William C. Howland

Measuring quality of life in children with rhinoconjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to develop, pretest, and validate a questionnaire to measure quality of life in children with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR). METHODS (DEVELOPMENT STUDY) Thirty-four children with SAR were enrolled from summer camps, notices in the media, and an allergy clinic (Southern Ontario). After generating a pool of 48 potentially important quality of life items, the children identified the ones that they experienced with their SAR and scored each for bother (1 = a little bothered to 4 = extremely bothered). Items identified most frequently and with the highest bother score were included in the Paediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ). The PRQLQ was pretested for ease completion and accuracy of understanding. RESULTS (DEVELOPMENT STUDY) The PRQLQ has 23 items in five domains (nose symptoms, eye symptoms, practical problems, other symptoms, and activities). Responses are given on a seven-point scale, and children are asked to score their experiences during the previous 7 days. METHODS (VALIDATION STUDY) Seventy-five children with symptomatic SAR were enrolled from notices in the media and a pediatric allergy clinic (Austin, Tex.). A single cohort design was used, with children assessed at 0, 1, and 3 weeks. The PRQLQ was administered to the children by a trained interviewer at 1 and 3 weeks. A conventional nasal symptom daily diary was completed for 1 week before each of these clinic visits. Global ratings were completed at the final visit. RESULTS (VALIDATION STUDY) In patients who were stable between clinic visits, the PRQLQ demonstrated good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93). The questionnaire was very responsive to change (p < 0.001) and was able to differentiate between patients who were in a stable clinical state and those whose clinical state changed between visits (p = 0.005). Correlations between the PRQLQ and diary scores were close to predicted and supported both the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the PRQLQ. CONCLUSIONS The PRQLQ measures the quality of life impairments important to children with SAR. Children provide reliable and accurate responses, the measurement properties are strong, and the questionnaire can be used with confidence in clinical trials, clinical practice, and surveys.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray provided significantly greater improvement in daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with montelukast

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis is well documented in the literature. Additionally, an expert panel has concluded that intranasal corticosteroids are the first line of therapy when obstruction is a major component of rhinitis. Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist recently approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of a 15-day course of intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 microg, once daily (FP200QD), to oral montelukast 10 mg, once daily (MON10QD), in relieving daytime and nighttime nasal symptoms associated with SAR. METHODS The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis population consisted of 705 eligible males and females (> or = 15 years) with SAR randomized to either FP200QD (N = 353) or MON10QD (N = 352). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in subject-rated daytime total nasal symptom scores (the sum of four individual scores: nasal congestion, itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing), evaluated via visual analog scales, and averaged over weeks 1 to 2. Secondary endpoints included the four daytime individual nasal symptom scores, the nighttime total, and individual nasal symptom scores (each evaluated on a four-point scale from 0 to 3). RESULTS Statistically significant differences favoring FP200QD over MON10QD were observed for the mean change from baseline in daytime total nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), daytime individual nasal symptom scores (P < 0.001), nighttime total (P < 0.001), and all individual nasal symptom scores (P < or = 0.002) over the 15-day treatment period. FP200QD and MON10QD were both well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS The results of this well controlled study demonstrated that FP200QD was consistently superior to MON10QD with regard to every efficacy endpoint evaluated, including daytime and nighttime nasal congestion, in subjects with SAR.

Comparison of triamcinolone acetonide nasal inhaler with astemizole in the treatment of ragweed-induced allergic rhinitis*

BACKGROUND Few clinical trials have directly compared the efficacy of antihistamines with topical nasal corticosteroids. OBJECTIVE The study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray at a dose of 110 micro g in each nostril once daily with 10 mg of oral astemizole once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 239 patients who were randomized to receive either triamcinolone acetonide or astemizole. A 5-day, drug-free, lead-in period was followed by 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. One hundred four patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide and 105 patients treated with astemizole could be evaluated. RESULTS Overall, triamcinolone acetonide was more effective than astemizole in reducing total nasal symptoms, nasal stuffiness, nasal itching, and sneezing (p </= 0.01). Triamcinolone acetonide was superior to astemizole at weeks 1, 2, and 3 in reduction of the total nasal symptom score (p </= 0.0401) and in reduction of nasal stuffiness (p </= 0.05). Improvements in individual nasal symptoms (itching, postnasal drip, runny nose, and sneezing) were greater for triamcinolone acetonide at week 2 (p </= 0.01). Ocular symptoms improved from baseline in both groups. When pollen counts were correlated to mean nasal rhinitis scores, the triamcinolone acetonide group showed continued improvement from week 1 to week 2 in nasal symptoms when pollen counts were at their highest. During the same period, patients treated with astemizole failed to show improvement from week 1 to week 2. This study demonstrated that once daily administration of triamcinolone acetonide was more effective than astemizole for controlling nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, especially during the peak pollination period.

