Search

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAzelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).Materials and methodsA total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo.ResultsLeast square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported.ConclusionThe present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms. Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common allergic diseases, especially in economically developed countries, including Russia. The main goal of AR therapy is the control achievement over the disease symptoms, the minimizing of the future exacerbations risks and side effects. Antihistamines and glucocorticosteroids are the main classes of medicines used in all allergic diseases, including AR. According to the Federal Clinical Guidelines for Allergic rhinitis the use of the intranasal corticosteroids in combination with antihistamines is recommended on the second stage of therapy and higher. Both classes of medicines have a complementary effect on the allergic inflammation pathogenesis main stages. The intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines using allows the delivery of the medicines to the allergic inflammation area directly. Modern intranasal corticosteroids have a high affinity that provides the high efficacy in the low concentrations using and the insignificant systemic bioavailability. The review presents the key characteristics of the olopatadine and mometasone furoate nasal spray in a fixed combination, which registered in the Russian Federation recently. This combination is recommend for use in adults and children over 12 y.o. with allergic rhinitis. The pharmacological characteristics of the nasal spray components including the action mechanism described. The main clinical studies results presented, that confirmed the high efficacy and safety of olopatadine/mometasone furoate combination in AR patients. The olopatadine and mometasone furoate fixed combination ensures the rapid onset and the long-lasting effect with minimal adverse events risks that increases compliance and leads to the control achievement over the AR symptoms.

Background: Treatments for allergic rhinitis include intranasal or oral medications., Objective: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists in improving allergic rhinitis symptoms and quality of life., Methods: We searched four bibliographic databases and three clinical trial datasets for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing patients aged 12 years and older with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis, and (2) comparing intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists. We performed a meta-analysis of the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), development of adverse events, and withdrawals owing to adverse events. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation., Results: We included 35 studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and displayed an unclear risk of bias. Superiority of intranasal treatments was found for all assessed outcomes. Intranasal corticosteroids were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (mean difference [MD], -0.86; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.51; I 2  = 70%), Total Ocular Symptom Score (MD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.17; I 2  = 0%), and RQLQ (MD, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.61; I 2  = 0%), which were mostly associated with clinically meaningful improvements. Superiority of intranasal corticosteroids at improving the TNSS was also found against oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (MD, -1.05; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.77). Intranasal antihistamines were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (MD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.14; I 2  = 0%) and RQLQ (MD, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.06; I 2  = 0%)., Conclusions: Randomized controlled trials suggest that intranasal treatments are more effective than oral treatments at improving symptoms and quality of life in seasonal allergic rhinitis., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intranasal sprays (INSs) are commonly used medications for the treatment of many rhinologic conditions. Despite their popularity, an analysis of a nationwide reporting database and comparison to the available literature has never been performed. Methods: The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was accessed to obtain adverse event (AE) records from 2014 to 2019 for varying INSs, including: 10 corticosteroids, 1 alpha adrenergic, and 3 antihistamines. The Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR) and Reporting Odds Ratios (ROR) were calculated for dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache. A PRR ≥ 2 or ROR ≥ 1 was considered significant. Results: Corticosteroids had 98 864 total reported AEs to the database, followed by antihistamines (7011) and alpha adrenergics (2071). In total, dyspnea was reported 5843 times, followed by headache (4230), epistaxis (1205), ageusia/dysgeusia (920), and anosmia (312). Overall, PRR and ROR values for dyspnea ranged from 0.51 to 4.25 and 0.51 to 4.49; for dysgeusia/ageusia from 0.56 to 6.09 and 0.56 to 6.12; and for epistaxis from 1.03 to 27.24 and 1.03 to 30.76, respectively. All medications which listed anosmia within the top AEs had PRR and ROR values exceeding 2 and 1, respectively. The PRR for headache exceeded 2 for 1 medication and the ROR exceeded 1 in 7 medications. Conclusion: The AEs of dyspnea, anosmia, ageusia/dysgeusia, epistaxis, and headache are reported within the FAERS database for commonly prescribed INSs. When compared against the existing scientific literature, the clinical significance of this reporting tool from the FDA for these classes of medications remains unvalidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR)., Materials and Methods: A total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo., Results: Least square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group ( p  = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean ( p  = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported., Conclusion: The present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920., Competing Interests: This study and medical writing support was funded by Viatris. DT, HK and RR are employees of Viatris and were involved in study design, conduct and interpretation of data. Arghya Bhattacharya and Aswin Kumar A from Viatris provided medical writing assistance. WB was employed by Allergy & Asthma Solutions, Inc. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Bousquet, Klimek, Kuhl, Nguyen, Ramalingam, Canonica and Berger.)

