Targeting adenosine receptors in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that adenosine plays a role in the pathogenesis of asthma and rhinitis; however, it is currently unclear whether adenosine receptors are useful therapeutic targets in the treatment of allergic airway diseases. OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the efficacy of intranasal treatment with an adenosine A(2A) receptor agonist/adenosine A(3) receptor antagonist (50 micro g), administered twice daily for 7 days, to reduce nasal symptoms and release of inflammatory mediators following intranasal allergen challenge in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). The compound was compared with twice-daily treatment with intranasal fluticasone proprionate nasal spray (FPANS) for 7 days. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-way balanced, incomplete block, crossover study was conducted on 48 males with verified AR. Following intranasal challenge with either an extract from the house dust mite (HDM), Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, rye grass or cat dander, nasal responses and the concentrations of albumin, tryptase, myeloperoxidase, eosinophilic cationic protein, epithelial neutrophil-activating protein-78 (ENA-78), IL-5 and IL-8 in nasal secretions were measured and treatment groups were compared. RESULTS: Drug improved nasal blockage but had no significant effect on rhinorrhoea, number of sneezes or peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements when compared with placebo. Drug reduced tryptase release after EAR but did not significantly reduce the levels of other mediators. CONCLUSION: A novel agonist/antagonist of adenosine A(2A) and A(3) receptors appears to have limited clinical benefit in both the early-phase and the late-phase response to intranasal allergen challenge. However, reduction of some pro-inflammatory mediators suggests that comparable, more selective compounds may have additional benefits meriting further investigation.

Repeatability of peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements and utility for assessing the severity of rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) provides a simple, cheap, fast and readily available tool for determining the extent of nasal airway patency. However, there are questions regarding its repeatability when used to assess the degree of nasal obstruction in large populations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of PNIF measurements and to assess their association with the signs and symptoms of rhinitis. METHODS: The PNIF, rhinitis symptoms, judged by Meltzer questionnaire and rhinitis signs, as determined by anterior rhinoscopy, were assessed in 283 adults representative of the general population. One training and two test PNIF measurements were recorded during the same session. RESULTS: The PNIF was highly reproducible (ICC = 0.92; 95% limits of agreement: +/-36 l/min). The PNIF was strongly correlated with rhinitis signs, measured by anterior rhinoscopy (rs= -0.38, P < 0.0001) but was not correlated with rhinitis symptoms, measured by questionnaire (rs= -0.11, P = 0.057). Differences in PNIF for subjects categorized as asymptomatic, mild or moderate/severe on the basis of rhinitis signs, were highly significant (P < 0.0001), but less significant on the basis of rhinitis symptoms (P = 0.04). A PNIF cut-off of 115 l/min had moderately high specificity (72%) and sensitivity (65%) and a high negative predictive value (90%) for moderate/severe signs of rhinitis. CONCLUSION: In a large general population-based sample of young adults, PNIF was highly reproducible and closely related to the signs of rhinitis, as determined by clinical examination. The PNIF provides information that is qualitatively different to that provided by symptom scores and may be useful to measure the extent of nasal obstruction.