A comparison of effects of triamcinolone acetonide aqueous nasal spray, oral prednisone, and placebo on adrenocortical function in male patients with allergic rhinitis☆☆☆★★★

BACKGROUND One of the risks associated with the use of oral corticosteroids is suppression of adrenocortical function. Triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) aqueous nasal spray administered once daily (110 micrograms and 220 micrograms) has been shown to reduce allergic rhinitis symptoms. OBJECTIVE This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study determined the effects of TAA aqueous nasal spray, placebo, and oral prednisone on adrenocortical function in patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS Sixty-four patients received TAA aqueous nasal spray (220 micrograms or 440 micrograms), oral prednisone (10 mg), or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Adrenocortical function was assessed after cosyntropin stimulation for 6 hours before treatment and after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS There was no statistically significant effect on adrenocortical function in patients who received either dose of TAA aqueous nasal spray compared with placebo. In contrast, prednisone produced statistically significant (p < 0.001) reductions in adrenocortical function compared with placebo; reductions occurred in both the mean 6-hour plasma cortisol levels and mean change in 6-hour plasma cortisol levels from pretreatment. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that, unlike oral prednisone, TAA aqueous nasal spray, in therapeutic doses, did not alter adrenocortical function and was comparable to treatment with placebo in its absence of measurable effects on adrenocortical function.

Efficacy and Safety of Ebastine 20 mg Compared to Loratadine 10 mg Once Daily in the Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background: Few randomized studies have compared loratadine to ebastine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, comparative trial compared the efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg (E20), loratadine 10 mg (L10) and placebo (P), administered once daily, in the control of SAR symptoms over a 2-week period. An additional 2-week treatment period was included in order to check sustained efficacy and tolerability. Results: A total of 703 patients were enrolled: 282 patients in the E20 group, 279 in the L10 group and 142 in the P group. E20 showed a greater decrease from baseline in the main efficacy variable (mean daily reflective total symptom score) than L10 (p = 0.0018) or P (p = 0.0024), whereas the difference between L10 and P was not significant. Moreover, reductions from baseline in all composite/individual daily reflective rhinitis symptom scores were significantly larger in patients receiving E20 than in patients receiving L10 or P. Most significant differences between E20 and L10 or P were maintained after 4 weeks of treatment. Overall, all treatments were safe and well tolerated. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who reported one or more adverse events (AEs) between the groups, and most AEs were mild to moderate (89.9%). Conclusions: E20 given once daily for 2 weeks was more effective in the treatment of SAR symptoms than L10 or P. E20 also showed a sustained efficacy after 4 weeks of treatment, and overall was well tolerated and proved safe.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and skin test inhibition of cetirizine and astemizole.

BACKGROUND Astemizole, an H1-histamine-receptor antagonist prescribed for seasonal allergic rhinitis, has a slow onset of action and a strong suppressive effect on the wheal and flare reaction, which interferes with skin testing results. The newer antihistamine cetirizine appears to have a rapid onset of action and a low potential to interfere with posttreatment skin testing results. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy, safety, and skin test inhibition of astemizole and cetirizine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS In a double-blind, parallel-group study conducted at six sites during ragweed pollination season, 263 subjects were randomized to receive 10 mg of astemizole, 5 mg of cetirizine, or 10 mg of cetirizine daily for 2 weeks. The subjects rated seven allergic rhinitis symptoms daily, the subjects and investigators provided global assessments of the responses to the treatments, and the subjects rated their satisfaction with the treatments. Thirty-nine subjects at one study site underwent quantitative skin testing before and after treatment. RESULTS As measured by reduction from baseline in total symptom severity score, which was the primary efficacy measure in the study, all three treatments significantly relieved the symptoms of allergic rhinitis (P less than .05). This finding was supported by the global ratings and the subject satisfaction ratings. There were no significant differences among the three treatments for reduction from baseline in total symptom severity score. The mean subject satisfaction score with 10 mg of cetirizine was significantly greater than that with astemizole (P less than .05). In the skin tests performed 3, 7, and 14 days after the end of antihistamine treatment, the subjects who had received the cetirizine doses had significantly greater mean sum of wheal and mean sum of erythema values than those who had received the astemizole dose (P less than .05). Sensitivity to ragweed pollen extract returned to 90% of baseline within three days of the end of cetirizine treatment. Both drugs were well tolerated and their adverse event profiles were similar. CONCLUSIONS Astemizole and cetirizine are effective and well tolerated in alleviating the symptoms of ragweed-induced allergic rhinitis. Cetirizine inhibits skin test results to a much lesser extent than does astemizole. Physicians may wish to consider the potential for skin test inhibition when selecting an antihistamine for patients with allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray administered once daily in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine nasal spray is commercially available as a 0.1% w/v solution and is recommended for twice-daily dosing. Increasing the azelastine concentration to 0.15% may be effective with once-daily dosing without increasing the incidence of adverse events. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of azelastine 0.15% nasal spray at a dosage of 2 sprays/nostril once daily. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in subjects with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) during the 2007/2008 Texas Mountain Cedar season. In total, 536 subjects were randomized to 2 sprays/nostril once daily (A.M.) of azelastine 0.15% or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in a 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, and sneezing. The key secondary variable was change from baseline in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS, which determines the duration of action and effective dosing interval. After 2 weeks, the mean improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS and percentage improvement in 12-hour reflective TNSS were significant (p < 0.001) with azelastine 0.15% (19%) compared with placebo (10%). The improvement in 24-hour instantaneous TNSS also was significant (p < 0.001) for azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo, supporting efficacy with once-daily dosing. All individual TNSS symptoms were significantly (p < 0.01) improved with azelastine 0.15% compared with placebo. With the exception of bitter taste (4.5%) and nasal discomfort (4.5%), adverse events with azelastine 0.15% were reported with an incidence similar to placebo. Azelastine 0.15% nasal spray was effective and well tolerated in subjects with SAR with once-daily dosing.

