Eli O. Meltzer

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA—disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally—is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease.

The selection of specific pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on several factors, including age, most prominent symptoms, symptom severity, patient preference, cost, and comorbid conditions. Guidelines focus on immediate symptoms and monotherapy. However, given the often variable course of disease, understanding symptom patterns, and recommending intervention transitions among agents and classes (and from alternative single and combination medications) can aid in optimization of treatment. This review focuses on considerations for combination therapy for AR, particularly in the context of step-up and step-down treatment, and individual symptoms and comorbidities that may benefit from such treatment (e.g., asthma). Relevant clinical studies for treatment of AR and of AR with comorbid asthma and information on treatment guidelines were identified through MEDLINE searches from inception through 2012. Search terms and phrases included “allergic rhinitis,” “asthma,” “treatment guidelines,” and “stepwise treatment.” Stepped methodology is individualized according to patient-specific factors and severity of disease. A possible step-up/step-down approach might move through five stages: step 1, for mild intermittent symptoms, intranasal or oral antihistamine, as needed; step 2, daily intranasal antihistamine (an oral antihistamine or leukotriene antagonist may be considered as an alternative); step 3, daily intranasal corticosteroids (INS); step 4, combination INS and intranasal antihistamines; step 5, further add-on therapy options in severe cases. A step-up/step-down approach to AR pharmacotherapy based on patient response may hold the potential for optimal control of AR symptoms while minimizing side effects and cost of treatment.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and associated congestion adversely affect patients’ lives. The intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is effective for AR symptoms including nasal congestion, and the intranasal decongestant oxymetazoline (OXY) is effective against nasal congestion, but the combination has not been fully studied. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of the combination of MFNS and OXY for the relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms. Methods: This phase 2 controlled clinical trial randomized adolescent and adult subjects (≥12 years; 2-year SAR) to MFNS q.d. (200 μg) + 3 sprays/nostril of OXY 0.05% (MFNS + OXY3); MFNS q.d. + 1 spray/nostril of OXY (MFNS + OXY1); MFNS q.d.; OXY b.i.d.; or placebo for 15 days, with 1-week follow-up. Coprimary end points were change from baseline in morning/evening (A.M./P.M.) instantaneous (NOW) total nasal symptom score (TNSS) over days 1–15 and AUC (AUC _{[0–4 hr]} ) change from baseline in day 1 congestion. Results: In 705 subjects, both combinations reduced A.M./P.M. NOW TNSS over days 1–15 significantly more than OXY b.i.d. or placebo (p ≤ 0.002). Mean standardized AUC _{(0–4 hr)} day 1 congestion change from baseline was significantly greater in combination and OXY b.i.d. groups (MFNS + OXY3, −0.92; MFNS + OXY1, −0.80; OXY b.i.d., −1.06) versus placebo (–0.57) and MFNS q.d. (–0.63). Combinations and MFNS q.d. were significantly effective for A.M./P.M. NOW TNSS over each weekly period; OXY b.i.d. was superior to placebo in week 1. Adverse events (AEs) were few and similar across treatments; one MFNS q.d. and one placebo subject experienced a serious AE, with neither considered treatment related. Conclusion: Combining MFNS with OXY relieves SAR symptoms, including congestion, with faster onset of action than MFNS q.d. and better sustained efficacy than OXY b.i.d.

Allergic rhinitis (AR; also nasal allergies or “hay fever”) is a chronic upper airway inflammatory disease that affects ∼60 million adults and children in the United States. The duration and severity of AR symptoms contribute to a substantial burden on patients' quality of life (QoL), sleep, work productivity, and activity. This study was designed to examine symptoms, QoL, productivity, comorbidities, disease management, and pharmacologic treatment of AR in United States and ex-U.S. sufferers. Allergies in America was a comprehensive telephone-based survey of 2500 adults with AR. These data are compared and contrasted with findings from the Pediatric Allergies in America, Allergies in Latin America, and Allergies in Asia-Pacific telephone surveys. The prevalence of physician-diagnosed AR was 14% in U.S. adults, 7% in Latin America adults, and 9% in Asia-Pacific adults. Nasal congestion is the most common and bothersome symptom for adults. Approximately two-thirds of adults rely on medication to relieve intolerable AR symptoms. Incomplete relief, slow onset, <24-hour relief, and reduced efficacy with sustained use were commonly reported with AR medications, including intranasal corticosteroids. One in seven U.S. adults reported achieving little to no relief with AR medications. Bothersome adverse effects of AR medications included drowsiness, a drying feeling, medication dripping down the throat, and bad taste. Perception of inadequate efficacy was the leading cause of medication discontinuation or change and contributed to treatment dissatisfaction. These findings support the assertion that AR burden has been substantially underestimated and identify several important challenges to successful management of AR.

Many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have uncontrolled symptoms despite available treatment options. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of fluticasone propionate [FP] and azelastine [AZ] hydrochloride), compared with monotherapy with FP, AZ, and placebo sprays for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). This 2-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 779 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. Treatments were administered 1 spray/nostril twice daily in the same vehicle and delivery device. Daily doses of AZ and FP were 548 and 200 micrograms, respectively. The primary efficacy variable was the 12-hour reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, sneezing, itchy nose, and runny nose. Secondary efficacy variables were (1) 12-hour reflective individual nasal symptom scores; (2) onset of action; (3) 12-hour reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), including itchy eyes, watery eyes, and red eyes; and (4) the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) overall score. MP29-02 significantly reduced the mean rTNSS from baseline by −5.54 points compared with FP (−4.55; p = 0.038), AZ (−4.54; p = 0.032), and placebo (−3.03; p < 0.001), improving the rTNSS by 39% beyond the contribution of FP. All individual nasal symptoms contributed to the efficacy of MP29-02. Onset of action was within 30 minutes. MP29-02 significantly improved rTOSS compared with placebo, provided a clinically important improvement in the overall RQLQ score, and was well tolerated. In this study, MP29-02 provided more complete symptom relief than two widely used first-line AR treatments and was well tolerated.

Intranasal corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of the symptoms of persistent allergic rhinitis (AR). Since the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon nasal aerosols, intranasal corticosteroids have been available only as aqueous nasal sprays. This study was designed to assess the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in subjects with perennial AR (PAR). After a 7- to 21-day placebo run-in period, eligible subjects aged ≥12 years with PAR were randomized to 6 weeks of once-daily treatment with BDP nasal aerosol at 320 μg or placebo. Reflective and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS and iTNSS, respectively), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score, and physician-assessed total nasal symptom score were evaluated. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning (A.M.) and evening (P.M.) subject-reported rTNSS over the 6-week treatment period. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Treatment with BDP nasal aerosol showed significantly greater improvement in average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -0.84; 95% confidence interval, -1.2, -0.5; p < 0.001). Greater improvements in rTNSS were reported as early as day 1 and were maintained throughout the 6-week treatment period with the exception of day 2. Greater improvements were seen for all four individual nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) with BDP nasal aerosol compared with placebo. Similarly, significant improvements were seen in average A.M. and P.M. iTNSS (p < 0.001) and RQLQ score (p = 0.001) with BDP nasal aerosol compared with placebo. In addition, BDP nasal aerosol treatment was well tolerated, and its safety profile was comparable to that of placebo. This clinical study indicated that treatment with BDP nasal aerosol provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful nasal symptom relief accompanied by improved quality of life in subjects with PAR. Additionally, treatment with BDP nasal aerosol was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo. This study was part of the clinical trial NCT01134705 registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov.