Difficulties in showing a dose- response with locally-acting nasal sprays and aerosols for allergic rhinitis Badrul A. Chowdhury, MD, PhD Medical Team.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Allergy Medications Oral Antihistamines:

Advertisements

Allergic Rhinitis Kirk H. Waibel CPT, MC Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Ramana S. Uppoor, M.Pharm., Ph.D., R.Ph.

Copyright © 2013, 2010 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Chapter 77 Drugs for Allergic Rhinitis, Cough, and Colds.

Cedar seeds are found in mountainous areas - most commonly in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Mexico. Although most cedars pollinate and cause allergy symptoms.

Difficulties in showing a dose- response with locally-acting nasal sprays and aerosols for allergic rhinitis Badrul A. Chowdhury, MD, PhD Medical Team.

RHINOMANOMETRY / ACOUSTIC RHINOMETRY – ROLE IN NASAL OBSTRUCTION BY- DR. SUPREET SINGH NAYYAR, AFMC FOR MORE PRESENTATIONS, VISIT

NDAC December 14, Clinical Endpoints for Nasal Decongestants Xu Wang, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Officer Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Products Nonprescription.

Badrul A. Chowdhury, MD, PhD

PK and PD Studies for Systemic Exposure of Locally Acting Drugs Industry View Lester I. Harrison, PhD Division Scientist 3m Pharmaceuticals.

Meds for Your Head- Navigating the Choppy Waters of Rhinorrhea and Other Such Dilemmas Michele D. Massow RN MSN FNP-BC CarePointe Ear, Nose, Throat & Sinus.

Allergic rhinitis in children Dr Gulamabbas Khakoo Consultant in Paediatrics, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust Consultant in Paediatric Allergy St Mary’s.

FDA Nasal BA/BE Guidance Overview

Venkata Ramana S. Uppoor, M.Pharm., Ph.D., R.Ph.

Respiratory System PHARMACOLOGY

Allergic Rhinitis and Sinusitis for Primary Care Providers

ALLERGIC RHNITIS - PREVALENCE n Affects million Americans n  10% - 30% of adults n  Up to 40% of children n  More common young boys n but little.

By- Dr. Supreet Singh Nayyar, AFMC For more presentations, visit 1 7/20/2010.

Food and Drug Administration Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products Pediatric Exclusivity 1-Year Adverse Event Reporting for Drug Products Containing.

Downloaded from – Use of Montelukast for the Treatment of Seasonal (Spring) Allergic Rhinitis.

4/26/001 Clinical Studies for Local Delivery of Nasal Aerosols and Sprays Izabela J. Roman, MD, PhD Founder & Medical Director Target Research Associates,

1 ORALLY INHALED AND NASAL DRUG PRODUCTS FOR LOCAL ACTION Current FDA BA/BE Background and Issues Wallace P. Adams, Ph.D. OPS/CDER/FDA OINDP Subcommittee.

ICSA2007 Symposium, 6/5/07 Panel Session Shuyen Ho First Example in Respiratory Area  Steroid Nasal Spray  Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis, Age  12 yr 

Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Lessons Learned from Growth Studies with Orally Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids.

CLINICAL EFFICACY TESTING for NASAL DRUGS Mary M. Fanning, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Director for Medical Affairs Office of Generic Drugs, FDA June 4, 1999.

ALLERGIC RHINITIS. Allergic rhinitis involves inflammation of the mucous membranes of the nose, eyes, eustachian tubes, middle ear, sinuses, and pharynx.

1 Subcommittee Report: Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Wallace P. Adams, Ph.D. OPS/CDER/FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.

Background Derma-Smoothe/FS ® (Fluocinolone acetonide ) Contains 0.01% fluocinolone acetonide in an oil base solution, Categorized as a low to medium potency.

1 Asthma Stability Model for Inhaled Corticosteroid Dose-Response Wallace P. Adams, PhD OGD/OPS/CDER/US FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.

Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products Subcommittee Introduction and Objectives Eric B. Sheinin Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center.

Food and Drug Administration Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products Summary Comments - Orally Inhaled and Intranasal Budesonide and Fluticasone.

1 © 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.

CDER / FDA1 Clinical Study Options for locally acting nasal suspension products Robert J. Meyer, MD Director, Div. Of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products.

Allergy. Introduction An allergy is an exaggerated reaction between the immune system and certain foreign substances called as allergens. It is called.

Joint Non-Prescription Drugs and Pediatric Advisory Committee Meeting October 18-19, 2007 Considerations for Extrapolation of Efficacy from Adults to Children.

