Randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetirizine and loratadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic treatment is a mainstay of allergy therapy and many caregivers use over-the-counter antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms in children. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of cetirizine 10 mg syrup versus loratadine 10 mg syrup versus placebo syrup in a randomized double-blind study of children, ages 6-11 years, with SAR. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 71 U.S. centers during the spring tree and grass pollen season. After a 1-week placebo run-in period, qualified subjects were randomized to once-daily cetirizine 10 mg (n = 231), loratadine 10 mg (n = 221), and placebo (n = 231) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in the subject's mean reflective total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score over 14 days. RESULTS: Children treated with cetirizine experienced significantly greater TSSC score reductions versus children treated with placebo over 14 days (least square mean change, -2.1 versus -1.6; p = 0.006). The differences in TSSC score improvement over 14 days between the cetirizine versus loratadine groups (-2.1 versus -1.8; p = 0.124) and between the loratadine versus placebo groups (-1.8 versus -1.6; p = 0.230) were not statistically significant. Predominant adverse events in the cetirizine, loratadine, and placebo groups were headache (3.5, 3.6, and 3.1%, respectively) and pharyngitis (3.5, 2.7, and 3.5%, respectively). Somnolence was reported in three subjects (1.3%) treated with cetirizine and in none of the other subjects. CONCLUSION: Cetirizine 10 mg was statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of SAR symptoms in children ages 6-11 years. Symptom improvement was not significantly different between the loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups.

Efficacy of bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution 1.5% for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, natural exposure, clinical trial.

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) affects an estimated 20% of the population in the Western world, with a large fraction suffering due to seasonal or perennial allergen exposures. Bepotastine besilate ophthalmic solution (BBOS) 1.5%, a dual-acting histamine (H(1)) receptor antagonist and mast cell stabilizer, is indicated for itching associated with AC. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BBOS 1.5% for reducing ocular itching associated with AC in subjects enrolled in a natural exposure trial. Eligible subjects in a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, natural exposure clinical trial were randomly assigned to either BBOS 1.5% or placebo eyedrops on a 1:1 basis and instilled 1 drop of the test agent into both eyes twice daily for 2 weeks. The mean change from baseline in instantaneous and reflective ocular itching scores at the end of 2 weeks of treatment were evaluated based on subject-assessed severity of instantaneous and reflective itching. Subject-reported adverse events (AEs) were also recorded for safety. Treatment with BBOS 1.5% significantly reduced instantaneous and reflective ocular itching scores from baseline compared with placebo over the 2-week study period(p = 0.007 and p = 0.005, respectively). BBOS 1.5% was well tolerated, and AEs were generally transient and mild. This clinical study indicates BBOS 1.5% effectively and safely treated ocular itching in a natural exposure allergy study and is a useful treatment option for the management of ocular itching associated with AC. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT01174823.)

Clinical efficacy of 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in a US study: the importance of allergen-specific serum IgE.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the efficacy, safety, and optimal dosage of the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet for adults and children with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 300 index of reactivity (IR) 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in US adults. METHODS: Adults with grass pollen allergy and Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Scores of 12 or greater (scale, 0-18) during the previous grass pollen season were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to receive 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet or placebo starting 4 months before and continuing through the pollen season. The primary efficacy end point was the daily Combined Score (CS; scale, 0-3), which integrates symptoms and rescue medication use. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three participants were randomized. The mean daily CS over the pollen period was significantly lower in the active treatment group versus the placebo group (least-squares mean difference: -0.13; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.06; P = .0003; relative reduction: 28.2%; 95% CI, 13.0% to 43.4%). In placebo-treated participants, the daily CS least-squares mean was 0.32 in the subgroup with baseline timothy grass-specific serum IgE of less than 0.1 kU/L (n = 23) and 0.46 in those with baseline timothy grass-specific serum IgE of 0.1 kU/L or greater (n = 204). The most frequent reported adverse events were oral pruritus, throat irritation, and nasopharyngitis. There were no reports of anaphylaxis, and no actively treated participant received epinephrine. CONCLUSION: In US adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, preseasonal and coseasonal treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy, especially in study subjects with measurable timothy grass-specific serum IgE. Use of 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet was safe and well tolerated. A requirement for a measurable level of allergen-specific serum IgE should be considered in future studies in this field.

