Digitally monitored inhaled therapy: a 'smart' way to manage severe asthma?

INTRODUCTION: One of the fundamental challenges of managing patients with severe asthma is treatment adherence, particularly with inhaled corticosteroids. Adherence is difficult to measure objectively and poor adherence is associated with worse outcomes. In this study, assess the ability of a 'smart' inhaler to record adherence in severe asthma patients and measure the impact of this on asthma control. METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients meeting criteria for biologics had their existing high-dose ICS/LABA//LAMA combination inhaler/s switched to mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium (114/46/136). Routine clinical data, including blood eosinophils, FeNO, and ACQ-6 scores were collected at baseline and at 4 wk. Adherence was then checked on the Propeller Health app, and good adherence was defined as >80% of prescribed usage. Participants were then followed-up at 12 months to record the proportion of patients who were initiated on biologics. RESULTS: 77 patients (mean [SD] age = 50.4 [15.7] years, 67.5% female [n = 52]) participated. 71 participants were able to use the device and 65% (n = 46) of these attained good asthma control and were not initiated on biologics at 12-month follow-up. Both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in ACQ6 score at follow-up (2.81 vs. 1.92, p < 0.001 and 3.05 vs. 2.60, p < 0.001, respectively), but there was no statistically significant difference in improvement between groups. Patients with optimal adherence also demonstrated a significant reduction in median FeNO at follow-up (47 ppb vs. 40 ppb, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In severe asthma patients, 'smart' inhalers may represent an effective management tool to improve adherence and asthma control, therefore avoiding the need for patients to commence biological therapies.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Efficacy and safety of self-made WenyangJianpi-qushi Decoction combined with mometasone furoate cream in the treatment of atopic dermatitis of spleen deficiency and dampness accumulation type.

Introduction: This work was to explore the efficacy and safety of self-made WenyangJianpi-qushi Decoction plus mometasone furoate cream in atopic dermatitis (AD) of spleen deficiency and dampness accumulation type. Material and method: 120 patients with this kind of atopic dermatitis were grouped: The Observation group (disease health education + basic treatment + mometasone furoate cream + self-made Decoction) and The Control group (disease health education + basic treatment + mometasone furoate cream), 60 cases in each group. The SCORAD score, serum IgE level, peripheral blood eosinophils, adverse events, recurrence rate, and total effective rate after treatment were observed.Result: Through treatment, SCORAD score of the observation group (29.96 ± 2.88) was lower as against controls (36.04 ± 3.12), p < 0.05. Through treatment, the peripheral blood eosinophil count in the observation group was (311.26 ± 50.19) 106/L, which was lower than (582.71 ± 54.75) 106/L in controls; the serum lgE of the observation group was (712.44 ± 93.32) IU/mL, which was lower than the controls (890.12 ± 81.25) IU/mL, p < 0.05. The Observation group (56/60, 93.33%) demonstrated superior total effective rate to the controls (34/60, 56.67%); The recurrence rate of the observation group was 4/60 (6.67%), which was lower than the controls 16/60 (26.67%), p < 0.05.Conclusion: Self-made WenyangJianpi-qushi Decoction plus mometasone furoate cream to treat atopic dermatitis of spleen deficiency and dampness accumulation type has significant efficacy and good safety.

Efficacy of montelukast for adenoid hypertrophy in paediatrics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Leukotrienes play a significant role in the pathogenesis of adenoid hypertrophy (A.H.). Therefore, we aimed to analyse the role of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, alone or in combination with mometasone, a potent local intranasal steroid, for the treatment of A.H. METHODS: Participants were children with A.H. were treated with montelukast alone or montelukast and mometasone furoate. The main outcome measures were effect of montelukast on clinical symptoms of A.H. A literature review was conducted using online search engines, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, for randomized clinical trials assessing children with A.H. treated with montelukast alone or montelukast and mometasone furoate. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included with 742 children. RESULTS: Our study reveals that montelukast alone or in combination with intranasal mometasone furoate significantly improves clinical symptoms of adenoid hypertrophy such as snoring, sleeping disturbance, mouth breathing and A/N ratio. Montelukast was superior to placebo in decreasing snoring (SMD = -1.00, 95% CI [-1.52, -0.49]), sleep discomfort (SMD = -1.26, 95% CI [-1.60, -0.93]), A/N ratio (MD = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, -0.09]) and mouth breathing (SMD = -1.36, 95% CI [-1.70, -1.02]). No difference was detected between montelukast and mometasone versus mometasone alone in snoring (SMD = -0.21, 95%CI [-0.69, 0.27]); however, the combination group was superior to the mometasone alone in mouth breathing (SMD = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.19]). CONCLUSIONS: The limitation of studies included a small sample size, with an overall low to medium quality. Thus, further larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to provide more substantial evidence.

