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

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often have atopic comorbidities, including elevated IgE levels and comorbid asthma. Omalizumab, an IgE monoclonal antibody, is an effective treatment for CRSwNP, but the impact of allergy or asthma status on response to omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of allergy and asthma status on omalizumab treatment in patients with CRSwNP, this posthoc exploratory analysis assessed sinonasal outcomes from subgroups of patients included in POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the open-label extension (OLE) trials. METHODS: Patients (N = 249) were grouped by the presence/absence of comorbid allergy (≥ 1 physician-reported allergic rhinitis, allergic sinusitis, food allergy, or atopic dermatitis), presence/absence of comorbid asthma, baseline serum total IgE (≥ 150 or <150 IU/mL), and baseline blood eosinophil levels (>300 or ≤ 300 cells/µL). Sinonasal outcomes were the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22. RESULTS: During POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 and the OLE, omalizumab treatment improved the nasal polyps score, nasal congestion score, and sino-nasal outcome test-22 score in patients with/without physician-reported allergic comorbidities, with/without asthma, with higher/lower total IgE levels, and with higher/lower blood eosinophil counts. In the OLE, the pattern of improvement was similar in patients who continued or switched to omalizumab. CONCLUSION: In patients with CRSwNP, omalizumab improved sinonasal outcomes independent of allergic status, which suggests that a wide range of patients with different endotypes and phenotypes of CRSwNP may benefit from omalizumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03280550, NCT03280537, NCT03478930.

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

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

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

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

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: The primary lung function endpoint in clinical trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma is usually forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). The objective of our analysis was to assess whether peak expiratory flow (PEF) is a suitable alternative primary lung function endpoint. METHODS: For this assessment, we calculated post hoc the correlation between pre-dose FEV1 and pre-dose PEF measured under supervision in the clinic and, for both lung function parameters, the correlations between supervised clinic and unsupervised home measurements, using the results from the 8 Phase III parallel-group trials of the global clinical development programme with tiotropium Respimat® in patients with asthma aged 12 to 75 years. RESULTS: Across all 8 trials included in this analysis, changes in lung function from baseline correlated well between pre-dose FEV1 and pre-dose PEF when both were measured under supervision in the clinic. Correlation between supervised in-clinic and unsupervised home measurements was stronger for pre-dose PEF than for pre-dose FEV1. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-dose PEF measured at home could be an alternative primary lung function endpoint for trials in adolescent and adult patients with asthma. Using home-measured PEF could facilitate trial conduct and improve the convenience for patients by relocating scheduled assessments from the clinic to the patient's home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years: RubaTinA-asthma® ( NCT01257230 ), PensieTinA-asthma® ( NCT01277523 ). Adults aged 18 to 75 years: GraziaTinA-asthma® ( NCT01316380 ), MezzoTinA-asthma® ( NCT01172808 / NCT01172821 ), CadenTinA-asthma® ( NCT01340209 ), PrimoTinA-asthma® ( NCT00772538 / NCT00776984 ). All from Clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ).

Shared decision making for the allergist.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and online patient decision aid resources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion. RESULTS: There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.

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

BACKGROUND: Despite current guidelines, many patients with asthma remain symptomatic, particularly those intolerant of, unresponsive to, or uncontrolled by long-acting beta 2-agonists (LABAs). Tiotropium bromide, delivered through the Respimat soft-mist inhaler in 2 puffs of 1.25 micrograms each, is approved for the long-term, maintenance treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥6 years. OBJECTIVE: An overview of the use of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms in adults and adolescents with varying degrees of asthma severity. The role of the parasympathetic nervous system in the pathophysiology of asthma, the development of tiotropium for respiratory disease, and the value of the Respimat inhaler are also discussed. METHODS: A literature search of all phase II and phase III trials of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms. RESULTS: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms was studied in five phase III studies: three studies in adults and two in adolescents aged 12-17 years. Tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms demonstrated efficacy in adults and adolescents with mild, moderate, or severe asthma, showing significant improvements in lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS plus LABA use. The adverse event profile of tiotropium was very acceptable, with safety similar to placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat 2.5 micrograms has positive attributes that include efficacy, a safety profile similar to placebo, once-daily dosing, administration by inhalation, and delivery in the easy-to-use and consistent-dosing Respimat device. However, more data are needed on the effects of tiotropium on clinical outcomes, patients' day-to-day lives, and real-world effectiveness.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines-2016 revision.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