Safety of ragweed sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablets in adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

A sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) is under development to treat ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). This study investigates the optimal tolerable dose of once daily ragweed pollen AIT.Subjects 18-50 years old with ragweed-induced ARC were enrolled at two U.S. centers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled,dose-escalation study outside ragweed season. Groups (12 subjects each) were to be randomized 3:1 to 28 days of active treatment (groups assigned in sequence to 3, 6, 12, 24, 50, or 100 units of Ambrosia artemislifolia major allergen 1 [Amb a 1 U],without dose buildup at any level) or matching placebo. Recruitment to 50 Amb a 1-U was discontinued because of adverse events (AEs) after four AIT subjects were enrolled; 100 Amb a 1-U was not initiated. Fifty-three subjects were randomized (AIT,n = 40; placebo, n = 13); four discontinued, all because of AEs (AIT, n = 3; placebo, n = 1). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were more frequent with AIT (73%) than placebo (31%), increasing with dose level. AIT TRAEs were mostly mild (94%) or moderate(5%). No serious TRAEs or anaphylactic shock occurred. The most common TRAEs with AIT were localized pruritus, nasal irritation, and throat irritation. Median onset for common AIT application site reactions was 24 ≤ hours after first treatment (median duration, 15-50 minutes). AIT increased immunoglobulin (Ig) significantly more than placebo (ragweed-specific IgE [6, 12, and 24 Amb a 1-U]; IgG4 [all doses]; p < 0.05). Three subjects in dose groups ≥ 24 Amb a 1-U experienced symptoms suggestive of systemic reaction. Of tested doses, ragweed AIT 24

Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) are the most effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, available INS safety and efficacy data in children younger than 6 years are limited. OBJECTIVE: To report the first well-controlled study assessing the safety and efficacy of an INS in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR. METHODS: In a 4-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to receive triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray (TAA AQ), 110 microg once daily, or placebo. A subset of children continued into a 6-month, open-label phase. Efficacy end points included total nasal symptom scores. Safety measures included reports of adverse events, morning serum cortisol levels before and after cosyntropin infusion, and growth as measured using office stadiometry. RESULTS: A total of 474 patients were randomized to receive TAA AQ (n = 236) or placebo (n = 238); 436 entered the open-label extension phase. Adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline during the double-blind period in instantaneous and reflective total nasal symptom scores were -2.28 (0.16) and -2.31 (0.15), respectively, in the TAA AQ group (P = .09) vs -1.92 (0.16) and -1.87 (0.15) in the placebo group (P = .03). Adverse event rates were comparable between treatment groups. There was no significant change from baseline in serum cortisol levels after cosyntropin infusion at study end. The distribution of children by stature-for-age percentile remained stable during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Use of TAA AQ, 110 microg once daily, for up to 6 months offers a favorable efficacy to safety ratio in children aged 2 to 5 years with perennial AR.

