Allergic rhinitis with or without concomitant asthma: difference in perception of dyspnoea and levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a risk factor for developing clinical asthma. Moreover, AR is often associated with bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR). The aim of the present study was to investigate whether patients with AR and asthma differed from AR with or without BHR in degree of perception of dyspnoea and airway inflammation, measured as fractionated exhaled nitric oxide (NO). MATERIALS: Twenty-nine patients with seasonal AR (timothy) were investigated with metacholine challenge test. Fourteen healthy non-reactive subjects served as controls. METHODS: (1) Metacholine challenge test, cut-off value forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) PD20 2,000 microg. Slope value for metacholine was calculated as %fall in FEV(1)/mol metacholine. Dyspnoea during challenge was measured with a 10-graded modified Borg score. (2) Measurement of fractional-exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) at flow rate 50 mL/s. RESULTS: Eighteen patients reported AR only, without asthma symptoms, and 12 (67%) were BHR. Eleven subjects had both rhinitis and asthma symptoms. Patients with rhinitis and asthma reported significantly more dyspnoea per percent fall in FEV(1) compared with those with rhinitis and BHR. Moreover, those with rhinitis and asthma had significantly higher NO values compared with those with rhinitis and BHR. CONCLUSION: The difference between rhinitis patients with or without asthma symptoms seems to be mainly a question of perception of dyspnoea. However, FENO measurement indicates that dyspnoea may also be associated with increased inflammatory activity in the peripheral airways.

Increased risk of asthma attacks and emergency visits among asthma patients with allergic rhinitis: a subgroup analysis of the investigation of montelukast as a partner agent for complementary therapy [corrected].

BACKGROUND: Inadequately controlled allergic rhinitis (AR) in asthmatic patients can contribute towards increased asthma exacerbations and poorer symptom control, which may increase medical resource use. We assessed asthma-related medical resource use and attacks in asthmatic patients who did and did not have concomitant AR and were adding montelukast or salmeterol to baseline treatment with inhaled fluticasone. METHODS: A post hoc resource use analysis of a 52-week, double-blind multicentre clinical trial (Investigation of Montelukast as a Partner Agent for Complementary Therapy) [corrected] including 1490 adults with chronic asthma, aged 15-72 years, with FEV(1) 50-90% of predicted and > or =12% increase in FEV(1) after salbutamol administration, treated with either montelukast 10 mg daily or salmeterol 50 microg twice daily in addition to fluticasone 200 microg, was undertaken. Asthma-related medical resource use included medical visits (defined as either an unscheduled visit [to a general practitioner, a specialist or a non-medical provider] or a specialist visit), emergency room visits and hospitalizations during follow-up. Asthma attacks were defined as the worsening of asthma requiring unscheduled visit, emergency visit, hospitalization or oral/intravenous/intramuscular corticosteroids. RESULTS: A self-reported history of concomitant AR was identified in 60% of the patients (n=893). Univariate analysis suggests that significantly more patients with concomitant AR experienced emergency room visits (3.6% vs. 1.7%, P=0.029) and asthma attacks (21.3% vs. 17.1%, P=0.046). Multivariate analysis adjusting for treatment group, age and baseline asthma severity confirmed these results since the presence of concomitant AR in patients with asthma increases the likelihood of emergency room visit (odds ratio (OR)=2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.12-4.80) and asthma attack (OR=1.35, 95% CI=1.03-1.77). Patients with asthma alone compared with patients with both conditions did not differ in terms of unscheduled or specialist visits and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of self-reported concomitant AR in patients with asthma resulted in a higher rate of asthma attacks and more emergency room visits compared with asthma patients without concomitant AR.

The use of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as complementary therapy in asthma.

The cysteinyl-leukotrienes (cysLTs: LTC4, LTD4 and LTE4) have an important pathophysiological role in asthma. They are not only extremely potent bronchoconstrictors, but are also involved in the central mechanisms of the asthmatic inflammation and the subsequent remodelling of the airways. Allergen-induced bronchoconstriction as well as spontaneous exacerbations of asthma are associated with increased secretion of LTE4 in urine. This increase does not seem to be affected by high doses of inhaled or systemic corticosteroids. On the contrary, both in vivo and in vitro experiments indicate that corticosteroids to a certain degree may even upregulate the cysLTs synthesis. Moreover, inhaled medication may not get as far as the small airways, which are affected by inflammatory changes in asthma. Hence, the combination of an oral leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) seems a rational therapeutic approach to achieve a more complete control of the inflammatory mechanisms in asthma. The additive effects by combining an LTRA with an ICS have been investigated in adults as well as in children from 6-14 years of age. The addition of LTRA improves lung function, and reduces day and night time symptoms in all age groups. More importantly, the combination has also been found to decrease the exacerbation rates in all age groups. More recently, a few studies have compared the effect of additive therapy with LTRA and ICS versus long-acting beta 2-agonists (LABAs) and ICS in asthmatics. Depending on the patient and outcome parameters preselection, some studies found that addition of LABA to ICS resulted in a better lung function and a better overall disease control. Yet one--unsponsored-study, comparing the protective effects of LABA versus LTRA on inflammatory outcome parameters in asthma, found a significant protection against airway hyperresponsiveness to adenosine monophosphate (AMP), together with significant decreases in exhaled nitric oxide (NO) and sputum eosinophils following one week treatment with LTRA, whereas the initial protection by LABA on the AMP responsiveness was lost after one week, and no anti-inflammatory effects could be observed. Similar beneficial effects from LTRA therapy are expected in patients with nocturnal asthma, in whom a decreased responsiveness to corticosteroids has been demonstrated. The choice of either combination therapy has clinical implications. It seems that especially patients with a suboptimal lung function and a significant beta 2-agonist reversibility will benefit from the addition of a LABA, whereas asthmatics with mainly exercise-induced asthma, nocturnal symptoms, or a frequent worsening due to low tolerance to provocative stimuli, may mostly benefit by adding an LTRA to ICS. However, it remains to be determined which combination has the most profound effect on the inflammatory process and the structural changes in asthma.