Once-daily budesonide via Turbuhaler improves symptoms in adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) for the treatment of mild to severe asthma. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide Turbuhaler administered once daily each morning with placebo in inhaled corticosteroid-naive adults with persistent asthma. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 177 adults (aged 18 to 70 years) received placebo or once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler (400 microg) for 12 weeks. Efficacy variables included mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and AM/PM peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and nighttime/daytime asthma symptom scores, patient discontinuations, use of breakthrough medication (albuterol), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25%-75%), and quality of life assessments. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, and laboratory tests. RESULTS Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable between study groups. The mean percentages of predicted FEV1 at baseline were 71.9 +/- 9.8 in patients receiving budesonide Turbuhaler and 70.6 +/- 11.0 in patients receiving placebo. Mean changes from baseline over the 12-week treatment period in FEV1 were significantly (P = 0.007) improved in patients receiving once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler compared with placebo (0.31 L and 0.17 L, respectively). Significant (P < or = 0.037) improvements over placebo also were observed in AM PEFR, nighttime/daytime asthma symptoms, and albuterol use with budesonide Turbuhaler treatment. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity and similar between study groups. CONCLUSIONS Budesonide Turbuhaler 400 microg administered once daily in the AM is efficacious and safe for inhaled corticosteroid-naive asthmatic adults.

A One-Week Dose-Ranging Study of Inhaled Salmeterol in Children with Asthma

This was a 1-week study evaluating the safety and efficacy of two dosage regimens of salmeterol in children with asthma. A total of 243 children, aged 4-11 years, with mild-to-moderate asthma were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluating salmeterol xinafoate 21 micrograms and 42 micrograms administered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) twice daily for 1 week. Patients were allowed to use albuterol MDI as needed for relief of acute symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids and/or cromolyn at fixed dosages could be continued during the study, but theophylline and oral beta-agonists were not allowed. Twelve-hour serial spirometry (for patients aged 6-11 years) and serial peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (all patients) were performed on days 1 and 8 of treatment; morning and evening PEFR were recorded each day prior to inhalation of the study drug. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG), and 24-hr ECG (Holter) monitoring. Both the 21-micrograms and 42-micrograms doses of salmeterol produced significantly greater bronchodilation, as measured by 12-hr serial forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) (p < or = 0.02) and PEFR (p < or = 0.001), than did placebo on days 1 and 8. A small dose-response was observed, with the 42-micrograms dosage producing consistently higher serial FEV1 and PEFR than did the 21-micrograms dosage, although the differences were not statistically significant. Morning and evening PEFR increased significantly (p < or = 0.008) with both dosages of salmeterol compared with placebo. Twelve patients (5%) experienced potentially drug-related adverse events, with headache (4% in each salmeterol group) being the most common. There were no clinically significant changes in heart rate as measured by Holter monitoring, ECGs, vital signs, or clinical laboratory values following treatment with either dose of salmeterol. Salmeterol 21 micrograms or 42 micrograms twice daily was effective in producing bronchodilation in children aged 4-11 years, and both dosages had good safety profiles. Patients treated with salmeterol 42 micrograms twice daily showed a trend toward greater improvement in asthma control compared with those who received salmeterol 21 micrograms.

The Efficacy of Fluticasone Propionate Aqueous Nasal Spray for Allergic Rhinitis and Its Relationship to Topical Effects

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray is an intranasal corticosteroid for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis. This double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group study was conducted to confirm that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray is attributable to topical rather than systemic effects. A total of 304 patients with documented seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive fluticasone propionate nasal spray 200 micrograms once daily (n = 77), oral fluticasone propionate 5 mg once daily (n = 73), oral fluticasone propionate 10 mg once daily (n = 77), or placebo (n = 77) for 14 days. Plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations were determined at baseline and after 14 days of treatment (day 15). Nasal symptoms were recorded daily by patients and assessed weekly by clinicians. On day 15, more patients in the oral fluticasone propionate 5-mg or 10-mg groups, compared with patients in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group or the placebo group, had detectable plasma fluticasone propionate concentrations, and mean concentrations were higher in the oral fluticasone propionate groups. Both clinician- and patient-rated total and individual nasal symptom scores for obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching were significantly lower in the fluticasone propionate nasal spray group compared with either of the oral fluticasone propionate groups or the placebo group. With few exceptions, oral fluticasone propionate (5 mg or 10 mg) was not significantly different from placebo on any measures of efficacy. These findings indicate that the efficacy of fluticasone propionate nasal spray (200 micrograms once daily) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis results from direct topical effects rather than from indirect effects after systemic absorption.