Effects of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study in adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an allergen-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs during periods of high pollen count. Current treatments for SAR include allergen avoidance, systemic antihistamines, and steroidal and nonsteroidal intranasal sprays. Olopatadine is a selective antihistamine and an inhibitor of proinflammatory mediators from human mast cells. An intranasal formulation of olopatadine has been developed for the treatment of SAR. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olopatadine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray 0.1% (AZE) and an inactive vehicle in the treatment of SAR. METHODS: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 21 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were aged > or =12 years and had a history of SAR and verified allergy to a prevalent local allergen. After a run-in period during which inactive vehicle was administered, patients were randomly assigned to OLO, AZE (active control), or inactive vehicle (identical to OLO; placebo control), 2 sprays in each nostril BID for 16 days. The timing of enrollment was correlated with the start of the allergy season at each site. Symptoms were recorded twice daily in an electronic diary. Efficacy assessments included changes in mean daily reflective total nasal symptom scores (TNSS). Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs) and nasal, physical, and cardiovascular parameters. RESULTS: A total of 544 patients were randomized. The mean age was 36 years (range, 12-77 years); men and boys represented 32.2% of the population; and the patients were predominantly white (75.4%). The mean reductions from baseline in reflective TNSS were 26.8%, 29.9%, and 18.4% with OLO, AZE, and inactive vehicle, respectively (P = 0.003 OLO vs inactive vehicle; 95% CI, -2.5% to 8.7% OLO vs AZE [non-inferiority]). The most commonly reported treatment-related AE in the OLO and AZE groups was bitter taste (12.2% [22/180] and 19.7% [37/188], respectively). The prevalence and intensity of bitter taste were significantly lower with OLO than with AZE (P = 0.05 and P = 0.005, respectively). In the group that received inactive vehicle, the prevalence of bitter taste was 1.7% (3/176). The prevalences of other treatment-related AEs, including epistaxis and nasal discomfort, were < or =3.7% in each group and did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study in patients aged > or =12 years with SAR, the percentage reduction from baseline in TNSS was significantly greater with OLO (2 sprays in each nostril BID) compared with vehicle and not significantly different from that with AZE. OLO and AZE were similarly well tolerated, with the exception of prevalence and intensity of bitter taste, which were significantly lower with OLO.

Prevalence and impact of nighttime symptoms in adults and children with asthma: a survey.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of nighttime asthma symptoms is an important measure of asthma severity. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of daytime and nighttime symptoms in adults and children with asthma and to evaluate the impact of nighttime symptoms on sleep and daytime activities. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among adults (> 18 years) and mothers of children aged 2 to 17 years with asthma. The survey included questions on daytime and nighttime asthma symptoms and asthma controller medication. Invitations to complete the survey were sent to 6349 members of a global opinion panel who were identified as having asthma. Data collection was from April to May 2005. RESULTS: A total of 1600 invited panelists responded to the survey. Overall, 61% of participants reported nighttime asthma symptoms and 74% reported daytime asthma symptoms. Asthma-related sleep difficulties occurred approximately 4 times per week in adults and approximately 3 times per week in children. A significantly greater proportion of adults than children reported bothersome symptoms in the morning on awakening. Wheezing and difficulty breathing were reported in a greater proportion of adults, whereas coughing was reported in a greater proportion of children. A greater proportion of adults than children reported feelings of tiredness and impaired activity on days after experiencing nighttime symptoms. Absenteeism and lateness were more commonly reported by mothers of children with asthma than by other adults. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of reported asthma symptoms, particularly nighttime symptoms, and the effects of nighttime symptoms on sleep and daytime activities indicates that survey participants had poorly controlled asthma.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of an oral suspension of fexofenadine for children with allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic condition in children and may impact a child's quality of life. Increasing treatment compliance may improve quality of life. An oral suspension of fexofenadine hydrochloride (HCl) has been developed to ease administration to children and may, therefore, improve treatment compliance. The purpose of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior, safety, and tolerability of a single dose of fexofenadine HCl oral suspension administered to children aged 2-5 years with allergic rhinitis. Children (aged 2-5 years) with AR were recruited in a multicenter, open-label, single-dose study. Fexofenadine HCl (30 mg) was administered as a 6-mg/mL suspension (5 mL). Plasma samples were collected up to 24 hours postdose. Adverse events (AEs); electrocardiograms (ECGs); vital signs; and clinical laboratory tests for hematology, blood chemistry, and urinalysis were analyzed to evaluate safety and tolerability. Fifty subjects completed the study. Mean maximum plasma concentration of fexofenadine was 224 ng/mL, and mean area under the plasma concentration curve was 898 ng . hour/mL. Treatment-emergent AEs were mild in intensity and reported in a total of seven subjects. No trends or clinically meaningful changes in mean ECG, vital sign, or clinical laboratory test data occurred during the study. In children aged 2-5 years, the exposure after a 30-mg dose of fexofenadine HCl suspension was similar to the exposures previously seen after a 30- and 60-mg dose of fexofenadine HCl in children aged 6-11 years and in adults, respectively. The suspension was also well tolerated.