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

BACKGROUND: Data comparing the treatment effect of allergy immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). METHODS: Pooled data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for the clinical development programs of selected allergic rhinitis treatments were evaluated. Total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs) relative to placebo were compared. Subjects scored symptoms daily during entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768). Subjects scored symptoms daily in 7 montelukast (10 mg, n = 6799), 9 desloratadine (5 mg, n = 4455), and 8 mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS; 200 µg daily, n = 2140) SAR or PAR trials. SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, whereas most pharmacotherapy trials did not. A fixed-effect meta-analysis method estimated differences in on-treatment average TNSSs. RESULTS: In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relative to placebo was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively. In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 16.1%. In the montelukast, desloratadine, and MFNS trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to placebo was 5.4%, 8.5%, and 22.2%, respectively, for SAR trials, and 3.7%, 4.8%, and 11.2%, respectively, for PAR trials. CONCLUSIONS: Although comparisons were limited by study design heterogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numerically greater than with montelukast and desloratadine for SAR. HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all pharmacotherapies for PAR. SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term efficacy.

MACVIA clinical decision algorithm in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis.

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

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

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of MP-AzeFlu (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in a single spray) in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and explore the importance of child symptom severity assessment in paediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) trials. METHODS: A total of 348 children (4-11 years) with moderate/severe SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Efficacy was assessed by changes from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS) and individual symptom scores over 14 days (children 6-11 years; n = 304), recorded by either children or caregivers. To determine whether a by-proxy effect existed, efficacy outcomes were assessed according to degree of child/caregiver rating. Moreover, total Paediatric Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score was compared between the groups. RESULTS: A statistically superior, clinically relevant efficacy signal of MP-AzeFlu versus placebo was apparent for PRQLQ overall score (diff: -0.29, 95% CI -0.55, -0.03; p = 0.027), but not for rTNSS (diff: -0.80; 95% CI: -1.75; 0.15; p = 0.099). However, as the extent of children's self-rating increased, so too did the treatment difference between MP-AzeFlu and placebo; MP-AzeFlu provided significantly better relief than placebo for rTNSS (p = 0.002), rTOSS (p = 0.009) and each individual nasal and ocular symptom assessed (except rhinorrhoea; p = 0.064) when children mostly rated their own symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: MP-AzeFlu is an effective treatment for AR in childhood. Caregivers are less able than children to accurately assess response to treatment with available tools. A simple paediatric-specific tool to assess efficacy in AR trials in children is needed.

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

BACKGROUND: Over-the-counter phenylephrine hydrochloride (PEH) is used for relief of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis; however, data to support its efficacy are lacking. The US Food and Drug Administration recommended clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH in patients with this condition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH 30-mg modified-release (MR) tablets in patients with nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group study. METHODS: Eligible adults at least 18 years old with documented hypersensitivity to fall pollen allergens were randomized to PEH-MR or placebo every 12 hours for 7 days from August 30 to October 12, 2011. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Secondary end points included changes in other symptom score assessments, time to maximal effect, duration of effect, and quality of life. Safety assessments included adverse events, serious adverse events, vital signs, physical examination, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Of 575 patients, 288 received PEH-MR and 287 received placebo. No significant beneficial difference was detected between PEH-MR and placebo for the primary end point (PEH-MR, mean -0.394, SD 0.4880; placebo, mean -0.412, SD 0.5383; P = .2655). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for most secondary end points or quality of life. Overall, 89 of 575 patients (15.5%), equally distributed between the PEH-MR and placebo groups, experienced at least 1 treatment-emergency adverse event. CONCLUSION: PEH-MR 30-mg tablets taken orally every 12 hours for 7 days is not more efficacious than placebo in relieving nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01413958, protocol CL2011-06.

IMPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE THRESHOLD ESTIMATION METHODS ON TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

OBJECTIVES: Various minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold estimation techniques have been applied to seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The objectives of this study are to (i) assess the difference in magnitude of alternative SAR MCID threshold estimates and (ii) evaluate the impact of alternative MCID estimates on health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: Data describing change from baseline of the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) for four intranasal SAR treatments were obtained from United States Food and Drug Administration-approved prescribing information. Treatment effects were then compared with anchor-based MCID thresholds derived by Barnes et al. and thresholds obtained from an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) panel. RESULTS: The change in rTNSS score from baseline, represented as the average of the twice-daily recorded scores of the rTNSS, was -2.1 (p < .001) for azelastine hydrochloride 0.10%, 1.35 (p = .014) for ciclesonide, and -1.47 (p < .001) for fluticasone furoate. The change in the rTNSS score from baseline, represented by sum of the AM and PM score, was -2.7 for MP-AzeFlu (p < .001). The rTNSS change from baseline for each product was compared with anchor-based MCID threshold and the AHRQ panel estimates. Comparison of the observed treatment effect to the anchor-based and AHRQ panel MCID thresholds results in different conclusions, with clinically important differences being inferred when anchor-based estimates serve as the reference point. CONCLUSION: The AHRQ panel MCID threshold for the rTNSS was twelve times larger than the anchor-based estimates resulting in conflicting recommendations on whether different SAR treatments provide clinically meaningful benefit.

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

BACKGROUND: Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 µg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 µg (80 µg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations. RESULTS: Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Budesonide at 160 µg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

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

BACKGROUND: Nasal congestion is a frequent symptom of allergic rhinitis. Mechanical external nasal dilators (MEND) can be applied to the outside of the nose to provide temporary relief from nasal stuffiness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the objective and subjective benefits and tolerability of MEND in healthy children and in children with nasal congestion due to allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Two studies were performed, one in healthy children and one in children with nasal congestion. The study of healthy children was a single-center, randomized, crossover study of two pediatric MEND variants, "tan" and "stars." The study of children with nasal congestion was a single-center assessment of the stars MEND. In both studies, nasal patency was measured via peak nasal inspiratory flow in the seated position and in the supine position at baseline and after the pediatric MEND was affixed to the nose. Assessment questions were administered at baseline and after MEND application, while seated and while supine, to evaluate subjective reduction in nasal blockage and tolerability. RESULTS: Thirty healthy and 26 children with nasal congestion were assessed. Pediatric MENDs showed a statistically significant improvement in peak nasal inspiratory flow for both healthy children and children with nasal congestion while seated and for healthy children while recumbent. Pediatric MENDs were perceived as decreasing nasal obstruction in both healthy children and children with nasal congestion in both positions, and there were statistically significant improvements in most subjective measures. Pediatric MENDs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric MENDs provided significant objective increases in nasal patency in healthy children and children with nasal congestion in the seated position and also subjective reduction in nasal airway stuffiness in both seated and supine positions; they were also well tolerated.

New intranasal formulations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

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

Recommendations for the pharmacologic management of allergic rhinitis.

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

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test in patients with rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT) is a brief, patient-completed tool to evaluate rhinitis symptom control. OBJECTIVE: We sought to test the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of RCAT and to estimate a cut-point score and minimal important difference (MID). METHODS: A total of 402 patients 12 years of age and older with allergic or nonallergic rhinitis were enrolled in a noninterventional study. Patients completed the RCAT (6 items; score range, 6-30) and had Total Nasal Symptom Scores (TNSSs) measured at baseline and 2 weeks later. Physicians completed a global assessment of rhinitis symptom control (Physician's Global Assessment) and disease severity. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness were evaluated. The MID was determined by using distribution- and anchor-based methods. Content validity of the RCAT was assessed in individual interviews with a separate group of 58 adult patients. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of RCAT scores were 0.77 and 0.78, respectively. Convergent validity correlation between RCAT and TNSS scores was 0.57, and that between RCAT and Physician's Global Assessment scores was 0.34. Mean RCAT scores differed significantly (P < .001) across patient groups, differing in TNSS (F = 72.7), Physician's Global Assessment score (F = 28.6), and disease severity (F = 34.1) in the hypothesized direction. Results suggested a cut-point score of 21 or less can be used to identify patients who are experiencing rhinitis symptom control problems. The preliminary estimate of the MID was 3 points. Patients found RCAT items comprehensive, easy to understand, and relevant. CONCLUSION: The RCAT demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, and responsiveness and was deemed acceptable and appropriate by patients. This tool can facilitate the detection of rhinitis symptom control problems, and its brevity supports its usefulness in clinical care.