Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-20b4c7y0pr.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma

Intranasal corticosteroids and intranasal antihistamines are efficacious topical therapies in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This review addresses their relative roles in the management of this disease, focusing on their safety and tolerability profiles. The intranasal route of administration delivers drug directly to the target organ, thereby minimising the potential for the systemic adverse effects that may be evident with oral therapy. Furthermore, the topical route of delivery enables the use of lower doses of medication. Such therapies, predominantly available as aqueous formulations following the ban of chlorofluorocarbon propellants, have minimal local adverse effects. Intranasal application of therapy can induce sneezing in the hyper-reactive nose, and transient local irritation has been described with certain formulations. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids is associated with minor nose bleeding in a small proportion of recipients. This effect has been attributed to the vasoconstrictor activity of the corticosteroid molecules, and is considered to account for the very rare occurrence of nasal septal perforation. Nasal biopsy studies do not show any detrimental structural effects within the nasal mucosa with long-term administration of intranasal corticosteroids. Much attention has focused on the systemic safety of intranasal application. When administered at standard recommended therapeutic dosage, the intranasal antihistamines do not cause significant sedation or impairment of psychomotor function, effects that would be evident when these agents are administered orally at a therapeutically relevant dosage. The systemic bioavailability of intranasal corticosteroids varies from <1% to up to 40-50% and influences the risk of systemic adverse effects. Because the dose delivered topically is small, this is not a major consideration, and extensive studies have not identified significant effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis with continued treatment. A small effect on growth has been reported in one study in children receiving a standard dosage over 1 year, however. This has not been found in prospective studies with the intranasal corticosteroids that have low systemic bioavailability and therefore the judicious choice of intranasal formulation, particularly if there is concurrent corticosteroid inhalation for asthma, is prudent. There is no evidence that such considerations are relevant to shorter-term use, such as in intermittent or seasonal disease. Intranasal therapy, which represents a major mode of drug delivery in allergic rhinitis, thus has a very favourable benefit/risk ratio and is the preferred route of administration for corticosteroids in the treatment of this disease, as well as an important option for antihistaminic therapy, particularly if rapid symptom relief is required.

Safety and tolerability profiles of intranasal antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Background: The evidence base for the use of H1-antihistamines in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis is considerably smaller than it is in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Objective: We hypothesized that desloratadine, a new, nonsedating selective H1-antihistamine, would be efficacious and safe in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study, 676 patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of treatment with either 5 mg of desloratadine once daily or placebo. Efficacy was assessed by using a morning-evening instantaneous total symptom score (TSS), which was composed of scores for 4 individual nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip) and 3 individual nonnasal symptoms (itching eyes, watering eyes, and itching of the ears or palate). Secondary outcome measures included a morning-evening reflective TSS, total nasal and nonnasal symptoms scores, and individual symptom scores. Safety evaluations, including 12-lead electrocardiograms, were performed. Results: Six hundred thirty-four patients completed the study. Desloratadine consistently diminished perennial allergic rhinitis symptoms, reducing the morning-evening instantaneous TSS (P = .005), the morning-evening reflective TSS (P = .007), the morning-evening reflective total nonnasal score (P = .023), and the individual nasal symptom scores for rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip/drainage (P = .05 to P = .013) during weeks 1 through 4. Improvement in symptoms was observed after the first dose. Dropouts, and the type and frequency of adverse events (headache, viral infection, pharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection), were similar in both treatment groups. No clinically significant changes in QTc intervals were observed. Conclusions: Desloratadine rapidly and safely reduced the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis, and its efficacy did not diminish during 4 weeks of treatment. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;111:617-22.)

Efficacy and safety of desloratadine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Background Azelastine hydrochloride is an antihistamine with anti-inflammatory properties that is available in the United States in a nasal spray formulation for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis (VMR) is a noninfectious, chronic rhinitis usually not associated with inflammatory cell infiltration. Objective Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials were conducted to determine whether patients with symptoms of VMR (rhinorrhea, sneezing, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion) could be effectively treated with azelastine nasal spray. Methods All of the patients who participated in the trials had a diagnosis of VMR, symptoms for at least 1 year, negative skin tests for a mixed panel of seasonal and perennial allergens, and a nasal cytology examination negative for eosinophils. After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients who met the symptom severity qualification criteria were randomized to receive either azelastine nasal spray (two sprays per nostril twice daily, 1.1 mg/day) or placebo nasal spray for 21 days. Patients recorded the severity of their VMR symptoms on diary cards each morning and evening of the trial using a four-point symptom rating scale (0 = none to 3=severe). The primary efficacy variable was the overall reduction from baseline in the total vasomotor rhinitis symptom score (TVRSS) over the 21-day, double-blind treatment period. Results In both studies, azelastine nasal spray significantly (study 1, P = .002; study 2, P = .005) reduced the TVRSS from baseline when compared with placebo. Significant improvement was observed within the first week and improvement in all symptoms favored treatment with azelastine nasal spray. No serious or unexpected adverse events were reported in either study. Bitter taste (19% vs 2%) was the only adverse experience that occurred with a statistically significantly greater incidence in the azelastine group than in the placebo group. Conclusions This is the first demonstration of the efficacy of an antihistamine in the therapy of VMR in two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis

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.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

Azelastine is a novel antiallergy medication currently under investigation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Pharmacologic studies in laboratory animals and in vitro model systems ...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014556139407300608

Effectiveness of azelastine nasal solution in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine is a chemically novel multifunctional antiallergy investigational drug capable of inhibiting mast-cell activation and the synthesis and/or release of chemical mediators of the upper and lower airway inflammatory response. In previous controlled clinical trials, azelastine was shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of both seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis. The objective of this 8-week double-blind trial was to evaluate further azelastine's efficacy and safety in improving the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis over a prolonged period of treatment. One hundred ninety-nine patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive in a double-blind fashion azelastine, 2 mg bid, clemastine fumarate, 1.34 mg bid, or placebo bid for 8 weeks. Patients treated with azelastine had superior mean percent improvements in the total symptom complex score (nose blows, sneezes, stuffy nose, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes/ears/throat) versus placebo at each evaluation point and overall across all 8 weeks (P < .01) of the trial. Improvements in the individual symptoms of rhinitis were statistically significant (P < or = .04) for nose blows, sneezes, runny nose, itchy nose, and itchy eyes, ears, and throat. Treatment with azelastine also resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in nasal congestion. Improvement in congestion was accompanied by a decreased requirement for backup decongestant medication. The adverse experiences were generally mild and well tolerated. Azelastine provided effective prolonged relief of the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis with no adverse effects that would limit its long-term use.

P. C. Halverson

Papers

Effectiveness of azelastine nasal solution in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Double-blind assessment of azelastine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.