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.

Adverse Events Associated With Corticosteroid-Eluting Sinus Stents: A MAUDE Database Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Corticosteroid-eluting stents (CESs) are increasingly used after endoscopic sinus surgery to reduce the need for revision surgery, but their use is not without risks. The objective of this study is to describe adverse events related to CESs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: The US Food and Drug Administration's MAUDE database (2011-2020; Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience). METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried for reports of adverse events involving the use of CESs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including Propel, Propel Mini, Propel Contour, and Sinuva (Intersect ENT). RESULTS: There were 28 reported adverse events in total, with all events being related to the Propel family of stents and none related to Sinuva stents. Overall, 22 were categorized as patient-related adverse events and 6 as device-related events. The most common adverse event was related to postoperative infection, accounting for 39% (n = 11) of all complications. Four of these patients developed periorbital cellulitis, and 5 developed a fungal infection. The second-most common adverse event was migration of the stent, representing 21% of all complications (n = 6). Overall, 8 patients (29%) in our cohort required reintervention in the operating room, with subsequent removal of the CES. CONCLUSION: The most commonly reported adverse events were postoperative infection, including multiple cases of fungal infection, followed by migration of the stent. An increased awareness of the complications associated with CESs can be used to better inform patients during the consenting process as well as surgeons in their surgical decision making.

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.

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.

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.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction: A randomized, double blind clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the usage of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the recovery of patients with severe microsmia or anosmia induced by COVID-19. This was a prospective clinical trial on non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 (>18 years) who had severe microsmia or anosmia within two weeks. The subjects were randomly assigned to the mometasone furoate group (100 mcg twice daily) or sodium chloride group (0.9%); both groups also received olfactory training for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the improvement of the olfactory score at the end of the study. Visual analog scale (VAS) and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) were used to assess primary outcome. A total of 80 patients were recruited, 77 of them completed the study and were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of demographics and baseline clinical characteristics. The olfactory scores (based on VAS) at weekly intervals showed a significant difference between the two groups (P:0.318, <0.001, <0.001, <0.001, respectively). The analyses also showed significant within-group differences from baseline. Nevertheless, the changes were not significant between the two groups (P: 0.444, 0.402, 0.267, 0.329). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the UPSIT results (p > 0.239). However, a significant between-group difference was noted in the severity of loss of smell (P < 0.001). Compared to olfactory training, mometasone furoate nasal spray combination with olfactory training showed a higher improvement in severe chronic anosmia by COVID-19.

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.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium/Mometasone Furoate After Administration of Combination Therapies Using the Breezhaler® Device in Patients with Asthma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical evidence suggests no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions between indacaterol (IND), glycopyrronium (GLY) and mometasone furoate (MF). A population pharmacokinetic (popPK) analysis was conducted to identify structural models describing systemic pharmacokinetic profiles of IND, GLY and MF, and estimate the effect of covariates on their pharmacokinetics following inhalation as IND/GLY/MF. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic data from 698 patients with asthma were pooled from two Phase III studies that evaluated IND/MF medium- (150/160 µg) and high-dose (150/320 µg), IND/GLY/MF medium- (150/50/80 µg) and high-dose (150/50/160 µg), and a device bridging Phase II study with MF. One popPK model was developed each for IND, GLY and MF using a nonlinear mixed-effect modelling approach. Maximal and trough plasma concentrations were compared across formulations and studies, including data for IND/GLY from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. The effect of predefined covariates on the pharmacokinetics of components was evaluated using a full covariate modelling approach. RESULTS: The final pharmacokinetic models were two-compartment disposition models with first-order elimination and sequential zero-order/first-order absorption (IND), with bolus administration and first-order elimination (GLY), and with mixed zero-order/first-order absorption and first-order elimination (MF). All model parameters were estimated with good precision (% relative standard error: IND and MF ≤25%; GLY <10%). No clinically relevant covariate effect was observed on the pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF. IND and GLY pharmacokinetic profiles were similar across different formulations. CONCLUSION: Two-compartment popPK models adequately described the pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF. The effect of covariates was not clinically relevant. The pharmacokinetic profiles of MF were comparable for combination products at corresponding medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. On a population level, the pharmacokinetics of IND and GLY were comparable between patients with asthma and COPD.

A Systematic Approach in the Development of the Morphologically-Directed Raman Spectroscopy Methodology for Characterizing Nasal Suspension Drug Products.