Pilot study of dogs with suppurative and non-suppurative Malassezia otitis: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Rarely, Malassezia otitis presents as a painful, erosive otitis with an otic discharge containing Malassezia and neutrophils on cytology. There are no published reports of this type of suppurative Malassezia otitis (SMO). The role of Malassezia hypersensitivity in otitis is still unknown, and no association has been demonstrated with SMO. We compared Malassezia IgE levels, intradermal test and histology changes in SMO dogs with the more conventional Malassezia otitis (MO) presentation. RESULTS: Three dogs (case 1, case 2 and case 3) were diagnosed with SMO, one dog (case 4) was diagnosed with unilateral MO and unilateral SMO, and one dog (case 5) was diagnosed with MO. Only one case (case 4) with SMO/MO had a positive Intradermal Allergy Test (IDAT) and elevated IgE levels for Malassezia. Histopathology findings from SMO revealed: interface dermatitis (case 1 and 3), lymphocytic dermatitis (case 2) and chronic hyperplastic eosinophilic and lymphoplasmacytic dermatitis (case 4). Histopathology findings from MO showed perivascular dermatitis (case 4 and 5). All the cases were treated successfully. CONCLUSIONS: SMO presents with a distinct clinical phenotype in comparison with conventional MO. No consistent aetiology could be isolated. In these clinical cases it is possible that previous treatments could have influenced the results. More research is needed to understand the possible aetiologies and the pathogenesis of SMO.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta2-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta2-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a large number of affected individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Individuals who had symptoms for less than four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study of 100 participants, which compared an intranasal steroid spray to no intervention. Participants in both groups were also advised to undertake olfactory training for the duration of the trial. Data were identified for only two of the prespecified outcomes for this review, and no data were available for the primary outcome of serious adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroids compared to no intervention (all using olfactory training) Presence of normal olfactory function after three weeks of treatment was self-assessed by the participants, using a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 10, higher scores = better). A score of 10 represented "completely normal smell sensation". The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on self-rated recovery of sense of smell (estimated absolute effect 619 per 1000 compared to 520 per 1000, risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell was not reported, but the self-rated score for sense of smell was reported at the endpoint of the study with the same visual analogue scale (after three weeks of treatment). The median scores at endpoint were 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 10) for the group receiving intranasal corticosteroids, and 10 (IQR 5 to 10) for the group receiving no intervention (1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence regarding the efficacy of different interventions at preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a small number of additional ongoing studies in this area. As this is a living systematic review, the evidence will be updated regularly to incorporate new data from these, and other relevant studies, as they become available.  For this (first) version of the living review, we identified a single study of intranasal corticosteroids to include in this review, which provided data for only two of our prespecified outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty, therefore we were unable to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids may have a beneficial or harmful effect.

