Intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine combinations in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: the role of the novel formulation olopatadine/mometasone furoate.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disease with an important impact on the quality of life and very high management costs. In many patients, the poor control of rhinitis symptoms often requires the use of different drugs, and polytherapy tends to reduce therapeutic adherence. According to the latest version of ARIA guidelines, the currently recommended drugs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AR are second-generation antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and their combination, even in a single nasal spray device. A single medication with a rapid onset of action, acting on breakthrough symptoms too, would be advantageous, also in terms of patient compliance. AREAS COVERED: GSP301 (olopatadine 600 µg - mometasone furoate 25 µg) is a novel intranasal formulation, combining the second-generation antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride with mometasone furoate. Here, we review the evidence for GSP301, especially concerning the efficacy and safety profile of this intranasal combination in the treatment of AR. EXPERT OPINION: The evidence provided in the current review clearly supports the use of GSP301 as a novel intranasal corticosteroid/antihistamine combination with a well-documented efficacy and safety profile in terms of rapid symptom relief and good tolerability.

Intranasal Olopatadine-Mometasone in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal olopatadine hydrochloride-mometasone furoate (OM) combination in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). DATA SOURCES: The PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: mometasone + olopatadine, GSP301, mometasone furoate, and olopatadine hydrochloride. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles published in English between January 1987 and August 2022 related to pharmacology, safety, and clinical trials were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 2 phase II clinical trials, twice-daily (BID) and once-daily (QDay) intranasal OM demonstrated significant improvements in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and QDay P < 0.001) and instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) (BID P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001; QDay P < 0.001 and P < 0.0001). In 2 phase III clinical trials, BID OM showed significant improvements in rTNSS vs. placebo (P < 0.001), olopatadine monotherapy (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003), and mometasone monotherapy (P = 0.02 and P = 0.059). RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: OM is indicated for treatment of SAR symptoms. Caution with use must be considered for certain high-risk patients, existing tuberculosis; fungal, bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections; or ocular herpes simplex. Due to its quick and sustained onset of action, OM may be an ideal agent for initial treatment of moderate-severe SAR for patients 12 years and older. CONCLUSION: OM significantly improves SAR symptoms and is a viable treatment option in short-term SAR.

Inhaled indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate fixed-dose combination in moderate-to-severe asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Fixed-dose long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations and add-on therapies as needed are the mainstay for maintenance therapy in asthma. However, more than 40% of patients have an inadequately controlled disease. The development of triple fixed-dose combinations consisting of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA/ICS has paved the way for a new approach to reach therapeutic goals of an optimal control of symptoms and an effective prevention of future exacerbations. AREAS COVERED: A search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), using the MeSH terms [asthma] + [indacaterol] + [glycopyrronium] +[mometasone furoate] + [treatment], until October 2021. Original data from clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies and reviews were selected. Clinical studies with IND/MF/GLY (Enerzair Breezhaler) are summarized, and its place in current asthma therapy is examined. EXPERT OPINION: Triple therapy has been shown to be an effective and safe therapeutic option for asthma patients who remain uncontrolled despite ICS/LABA combination. The recently approved single-inhaler indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone fixed dose combination has demonstrated to significantly reduce exacerbations, improve FEV1, symptoms and quality of life compared to ICS/LABA, including, salmeterol/fluticasone combination. Moreover, once-daily dosing may improve adherence.

The possibility of short-term hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with high-volume, high-dose nasal mometasone irrigation in postsurgical patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Medically refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is often treated with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) and high-volume steroid nasal irrigation. While budesonide is the most common steroid irrigation for this indication, mometasone has a superior pharmacokinetic profile, which may allow dose escalation. The safety and efficacy of mometasone at higher concentrations than previously used in treating CRS have not been explored. METHODS: Patients were recruited from a tertiary level clinic between June 2018 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria included adults (>18 years); CRS diagnosis; previous FESS; pre-treatment morning cortisol within normal range; minimum of twice daily high-volume sinonasal mometasone irrigations (total dose of 4 mg) for 12 weeks; and post-treatment morning cortisol measured within 2 weeks following the study period. Patients with potential for endogenous or exogenous disruption of the HPA axis were excluded. RESULTS: 14 patients were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. In all but one patient, pre- and post-treatment morning cortisol levels were not significantly different and were within normal limits (6.7-25.4 µg/dL). Following an uninterrupted 12-week treatment course, no evidence of HPA axis suppression was found (P = 0.915). The single patient who was found to have a low (1.3 µg/dL) post-treatment morning serum cortisol level reportedly received an intraarticular steroid shot several days prior to the blood draw. She remained asymptomatic and her rechecked serum cortisol was within normal limits at 12.3 µg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume 2 mg twice daily sinonasal mometasone irrigations did not cause HPA axis suppression in a representative sample of patients with refractory CRS post-FESS with normal baseline cortisol levels.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Local Delivery of Mometasone Furoate from an Eluting Endotracheal Tube Reduces Airway Morbidity Following Long-Term Animal Intubation.