Montelukast or salmeterol combined with an inhaled steroid in adult asthma: design and rationale of a randomized, double-blind comparative study (the IMPACT Investigation of Montelukast as a Partner Agent for Complementary Therapy-trial).

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite taking regular inhaled corticosteroids represent a management challenge. Leukotrienes play a key role in asthma pathophysiology, and since pro-inflammatory leukotrienes are poorly suppressed by corticosteroids it seems rational to add a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) when a low to moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroids does not provide sufficient disease control. Long acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment represents an alternative to LTRAs and both treatment modalities have been shown to provide additional disease control when added to corticosteroid treatment. To compare the relative clinical benefits of adding either a LTRA or a LABA to asthma patients inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, a randomized, double-blind, multi-centre, 48-week study will be initiated at approximately 120 centres throughout Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and the Asia-Pacific region in early 2000. The study will compare the oral LTRA montelukast with the inhaled LABA salmeterol, each administered on a background of inhaled fluticasone, on asthma attacks, quality of life, lung function, eosinophil levels, healthcare utilization, and safety, in approximately 1200 adult asthmatic patients. The requirements for study enrollment include a history of asthma, FEV1 or PEFR values between 50% and 90% of the predicted value together with > or = 12% improvement in FEV1 after beta-agonist administration, a minimum pre-determined level of asthma symptoms and daily beta-agonist medication. The study will include a 4-week run-in period, during which patients previously taking inhaled corticosteroids are switched to open-label fluticasone (200 microg daily), followed by a 48-week double-blind, treatment period in which patients continuing to experience abnormal pulmonary function and daytime symptoms are randomized to receive montelukast (10 mg once daily) and salmeterol placebo, or inhaled salmeterol (100 microg daily) and montelukast placebo. All patients will continue with inhaled fluticasone (200 microg daily). During the study, asthma attacks, overnight asthma symptoms, and morning peak expiratory flow rate will be assessed using patient diary cards; quality of life will also be assessed using an asthma-specific quality-of life questionnaire. The results of this study are expected to provide physicians with important clinical evidence to help them make a rational and logical treatment choice for asthmatic patients experiencing breakthrough symptoms on inhaled corticosteroids.

Exhaled and nasal NO levels in allergic rhinitis: relation to sensitization, pollen season and bronchial hyperresponsiveness.

Exhaled nitric oxide is a potential marker of lower airway inflammation. Allergic rhinitis is associated with asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. To determine whether or not nasal and exhaled NO concentrations are increased in allergic rhinitis and to assess the relation between hyperresponsiveness and exhaled NO, 46 rhinitic and 12 control subjects, all nonasthmatic nonsmokers without upper respiratory tract infection, were randomly selected from a large-scale epidemiological survey in Central Norway. All were investigated with flow-volume spirometry, methacholine provocation test, allergy testing and measurement of nasal and exhaled NO concentration in the nonpollen season. Eighteen rhinitic subjects completed an identical follow-up investigation during the following pollen season. Exhaled NO was significantly elevated in allergic rhinitis in the nonpollen season, especially in perennially sensitized subjects, as compared with controls (p=0.01), and increased further in the pollen season (p=0.04), mainly due to a two-fold increase in those with seasonal sensitization. Nasal NO was not significantly different from controls in the nonpollen season and did not increase significantly in the pollen season. Exhaled NO was increased in hyperresponsive subjects, and decreased significantly after methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, suggesting that NO production occurs in the peripheral airways. In allergic rhinitis, an increase in exhaled nitric oxide on allergen exposure, particularly in hyperresponsive subjects, may be suggestive of airway inflammation and an increased risk for developing asthma.

Perivascular cell protection in vivo and increased cell survival in vitro by the antihypertensive agent carvedilol following radiation.

Carvedilol, an antihypertensive drug with activity on adrenoceptors as well as on calcium channel activity, has recently been introduced. In the present study we investigated whether carvedilol interacts with the cytotoxicity induced by irradiation in vitro as well as in vivo. A daily injection of carvedilol in clinically relevant concentrations (3 mg/kg subcutaneously), 4 days before and 3 days after a single radiation dose of 20 Gy significantly decreased the inflammatory reaction in the rat lung, evaluated as number of inflammatory cells in the perivascular area. The density of mast cells was also slightly reduced. In vitro studies revealed that carvedilol caused different radio-protective effects, dependent on dose (1-7 Gy) used and cell line studied. The effects were especially pronounced in a malignant mesothelioma cell line (P-31), and somewhat less evident in a prostatic carcinoma cell line (PC-3). No significant effect was seen in a highly radiosensitive small cell lung cancer cell line (U-1690). Thus, carvedilol may under some circumstances interact with radiation-induced tissue reactions, most probably by a direct interaction at the cellular level. The specific explanation to the differences in sensitivity to carvedilol remains to be evaluated, but the known antioxidative properties and/or scavenging of free radicals of carvedilol may be a plausible mechanism of action. Secondary induced alterations in inflammatory response may also be considered. It is suggested that a potential interaction between drugs such as carvedilol and irradiation should be considered for clinical practice.