Pharmacokinetics of indacaterol, glycopyrronium and mometasone furoate administered as an inhaled fixed-dose combination in Japanese and Caucasian healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: A once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combination of indacaterol acetate (IND), glycopyrronium bromide (GLY), and mometasone furoate (MF) delivered via the Breezhaler® device (IND/GLY/MF) is being developed for treatment of asthma. This study compared steady-state pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF between Japanese and Caucasian male subjects after multiple inhalations of IND/GLY/MF o.d. METHODS: This was a single-center, open-label, 2-treatment crossover study with a 21-day washout period. Japanese and Caucasian subjects received IND/GLY/MF 150/50/80 µg (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] medium-dose) or 150/50/160 µg o.d. (ICS high-dose) for 14 days in each period. Pharmacokinetics were characterized up to 24 h post-dose on Days 1 and 14. RESULTS: In total, 16 Japanese (median age 31 years [range 20-40 years], mean weight 68.3 kg) and 17 Caucasian subjects (median age 27 years [range 21-43 years], mean weight 75.0 kg) were randomized. Geometric mean ratios (Japanese/Caucasian) [90% confidence interval (CI)] for Cmax for IND, GLY and MF at the high ICS dose on Day 14 were 1.31 [1.13, 1.51] 1.38 [1.13, 1.69] and 1.07 [0.969, 1.18], respectively. Geometric mean ratios (Japanese/Caucasian) [90% CI] for AUC0-24h on Day 14 for IND, GLY and MF at the high ICS dose were 1.17 [1.01, 1.35], 1.05 [0.920, 1.20] and 1.15 [1.05, 1.27] respectively. Similar trends were noted for all components for the medium ICS dose treatment. IND/GLY/MF was safe and well tolerated; no AEs suspected to be study drug-related were observed. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF (high and medium dose) when delivered as a fixed-dose combination were comparable between Japanese and Caucasian subjects. The IND/GLY/MF combination at the administrated doses was safe and well tolerated in both ethnic groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trial: jRCT2031200227, retrospectively registered on 04, December, 2020.

Inhaled Budesonide vis-à-vis Inhaled Mometasone in Chinese Children with Mild Persistent Asthma: A Single-Center, Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: A very limited option of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is approved for pediatric use in China because in children the use of ICSs for long periods is associated with dose-dependent growth reduction. Due to the lack of consensus on which is the best ICS-based treatment option to manage mild persistent asthma in children, the present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide (BUD)-based therapy vis-à-vis mometasone-based therapy in children with mild persistent asthma. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was conducted in asthmatic children aged between 6 and 11 years. BUD and mometasone furoate (MF) were administered as per the approved dosing regimen using pressurized metered-dose inhalers via oral inhalation route for a period of 12 weeks. The study outcome was assessed in terms of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), symptom scores, and nonoccurrence of side effects. RESULTS: Among the 77 asthmatic children, 71 completed the study treatment and were used in carrying out the analysis. The improvement of spirometric parameters like FEV1, Tiffeneau-Pinelli index (FEV1/forced vital capacity [FVC]), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) values observed in the MF cohort was significantly greater than those of the BUD cohort (p < 0.05 for all). An increase of approximately 12%/child was observed for FEV1/FVC ratios for the BUD cohort and MF cohorts. After the 12-week study, the PEFm and PEFe values increased to about 50 L/min/child for the BUD cohort and about 98 L/min/child for the MF cohort. During the study, no asthma exacerbation event was observed in the MF cohort, whereas 1 child in the BUD cohort had asthma exacerbation in week 4. The use of rescue medication during the study was required for 16.2 and 6% of children, respectively, for BUD and MF cohorts. Owing to low dosing frequency, MF could provide a better treatment approach than BUD due to improved patient compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Although both drugs showed improvement in the quality of life of asthmatic children with manageable treatment-emergent adverse effects, the improvement was augmented in MF-treated children. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The level of evidence was III. Technical Efficacy Stage: The technical efficacy stage was 4.

Evaluation of the intranasal steroid treatment outcomes in adenoid tissue hypertrophy with or without allergic rhinitis.

PURPOSE: To compare the intranasal steroid (INS) treatment outcomes in patients with adenoid tissue hypertrophy (ATH) with or without allergic rhinitis (AR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 96 children diagnosed with ATH were retrospectively examined. The pediatric version of the Score for Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR) questionnaire was used to determine the AR status of the patients and classify them. The children were divided into two groups based on the questionnaire: Group 1, low probability of AR (SFAR<9); and Group 2, high probability of AR (SFAR≥9). Intranasal mometasone furoate (100 µg/mL) was used to treat ATH for at least 3 months. The severity of nasal obstruction and snoring was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the adenoid/choana (A/C) ratios before and after treatment were compared, and the rate of patient referral to surgery was recorded among groups. RESULTS: The change in the A/C ratio within the group between before and after treatment was significant (both P < 0.001). However, the reduction in the adenoid size was more significant in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P = 0.025). A significant improvement in the VAS scores was observed between before and after treatment in both groups (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the rate of surgical referral of Group 1 was significantly lower than that of Group 2 (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: INS treatment was found more successful for reducing A/C ratio in ATH without AR. Related with this, when considering the INS treatment for ATH, AR status should be kept in mind for predicting the treatment success.