Demonstrating bioequivalence (BE) of nasal suspension sprays is a challenging task. Analytical tools are required to determine the particle size of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the structure of a relatively complex formulation. This study investigated the utility of the morphologically-directed Raman spectroscopy (MDRS) method to investigate the particle size distribution (PSD) of nasal suspensions. Dissolution was also investigated as an orthogonal technique. Nasal suspension formulations containing different PSD of mometasone furoate monohydrate (MFM) were manufactured. The PSD of the MFM batches was characterized before formulation manufacture using laser diffraction and automated imaging. Upon formulation manufacture, the droplet size, single actuation content, spray pattern, plume geometry, the API dissolution rate, and the API PSD by MDRS were determined. A systematic approach was utilized to develop a robust method for the analysis of the PSD of MFM in Nasonex® and four test formulations containing the MFM API with different particle size specifications. Although the PSD between distinct techniques cannot be directly compared due to inherent differences between these methodologies, the same trend is observed for three out of the four batches. Dissolution analysis confirmed the trend observed by MDRS in terms of PSD. For suspension-based nasal products, MDRS allows the measurement of API PSD which is critical for BE assessment. This approach has been approved for use in lieu of a comparative clinical endpoint BE study [1]. The correlation observed between PSD and dissolution rate extends the use of dissolution as a critical analytical tool demonstrating BE between test and reference products.

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.

Cardiovascular safety of mometasone/indacaterol and mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium once-daily fixed-dose combinations in asthma: pooled analysis of phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular safety of two new inhaled fixed-dose combinations for treatment of asthma: (i) the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate (MF/IND), (ii) the ICS/LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) MF/IND/glycopyrronium bromide (GLY). METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from four randomized trials, including 52-week studies PALLADIUM (n = 2216) and IRIDIUM (n = 3092), 24-week study ARGON (n = 1426), and 12-week study QUARTZ (n = 802). Cardio-/cerebrovascular (CCV) event frequencies were examined in the following comparisons: (1) LABA effect: pooled-dose MF/IND vs. pooled-dose MF; (2) LAMA effect: pooled-dose MF/IND/GLY vs. pooled-dose MF/IND; (3) ICS-dose effects: (a) high-dose MF/IND vs. medium-dose MF/IND, (b) high-dose MF/IND/GLY vs. medium-dose MF/IND/GLY; (4) intra-class effects: (a) high-dose MF/IND vs. Fluticasone/Salmeterol (F/S), (b) high-dose MF/IND/GLY vs. F/S + Tiotropium (TIO). Risk estimates (percentage of patients with ≥1 CCV event) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: The frequency of CCV events was low, without notable differences between comparison groups. Risk estimates and corresponding RDs (95% CIs) were as follows: (1) pooled-dose MF/IND = 2.35%, pooled-dose MF = 2.18%, RD = 0.17% (-1.00%, 1.34%); (2) pooled-dose MF/IND/GLY = 3.65%, pooled-dose MF/IND = 3.77%, RD = -0.12% (-1.63%, 1.39%); (3a) high-dose MF/IND = 3.69%, medium-dose MF/IND = 3.35%, RD = 0.34% (-1.25%, 1.94%); (3b) high-dose MF/IND/GLY = 2.84%, medium-dose MF/IND/GLY = 2.02%, RD = 0.82% (-0.49%, 2.13%); (4a) high-dose MF/IND = 3.69%, F/S = 2.82%, RD = 0.87% (-0.66%, 2.40%); (4b) high-dose MF/IND/GLY = 1.26%, F/S + TIO = 1.05%, RD = 0.21% (-1.26%, 1.68%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased cardiovascular risk attributable to the addition of IND to MF or addition of GLY to MF/IND. Similarly, no evidence of increased cardiovascular risk was observed with an increase in the ICS-dose or relative to F/S ± TIO.

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.

Association of Potent and Very Potent Topical Corticosteroids and the Risk of Osteoporosis and Major Osteoporotic Fractures.

Importance: Systemic and inhaled corticosteroids negatively affect bone remodeling and cause osteoporosis and bone fracture when given continuously or in high doses. However, risk of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) after application of topical corticosteroids (TCSs) is largely unexplored. Objective: To examine the association between cumulative exposure to potent and very potent TCSs and risk of osteoporosis and MOF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included 723 251 Danish adults treated with potent or very potent TCSs from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2017. Data were obtained from Danish nationwide registries. Filled prescription data were converted in equipotent doses to mometasone furoate (1 mg/g). Data were analyzed from June 1 to August 31, 2019. Exposures: Patients were considered exposed when they had filled prescriptions of cumulative amounts corresponding to the equivalent of at least 500 g of mometasone, using filled prescriptions of 200 to 499 g as the reference group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were a diagnosis of osteoporosis or MOF. Hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, medication use, and comorbidity were calculated with 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: A total of 723 251 adults treated with the equivalent of at least 200 g of mometasone were included in the analysis (52.8% women; mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.2] years). Dose-response associations were found between increased use of potent or very potent TCSs and the risk of osteoporosis and MOF. For example, HRs of MOF were 1.01 (95% CI, 0.99-1.03) for exposure to 500 to 999 g, 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.08) for exposure to 1000 to 1999 g, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.07-1.13) for exposure to 2000 to 9999 g, and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.19-1.35) for exposure to at least 10 000 g. A 3% relative risk increase of osteoporosis and MOF was observed per doubling of the cumulative TCS dose (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.02-1.04] for both). The overall population-attributable risk was 4.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.8%) for osteoporosis and 2.7% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.8%) for MOF. The lowest exposure needed for 1 additional patient to be harmed (454 person-years) was observed for MOF with exposure of at least 10 000 g. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings demonstrate that use of high cumulative amounts of potent or very potent TCSs was associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and MOF.

