Omalizumab improves sleep and health status for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: An analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have high incidence of sleep impairment. We evaluated the impact of omalizumab treatment on sleep characteristics and associated health status in patients with CRSwNP. METHODS: Prespecified exploratory analysis assessed outcomes from patients included in the POLYP 1 and POLYP 2 phase 3 clinical trials and the open-label extension. Sleep was assessed by the sleep domain of the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22; MCID > 4 in patients with CRS) and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-Sleep). Health status was assessed by Healthy Days Core Module (HDCM) and sinonasal-specific Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: Omalizumab improved sleep as assessed by the SNOT-22 sleep domain. At week 24, adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -8.5 (-9.9 to -7.1) with omalizumab versus -2.7 (-4.1 to -1.3) with placebo. At week 52 (all patents on OMA), adjusted mean (95%CI) SNOT-22 sleep scores had reduced from baseline by -10.1 (-11.4 to -8.7) with omalizumab. Improvements were observed in all eight items of the SNOT-22 sleep domain: difficulty falling asleep, fatigue, frustration/restlessness/irritability, lack good night's sleep, reduced concentration, reduced productivity, wake up tired, and wake up at night. In addition, omalizumab improved six of eight sleep outcomes on the MOS-Sleep scale. There were concurrent improvements in HDCM and PGIC. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab improved sleep and self-reported health status in patients with CRSwNP. This contributes to evidence that omalizumab provides value for patients beyond the reduction of sinonasal symptoms.

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

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

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

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

Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common undiagnosed chronic condition in children. Moderate/severe AR symptoms significantly impair quality of life, and cause sleep disruption, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Additionally, untreated AR predisposes children to asthma and other chronic conditions. Although intranasal corticosteroids are the most effective pharmacologic treatment for AR, oral antihistamines are often preferred. First-generation antihistamines may be chosen to relieve AR symptoms as they are inexpensive and widely available; however, they cause sedative and cardiovascular negative effects due to poor receptor selectivity. Therefore, second-generation antihistamines were developed to reduce adverse effects while retaining efficacy. There are fewer clinical trials in children than adults, therefore, efficacy and safety data is limited, particularly in children under 6 years, highlighting the need to generate these data in young children with AR. Fexofenadine, a highly selective second-generation antihistamine, effectively alleviates symptoms of AR, is non-sedating due to decreased blood-brain barrier permeability, and is devoid of cardiovascular side effects. Importantly, fexofenadine relieves the ocular symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis, which occur concomitantly with AR, improving quality of life. Overall, fexofenadine displays a favorable safety profile and results in greater treatment satisfaction in children compared with other second-generation antihistamines. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine with other available first- and second-generation antihistamines in children with AR.

Prevalence and Burden of Chronic Cough in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough is a common complaint but there are little population-based data on its burden in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of chronic cough and its burden on individuals and the health care system. METHODS: This was a survey of respondents who completed the 2018 National Health and Wellness Survey and questions about sleep and health care resource use. Chronic cough was defined as having a daily cough for 8 or more weeks. Respondents without chronic cough were selected through propensity score matching. Chronic cough prevalence was estimated using poststratification sampling weights calculated using U.S. Census data and post-data Horvitz-Thompson sampling weights to adjust for sampling bias. RESULTS: Of 74,977 National Health and Wellness Survey respondents, 3,654 had experienced chronic cough in the previous 12 months, for a weighted prevalence of 5.0%. Respondents with chronic cough were older and more predominantly female than respondents without chronic cough (both P < .001). Compared with matched respondents without chronic cough, those with chronic cough had lower mean scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey v2 physical (P < .001) and mental (P < .001) component summary scores. More respondents with chronic cough than matched controls experienced severe anxiety and severe depression in the past 2 weeks, work productivity impairment, impaired sleep quality and daytime sleepiness, as well as more emergency department visits and hospitalizations in the past 6 months (P < .001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of chronic cough manifests itself as reduced health-related quality of life, increased anxiety and depression, impaired sleep and work productivity, and greater health care utilization.

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

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

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

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

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

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

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

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

Tiotropium Respimat® add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with symptomatic asthma improves clinical outcomes regardless of baseline characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Despite currently available therapies and detailed treatment guidelines, many patients with asthma remain symptomatic. Tiotropium delivered by the soft mist inhaler Respimat®, as add-on therapy to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), has been shown to improve lung function and asthma control in patients with symptomatic moderate asthma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in asthma differs by patients' study baseline characteristics. METHODS: Two replicate Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies (MezzoTinA-asthma®; NCT01172808 and NCT01172821) of once-daily tiotropium Respimat 5 µg and 2.5 µg add-on to ICS were conducted in patients with symptomatic asthma despite treatment with medium-dose ICS with or without additional controllers. Subgroup analyses of peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), trough FEV1, risk of severe asthma exacerbation and Asthma Control Questionnaire responder rate were performed to determine whether results were influenced by patients' baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In this analysis, 523 patients received placebo while 517 and 519 patients received the 5 µg and 2.5 µg dose of tiotropium Respimat, respectively. The magnitude of the improvements in lung function and asthma control, as well as the reduced risk of severe exacerbation with both doses of tiotropium Respimat versus placebo, was independent of a broad range of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat as add-on to ICS is a beneficial treatment option for patients with asthma who remain symptomatic despite at least medium-dose ICS, regardless of baseline characteristics.

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

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

Shared decision making for the allergist.

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

Onset of Action of the Fixed Combination Intranasal Azelastine-Fluticasone Propionate in an Allergen Exposure Chamber.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-dose combination of intranasal azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (MP-AzeFlu) is the most effective treatment of allergic rhinitis, but its onset of action requires further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset of action of MP-AzeFlu with the free combination of oral loratadine (LORA) and intranasal fluticasone propionate (INFP). METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, 3-period crossover trial, allergic rhinitis symptoms were induced in asymptomatic patients by ragweed pollen challenge in an allergen environmental exposure chamber. Patients received single-dose MP-AzeFlu, LORA/INFP, or placebo and were monitored for 4 hours. The primary outcome was onset of action measured by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary measures were total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total score of the 7 nasal and ocular symptoms (T7SS), and the global visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The full analysis set included 82 patients, of which 78 completed all treatments. TNSS was significantly reduced versus placebo from 5 minutes for MP-AzeFlu and 150 minutes for LORA/INFP onward (both P < .05) till the end of assessment (0-4 hours). MP-AzeFlu reduced TNSS to a greater extent at each time point from 5 to 90 minutes (P < .05) and over the entire assessment interval (P ≤ .005) versus LORA/INFP or placebo. No statistically significant difference between LORA/INFP and placebo was observed over the assessment interval (P = .182). The onset of action of MP-AzeFlu assessed by TOSS, T7SS, and VAS was 10 minutes, 2 hours earlier than with LORA/INFP. CONCLUSION: MP-AzeFlu had a more rapid onset of action (5 minutes) and was more effective than LORA/INFP.

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

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

Hot Topics in Primary Care: Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Guide for Primary Care.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the only potential disease-modifying treatment for allergic disease, has been used for more than a century. Hankin et al showed significant reduction in pharmacy, outpatient, and inpatient resources in the 6 months following vs the 6 months preceding AIT in Medicaid-enrolled children with allergic rhinitis (AR). A 2013 analysis showed sustained cost reduction over 18 months in patients with AR treated with AIT compared with matched control subjects not treated with AIT.

Findings from an Online Survey Assessing the Burden and Management of Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in US Patients.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) affects ≥16% of the US population annually. Telephone and in-office surveys have demonstrated negative effects of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms on sleep, daily activities, productivity, concentration, and emotions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the patient-perceived burden of SARC in relation to newer treatments, increased access to treatments, and changing management protocols. METHODS: An online survey of symptom experience, impact on daily life, and management was conducted in US respondents who suffer (or whose child suffers) from SARC symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 1001 surveys were completed: 500 adults (≥18 years old) and 501 children (12-17 years old, documented by their parents). Similar to earlier AR surveys, SARC symptoms negatively affected the patient's (and family's) quality of life, and were most severe in the spring. Before being treated, >50% of respondents reported daily symptoms during their season; 75% to 80% considered their symptoms moderate to severe. Patients saw a variety of health care professionals (including pharmacists) and used over-the-counter and prescription medications for symptoms. Those using prescription medications were generally more satisfied with treatment and less likely to switch or discontinue treatment. Nasal and/or ocular symptoms drove adherence, seeing a health care professional, and reviewing and/or changing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with SARC report moderate-to-severe symptoms that significantly impair their quality of life. However, patients appear to be taking more responsibility for their (child's) condition, and patient expectations for therapy are increasingly being met. Continued efforts will be needed to examine the contribution of better information and/or increased access to and availability of medications to control the disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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