Comparative nasal airflow with loratadine-pseudoephedrine and fluticasone nasal spray for allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Although it is known that oral antihistamine-pseudoephedrine combination tablets have a faster onset than intranasal corticosteroid sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis after the first dose, the magnitude of change has not been measured in a comparative manner. Furthermore, the sensation of sprayed liquid in the nose may lead patients to mistakenly believe that intranasal steroid sprays work instantly. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, numerically, nasal airflow changes provided by a single dose of loratadine-pseudoephedrine tablet (LP) and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FP) in participants experiencing allergic rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion. METHODS: This single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluated objective nasal airflow changes in patients with a documented sensitivity to ragweed pollen. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 4 treatment sequences, and their peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) was measured in a span of 4 hours after pollen exposure in an environmental exposure unit. RESULTS: Average change in PNIF was 31% with LP in the course of the study, significantly greater than with placebo and FP (12% and 15%, respectively; P < .001). Nevertheless, FP did not produce a significant change compared with its placebo. At hour one post-dose, LP had a clinically significant 31% increase in PNIF, whereas FP only yielded an 8.6% increase (P < .001). Measurable nasal airflow improvements are associated with the opening of nasal passages, allowing congested patients to breathe more freely. CONCLUSION: A single dose of LP quickly and significantly (P < .001) improved nasal airflow after ragweed pollen challenge in an environmental exposure unit. Comparatively, FP did not display this same benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03443843.

Clinical standardization of two controlled allergen challenge facilities: The Environmental Exposure Unit and the Biogenics Research Chamber.

BACKGROUND: Controlled allergen challenge facilities (CACF), in disparate geographic regions with dissimilar engineering and base populations, have historically functioned as single, independent sites in clinical allergy trials. We aimed to demonstrate "between-unit reproducibility" to allow controlled challenge trials of participants using 2 CACFs. OBJECTIVE: To compare and standardize 2 CACFs located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and San Antonio, Texas, by examining participant-reported symptom severity during qualifying and treatment visits and evaluating response to treatment, while using the same allergen. METHODS: At 2 different CACFs, participants were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover intervention trial with cetirizine 10 mg. Different distribution devices delivered common short ragweed pollen via laminar air flow and maintained an airborne concentration of 3500 ± 700 grains/m3 in both facilities. A 1-hour "sham" run with no pollen release preceded a priming exposure of 3 hours and was followed 3 days later by a qualifying/treatment 5-hour exposure. At least 14 days later, another priming exposure was followed by the crossover exposure and treatment. RESULTS: Forty-eight and 43 subjects completed the study at Kingston and San Antonio, respectively. Demographics were similar. Fewer than 10% exhibited symptoms with sham exposure. No significant differences were found between the 2 facilities in maximal total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score, total nasal symptom score, and total ocular symptom score, nor in areas under the curve. In both facilities, no significant effects of cetirizine 10 mg over placebo were detected. CONCLUSION: The results were equivalent, demonstrating that the 2 CACFs can be used together in dual-center clinical trials and show the possibility of multicenter trials involving multiple CACFs.

Lack of effect of Timothy grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet on birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Timothy grass pollen allergen extract tablets (Grastek) are standardized sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis. Many grass allergic patients are also cosensitized to birch pollen. Whether Timothy grass SLIT-T can confer symptomatic benefits for birch pollen-induced AR symptoms is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment effect of Timothy grass SLIT-T for birch pollen-induced AR in participants sensitized to both grass and birch pollen using an environmental exposure unit (EEU). METHODS: This study was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that enrolled participants aged 18 to 65 years allergic to both timothy grass and birch pollen. After a baseline EEU birch pollen challenge, in which a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 6 of 12 was required for enrollment, participants were randomized to receive Timothy grass SLIT-T or placebo taken once daily for 4 months. No confirmatory grass pollen challenge was performed. The primary end point was the change in TNSS averaged from assessments from hours 2 to 5 during the posttreatment birch pollen challenge compared with baseline. The secondary and exploratory end points included temporally identical changes in total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), and individual symptom scores. RESULTS: The difference in TNSS reduction after 4 months of therapy between the Timothy grass SLIT-T and placebo group was not significant (P = .83). Reductions in TOSS (P = .19) and TRSS (P = .67) were also comparable between groups. Findings between groups for individual symptom scores were similar (all P > .40), except for watery eyes, in which symptom reduction was slightly better in the placebo arm (P = .01). Timothy grass SLIT-T was well tolerated, and no serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: A bystander effect of grass SLIT-T on birch pollen-induced AR symptoms was not detected. Symptomatic benefits of grass SLIT-T are likely allergen specific. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02394600.

