, Bareille P, Burns O, Hughes S, Gupta A, Miller SR. Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Once-Daily Intranasal Fluticasone Furoate and Levocabastine Administered Alone or Simultaneously as fluticasone Furoate/Levocabastine Fixed-Dose Combination. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2015; 5:225-31. [DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2015] [Accepted: 08/04/2015] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ann Allen
- GSK R&D; Gunnels Wood Road; Stevenage and Ware; Herts UK
| | | | | | | | - Stephen Hughes
- GSK R&D; Gunnels Wood Road; Stevenage and Ware; Herts UK
| | | | - Sam R. Miller
- GSK R&D; Gunnels Wood Road; Stevenage and Ware; Herts UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Concomitant corticosteroid nasal spray plus antihistamine (oral or local spray) for the symptomatic management of allergic rhinitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 273:3477-3486. [DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3832-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2015] [Accepted: 11/02/2015] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
|
40
|
Berger WE, Meltzer EO. Intranasal spray medications for maintenance therapy of allergic rhinitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015; 29:273-82. [PMID: 26132312 DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4215] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William E Berger
- Division of Basic Clinical Immunology, University of California Irvine, School of Medicine, and Allergy and Asthma Associates, Mission Viejo, California, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Fitzsimons R, van der Poel LA, Thornhill W, du Toit G, Shah N, Brough HA. Antihistamine use in children. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2015; 100:122-31. [PMID: 25147323 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2014] [Accepted: 07/28/2014] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
This review provides an overview of the use of antihistamines in children. We discuss types of histamine receptors and their mechanism of action, absorption, onset and duration of action of first-generation and second-generation H(1)-antihistamines, as well as elimination of H(1)-antihistamines which has important implications for dosing in children. The rationale for the use of H(1)-antihistamines is explored for the relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a variety of allergic conditions including: non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, atopic eczema (AE), allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and whether they have a role in the management of intermittent and chronic cough, anaphylaxis, food protein-induced gastrointestinal allergy and asthma prevention. Second-generation H(1)-antihistamines are preferable to first-generation H(1)-antihistamines in the management of non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, AR, AE and CSU due to: their better safety profile, including minimal cognitive and antimuscarinic side effects and a longer duration of action. We offer some guidance as to the choices of H(1)-antihistamines available currently and their use in specific clinical settings. H(1)-antihistamine class, availability, licensing, age and dosing administration, recommended indications in allergic conditions and modalities of delivery for the 12 more commonly used H(1)-antihistamines in children are also tabulated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roisin Fitzsimons
- Children's Allergy Service, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Department of Asthma, Allergy and Respiratory Science, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - William Thornhill
- Evelina Children's Pharmacy, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - George du Toit
- Children's Allergy Service, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Department of Asthma, Allergy and Respiratory Science, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Neil Shah
- Department of Gastroenterology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK TARGID, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, The Netherlands
| | - Helen A Brough
- Children's Allergy Service, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Department of Asthma, Allergy and Respiratory Science, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Platt M. Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015; 4 Suppl 2:S35-40. [PMID: 25182353 DOI: 10.1002/alr.21381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2014] [Revised: 07/01/2014] [Accepted: 07/02/2014] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis is a mainstay of treatment for patients with mild to severe nasal allergy symptoms. A wide array of medical treatment options is available for both episodic relief and prevention of symptoms. Treatment regimens can be tailored to individual patients based on nasal symptoms, severity, and associated atopic disorders. The purposes of this review are to identify available pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis, to discuss the benefits and limitations of each treatment option, and to help guide practitioners in providing optimal medical treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS A comprehensive review of pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis was performed using a PubMed search. Secondary sources within indexed studies were also compiled to review current medication options for patients with allergic rhinitis. The benefits and limitations of each class of allergy medication were reviewed to provide information on selecting the optimal treatment regimen for patients with allergic rhinitis. RESULTS Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis that are currently used in clinical practice include antihistamines, corticosteroids, leukotriene modifiers, mast cell stabilizers, expectorants, and decongestants. Symptoms of nasal congestion, itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea can be targeted with specific therapies that modulate the acute-phase or late-phase allergic reactions. Associated atopic disorders, including conjunctivitis and asthma, can help guide medication selection. CONCLUSION Pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis offer numerous options that are safe, effective, and readily available to target specific nasal symptoms. Symptom-based selection of allergy medications can result in optimal treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Platt