BACKGROUND: upper airway complications are common sequelae of endotracheal tube (ETT) intubation, and systemic corticosteroids are considered a mainstay treatment for this problem. Drug-eluting ETT may present an attractive option for topical steroid delivery while avoiding systemic side effects and improving the therapeutic outcome. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the reduction of tube-related tracheal morbidity via a self-designed steroid-eluting ETT with controlled sustained release properties in an animal model. METHODS: steroid-eluting ETTs were coated by poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) -electrospun nanofibers loaded with mometasone furoate (MF) as a model drug. Animals were randomly assigned into three equal groups: non-intubated, blank-ETT, and loaded-ETT. The intubation interval was 1 week. Specimens were analyzed by histology, specific fibrosis staining, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: the blank-ETT group exhibited a significant increase in tracheal mucosal thickness compared to the loaded-ETT and control groups. Average tracheal mucosal thickness was 112 ± 34, 242 ± 49, and 113 ± 43 µm in the control, blank-ETT, and loaded-ETT groups, respectively. The blank-ETT group exhibited a significant increase in tracheal fibrosis compared to the loaded-ETT and control groups. Relative fibrosis values were 0.07 ± 0.05, 0.154 ± 0.1, and 0.0984 ± 0.084% for the control, blank-ETT, and loaded-ETT groups, respectively. While SEM imaging showed normal surface structures in the control group, intubated blank-ETT rats showed severe surface structural damage, whereas only mild damage was observed in the loaded-ETT group. CONCLUSIONS: local sustained release of MF via a self-designed drug-eluting ETT is a potential therapeutic approach which may significantly reduce tube-related upper airway morbidity.

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.

A randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of two doses of mometasone furoate delivered via Breezhaler® or Twisthaler® in patients with asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Mometasone furoate (MF) is the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component in the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/ICS fixed-dose combination of indacaterol/MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, in development for asthma. MF at low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses delivered via Breezhaler® is expected to be comparable to MF at low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses respectively, delivered via Twisthaler®. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-week, parallel-group study of 739 adolescents and adults with persistent asthma. Eligible patients were receiving ICS treatment up to the maximum dose per day on a stable regimen for at least four weeks before screening. The study population was enriched for patients who were responsive to ICS therapy. The primary objective of the present study was to show non-inferiority of these doses, i.e. the low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses of MF delivered via Breezhaler® once daily, compared with the corresponding low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses of MF delivered via Twisthaler® once daily. The primary endpoint was 24 h post-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), after four weeks of treatment in patients with asthma. A secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of MF 80 µg and 320 µg delivered via Breezhaler®, and MF 200 µg and 800 µg delivered via Twisthaler® in terms of Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) after one, two, three and four weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The LS mean difference in trough FEV1 after four weeks of treatment between MF low dose 80 µg (Breezhaler®) and MF low dose 200 µg (Twisthaler®) was 27 mL (95% CI -34, 89); for MF high dose 320 µg (Breezhaler®) and MF high dose 800 µg (Twisthaler®) the difference was 0 mL (95% CI -60, 61). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. All treatment arms provided similar clinically relevant improvements in ACQ-5 after four weeks of treatment compared with baseline. Both treatments showed a similar safety profile with a low incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The similarities in effects on lung function and ACQ after four weeks of treatment demonstrate the comparability of MF at low (80 µg) and high (320 µg) doses delivered with Breezhaler® with MF at low (200 µg) and high (800 µg) doses delivered with Twisthaler®, respectively. The study formally demonstrated that MF, delivered via Breezhaler®, is non-inferior to MF, delivered via Twisthaler® at corresponding ICS doses.