Clinical validation of controlled exposure to birch pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU).

BACKGROUND: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada is a controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) that has been previously clinically validated for the use of ragweed and grass pollen in clinical studies. In this study we aim to validate the use of birch pollen to challenge allergic participants. METHODS: A total of 59 volunteers were screened and 38 birch allergic participants and ten non-allergics completed the study, outside of tree pollen season. Participants had to have a minimum of 2-year history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the typical tree pollen season and have a positive skin prick test to birch allergen ≥5 mm from the control. Qualified participants were exposed to birch (Betula pendula) pollen for 4 h in the EEU and recorded their symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itch which comprised the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), as well as itchy/watery eyes, red/burning eyes and itching of ears/palate/throat which along with the TNSS comprised the total rhinoconjunctival symptom score (TRSS) along with Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) at baseline and at 30 min intervals for the duration of exposure, then hourly for up to 12 h from the start of exposure. RESULTS: Allergic participants reported a gradual rise in TNSS and TRSS, reaching a mean and standard error of the mean of 7.08 ± 0.45 and 11.58 ± 0.93 respectively by 180 min from the start of exposure. Symptoms gradually declined to near baseline values following departing from the unit, reaching 1.9 and 2.7 by 450 min. Allergic participants reported significantly higher TNSS than non-allergics starting from 30 min (p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections), maintaining maximum significance from 60 to 300 min (p < 0.0001) and losing significance by 420 min. TRSS and PNIF followed similar trends as those seen with TNSS. Participants were phenotyped using previously published definitions using the TNSS into Early Phase Responders (EPR, 57.8 %), protracted EPR (pEPR, 39.5 %), and Dual Phase Responders (DPR, 2.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: The EEU can competently challenge birch allergic participants and achieve statistically significant changes in symptoms and nasal airflow, while such changes are not reported in non-allergic controls. Trial registration NCT02351830 clinicaltrials.gov.

Add-on histamine receptor-3 antagonist for allergic rhinitis: a double blind randomized crossover trial using the environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Oral antihistamines that target the histamine receptor-1, such as fexofenadine, offer suboptimal relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal congestion. Combinations with oral sympathomimetics, such as pseudoephedrine, relieve congestion but produce side effects. Previous animal and human studies with histamine receptor-3 antagonists, such as PF-03654764, demonstrate promise. METHODS: Herein we employ the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) to conduct the first randomized controlled trial of PF-03654764 in allergic rhinitis. 64 participants were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 4-period crossover study. Participants were exposed to ragweed pollen for 6 hours post-dose in the EEU. The primary objective was to compare the effect of PF-03654764 + fexofenadine to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine on the subjective measures of congestion and Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). The objectives of our post-hoc analyses were to compare all treatments to placebo and determine the onset of action (OA). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01033396). RESULTS: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine was not superior to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine. In post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine significantly reduced TNSS, relative to placebo, and OA was 60 minutes. Pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine significantly reduced congestion and TNSS, relative to placebo, with OA of 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. Although this study was not powered for a statistical analysis of safety, it was noted that all PF-03654764-treated groups experienced an elevated incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine failed to provide superior relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal symptoms upon exposure to ragweed pollen compared to fexofenadine + pseudoephedrine. However, in post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine improved TNSS compared to placebo. Side effects in the PF-03654764-treated groups were clinically significant compared to the controls.