A multicenter, open-label long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of rimegepant, an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, in people with migraine. METHODS: This multicenter, long-term, open-label safety study included adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 year history of migraine who were sequentially enrolled into three groups: participants in the first two groups had either 2-8 or 9-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and treated as needed (pro re nata [PRN]) with one rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet up to once per calendar day for 52 weeks (PRN 2-8 and PRN 9-14); a third group, included to collect safety data during higher-frequency dosing, had 4-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and who took one rimegepant tablet every other day as scheduled dosing plus PRN dosing of one rimegepant tablet for migraine attacks of any severity on nonscheduled dosing days for 12 weeks (every other day (EOD) + PRN). RESULTS: Overall, 1800 participants self-administered rimegepant (PRN 2-8: n = 1033; PRN 9-14: n = 481; EOD + PRN: n = 286). The most common on-treatment adverse events (AEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%) and sinusitis (5.1%). Most AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to rimegepant. Serious AEs considered possibly (n = 1) or unlikely (n = 9) related to rimegepant were reported in ten (0.6%) participants. No signal of drug-induced liver injury because of rimegepant was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg up to once per day as EOD + PRN for 12 weeks or PRN for up to 52 weeks was safe and well tolerated. No signal of hepatotoxicity, potential drug abuse, or medication-overuse headache was identified.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

Lebrikizumab in Uncontrolled Asthma: Reanalysis in a Well-Defined Type 2 Population.

BACKGROUND: LAVOLTA (L)I, LII, and ACOUSTICS were randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trials of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13 in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Failure to demonstrate efficacy may have been related to patient selection in those trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy in a well-defined subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts and a minimum number of prior asthma exacerbations. We performed an additional analysis in a subpopulation of patients with elevated FeNO and prior exacerbations. METHODS: Adult (LI and LII) and adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years weighing ≥40 kg, ACOUSTICS) with uncontrolled asthma received lebrikizumab (125 mg, n = 832; or 37.5 mg, n = 829) or placebo (n = 833) subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Post hoc analysis of the annualized adjusted exacerbation rate (AER) was performed in a subpopulation of patients with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and history of one or more exacerbations. In this subpopulation, there were 227 patients in the placebo group, 222 in the lebrikizumab 37.5-mg group, and 217 in the lebrikizumab 125-mg group. We summarized safety in patients who received at least one dose of lebrikizumab using adverse events. RESULTS: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced AER compared with placebo in adults (AER reduction: 125 mg [38%]; and 37.5 mg [41%]) and adolescents (AER reduction:125 mg [59%]; 37.5 mg [64%]) with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and one or more exacerbations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations in a subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophils, elevated FeNO, and a history of asthma exacerbation.

Associations of Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 mRNA-1273 Vaccine in the COVE and TeenCOVE Trials.

BACKGROUND: The reactogenicity and immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are well studied. Little is known regarding the relationship between immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: This study assessed the association between immunogenicity and reactogenicity after 2 mRNA-1273 (100 µg) injections in 1671 total adolescent and adult participants (≥12 years) from the primary immunogenicity sets of the blinded periods of the Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) and TeenCOVE trials. Associations between immunogenicity through day 57 and solicited adverse reactions (ARs) after the first and second injections of mRNA-1273 were evaluated among participants with and without solicited ARs using linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: mRNA-1273 reactogenicity in this combined analysis set was similar to that reported for these trials. The vaccine elicited high neutralizing antibody (nAb) geometric mean titers (GMTs) in evaluable participants. GMTs at day 57 were significantly higher in participants who experienced solicited systemic ARs after the second injection (1227.2 [1164.4-1293.5]) than those who did not (980.1 [886.8-1083.2], P = .001) and were associated with fever, chills, headache, fatigue, myalgia, and arthralgia. Significant associations with local ARs were not found. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an association of systemic ARs with increased nAb titers following a second mRNA-1273 injection. While these data indicate systemic ARs are associated with increased antibody titers, high nAb titers were observed in participants after both injections, consistent with the immunogenicity and efficacy in these trials. These results add to the body of evidence regarding the relationship of immunogenicity and reactogenicity and can contribute toward the design of future mRNA vaccines.