Effects of endoscopic sinus surgery on nasal spray deposition using dye-based methods for humans and a human silicone sinonasal cavity model.

OBJECTIVE: We have evaluated that the deposition patterns of corticosteroid nasal spray in the sinonasal cavity of both post-operated human cases, which were further compared with a computed tomography-based sinonasal airway model. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with chronic rhinosinusitis following an endoscopic sinus surgery were enrolled in this study. Nasal spray mometasone furoate hydrate (Nasonex®) containing 0.1% indigocarmine was applied to the patients' nasal cavities and the sinonasal cavity was observed by endoscopy and video documentation. A single plaster sinonasal model was used to quantify the sinonasal deposition of nasal sprays containing 10% red ink solution using 12 round paper strips. RESULTS: The predominant areas of the spray deposition of the operated sinonasal cavities were recognized in the ethmoid sinus and the olfactory cleft in the human study. The droplets were mainly deposited in the inferior turbinate followed by the posterior part of the ethmoid sinus, the olfactory cleft, and anterior part of the ethmoid sinus in a sinonasal model. CONCLUSION: The corticosteroid nasal spray efficiently reached the olfactory cleft and the ethmoid sinus in post-operative conditions, which was demonstrated by post-operated human cases and a computed tomography-based sinonasal airway model.

Letter to the editor: indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma: a randomized controlled cross-over study.

Indacaterol (IND; 150 µg), glycopyrronium (GLY; 50 µg) and mometasone furoate (MF; 160 µg [high-dose ICS] and 80 µg [medium-dose ICS]) have been formulated as a once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combination treatment delivered via the Breezhaler® device for the treatment of patients with asthma. In this randomized (n = 116), double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, three-period cross-over study we evaluated the benefit of o.d. IND/GLY/MF versus twice daily (b.i.d.) salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC; 50/500 µg; high-dose ICS) treatment (NCT03063086). Overall, 107 patients completed the study. The study met its primary objective by demonstrating superiority of o.d. IND/GLY/MF at medium and high-dose ICS over b.i.d. SFC (high-dose ICS) in peak FEV1 after 21 days of treatment (+ 172 mL with high-dose and + 159 mL with medium-dose IND/GLY/MF versus SFC, p < 0.0001 for each comparison). We also observed that a higher percentage of patients did not need rescue medicine with IND/GLY/MF (high-dose ICS, 58%; medium-dose ICS, 52%) compared with SFC (45%) during the last week of each treatment period. Study treatments were well-tolerated with no relevant differences in tolerability between both IND/GLY/MF doses and SFC. In conclusion, both doses of IND/GLY/MF provided superior lung function benefits compared with twice-daily, standard-of-care SFC at the highest approved dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, (Identifier: NCT03063086), EudraCT start date: May 11, 2017; First patient first visit / study initiation date: May 31, 2017.

A randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of mometasone furoate delivered via Breezhaler® or Twisthaler® in patients with asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Mometasone furoate (MF) is the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component in the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/ICS fixed-dose combination of indacaterol/MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, in development for asthma. MF at low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses delivered via Breezhaler® is expected to be comparable to MF at low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses respectively, delivered via Twisthaler®. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-week, parallel-group study of 739 adolescents and adults with persistent asthma. Eligible patients were receiving ICS treatment up to the maximum dose per day on a stable regimen for at least four weeks before screening. The study population was enriched for patients who were responsive to ICS therapy. The primary objective of the present study was to show non-inferiority of these doses, i.e. the low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses of MF delivered via Breezhaler® once daily, compared with the corresponding low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses of MF delivered via Twisthaler® once daily. The primary endpoint was 24 h post-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), after four weeks of treatment in patients with asthma. A secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of MF 80 µg and 320 µg delivered via Breezhaler®, and MF 200 µg and 800 µg delivered via Twisthaler® in terms of Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) after one, two, three and four weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The LS mean difference in trough FEV1 after four weeks of treatment between MF low dose 80 µg (Breezhaler®) and MF low dose 200 µg (Twisthaler®) was 27 mL (95% CI -34, 89); for MF high dose 320 µg (Breezhaler®) and MF high dose 800 µg (Twisthaler®) the difference was 0 mL (95% CI -60, 61). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. All treatment arms provided similar clinically relevant improvements in ACQ-5 after four weeks of treatment compared with baseline. Both treatments showed a similar safety profile with a low incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The similarities in effects on lung function and ACQ after four weeks of treatment demonstrate the comparability of MF at low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses delivered with Breezhaler® with MF at low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses delivered with Twisthaler®, respectively. The study formally demonstrated that MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, is non-inferior to MF, delivered via Twisthaler® at corresponding ICS doses.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily and once-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR). METHODS: In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 50 µg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 µg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 µg or once-daily 50 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.