Rhinitis is often the first symptom of allergy but is frequently ignored and classified as a nuisance condition. Ironically it has the greatest socioeconomic burden worldwide caused by its impact on work and on daily life. However, patients appear reticent to seek professional advice, visiting their doctor only when symptoms become 'intolerable' and often when their usual therapy proves ineffective. Clearly, it's time for new and more effective allergic rhinitis treatments. MP29-02 (Dymista®; Meda, Solna, Sweden) is a new class of medication for moderate to severe seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis if monotherapy with either intranasal antihistamine or intranasal corticosteroids is not considered sufficient. MP29-02 is a novel formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP). It benefits not only from the incorporation of two active agents, but also from a novel formulation; its lower viscosity, smaller droplet size, larger volume (137 µl) and wider spray angle ensure optimal coverage of, and retention on the nasal mucosa and contribute to its clinical efficacy. In clinical trials, patients treated with MP29-02 experienced twice the symptom relief as those treated with FP and AZE, who in turn exhibited significantly greater symptom relief than placebo-patients. Indeed, the advantage of MP29-02 over FP was approximately the same as that shown for FP over placebo. The advantage of MP29-02 was particularly evident in those patients for whom nasal congestion is predominant, with MP29-02 providing three times the nasal congestion relief of FP ( = 0.0018) and five times the relief of AZE ( = 0.0001). Moreover, patients treated with MP29-02 achieved each p p and every response up to a week faster than those treated with FP or AZE alone and in real life 1 in 2 patients reported the perception of well-controlled disease after only 3 days. MP29-02's superiority over FP was also apparent long-term in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis or non-allergic rhinitis, with statistical significance noted from the first day of treatment, with treatment difference maintained for a full year. Taken together, these data suggest that MP29-02 may improve the lives of many of our patients, enabling them to finally escape the allergic rhinitis trap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intranasal medication for eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) is an established practice in otolaryngology through the effects of steroids, decongestants, antihistamines or a combination of the above in reducing tubal oedema. The author has previously argued that a double-blind, randomised control trial would be helpful in determining effectiveness of treatment, if a standardised head position, chiefly Mygind or Ragan, was adopted to maximise intranasal drop delivery into the eustachian tube orifice. One recent paper suggests that intranasal treatment is not very effective, but ultimately does not state whether a standardised head position was adopted. Although a large body of evidence supports the hypothesis that the nasal passages are the route to middle ear disease, there is as yet no paper that has been published that has specifically addressed this issue, therefore the author must conclude that evidence to support intranasal treatment for ETD is still lacking and further research is desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem because of its increasing impact on economics, society, and the individual's quality of life. This study compares the outcomes and cost of three intranasal therapeutic approaches to the treatment of AR. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using propensity scores to achieve balanced cohorts. The study population included patients ≥16 years of age with at least one intranasal prescription claim, without concurrent nasal polyps or sinusitis. Health care use and costs, airway infections, pharmacy costs, and indicators of unsatisfactory treatment (i.e., treatment augmentation or switching) were evaluated in the 1-year follow-up period using a claims database. Results: Data from 141,190 patients in intranasal antihistamines (INA) therapy, intranasal steroids (INS) therapy, and intranasal combination therapy (ICT) cohorts were analyzed. The INA cohort showed the lowest rate of change in treatment (switching or augmentation). Switching rates were lowest in the INS therapy cohort, whereas augmentation was lowest in the INA cohort. AR- and asthma-related medication costs were significantly lower in the INA cohort. No differences were observed in airway infections and overall health care costs. Concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and asthma were the strongest predictors of health care cost and respiratory infection in the follow-up period. Conclusion: A change in treatment was noted in ∼1/3 of the entire study population. None of the treatments had a remarkable effect on health care costs or the occurrence of airway infections. The INA treatment cohort had lower AR- and asthma-related medication costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most common chronic disorders in the United States, causing patients significant discomfort and interfering with quality of life and functioning. Histamine is the primary mediator in the development of allergic rhinitis