William E. Berger

Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis: Complete Guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

Omalizumab in patients with symptomatic chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria despite standard combination therapy

BACKGROUND Patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) often continue to experience symptoms despite receiving standard-of-care therapy with H1-antihistamines along with 1 or more add-on therapies. OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 24 weeks of treatment with omalizumab in patients with persistent CIU/CSU despite treatment with H₁-antihistamines at up to 4 times the approved dose plus H₂-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both. METHODS In this phase III study patients were randomized to receive 6 subcutaneous injections at 4-week intervals of either 300 mg of omalizumab or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the overall safety of omalizumab compared with placebo. Efficacy (itch severity, hive, and urticaria activity scores) was evaluated at weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS The overall incidence and severity of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between omalizumab and placebo recipients; the safety profile was consistent with omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in weekly itch severity score was -8.6 (95% CI, -9.3 to -7.8) in the omalizumab group compared with -4.0 (95% CI, -5.3 to -2.7) in the placebo group (P < .001). Significant improvements were seen for additional efficacy end points at week 12; these benefits were sustained to week 24. CONCLUSION Omalizumab was well tolerated and reduced the signs and symptoms of CIU/CSU in patients who remained symptomatic despite the use of H₁-antihistamines (up to 4 times the approved dose) plus H₂-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both.

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

SUMMARY 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 ≤ 0.001]. Similar improvements were seen in Daytime Nasal Symptoms (–0.14 [–0.21, –0.07; p ≤ 0.001]) and Nighttime Symptoms (–0.10 [–0.16,–0.04; p ≤ 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 β-agonist use (puffs/day) was reduced with montelukast ( p ≤ 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.

Evaluation of long-term safety of the anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, in children with allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term effects of the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab in children with asthma. METHODS This was a 28-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a 24-week open-label extension. In the core trial 225 children (ages 6 to 12 years) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma requiring inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) received omalizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, and 109 received placebo. BDP dosage was stable for weeks 1 to 16, then reduced during weeks 17 to 24 using strict safety criteria. The lowest dose for optimal asthma control was maintained for 4 more weeks. During the 24-week extension, all patients (n = 309) received open-label omalizumab in addition to other asthma medications. One-year safety data were analyzed. RESULTS The incidence of adverse events in patients treated with omalizumab for 52 weeks was similar to those treated for 28 weeks in the core trial, which was generally comparable with placebo. In the 52-week omalizumab group, upper respiratory tract infection and headache were the most frequently reported adverse events (47.1% and 42.7%, respectively). Eleven patients (4.9%) reported urticaria, which resolved spontaneously or with antihistamine, except for 1 patient who was discontinued because of severe urticaria. No anaphylactic reactions or adverse events suggestive of serum sickness or immune complex formation occurred. No anti-omalizumab antibodies were detected in any of the children. There is no evidence that new or more serious adverse events occur with long-term omalizumab treatment. CONCLUSIONS Long-term treatment with omalizumab is safe and well tolerated in children with allergic asthma.

Symptom severity assessment of allergic rhinitis: part 1

Sheldon L. Spector, MD; Richard A. Nicklas, MD; Jean A. Chapman, MD; I. Leonard Bernstein, MD;William E. Berger, MD; Joann Blessing-Moore, MD; Mark S. Dykewicz, MD;Stanley M. Fineman, MD; Rufus E. Lee, MD; James T. Li, MD, PhD; Jay M. Portnoy, MD;Diane E. Schuller, MD; David Lang, MD; and Stephen A. Tilles, MD

Comparative Effects of Desloratadine versus Montelukast on Asthma Symptoms and Use of β2-Agonists in Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma

Background: Asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) are recognized as manifestations of a single airway disease. Desloratadine has demonstrated efficacy in treating SAR symptoms, including nasal obstruction. Methods: Safety and efficacy of desloratadine and montelukast each were assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with SAR and symptoms of asthma, who were assigned randomly to once-daily treatment with desloratadine 5 mg, montelukast 10 mg, or placebo for 4 weeks. Change from baseline of AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom severity scores (TASS), FEV1, individual asthma symptom scores, and β2-agonist usage were assessed. Results: Desloratadine and montelukast each were associated with statistically significant reductions from baseline in the mean TASS averaged over the 4-week period (p ≤0.022 vs. placebo). Individual asthma symptom scores also improved significantly for both therapies (p ≤ 0.05). Patients treated with desloratadine or montelukast demonstrated improvement from baseline in FEV1 versus placebo; significant improvement was seen in a subset of patients with baseline FEV1 <80% of predicted normal (both p < 0.05). Both active therapies significantly reduced β2-agonist use (both p < 0.01). Improvements for both therapies were comparable for all efficacy parameters; they were tolerated well with adverse event profiles similar to placebo. Conclusions: Asthma symptoms and β2-agonist were improved significantly in patients with concomitant SAR and asthma treated with desloratadine 5 mg as well as montelukast 10 mg once daily. Both therapies significantly improved FEV1 in a subset of patients with FEV1 <80% of predicted normal at entry. Improvements in asthma symptoms were comparable for both active treatment groups.

Safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in asthma patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nasal congestion

BACKGROUND Antihistamines relieve most seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms, with the exception of nasal congestion, which is often the most troublesome symptom for patients. A nonsedating antihistamine that significantly decreases nasal congestion and improves symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma would be a significant advance in therapy. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of desloratadine 5 mg in patients experiencing moderate SAR, nasal congestion, and symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma. METHODS This 4-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study evaluated desloratadine treatment (5 mg once daily) versus placebo in 331 subjects with SAR and mild seasonal allergic asthma. Subjects evaluated SAR and asthma symptoms twice daily, recording 12-hour reflective and instantaneous severity evaluation scores. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference from baseline in AM/PM reflective total symptom scores. Changes in individual SAR and asthma symptoms were also analyzed. RESULTS Compared with placebo, desloratadine significantly reduced mean AM/PM reflective total symptom scores for SAR, beginning with the first dose (P < 0.001) and continuing throughout days 1 to 15 (-4.90 vs -2.98; P < 0.001) and days 1 to 29 (-5.47 vs -3.73; P < 0.001). Desloratadine significantly decreased AM/PM reflective total asthma symptom scores for days 1 to 15 (P = 0.023) and AM/PM reflective nasal congestion scores over days 1 to 15 and days 1 to 29 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.014, respectively). Desloratadine was safe and well tolerated; adverse events were similar to placebo overall. CONCLUSIONS Desloratadine provided significant relief from the signs and symptoms of SAR, including nasal congestion. In this patient population, symptoms of seasonal allergic asthma also improved.

One-year efficacy and safety of inhaled formoterol dry powder in children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND The long-term efficacy and safety of formoterol dry powder capsules for inhalation in pediatric asthma have not previously been evaluated. OBJECTIVE We examined the effectiveness of inhaled formoterol over a period of 12 months in asthmatic children who were still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory treatment. METHODS After a run-in period, 518 patients (5 to 12 years old) were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive 12 or 24 microg formoterol dry powder (Foradil, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) or placebo twice daily for 12 months. The drug was administered by inhaler (Aerolizer, Novartis Pharma AG) and was given in addition to their anti-inflammatory treatment. The primary variable was the area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured over 12 hours after the morning dose of study medication. RESULTS The area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second after the first dose of treatment and after 3 and 12 months of treatment was significantly greater for patients receiving formoterol 12 microg and 24 microg than for patients receiving placebo (all P < or = 0.0062). Compared with placebo, both doses of formoterol significantly improved morning and evening premedication peak expiratory flow rate (all P < 0.001). In the group treated with formoterol 24 microg, median symptom score and median dose of rescue medication at night were lower than during the run-in period, whereas the opposite occurred in the placebo group. The incidence of hospitalizations for asthma was higher in the formoterol groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that, in asthmatic children who are still symptomatic despite anti-inflammatory therapy, the addition of formoterol consistently improves airflow obstruction and nocturnal symptoms and reduces the use of rescue medication. However, this treatment requires close disease monitoring to detect early signs of acute exacerbation.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine

BACKGROUND Currently available oral second-generation antihistamines do not provide adequate symptom relief for many allergy patients. OBJECTIVE To determine the ability of azelastine nasal spray to improve rhinitis symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-week study in patients with moderate-to-severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study began with a 1-week, open-label lead-in period, during which patients received fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily. Patients who improved less than 25% to 33% with fexofenadine were randomized to treatment with (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fexofenadine, 60 mg twice daily; or (3) placebo (saline) nasal spray and placebo capsules twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to day 14 in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and nasal congestion symptom scores. RESULTS A total of 334 patients who remained symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine were included in the efficacy analysis. After 2 weeks of treatment, azelastine nasal spray (P = .007) and azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine (P = .003) significantly improved the TNSS compared with placebo. Azelastine nasal spray monotherapy was as effective as the combination of azelastine nasal spray plus fexofenadine as measured by the TNSS and individual symptoms of the TNSS. CONCLUSIONS Azelastine nasal spray is effective monotherapy for patients who remain symptomatic after treatment with fexofenadine and should be considered in the initial management of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

A dose-ranging study of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex) 200 microg once daily for the treatment and prophylaxis of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and treatment of perennial rhinitis have been demonstrated in adults. However, the dose response of MFNS in pediatric patients has not yet been characterized. OBJECTIVE This study was conducted to determine the dose-response relationship of 3 different doses of MFNS in a pediatric population. METHODS This was a multicenter, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study of 679 children 6 to 11 years of age with histories of SAR and documented positive skin test responses. Patients were randomized to one of the following treatment groups for 4 weeks: MFNS 25 microgram once daily, MFNS 100 microgram once daily, MFNS 200 microgram once daily, beclomethasone dipropionate 84 microgram twice daily (168 microgram/day), or placebo. Physician evaluations were performed at days 4, 8, 15, and 29, and patient evaluations were analyzed for days 1 to 15 and 16 to 29. RESULTS The mean reduction from baseline in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom scores at day 8 (the primary efficacy variable) was significantly greater in the MFNS and beclomethasone dipropionate groups than in the placebo group (P </=.02). No significant differences were observed among the 3 MFNS groups. However, as treatment continued, symptoms in patients treated with MFNS 100 or 200 microgram once daily continued to improve, whereas those treated with MFNS 25 microgram once daily demonstrated little further improvement. By day 29, MFNS 100 and 200 microgram once daily both were significantly more effective than MFNS 25 microgram once daily in relieving symptoms of SAR, but MFNS 200 microgram provided no additional benefit over MFNS 100 microgram. All doses of MFNS were well tolerated, and cosyntropin stimulation tests performed before and after treatment found no evidence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. CONCLUSION These results indicate that the most appropriate therapeutic dosage of MFNS in the treatment of SAR in children 6 to 11 years of age is 100 microgram once daily. In addition, MFNS at doses up to 200 microgram once daily for 4 weeks was well tolerated and had no detectable effects on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function.