Evaluation of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Children 6 Months to 5 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: The safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine in young children are unknown. METHODS: Part 1 of this ongoing phase 2-3 trial was open label for dose selection; part 2 was an observer-blinded, placebo-controlled evaluation of the selected dose. In part 2, we randomly assigned young children (6 months to 5 years of age) in a 3:1 ratio to receive two 25-µg injections of mRNA-1273 or placebo, administered 28 days apart. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine and to determine whether the immune response in these children was noninferior to that in young adults (18 to 25 years of age) in a related phase 3 trial. Secondary objectives were to determine the incidences of Covid-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection after administration of mRNA-1273 or placebo. RESULTS: On the basis of safety and immunogenicity results in part 1 of the trial, the 25-µg dose was evaluated in part 2. In part 2, 3040 children 2 to 5 years of age and 1762 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive two 25-µg injections of mRNA-1273; 1008 children 2 to 5 years of age and 593 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive placebo. The median duration of follow-up after the second injection was 71 days in the 2-to-5-year-old cohort and 68 days in the 6-to-23-month-old cohort. Adverse events were mainly low-grade and transient, and no new safety concerns were identified. At day 57, neutralizing antibody geometric mean concentrations were 1410 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1272 to 1563) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 1781 (95% CI, 1616 to 1962) among 6-to-23-month-olds, as compared with 1391 (95% CI, 1263 to 1531) among young adults, who had received 100-µg injections of mRNA-1273, findings that met the noninferiority criteria for immune responses for both age cohorts. The estimated vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 36.8% (95% CI, 12.5 to 54.0) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 50.6% (95% CI, 21.4 to 68.6) among 6-to-23-month-olds, at a time when B.1.1.529 (omicron) was the predominant circulating variant. CONCLUSIONS: Two 25-µg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe in children 6 months to 5 years of age and elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those in young adults. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; KidCOVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796896.).

Evaluation of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age was approximately 900 per 100,000 population from April 1 through June 11, 2021. The safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in adolescents are unknown. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2-3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy adolescents (12 to 17 years of age) in a 2:1 ratio to receive two injections of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (100 µg in each) or placebo, administered 28 days apart. The primary objectives were evaluation of the safety of mRNA-1273 in adolescents and the noninferiority of the immune response in adolescents as compared with that in young adults (18 to 25 years of age) in a phase 3 trial. Secondary objectives included the efficacy of mRNA-1273 in preventing Covid-19 or asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. RESULTS: A total of 3732 participants were randomly assigned to receive mRNA-1273 (2489 participants) or placebo (1243 participants). In the mRNA-1273 group, the most common solicited adverse reactions after the first or second injections were injection-site pain (in 93.1% and 92.4%, respectively), headache (in 44.6% and 70.2%, respectively), and fatigue (in 47.9% and 67.8%, respectively); in the placebo group, the most common solicited adverse reactions after the first or second injections were injection-site pain (in 34.8% or 30.3%, respectively), headache (in 38.5% and 30.2%, respectively), and fatigue (in 36.6% and 28.9%, respectively). No serious adverse events related to mRNA-1273 or placebo were noted. The geometric mean titer ratio of pseudovirus neutralizing antibody titers in adolescents relative to young adults was 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.24), and the absolute difference in serologic response was 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, -1.8 to 2.4), which met the noninferiority criterion. No cases of Covid-19 with an onset of 14 days after the second injection were reported in the mRNA-1273 group, and four cases occurred in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine had an acceptable safety profile in adolescents. The immune response was similar to that in young adults, and the vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by Moderna and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; Teen COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04649151.).

Safety of Rimegepant, an Oral CGRP Receptor Antagonist, Plus CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on-treatment adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study in adults with 2-14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2-8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4-week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ≥1 on-treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ≥2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment-related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION: Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

The use of torus palatinus in the identification of unknown skeletal remains.

Torus palatinus (TP) is a benign, bony outgrowth located on the hard palate. Variation in this trait occurs, ranging from absent to a protuberance several millimeters in length. If a TP becomes too large, it can interfere with daily activities and thus warrant medical attention. This case utilised the unique morphology of a TP after surgical invention to identify the unknown skeletal remains of a woman missing for six years. Even though there is still much unknown regarding the aetiology, occurrence and prevalence of TP, this study demonstrates the usefulness of anatomical variants in the identification of unknown skeletal remains.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 µg of olopatadine and 25 µg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 µg), mometasone (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Sequential Treatment Initiation with Timothy Grass and Ragweed Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets Followed by Simultaneous Treatment Is Well Tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Dual treatment with grass and ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety and tolerability of dual grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet administration. METHODS: This open-label, multicenter trial (NCT02256553) enrolled North American adults (N = 102) allergic to grass and ragweed. The trial had 3 periods, each of 2 weeks duration. In period 1, subjects received once-daily timothy grass SLIT tablet (2800 bioequivalent allergen unit; Merck, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ/ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark). In period 2, subjects received a short ragweed SLIT tablet (12 Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1-U; Merck/ALK) every morning and a grass SLIT tablet every evening. In period 3, subjects received once-daily grass and ragweed SLIT tablets within 5 minutes (simultaneous intake). The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with 1 or more local swelling events in each period. Secondary end points were the proportion of subjects with 1 or more local adverse events (AEs), that discontinued the treatment because of AEs, and subjects with 1 or more local AEs requiring treatment. RESULTS: No severe swellings, systemic allergic reactions, asthma attacks, or reactions requiring epinephrine were reported. Most (99%) AEs were graded mild to moderate. The proportions of subjects with 1 or more local swelling events were 14%, 22%, and 15% for periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For periods 1, 2, and 3, the proportions of subjects with 1 or more local AEs were 71%, 69%, and 56%, respectively; the proportions discontinuing the treatment because of treatment-related AEs were 5%, 1%, and 2%, and the proportions with 1 or more local AEs requiring treatment were 4%, 4%, and 1%. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, a 4-week sequential SLIT-tablet dosing schedule followed by simultaneous intake of timothy grass and ragweed tablets was well tolerated.