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Papadopoulos NG, Bernstein JA, Demoly P, Dykewicz M, Fokkens W, Hellings PW, Peters AT, Rondon C, Togias A, Cox LS. Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report. Allergy 2015; 70:474-94. [PMID: 25620381 DOI: 10.1111/all.12573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/16/2015] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N G Papadopoulos
- Centre for Paediatrics and Child Health, Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Allergy Department, 2nd Paediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Seidman MD, Gurgel RK, Lin SY, Schwartz SR, Baroody FM, Bonner JR, Dawson DE, Dykewicz MS, Hackell JM, Han JK, Ishman SL, Krouse HJ, Malekzadeh S, Mims JWW, Omole FS, Reddy WD, Wallace DV, Walsh SA, Warren BE, Wilson MN, Nnacheta LC. Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 152:S1-43. [PMID: 25644617 DOI: 10.1177/0194599814561600] [Citation(s) in RCA: 397] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D Seidman
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
| | - Richard K Gurgel
- Department of Surgery Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Sandra Y Lin
- Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | | - Fuad M Baroody
- University of Chicago Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | | | - Mark S Dykewicz
- Department of Internal Medicine, St Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
| | | | - Joseph K Han
- Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
| | - Stacey L Ishman
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - William D Reddy
- Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (AAAOM), Annandale, Virginia, USA
| | - Dana V Wallace
- Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida and Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, USA
| | - Sandra A Walsh
- Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
| | - Barbara E Warren
- Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
| | - Meghan N Wilson
- Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
| | - Lorraine C Nnacheta
- Department of Research and Quality, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Abstract
Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H₁receptor, H₁R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H₂receptor, H₂R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H₃receptor, H₃R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H₄receptor, H₄R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H₄R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H₄R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H₁R.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin L Thurmond
- Janssen Research and Development, L.L.C., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA,
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Brown K, Lane J, Silva MP, DeTineo M, Naclerio RM, Baroody FM. A pilot study of the effects of intranasal budesonide delivered by NasoNeb® on patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014; 4:43-8. [PMID: 24574125 DOI: 10.1002/alr.21239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2013] [Revised: 08/24/2013] [Accepted: 06/18/2013] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We investigated whether nebulization of budesonide via a NasoNeb® device would treat perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS We performed a parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study in subjects (n = 40) with perennial allergic rhinitis. After recording baseline symptoms, subjects were randomized to budesonide respules (0.25 mg) or an equivalent placebo for 26 days. Nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF) and nasal symptoms (graded on a 0–3 scale) were recorded by the subjects twice daily. Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQOL) as well as nasal volume, measured by acoustic rhinometry, was obtained at baseline, after 2 weeks, and at the end of treatment. RESULTS The average change from baseline in symptoms over the treatment period was greater for the group on budesonide (−3.33) compared to placebo (−1.98) (p = 0.45). When the average change from baseline over the treatment period was compared between the groups, budesonide resulted in higher NPIF (36.4 L/min) than placebo (18.7 L/min), p = 0.094. QOL improved in both groups compared to baseline with no significant difference between the groups. Although acoustic rhinometry indicated a larger volume in the group treated with budesonide on the last trial visit, the differences between the groups were not significant when accounting for the baseline values. CONCLUSION Compared to placebo, administration of nebulized budesonide in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis resulted in improvements in symptoms and objective measures of nasal congestion which approached but did not achieve statistical significance. A higher dose of active agent, a less effective placebo and a larger number of subjects might have improved statistical significance.