Table 1. Current formulations for nasal drug delivery [22]

A proof-of-concept study of the effect of a novel H3-receptor antagonist in allergen- induced nasal congestion William T. Barchuk, MD, Anne Marie Salapatek,

F.Estelle R. Simons, MDa, Bruce M. Prenner, MDb, Albert Finn, MDc

Muro Pharmaceutical, Inc. An ASTA Medica company March 20, 2001

A review of the preclinical and clinical data of newer intranasal steroids used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis William R. Lumry, MD Journal of.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: A single treatment option for the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis Harold B. Kaiser, MD, Robert M. Naclerio, MD,

Antihistamines and Nasal Decongestants

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Bruce M. Prenner, MD, Bobby Q. Lanier, MD, David I

Comparison of the efficacy of budesonide and fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray for once daily treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis James.

Your Name/Credentials

Michael Mellon, MD Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

A proof-of-concept study of the effect of a novel H3-receptor antagonist in allergen- induced nasal congestion William T. Barchuk, MD, Anne Marie Salapatek,

Subjective and objective assessments in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Effects of therapy with mometasone furoate nasal spray Eli O. Meltzer,

F.Estelle R. Simons, MDa, Bruce M. Prenner, MDb, Albert Finn, MDc

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine hydrochloride (120 and 180 mg once daily) and cetirizine in seasonal.

Concomitant montelukast and loratadine as treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial Eli O. Meltzer, MDa,

Comparative efficacy and safety of a once-daily loratadine-pseudoephedrine combination versus its components alone and placebo in the management of seasonal.

Presentation transcript:

Difficulties in showing a dose- response with locally-acting nasal sprays and aerosols for allergic rhinitis Badrul A. Chowdhury, MD, PhD Medical Team Leader, Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products, CDER, US FDA

Nasal sprays and aerosols Nasal sprays - solutions Nasal sprays - suspensions Nasal aerosols - suspensions

Nasal sprays and aerosols Nasal sprays - solutions –Astelin (azelastine hydrochloride) Nasal Spray 137 mcg –Atrovent (ipratropium bromide) Nasal Spray 0.03% –Atrovent (ipratropium bromide) Nasal Spray 0.06% –NasalCrom (cromolyn sodium) Nasal Spray 5.2 mcg –Nasalide (flunisolide) Nasal Spray 25 mcg –Nasarel (flunisolide) Nasal Solution 25 mcg –Tri-Nasal (triamcinolone acetonide) Spray 50 mcg Nasal sprays - suspensions –Beconase (beclomethasone dipropionate) AQ Nasal Spray 42 mcg –Flonase (fluticasone propionate) Nasal Spray 50 mcg –Nasacort AQ (triamcinolone acetonide) Nasal Spray 55 mcg –Nasonex (mometasone furoate) Nasal Spray 50 mcg –Rhinocort (budesonide) Aqua Nasal Spray 32 mcg –Vancenase (beclomethasone dipropionate) AQ Double Strength Nasal Spray 0.084% Nasal aerosols - suspensions –Beconase (beclomethasone dipropionate) Inhalation Aerosol 42 mcg –Nasacort (triamcinolone acetonide) Nasal Inhaler 55 mcg –Rhinocort (budesonide) Nasal Inhaler 32 mcg –Vancenase (beclomethasone dipropionate) PocketHaler Nasal Inhaler 42 mcg

Allergic rhinitis study design Types of studies –Natural exposure study In-season, outpatient, multiple day (3-7 day run-in, days of double blind treatment), parallel-group –Day-in-the park study In-season, outpatient, single or multiple days (1-3 days), parallel-group –Environmental exposure unit study Out-of-season, single or multiple days (1-3 days) cross-over or parallel-group

Allergic rhinitis study design Efficacy measures –Nasal symptoms - reflective or instantaneous [0-3 scale] nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion –Non-nasal symptoms - reflective or instantaneous [0-3 scale] eye itching, eye redness, eye watering, itching of ears or palate Objective pharmacodynamic measures of efficacy are not currently accepted because they lack validation and established clinical correlation –Measures of nasal passage patency rhinomanometry, nasal inspiratory flow rate, etc., –Inflammatory markers of disease activity cells, cytokines, chemokines, nitric oxide, etc.,

Experience with three drug substances Solution nasal spray (Drug A) Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug B) Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug C)

Experience with three drug substances Solution nasal spray (Drug A) –Day-in-the park dose-ranging study Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug B) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative study with spray and aerosol formulations Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug C) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative dose-ranging study with spray and aerosol formulations

Experience with three drug substances Solution nasal spray (Drug A) –Day-in-the park dose-ranging study Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug B) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative study with spray and aerosol formulations Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug C) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative dose-ranging study with spray and aerosol formulations

Drug A: Dose-ranging study with a solution nasal spray Day-in-the-park, 2-center US study conducted in fall of 1989 SAR patients ages  12 years Two days in the park, 3 doses BID at 3 dose levels Efficacy: instantaneous scoring of 6 symptoms [runny nose, sniffles, itchy nose, nose blows, sneezes, watery eyes] on 0-5 scale. Scored hourly for 6 hours after first and third dose in the park, and less frequently at other time points. Scores summed as major symptoms complex.