Safety of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy standardized quality tablet in children allergic to house dust mites.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets could be an important alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for house dust mite (HDM) allergy in children. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety, tolerability, and duration of local adverse events (AEs) of an HDM SLIT tablet (MK-8237; Merck, ALK Abellò, and Torii) in North American children 12 to 17 years old with HDM allergic rhinitis with and without conjunctivitis and with or without asthma. METHODS: In this phase 1, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial (NCT01678807), children received placebo, HDM SLIT tablet 6 standardized quality (SQ) HDM, or 12 SQ-HDM once daily for 28 days. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with treatment-emergent AEs receiving active treatment vs placebo. The secondary end point was the proportion of subjects who discontinued owing to AEs. RESULTS: In total 195 subjects were randomized. The 2 HDM SLIT tablet doses were well tolerated. No anaphylactic reactions, systemic allergic reactions, AEs requiring epinephrine, serious AEs, or local swellings in the mouth or throat assessed as severe were reported. The proportion of subjects with treatment-emergent AEs was 54% with 6 SQ-HDM and 57% with 12 SQ-HDM (nonsignificant vs 43% with placebo). Local AEs were the most commonly reported treatment-emergent AEs. On day 1, the median duration of individual local AEs ranged from 1 to 43 minutes. The proportion of subjects who discontinued owing to AEs was 0%, 6.2%, and 6.2%, and who experienced treatment-related AEs was 25%, 45%, and 52% for the placebo, 6 SQ-HDM, and 12 SQ-HDM groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 6 and 12 SQ-HDM doses of the HDM SLIT tablet MK-8237 were well tolerated, and local AEs were of short duration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01678807.

Safety and tolerability of a short ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet.

BACKGROUND: MK-3641 is a short ragweed sublingual tablet under investigation for immunotherapy of ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety and tolerability of a ragweed sublingual tablet (Merck/ALK-Abelló) in ragweed-allergic adults with or without conjunctivitis. METHODS: Data from 4 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of MK-3641 (2 28-day and 2 52-week trials) were evaluated. Pooled analyses examined short-term safety over 28 days from all 4 trials and long-term safety from the 52-week trials. RESULTS: Across all studies, 757, 198, 454, and 1,058 subjects were randomized to placebo or 1.5, 6, or 12 Amb a 1-U of MK-3641, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were more frequent in the 6- and 12-Amb a 1-U MK-3641 groups than in the placebo group and were primarily local application-site reactions occurring in the first few days of treatment. There was no treatment-associated loss of asthma control or worsening of asthma associated with treatment. No swellings led to airway obstruction or respiratory compromise. No treatment-related anaphylactic shock, life-threatening, or serious treatment-related adverse events were reported for any MK-3641 dose. Of the 1,707 MK-3641-treated subjects, 1 systemic (anaphylactic) reaction was reported (0.06%). The 52-week long-term assessment was generally similar to the safety profile based on the 28-day assessment. CONCLUSION: MK-3641 doses up to and including 12 Amb a 1-U were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings. Sublingual immunotherapy risks such as worsening asthma or airway swellings that could cause airway obstruction were not observed. Systemic reactions and use of epinephrine were uncommon. In these studies, after the first dose was administered in a health care setting, self-administration was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01469182, NCT00783198, NCT00770315, and NCT00978029.

Randomized controlled trial of ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet efficacy and safety in North American adults.