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Luo X, Ma R, Wu X, Xian D, Li J, Mou Z, Li H. Azelastine enhances the clinical efficacy of glucocorticoid by modulating MKP-1 expression in allergic rhinitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 272:1165-73. [PMID: 25060977 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3191-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2014] [Accepted: 07/01/2014] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xi Luo
- Allergy and Cancer Center, Otorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
48
|
Berger WE. MP29-02 for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a review of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and safety. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2014; 9:803-11. [PMID: 24070043 DOI: 10.1586/1744666x.2013.828876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
This review presents the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety of MP29-02 (Dymista®), a unique product for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Allergic rhinitis is often thought of more as a nuisance than a meaningful medical condition, and the health impact of allergic rhinitis can easily be underestimated. As a result, allergic rhinitis can be undertreated, expectations for relief may not be met, and patients may be left dissatisfied and non-compliant with their medications. MP29-02 is the only currently available allergic rhinitis medication to provide potent early-phase histamine-receptor blocking and long-term anti-inflammatory effects in a single intranasal formulation and delivery system that represents an advance in the therapy of allergic rhinitis, in particular for patients with moderate-to-severe disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William E Berger
- Allergy and Asthma Associates of Southern California, Mission Viejo, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
49
|
Fabbri NZ, Abib E, de Lima Zollner R. Azelastine and budesonide (nasal sprays): Effect of combination therapy monitored by acoustic rhinometry and clinical symptom score in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY 2014; 5:78-86. [PMID: 24988550 PMCID: PMC4124582 DOI: 10.2500/ar.2014.5.0089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to objectively evaluate the effects of intranasal therapy with azelastine (AZE), budesonide (BUD), and combined AZE plus BUD (AZE/BUD) using a nasal provocation test (NPT) and acoustic rhinometry in patients with allergic rhinitis. A randomized, single-blind, crossover study with three treatment sequences was used. Thirty patients with persistent AR received the three treatments using a nasal spray twice daily for 30 days and were evaluated by an NPT with histamine before and after each period of treatment. The treatment comparison, assessed by the nasal responsiveness to histamine, was monitored based on subjective (symptom score) and objective parameters (acoustic rhinometry). The minimal cross-area 2 (MCA2) was measured by acoustic rhinometry at 1, 4, 8, and 12 minutes after NPT for each histamine concentration administered (0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 6 mg/mL) up to at least a 20% reduction in the MCA2 from baseline (NPT20). The subjects were scored regarding nasal response encompassing histamine dose and time after histamine administration that caused nasal obstruction (NPT20 score) to assess the treatments' effects. Combination therapy produced a significant increase in baseline MCA2, viz., the improvement of nasal patency (p = 0.005). The symptoms score was significantly decreased after treatment with AZE (p = 0.03), BUD (p < 0.0001), and AZE/BUD (p < 0.0001), compared with pretreatment. The NPT20 score was significantly higher (p = 0.0009) after AZE/BUD, compared with AZE and BUD on their own. Thus, AZE therapy combined with BUD might provide more therapeutic benefits than the isolated drugs for improving nasal patency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalia Zanellato Fabbri
- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
50
|
Klimek L, Sperl A. [Evidence-based treatment options for allergic diseases in otolaryngology: an update]. HNO 2014; 61:525-38. [PMID: 23712364 DOI: 10.1007/s00106-013-2709-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Allergic diseases in the area of otolaryngology (ENT) are common, increasing and associated with a number of comorbid disorders, such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causative treatment option. Options for pharmacotherapy are mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticoids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and nasal decongestants. In type 1 allergic reactions, topical glucocorticoids are currently the most effective treatment and are considered to be the first-line therapy together with nonsedating antihistamines. A novel formulation (MP29-02) combining a nasal glucocorticoid and antihistamine in one single preparation has demonstrated an improvement of the effective total nasal symptom score by 39 % in comparison to monotherapy with fluticasone propionate. In type IV allergies, such as eczema treatment with topical glucocorticoids or calcineurin inhibitors is standard.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Klimek
- Zentrum für Rhinologie und Allergologie, An den Quellen 10, 65183, Wiesbaden, Deutschland.
| | | |
Collapse
|