Association between inhaled corticosteroids and upper respiratory tract infection in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the association between inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and the risk of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from inception to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any ICSs vs control for COPD with reporting of URTI as an adverse event were included. The study was registered with PROSPERO prospectively (#CRD42020153134). RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs (20,478 patients) were included. ICSs significantly increased the risk of URTI in COPD patients (RR, 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24; P = 0.01; heterogeneity: I2 = 7%). Futher subgroup analyses suggested that short-term use of ICSs increased the risk of URTI (RR, 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.56; P = 0.01; heterogeneity: I2 = 14%) but not for long-term use (RR, 1.08; 95% CI 0.97-1.2; P = 0.14; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%). Short-term use of high-dose fluticasone increased the risk of URTI (RR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.71; P = 0.03; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) but not for long-term use (RR, 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29; P = 0.13; heterogeneity: I2 = 50%). Medium-dose (RR, 0.97; 95% CI 0.71-1.32; P = 0.84; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) and low-dose (RR, 1.39; 95% CI 0.92-2.1; P = 0.12; heterogeneity: I2 = 30%) fluticasone did not increase the risk of URTI regardless of duration. Neither mometasone (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.26; P = 0.61; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) nor budesonide (RR, 1.08; 95% CI 0.77-1.5; P = 0.67; heterogeneity: I2 = 46%) increased the risk of URTI, regardless of dosage or duration. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of ICSs does not increase the risk of URTI in patients with COPD. Short-term use of high-dose fluticasone increases the risk of URTI in patients with COPD, but not mometasone or budesonide.

Montelukast combined with intranasal mometasone furoate versus intranasal mometasone furoate; a comparative study in treatment of adenoid hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of combined therapy using montelukast and intranasal mometasone furoate compared to intranasal mometasone furoate alone in treatment of adenoid hypertrophy regarding efficacy and recurrence rate. METHODS: The study included 100 children with adenoid hypertrophy, they were randomly assigned to two groups. Group I (50 patients) received combined therapy using montelukast and mometasone furoate nasal spray. Group II (50 patients) received only mometasone furoate nasal spray. Patients were treated for 3 months and observed for 3 months after stoppage of treatment. Patients were evaluated using symptoms scores, Adenoid/Nasopharyngeal ratio and endoscopic grading of adenoid hypertrophy. RESULTS: After 3 months of treatment, group I showed significant better scores of main symptoms than group II; (P = 0.001), (P = 0.019) and (P = 0.008) for rhinorrhea, mouth breathing and snoring respectively. The mean A/N ratio was 52.8 ± 11.3 in group I better than 62.88 ± 12.10 in group II (P < 0.001). Regarding the adenoid hypertrophy grading, significant reduction in size was found in group I in 34 (68%) patients better than in group II in 18 (36%) patients (P = 0.001). After further 3 months of follow up, the mean A/N ratio was 58.46 ± 10.05 in group I better than 66.36 ± 10.46 in group II (P < 0.001). Recurrence occurred in 8 (23.5%) cases out of 34 improved cases in group I better than 10 (55.5%) cases out of 18 cases in group II (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Combining oral montelukast with intranasal mometasone in treatment of adenoid hypertrophy provided better improvements and less recurrence in comparison with single therapy using intranasal mometasone alone.

Omalizumab versus intranasal steroids in the post-operative management of patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis.