Mometasone furoate monohydrate nasal spray for the treatment of nasal congestion in allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects an estimated 20-40 million Americans annually. It is a multifaceted condition comprising a range of symptoms, including nasal congestion, arguably the most bothersome symptom. Of the various types of medications available for the treatment of AR, intranasal corticosteroids are considered the most effective. Mometasone furoate nasal spray is an intranasal corticosteroid with anti-inflammatory properties. It is indicated for the treatment of the nasal symptoms of seasonal AR and perennial AR in adults and children, for the prophylaxis of nasal symptoms of seasonal AR and for the treatment of nasal polyps. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated that mometasone furoate nasal spray effectively relieves nasal congestion in adults and children with AR, while providing excellent safety and tolerability.

Montelukast in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: an evidence-based review.

Cysteinyl-leukotrienes (CysLTs) are endogenous mediators of inflammation and play an important role in allergic airway disease by stimulating bronchoconstriction, mucus production, mucosal oedema and inflammation, airway infiltration by eosinophils, and dendritic cell maturation that prepares for future allergic response. Montelukast inhibits these actions by blocking type 1 CysLT receptors found on immunocytes, smooth muscle and endothelium in the respiratory mucosa. Initially developed as a treatment for asthma, montelukast has more recently found use in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic review of studies that have evaluated montelukast in the treatment of seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR), with and without concomitant asthma. Primary consideration was given to large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which AR endpoints were assessed and the use of concurrent treatments for AR was excluded. Eight such studies were found in the literature. The primary endpoint in these was daytime nasal symptom severity represented by a composite score derived from individual self-ratings of nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, nasal pruritus and sneezing. Secondary endpoints have included these individual nasal symptom scores, additional scores for eye, ear and throat symptoms, the impact of rhinitis on quality of sleep, global evaluations of outcome by patients and physicians, and measures of the severity of concomitant asthma. A general outcome was that patients treated with montelukast had significantly greater improvements in their symptoms of SAR and PAR than did patients who were given a placebo. As monotherapy, montelukast exhibited efficacy similar to that of loratadine, but less than that of the intranasally administered corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. The use of montelukast in combination with antihistamines such as loratadine or cetirizine has generally resulted in greater efficacy than when these agents were used alone, and in some studies has produced results comparable with intranasally applied corticosteroids. In patients with AR comorbid with asthma, montelukast treatment has resulted in significant improvements in both, compared with placebo. Montelukast is well tolerated and has a favourable safety profile; adverse events have occurred at similar frequencies in patients taking either montelukast or placebo. Montelukast provides an effective and well tolerated oral treatment for allergic airway inflammation in patients with SAR or PAR without asthma, and in patients in whom AR is comorbid with asthma.

Judicious antibiotic use and intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis.

Most patients with symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis are treated with antibiotics. However, many cases of rhinosinusitis are secondary to viral infections and unlikely to benefit from antibiotic therapy. Inappropriate use of antibiotics in patients with acute nonbacterial rhinosinusitis contributes to the increase in bacterial antibiotic resistance. Consequently, safe and effective alternatives to antibiotics are needed in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral infections. Recent results from controlled trials have shown that intranasal corticosteroids, used in combination with antibiotics or as monotherapy in selected cases, provide significant symptom relief and resolution of acute rhinosinusitis. The use of intranasal corticosteroids in acute rhinosinusitis therefore might reduce the inappropriate use of antimicrobial therapy in acute rhinosinusitis.

Inhaled mometasone furoate reduces oral prednisone usage and improves lung function in severe persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: The reduction of oral prednisone use by mometasone furoate (MF) delivered by HFA-227 metered dose inhaler (MDI) was examined in oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent patients with severe persistent asthma. METHODS: A 3-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (n=123), followed by a 9-month open-label phase (n=120). The study was conducted at 26 medical centers in the United States. Patients were randomized to treatment with MF-MDI 400 or 800 microg twice-daily (bid) doses, or placebo in the double-blind trial. All patients received MF in the open-label phase. RESULTS: At the endpoint of the double-blind trial, MF-MDI 400 and 800 microg bid reduced the daily OCS dose by 39.4% and 31.1%, respectively, while placebo increased the OCS dose by 107.2% (P<0.01). The OCS requirement was reduced by 50% or more in 63% and 60% of patients treated with MF-MDI 400 and 800 microg bid, respectively, compared with 14% of patients receiving placebo. After 12 weeks, despite prednisone reductions, pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, albuterol use, nocturnal awakenings, and physician-evaluated response to therapy also showed significant improvement with MF-MDI treatment compared with placebo. Further reductions in OCS requirements were achieved with long-term MF-MDI treatment in the open-label phase, with an overall 67% reduction in prednisone usage and 51% of patients completely eliminating prednisone usage by the 1-year time point. CONCLUSION: MF delivered by HFA-227 MDI significantly reduces daily OCS use compared with placebo and facilitates elimination of OCS use in patients with severe persistent asthma.