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.

Improvement in Psychological Condition of Patients With Persistent Moderate-Severe Allergic Rhinitis by Drug Therapy Combined With Psychological Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of drug treatment combined with psychological intervention on mental disorders in patients with persistent moderate-severe allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Sixty patients with persistent moderate-severe allergic rhinitis who met the criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups: control group and experimental group. The control group was only given medication, whereas the experimental group was given psychological intervention on the basis of the same medication. Cognitive behavioral therapy was used for psychological intervention. After 12 weeks of treatment, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) were used to evaluate the changes in anxiety, depression, and quality of life before and after treatment. RESULTS: The SAS and SDS scores of the control group after treatment were lower than those before treatment, and the difference was statistically significant. Similarly, the SAS and SDS scores of the experimental group after treatment were lower than those before treatment with statistically significant difference. In addition, after treatment, the SAS and SDS scores of the experimental group were statistically lower than those of the control group. The results of RQLQ showed that the scores of each dimension in the control group after treatment were lower than those before treatment, and the difference was statistically significant. Similar results were found in the experimental group. After treatment with these 2 different schemes, the RQLQ scores of sleep, nonnasal/eye symptoms, and emotion in the experimental group were statistically lower than those in the control group. CONCLUSION: Drug therapy or drug therapy combined with psychological intervention can alleviate anxiety and depression of patients with persistent moderate-severe allergic rhinitis and improve their quality of life. Moreover, based on the effect of improving mental disorder and quality of life of patients, drug therapy combined with psychological intervention is better than drug treatment alone.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches and Targets for Treatment of Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus.

BACKGROUND: Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus (VLS) is a chronic inflammatory disease with a huge impact on a person's quality of life. A correct therapy is required for relieving symptoms, reversing signs and preventing further anatomical changes. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the present paper is to provide suggestions for the best treatment approach, based on the available evidence. Treatment strategies are divided on the basis of the treatment phase, distinguishing options for initial, acute or attack treatment and those for long-term, maintenance treatment. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using the National Library of Medicine PubMed database. All the studies evaluating treatment of vulvar lichen sclerosus published in the English literature were analyzed, including controlled studies, case series, guidelines and reviews. RESULTS: Current evidence identifies ultra-potent and potent corticosteroids, administered for 12 weeks, as the first-line recommended treatment for active VLS. Topical calcineurin inhibitors, tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are effective and safe alternatives. Long-term maintenance strategies aimed at preventing recurrences are required, after the initial treatment phase. Maintenance treatment mostly consists in topical corticosteroids, administered i) on an "as needed" basis ("reactive" scheme), ii) on a continuative regimen, iii) on a low-dose, intermittent regimen ("proactive" scheme). Further investigations are needed for better defining the placement of other options within the VLS therapeutic algorithm, including retinoids, physical and systemic treatments. CONCLUSION: The available evidence provides useful indications for the management of VLS. Both the identification of new therapeutic targets and the optimization of the available options represent the main objectives of future research.

The Effect of Dupilumab on Intractable Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps in Japan.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Dupilumab, which blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, reduced polyp size, sinus opacification, and symptom severity, and was well tolerated in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in the SINUS-52 study (NCT02898454). We assessed dupilumab in patients enrolled at Japanese centers. METHODS: Patients on a background of mometasone furoate nasal spray, received dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) for 52 weeks (Arm A); dupilumab 300 mg q2w for 24 weeks, followed by every 4 weeks (q4w) for 28 weeks (Arm B); or placebo (Arm C). Co-primary endpoints were week 24 nasal polyp score (NPS), nasal congestion (NC) score, and sinus Lund-Mackay CT (LMK-CT) scores. Symptoms, sense of smell, health-related quality of life, and safety were assessed during the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: Of 49 patients enrolled in Japan, 45 completed the study. Week 24 least squares (LS) mean improvement versus placebo were as follows: NPS (Arm A: -3.1, P < .0001; Arm B: -2.1, P = .0011); NC score (Arm A: -1.2, P < .0001; Arm B: -0.9, P < .0001); and LMK-CT (Arm A: -5.1, P = .0005; Arm B: -2.8, P = .0425). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event in dupilumab and placebo-treated patients was nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab provided rapid, significant, and clinically meaningful improvements for patients with CRSwNP in Japan. Dupilumab was well tolerated, and safety and efficacy were consistent with the overall study population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 131:E1770-E1777, 2021.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

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.