PURPOSE: Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a common disorder with a high prevalence and a very high incidence of recurrence. Management includes surgery and medical treatment in the form of local and/or systemic steroids. However, some cases are resistant to the action of steroids and further treatment is warranted. Being an immune-mediated disorder, targeting IgE seems a logical step. Immunotherapy drugs acting on the IgE (e.g. omalizumab) can modify the clinical course of the disease. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of omalizumab on the clinical course of patients undergoing surgery for AFRS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a two-arm prospective, randomized, single blind clinical trial among patients with AFRS. Twenty patients were included and randomly divided into two groups: Group A; 10 patients received a single subcutaneous injection of omalizumab (Xolair ' Novartis) (150 mg) 2 weeks postoperatively. Group B: 10 patients received local steroids nasal sprays (budesonide or mometasone furoate, 100 µg twice daily for 6 months, starting 2 weeks postoperatively. All patients underwent history, examination, CT scan and IgE level estimation and were submitted to endoscopic sinus surgery. They were evaluated at 4 weeks interval for 6 months. RESULTS: In both groups there were highly significant differences between pre/post-operative SNOT-20 scores, TNSS scores, total IgE level and Philpott-Javer staging scores. Comparison between the two study groups at 24 weeks showed a highly significant difference (p = 0.001) between post-operative SNOT 20 and TNSS scores in favour of group A. There was no statistically significant difference between the two study groups as regarding postoperative total IgE or Philpott-Javer scores. There were two recurrences in both arms, but no significant side effects. DISCUSSION: We compared a single post operative injection of omalizumab with twice daily intranasal steroid spray for 6 months. Both treatments were effective, but the omalizumab group showed a more significant clinical and endoscopic response. There were no significant side effects in both arms. This novel approach used a single low dose injection of omalizumab increased the compliance of the patients with minimal complications. Longer follow-up of the patients is ongoing to determine the optimal time for re-injection. The only downside was the higher cost of omalizumab compared to that of local steroids.

Inhaled steroids associated with decreased macrophage markers in nonasthmatic individuals with sickle cell disease in a randomized trial.

Inhaled mometasone was shown to improve pain scores and decrease soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM) concentration in a randomized controlled trial of nonasthmatic patients with sickle cell disease. We sought to explore potential changes in systemic inflammation as a mechanism underlying this effect. Serum samples from 41 trial participants (15 placebo- and 26 mometasone-treated) were analyzed using a 92 inflammatory marker panel at baseline and after 8 weeks of mometasone therapy. Individual marker analysis and correlation analysis were conducted. Adjusted for age, the mometasone-treated group decreased the concentration of CXCL9, CXCL11, CD40, IL-10, and IL-18 relative to placebo-treated participants. Hierarchical clustering and correlation analysis identified additional evidence for a decrease in cytokines linking to macrophage signaling and migration. There was no statistically significant change in markers of asthma and allergy, indicating that the improvement was unlikely mediated by modulation of occult reactive airway disease. This analysis of inflammatory markers suggests that decrease in macrophage activity may be involved in the mediation of the clinical benefit seen with use of inhaled mometasone in nonasthmatic patients with sickle cell disease.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02061202.

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study.

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.

The benefit of a ceramide-linoleic acid-containing moisturizer as an adjunctive therapy for a set of xerotic dermatoses.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), chronic eczema, and pruritus hiemalis are a set of prevalent chronic xerotic skin disorders that share clinical features such as dryness, scales, and pruritus. A ceramide deficiency and defective epidermal functions are common in these diseases. This study was designed to assess the effect of ceramide-linoleic acid (LA-Cer)-containing moisturizer as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of AD, chronic eczema, and pruritus hiemalis. In a 2-month study, patients with one of these three diseases were divided into two groups. The control group was treated with mometasone furoate (0.1%) cream (MF), whereas the treatment group received 0.1% MF in combination with an LA-Cer-containing moisturizer. Capacitance and transepidermal water loss were measured in normal and lesional skin, along with Eczema Assessment Severity Index and pruritus scores at Weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8. The results showed that tropical applications of an LA-Cer-containing moisturizer in combination with a topical glucocorticoid accelerated the reestablishment of epidermal permeability barrier and the amelioration of pruritus in patients with AD and pruritus hiemalis. However, it did not provide the same effect for chronic eczema. Thus, the efficacy of this combination therapy for this set of xerotic disorders requires further evaluation.