Mometasone furoate improves congestion in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: A recent survey estimated that 85% of patients with allergic rhinitis experience nasal congestion. This symptom considerably impacts quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) experiencing moderate-to-severe nasal congestion. METHODS: Data were obtained from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of MFNS 200 microg once daily in patients with SAR. Subject-evaluated nasal congestion score data (score range 0-3) from subjects receiving MFNS or placebo were analyzed as a pool and grouped according to baseline score (all pts. with scores >2.5, >2.75, or 3.0). The 2-week average change in score from baseline was analyzed. RESULTS: Significant improvements in mean nasal congestion score were seen with MFNS (n = 490) versus placebo (n = 492; p < 0.001). Overall, there was a 27% improvement in this score in patients receiving MFNS versus 13% with placebo. MFNS produced significant reductions in the nasal congestion score compared with placebo, even in patients with the most severe baseline congestion (0.98 vs 0.52; p < 0.001). Improvements in scores from baseline of 32%, 33%, and 34% were seen with MFNS versus 22%, 21%, and 18% with placebo (for baseline scores of >2.5, >2.75, or 3.0, respectively), confirming the effectiveness of MFNS regardless of congestion severity. This represents an improvement approximating a decrease from severe to moderate congestion or from moderate-to-severe to mild-to-moderate congestion. MFNS was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: MFNS 200 microg once daily produces statistically significant improvements in nasal congestion score compared with placebo, alleviating severe congestion in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR.

Pharmacokinetics of topical calcineurin inhibitors in adult atopic dermatitis: a randomized, investigator-blind comparison.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare pharmacokinetics of pimecrolimus cream 1% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1% in adults with extensive, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Secondary end points included efficacy and safety. METHODS: Patients received twice-daily treatment for 13 days. Blood concentrations of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus were measured at days 1, 5, and 13. Treatment success was defined as an Investigators' Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). RESULTS: Tacrolimus was detectable in 36% of blood samples and pimecrolimus was detectable in 12%. In patients with measurable blood drug concentrations, systemic exposure to tacrolimus (mean area under the curve(0-10h) < 9.7 ng.h/mL; n = 7) was higher than to pimecrolimus (mean area under the curve(0-10h) < 2.5 ng.h/mL; n = 2). Whole-body treatment success (day 13) was achieved in 1 of 18 (5.6%) and 2 of 19 (10.5%) patients treated with pimecrolimus and tacrolimus, respectively, and face/neck treatment success in 5 of 18 (27.8%) and 5 of 19 (26.3%) patients, respectively. Patients included in the study were adult patients with severe atopic dermatitis. The results and conclusions drawn from this study population may not be applicable for the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis who have mild to moderate disease. CONCLUSION: Pimecrolimus appears to be associated with lower systemic drug exposure than tacrolimus.