BACKGROUND: Ragweed is an important cause of allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) in North America and elsewhere. Allergen immunotherapy enabling safe patient self-administration is considered an unmet clinical need. Allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) treatment has shown promising efficacy and safety for grass allergy but has not been assessed for ragweed allergy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of 2 short ragweed AIT doses in patients with AR/C. METHODS: Adults with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C were randomized 1:1:1 to daily ragweed AIT (6 or 12 Amb a 1 units) or placebo before, throughout, and after ragweed season (approximately 52 weeks). Patients could use predefined allergy rescue medications in season. Efficacy end points included peak and entire season total combined score (TCS) and its components daily symptom score (DSS), and daily medication score (DMS). Safety assessments included adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 565 patients were randomized. During peak season, the 6- and 12-Amb a 1 unit ragweed AIT doses showed 21% (-1.76 score) and 27% (-2.24 score) improvement in TCS vs placebo (P < .05). The 6- and 12-Amb a 1 unit AIT doses significantly improved DSS and DMS vs placebo (P < .05). Peak and entire season efficacy were comparable. The 12-Amb a 1 unit AIT dose reduced peak-season TCS vs placebo by 21% and 25% in subgroups with and without local application-site reactions, respectively. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild, oral reactions; no systemic allergic reactions were reported. One patient in the 6-Amb a 1 unit group received epinephrine at an emergency facility for sensation of localized pharyngeal edema. CONCLUSION: In this trial, ragweed AIT was effective and well tolerated in ragweed-allergic North American adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00783198.

Three-dimensional comparative analysis of bitemarks.

Historically, the inability to accurately represent bitemarks and other wound patterns has limited their evidentiary value. The development of the ABFO #2 scale by Krauss and Hyzer enabled forensic odontologists to correct for most photographic plane distortions. The technique presented here uses the ABFO #2 scale in conjunction with the evolving technologies of laser scanners and comparative software commonly used by the automobile industry for three-dimensional (3D) analysis. The 3D software comparison was performed in which measurements were analyzed of the normal distance for each point on the teeth relative to the bitemarks. It created a color-mapped display of the bitemark model, with the color indicating the deviation at each point. There was a correlation between the bitemark and the original teeth.

An otolaryngology, neurology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment of sinus headache.

While "sinus" headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, many medical specialists consider it to be an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. Unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments are often the result of the inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to characterize conditions leading to headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, they have done so from different perspectives and in isolation from the other specialty groups. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee recently convened to discuss the role of sinus disease and the nose in the etiology of headache and to review recent epidemiologic studies suggesting that sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. Clinical trial data are presented which clearly indicate that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines. This committee reviewed scientific evidence available from multiple disciplines and concludes that considerable research and clinical study are needed to further understand and explain the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, there was a consensus from this group that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients complaining of sinus headache that may indeed be due to the nose.

Sinus headache: a neurology, otolaryngology, allergy, and primary care consensus on diagnosis and treatment.

Sinus headache is a widely accepted clinical diagnosis, although many medical specialists consider it an uncommon cause of recurrent headaches. The inappropriate diagnosis of sinus headache can lead to unnecessary diagnostic studies, surgical interventions, and medical treatments. Both the International Headache Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery have attempted to define conditions that lead to headaches of rhinogenic origin but have done so from different perspectives and in isolation of each other. An interdisciplinary ad hoc committee convened to discuss the role of sinus disease as a cause of headache and to review recent epidemiological studies that suggest sinus headache (headache of rhinogenic origin) and migraine are frequently confused with one another. This committee reviewed available scientific evidence from multiple disciplines and concluded that considerable research and clinical study are required to further understand and delineate the role of nasal pathology and autonomic activation in migraine and headaches of rhinogenic origin. However, this group agreed that greater diagnostic and therapeutic attention needs to be given to patients with sinus headaches.

Addition of ibuprofen to pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis experience many nasal and concomitant nonnasal symptoms. Many patients also experience headaches and facial pain, pressure, or discomfort. Standard over-the-counter therapy with antihistamines and nasal decongestants often does not completely relieve all symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To establish the contribution of ibuprofen when used with pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine, a standard over-the-counter regimen, to relieve the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: In this 7-day, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, qualified subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups that received combined ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (200/30/2 mg or 400/60/4 mg), combined pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (30/2 mg), or placebo. Therapy began when the subject experienced a minimum of moderate allergy-associated pain, and it continued 3 times a day for 7 consecutive days. RESULTS: Mean pain intensity reduction in both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment groups was 40% greater than in the placebo group and 33% greater than in the pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment group (P < .001). Mean changes from baseline in total and nonpain symptom scores for both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine doses were significantly greater than for placebo (P < .001) and pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (P < .001-.05) but were not different from each other. Ibuprofen enhanced the chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine effects, resulting in incremental 33% to 34% pain relief and 17% to 22% allergy symptom relief compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine. CONCLUSIONS: In both doses of the triple combination, ibuprofen added to the effects of chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine, resulting in superior relief of pain and all nonpain allergy symptoms compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment. Furthermore, the superior efficacy of the lower dose of the triple combination allowed for a decrease in the incidence of adverse effects.