Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Impact Factor: 11.25). 12/2006; 118(5):1142-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.07.050
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Allergic rhinitis (AR), an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, affects approximately 25% of adults and 40% of children in the United States. Ciclesonide nasal spray is a corticosteroid being developed as a hypotonic formulation for AR.
We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide nasal spray in adult and adolescent patients with seasonal AR (SAR).
In this double-blind study patients (age, >or=12 years) were randomized to receive 200 microg of intranasal ciclesonide (n = 164) or placebo (n = 163) once daily for 28 days. The primary measure was morning and evening patient-assessed reflective total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Additionally, instantaneous TNSSs, physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity, and the results of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire were evaluated. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.
Ciclesonide significantly improved average morning and evening reflective and instantaneous TNSSs compared with placebo over days 1 to 14 (P < .001). Improvements were also noted over days 1 to 28 (P < .001) and over days 15 to 28 (P = .011). Ciclesonide was well tolerated.
Intranasal ciclesonide was superior to placebo in relieving nasal symptoms in adult and adolescent patients with SAR. These results confirm the dose range-finding study in patients with SAR and support the efficacy of ciclesonide in AR.
In a clinical setting ciclesonide was shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of SAR in adolescent and adult patients.

1 Follower
  • Source
    Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 11/2012; 130(5):1049-62. · 11.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo. Results Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast. Conclusions In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
    BMC Medicine 05/2014; 12(1):71. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-12-71 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis denotes both nasal and ocular manifestation of allergy, which may be solely treated with intranasal steroid. This study compares the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) and fluticasone furoate NS in treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The secondary objective is to study the severity of baseline ocular symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Seventy-eight patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were assessed subjectively and objectively using twice-daily symptom scores for nasal (reflective total nasal symptom score [rTNSS] and instantaneous TNSS [iTNSS]) and ocular (reflective total ocular symptom score [rTOSS] and instantaneous TOSS [iTOSS]) symptoms, rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQOLQs), and acoustic rhinometry. All measurements were taken at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Sixty-three patients who were randomized into the mometasone furoate group (n = 36) and the fluticasone furoate group (n = 27) completed the study. Seventy-six percent of patients had mild ocular symptoms, 20.5% had moderate symptoms, and only 2.6% had severe symptoms at baseline based on the iTOSS; 65.1% had mild nasal symptoms and 3% had severe nasal symptoms. There was significant reduction in the symptom scores after 1 week (p < 0.05). Both groups had significant improvement in RQOLQ scores after 1 month, which further improved at 2 months (p < 0.05). The nasal dimensions also improved in both groups (p < 0.05) but there was no statistically significant difference between groups. Both mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate are effective as single-modality treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients manifest mild ocular symptoms that may be solely treated with intranasal steroids.
    03/2013; 4(3):e120-6. DOI:10.2500/ar.2013.4.0065

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 25, 2014