Effectiveness of azelastine nasal spray compared with oral cetirizine in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Azelastine nasal spray and oral cetirizine are selective histamine H(1)-receptor antagonists that are approved in the United States for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of azelastine nasal spray administered at the recommended dosage of 2 sprays per nostril twice daily with those of cetirizine in the treatment of moderate to severe SAR. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 2-week comparative study was conducted during the 2004 fall allergy season in patients with moderate to severe SAR. After a 1-week placebo lead-in period, patients were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray 2 sprays per nostril twice daily plus placebo tablets or cetirizine 10-mg tablets once daily plus a placebo saline nasal spray for the 2-week double-blind treatment period. The primary efficacy variables were (1) change from baseline to day 14 in the 12-hour reflective total nasal symptom score (TNSS), which combines scores for rhinorrhea, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion, and (2) onset of action, based on the instantaneous TNSS over 4 hours after the first dose of study drug. During the double-blind treatment period, patients recorded their symptom scores on diary cards twice daily (morning and evening). Patients aged > or =18 years also completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at baseline and on day 14. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to treatment, and 299 completed 2 weeks of study treatment. The age of the population ranged from 12 to 74 years (mean, 35 years), 62.9% were female, and 69.6% were white. Over 2 weeks of treatment, both groups had significant improvements in the TNSS compared with baseline (P < 0.001). The overall change in TNSS was significantly greater with azelastine nasal spray compared with cetirizine (29.3% vs 23.0% improvement, respectively; P = 0.015). In terms of onset of action, azelastine nasal spray significantly improved the instantaneous TNSS compared with cetirizine at 60 and 240 minutes after the initial dose (both, P = 0.040). Scores on each domain of the RQLQ were significantly improved in both groups compared with baseline (P < 0.001); the overall RQLQ score was significantly improved with azelastine nasal spray compared with cetirizine (P = 0.049). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this 2-week study in patients with moderate to severe SAR, azelastine nasal spray was well tolerated and produced significantly greater improvements in TNSS and total RQLQ score compared with cetirizine.

Efficacy and safety of desloratadine/pseudoephedrine tablet, 2.5/120 mg two times a day, versus individual components in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Although antihistamines are highly effective in alleviating many symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), relief from nasal congestion is variable. The efficacy of desloratadine, an effective antihistamine, in combination with pseudoephedrine, a potent nasal decongestant, was evaluated to determine whether combination therapy was more effective than individual component therapy in reducing nasal congestion, as well as other SAR symptoms. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, three-arm study included 650 patients with SAR. For 2 weeks, patients were administered a combination tablet of desloratadine plus pseudoephedrine (desloratadine/pseudoephedrine, 2.5/120 mg) twice per day (b.i.d.), desloratadine (5 mg) once per day, or pseudoephedrine (120 mg) b.i.d. Patients assessed the severity of their SAR symptoms twice daily on symptom diary cards. The primary variable-change from baseline in the reflective A.M./P.M. total symptom score, excluding nasal congestion-was significantly superior (-6.7) compared with desloratadine (-5.4) or pseudoephedrine (-5.3) alone (p < or = 0.001 versus either group). Secondary efficacy variables including total symptom scores (plus congestion), total nasal symptom scores, and total nonnasal symptom scores were significantly reduced after desloratadine/pseudoephedrine therapy compared with the individual components. The most frequently reported adverse events were insomnia, headache, and dry mouth. Desloratadine/pseudoephedrine, 2.5/120 mg b.i.d., therapy was more effective in reducing total symptom scores of SAR, including nasal congestion, than were the individual components. These results support the use of this combination therapy over desloratadine or pseudoephedrine alone.

The effect of montelukast on rhinitis symptoms in patients with asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate montelukast 10 mg daily as treatment for allergic rhinitis in patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis and active asthma during the allergy season. METHODS: This was a multicenter study of 831 patients (ages 15 years-85 years) with seasonal allergen sensitivity, active symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, and active asthma. Following a single-blind, placebo run-in period of 3 days-5 days, patients were randomized to oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 415) or placebo (n = 416) daily during the 2-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score, average of Daytime Nasal Symptoms and Nighttime Symptoms, as self-rated by patients on a 0-3 scale on daily diaries. RESULTS: Montelukast reduced the Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score: difference between montelukast and placebo in mean change from baseline was -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.06; p < or = 0.001]. Similar improvements were seen in Daytime Nasal Symptoms (-0.14 [-0.21, -0.07; p < or = 0.001]) and Nighttime Symptoms (-0.10 [-0.16, -0.04; p < or = 0.001]). Improvements (p < 0.05) were seen in Daytime Eye Symptoms and in the secondary endpoints of Global Evaluations of AR by Patient and by Physician, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life. In exploratory analyses, improvement in rhinitis symptoms was numerically (though not statistically) larger in patients with greater levels of asthma at study start. Montelukast provided benefit in the Global Evaluations of Asthma by Patient and by Physician: mean differences were -0.24 [-0.41, -0.06; p = 0.008] and -0.17 [-0.33, -0.01; p = 0.037]. Similarly, as-needed beta-agonist use (puffs/day) was reduced with montelukast (p < or = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Montelukast provides significant relief from symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, while also conferring a benefit for asthma, in patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Montelukast for treating fall allergic rhinitis: effect of pollen exposure in 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Montelukast, a potent leukotriene receptor antagonist, is an effective therapy for symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, a disease governed by patients' individual sensitivity and exposure to relevant allergens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of montelukast treatment effect vs pollen exposure in studies conducted during 3 consecutive fall allergy seasons. METHOD: A combined analysis of these multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies was performed; 1 of the 3 studies is presented for the first time in this article. After a placebo run-in period, 1,862 symptomatic patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10-mg montelukast tablet (n = 929) or placebo (n = 933) once daily for 2 weeks. Pollen exposure was summarized by mean daily weed pollen count. The interaction between treatment effect and pollen exposure was evaluated on the primary efficacy endpoint and daytime nasal symptom score, as rated by patients; also evaluated was the influence of the timing of the 2-week treatment period relative to the peak of the weed pollen season. RESULTS: Montelukast significantly improved daytime nasal symptoms score and individual scores of congestion, rhinorrhea, itching, and sneezing compared with placebo. There was a significant interaction (P < .043) between treatment effect and weed pollen exposure; a larger treatment effect was noted in patients exposed to higher pollen counts. An interaction between treatment effect and timing of treatment in relation to peak pollen season was suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast significantly improved daytime nasal symptoms score in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the effect was greater in patients exposed to higher pollen levels.

A review of montelukast in the treatment of asthma and allergic rhinitis.

Montelukast sodium (Singulair, Merck) is a selective and orally-active leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) that inhibits the cysteinyl leukotriene 1 (CysLT1) receptor. Montelukast is an effective and well-tolerated preventative treatment for asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children. The upper and lower airway show similar inflammatory responses to allergen challenge. Leukotrienes are inflammatory mediators that are known as the slow-reacting substance of anaphylaxis produced by a number of cell types including mast cells, eosinophils, basophils, macrophages and monocytes. Synthesis of these mediators results from the cleavage of arachidonic acid in cell membranes and they exert their biological effects by binding and activating specific receptors. This occurs in a series of events that lead to contraction of the human airway smooth muscle, chemotaxis and increased vascular permeability. These effects have led to their important role in the diseases of asthma and allergic rhinitis. As these agents lead to the production of symptoms in patients that are asthmatic or allergic, the use of LTRAs, particularly montelukast, may seem appropriate. Clinical trials have shown that montelukast is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with asthma, allergic rhinitis or both diseases.

A randomized trial of etanercept as monotherapy for psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine safety and efficacy of monotherapy with etanercept. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. SETTING: Outpatient, ambulatory; private practice and university dermatology research centers. PATIENTS: Patients aged at least 18 years, with plaque psoriasis involving 10% or more of body surface area; 148 were screened and 112 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and received study drug. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received placebo or etanercept, 25 mg, subcutaneously twice a week for 24 weeks. Other psoriasis therapies were limited during the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety measurements included tracking of adverse events and laboratory values. Efficacy was evaluated using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI); the primary end point was a 75% improvement in PASI. Other efficacy measurements included patient and physician global assessments and quality-of-life measures. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, 17 (30%) of the 57 etanercept-treated patients and 1 (2%) of the 55 placebo-treated patients had achieved PASI 75%, and after 24 weeks, 32 (56%) of etanercept-treated patients and 3 (5%) of placebo-treated patients had reached this level (P<.001 for both time points). By 24 weeks, psoriasis was clear or minimal by physician's global assessment in more than 50% of patients who received etanercept. Treatment failure (PASI response <50) occurred in 23% of patients at week 24. All other measures confirmed the efficacy of etanercept. Adverse events were similar among etanercept and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept monotherapy provided significant benefit to patients with psoriasis and had a favorable safety profile.