A phase 3 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a pediatric dose of mometasone furoate with and without formoterol for persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVES: Asthma affects over 6 million children in the United States alone. This study investigated the efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate-formoterol (MF/F) and MF monotherapy in children with asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated metered-dose inhaler twice daily (BID) dosing with MF/F 100/10 µg or MF 100 µg in children, aged 5 to 11 years, with a history of asthma for greater than or equal to 6 months and confirmed bronchodilator reversibility, who were adequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combination therapy for greater than or equal to 4 weeks. After a 2-week run-in on MF 100 µg BID, eligible patients received 24 weeks of double-blind treatment and were followed for safety up to 26 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in AM postdose 60-minute AUC %predicted FEV1% across 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 181 participants received at least one dose of MF/F (n = 91) or MF (n = 90). MF/F was superior to MF across the 12-week evaluation period, with a treatment advantage of 5.21 percentage points (P < .001). Superior onset of action with MF/F over MF was achieved as early as 5 minutes postdose on day 1. Overall, approximately 50% of participants experienced one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, with fewer occurring in the MF/F group. CONCLUSIONS: In children 5 to 11 years of age with persistent asthma, the addition of F to MF was well tolerated and provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in lung function compared with MF alone.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily and once-daily olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal AR (SAR). METHODS: In this phase 2, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), once-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 50 µg), twice-daily or once-daily olopatadine monotherapy (665 µg), mometasone monotherapy (twice-daily 25 µg or once-daily 50 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint-mean change from baseline in morning and evening reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < .05 = statistically significant). Average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1111 patients were randomized. Twice-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (P < .001), twice-daily olopatadine (P = .049), and mometasone (P = .004). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were observed with twice-daily GSP301 vs placebo (P < .001) and twice-daily mometasone (P = .007); improvements were not significant vs olopatadine (P = .058). Once-daily GSP301 provided significant rTNSS and iTNSS improvements vs placebo and once-daily olopatadine (P < .01, all) but improvements were not significant vs mometasone. Treatment-emergent AEs rates were 10.8%, 9.5%, and 8.2%, with twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily GSP301 treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, providing statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (primary endpoint) vs placebo and both monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02318303.

Effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray on moderate-to-severe nasal congestion in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A responder analysis.

Background: Nasal congestion is consistently identified as the most bothersome symptom of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), and, in guidelines, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment for nasal congestion. Objective: The aim of this post hoc cumulative responder analysis was to examine the nasal congestion response in detail by depicting the level of response obtained in two double-blind, placebo controlled studies of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) therapy for SAR, conducted from August to October 2008 at U.S. sites, in which nasal congestion was prespecified as the primary end point. Methods: Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2-year SAR history, positive skin test result, and moderate or severe nasal congestion were randomly assigned to once-daily treatment in the morning with MFNS or placebo for 15 days. The primary end point was the change from baseline in morning and evening reflective nasal congestion scores averaged over days 1-15. Treatment response, which ranged from >0% to >90% improvement, was evaluated at 10% intervals; >30% and >50% improvements were further evaluated by using the Mietinnen-Nurminen method weighted by study to test the differences of proportions. The Breslow-Day equal odds ratios test was used to justify pooling. Results: Of the 344 and 340 patients in the MFNS and placebo groups, respectively, the proportions of patients who experienced a >30% response in nasal congestion, averaged over 15 days, were 37% versus 19% in the MFNS and placebo groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Those who experienced a >50% response were 13% and 7%, respectively (p = 0.003). Among the patients treated with MFNS, the mean response was greater during the second versus the first week of treatment. There was no difference between responses in the morning versus evening or for patients with moderate versus severe nasal congestion at baseline. Conclusion: MFNS is effective in relieving moderate-to-severe nasal congestion in patients with SAR. The response to MFNS is maintained with once-daily administration and improves with continuous use over 2 weeks.

Lyme Disease Patient Trajectories Learned from Electronic Medical Data for Stratification of Disease Risk and Therapeutic Response.

Lyme disease (LD) is the most common tick-borne illness in the United States. Although appropriate antibiotic treatment is effective for most cases, up to 20% of patients develop post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS). There is an urgent need to improve clinical management of LD using precise understanding of disease and patient stratification. We applied machine-learning to electronic medical records to better characterize the heterogeneity of LD and developed predictive models for identifying medications that are associated with risks of subsequent comorbidities. For broad disease categories, we identified 3, 16, and 17 comorbidities within 2, 5, and 10 years of diagnosis, respectively. At a higher resolution of ICD-9 codes, we identified known associations with LD including chronic pain and cognitive disorders, as well as particular comorbidities on a timescale that matched PTLDS symptomology. We identified 7, 30, and 35 medications associated with risks of these comorbidities within 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. For instance, the first-line antibiotic doxycycline exhibited a consistently protective association for typical symptoms of LD, including backache. Our approach and findings may suggest new hypotheses for more personalized treatments regimens for LD patients.

Postoperative Management of Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Impact of High-Dose Corticosteroid Nasal Spray

Abstract Introduction Eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) is characterized by an eosinophilic inflammation driven by Th2-type cytokines. Glucocorticosteroids are the most common first-line treatment for ECRS with nasal polyps. Objective We have evaluated the long-term treatment with double-dose intranasal corticosteroids in refractory ECRS nasal polyps resistant to the conventional dose and assessed the risk of adverse systemic effects Methods Sixteen subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects had ECRS after endoscopic sinus surgery that resulted in recurrentmild andmoderate nasal polyps and were undergoing a postoperative follow-up application of mometasone furoate at a dose of 2 sprays (100 μg) in each nostril once a day (200 μg). All the patients were prescribed mometasone furoate, administered at a dose of 2 sprays (100 μg) in each nostril twice a day (400 μg) for 6 months. Results The average scores of the symptoms during the regular dose of intranasal steroid treatment were 5.2 ± 2.2, but 6 months after the high-dose application, they had significantly decreased to 2.5 ± 1.4 (p < 0.05). The polyp size showed an average score of 1.38 during the regular dose which was significantly reduced to 0.43 (p < 0.01) by the double dose. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) showed normal ranges in all the patients tested. The cortisol plasma concentration was also normal. Conclusion Doubling the dose of the nasal topical spray mometasone furoate might be recommended for the treatment of recurrent nasal polyps in the postoperative follow-up of intractable ECRS. (AU)

Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate intended for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily or twice-daily GSP301 in a ragweed pollen environmental exposure chamber. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, adults (18-65 years old) with SAR were equally randomized to 665 µg of olopatadine and 25 µg of mometasone (twice-daily GSP301), 665 µg of olopatadine and 50 µg of mometasone (once-daily GSP301), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 137 µg of azelastine and 50 µg of fluticasone twice-daily (AzeFlu), a US Food and Drug Administration-approved formulation of 665 µg of olopatadine twice-daily, or placebo (twice-daily). During 2 visits (baseline and end of 14-day treatment), participants assessed SAR symptoms at specified time points. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS) for twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 vs placebo-was analyzed by analysis of covariance. Onset of action, ocular symptoms, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants were randomized. Treatment with twice-daily or once-daily GSP301 provided statistically significant improvements in iTNSS vs placebo (twice-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.89 to -2.30; once-daily GSP301: least squares mean difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -4.35 to -1.76; P < .0001 for both). Significant improvements in iTNSS with twice-daily GSP301 occurred by 10 minutes after dosing (-1.26; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.21; P = .02) and were maintained at all later time points except one (2.5 hours). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 22.2%, 30.6%, 25.0%, 22.2%, and 16.7% of participants in the twice-daily GSP301, once-daily GSP301, AzeFlu, olopatadine, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In an environmental exposure chamber model, twice-daily and once-daily GSP301 treatments were well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful SAR symptom improvement vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03444506.

The Relationship Between Long-term Use of Intranasal Corticosteroid and Intraocular Pressure.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between long-term intranasal steroid use and intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 100 eyes from 50 patients on long-term intranasal steroids (>2 y) for allergic rhinitis and 90 eyes from 45 controls were included in this study. Patients on other forms of steroids and risk factors for glaucoma were excluded. IOP was measured and nonmydriatic stereoscopic optic disc photos were taken for each eye. The vertical cup-to-disc ratio and the status of the optic disc were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean IOP for intranasal steroids group was significantly higher (15.24±2.31 mm Hg) compared to the control group (13.91±1.86 mm Hg; P=0.000). However, there were no significant differences in the vertical cup-to-disc ratio and the status of glaucomatous optic disc changes between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged use of intranasal steroids cause statistical significant increase in IOP in patients with allergic rhinitis although no significant glaucomatous disc changes were seen. We suggest patients on long-term use of intranasal steroid have a yearly eye examination to be monitored for IOP elevation and those with additional risk factors for glaucoma is closely monitored for glaucoma.