symptoms and is a primary therapeutic target. Guidelines, both in the United States and globally, recommend antihistamines as first-line therapy of allergic rhinitis. This article discusses the outcomes associated with intranasal versus oral administration of antihistamines. Both oral and intranasal antihistamines are approved for the first-line treatment of allergic rhinitis and both formulations result in a reduction in symptoms and an improvement in quality of life. Intranasal agents may be preferred in patients in whom nasal congestion is particularly bothersome or in cases where a more rapid onset of action is desired. Oral agents would be a better choice in young children (especially children who are at risk of developing asthma), in cases of poor medication compliance, and in patients who are bothered most by histamine-associated symptoms, such as itching or red and watery eyes. Both oral and intranasal antihistamines are safe and well tolerated and meet the needs of patients with allergic rhinitis, especially those with mild to moderate disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic rhinitis is likely the most common medical complaint to a clinical allergist and immunologist affecting between 10 and 30% of all adults. This disease causes significant impact on quality of life as well as creating a financial burden on society with decreased work productivity and medication costs. Often, many allergy sufferers do not adhere to the medication recommendations provided by their physician most often because these therapies have not provided relief. Although in the past, the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis has been environmental avoidance, immunotherapy, nasal corticosteroids, and oral antihistamines, the most recent rhinitis diagnosis parameters published by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology have also discussed the importance of other often overlooked therapies. More specifically, the new guidelines discuss a place for the use of intranasal antihistamines as first-line therapy as well as potentially providing superior relief to second-generation oral antihistamines. The guidelines also identify the biphasic nature of the allergic response with both phases consisting of nasal pruritus, sneezing, rhinorrhea, and congestion with the late phase predominated by nasal congestion. It is important to understand how intranasal antihistamines fit into these latest guidelines as first-line therapy and to understand how they may be beneficial to the symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. It is equally important to identify the individuals who have had less success with their current therapies to determine if intranasal antihistamines would be an important adjunct in therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has been estimated at 10% to 40%, and its economic burden is substantial. AR patients develop specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody responses to indoor and outdoor environmental allergens with exposure over time. These specific IgE antibodies bind to high-affinity IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils. Key outcome measures of therapeutic interventions include rhinitis symptom control, rescue medication requirements, and quality-of-life measures. A comprehensive multiple modality treatment plan customized to the individual patient can optimize outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

RHINITIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM AND IS DEFINED AS THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal itching, and nasal obstruction. The two major classifications are allergic and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). Allergic rhinitis occurs when an allergen is the trigger for the nasal symptoms. NAR is when obstruction and rhinorrhea occurs in relation to nonallergic, noninfectious triggers such as change in the weather, exposure to caustic odors or cigarette smoke, barometric pressure differences, etc. There is a lack of concomitant allergic disease, determined by negative skin prick test for relevant allergens and/or negative allergen-specific antibody tests. Both are highly prevalent diseases that have a significant economic burden on society and negative impact on patient quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes allergen avoidance, antihistamines (oral and intranasal), intranasal corticosteroids, intranasal cromones, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and immunotherapy. Occasional systemic corticosteroids and decongestants (oral and topical) are also used. NAR has 8 major subtypes which includes nonallergic rhinopathy (previously known as vasomotor rhinitis), nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia, atrophic rhinitis, senile rhinitis, gustatory rhinitis, drug-induced rhinitis, hormonal-induced rhinitis, and cerebral spinal fluid leak. The mainstay of treatment for NAR are intranasal corticosteroids. Topical antihistamines have also been found to be efficacious. Topical anticholinergics such as ipratropium bromide (0.03%) nasal spray are effective in treating rhinorrhea symptoms. Adjunct therapy includes decongestants and nasal saline. Investigational therapies in the treatment of NAR discussed include capsaicin, silver nitrate, and acupuncture.