Drug A: Dose-ranging study with a solution nasal spray Day-in-the-park, 2-center US study conducted in fall of 1989 SAR patients ages  12 years Two days in the park, 3 doses BID at 3 dose levels Efficacy: instantaneous scoring of 6 symptoms [runny nose, sniffles, itchy nose, nose blows, sneezes, watery eyes] on 0-5 scale. Scored hourly for 6 hours after first and third dose in the park, and less frequently at other time points. Scores summed as major symptoms complex.

Drug A: Dose-ranging study with a solution nasal spray Day-in-the-park, 2-center US study conducted in fall of 1989 SAR patients ages  12 years Two days in the park, 3 doses BID at 3 dose levels Efficacy: instantaneous scoring of 6 symptoms [runny nose, sniffles, itchy nose, nose blows, sneezes, watery eyes] on 0-5 scale. Scored hourly for 6 hours after first and third dose in the park, and less frequently at other time points. Scores summed as major symptoms complex.

Drug A: Dose-ranging study with a solution nasal spray Day-in-the-park, 2-center US study conducted in fall of 1989 SAR patients ages  12 years Two days in the park, 3 doses BID at 3 dose levels Efficacy: instantaneous scoring of 6 symptoms [runny nose, sniffles, itchy nose, nose blows, sneezes, watery eyes] on 0-5 scale. Scored hourly for 6 hours after first and third dose in the park, and less frequently at other time points. Scores summed as major symptoms complex.

Drug A: Dose-ranging study with a solution nasal spray Day-in-the-park, 2-center US study conducted in fall of 1989 SAR patients ages  12 years Two days in the park, 3 doses BID at 3 dose levels Efficacy: instantaneous scoring of 6 symptoms [runny nose, sniffles, itchy nose, nose blows, sneezes, watery eyes] on 0-5 scale. Scored hourly for 6 hours after first and third dose in the park, and less frequently at other time points. Scores summed as major symptoms complex.

Experience with three drug substances Solution nasal spray (Drug A) –Day-in-the park dose ranging study Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug B) –Natural exposure dose ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative study with spray and aerosol formulations Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug C) –Natural exposure dose ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative dose-ranging study with spray and aerosol formulations

Drug B: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 14-center US study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: Ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  6 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period Treatment: QD dosing of 4 dose levels over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing] scored on 0-3 scale every morning. Sum of the 3 symptoms is nasal index score.

Drug B: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 14-center US study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: Ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  6 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period Treatment: QD dosing of 4 dose levels over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing] scored on 0-3 scale every morning. Sum of the 3 symptoms is nasal index score.

Drug B: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 14-center US study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: Ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  6 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period Treatment: QD dosing of 4 dose levels over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing] scored on 0-3 scale every morning. Sum of the 3 symptoms is nasal index score.

Drug B: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 14-center US study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: Ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  6 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period Treatment: QD dosing of 4 dose levels over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing] scored on 0-3 scale every morning. Sum of the 3 symptoms is nasal index score.

Drug B: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 14-center US study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: Ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  6 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period Treatment: QD dosing of 4 dose levels over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing] scored on 0-3 scale every morning. Sum of the 3 symptoms is nasal index score.

Drug B: Comparative study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 7-center Canadian study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by three-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, sneezing, nasal congestion] and eye symptoms on 0-3 scale twice daily.

Drug B: Comparative study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 7-center Canadian study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by three-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, sneezing, nasal congestion] and eye symptoms on 0-3 scale twice daily.

Drug B: Comparative study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 7-center Canadian study conducted in fall of 1994 Subjects: ragweed sensitive SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by three-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of of 3 nasal symptoms [runny nose, sneezing, nasal congestion] and eye symptoms on 0-3 scale twice daily.

Experience with three drug substances Solution nasal spray (Drug A) –Day-in-the park dose-ranging study Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug B) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative study with spray and aerosol formulations Suspension nasal spray and aerosol (Drug C) –Natural exposure dose-ranging study with spray formulation –Natural exposure comparative dose-ranging study with spray and aerosol formulations

Drug C: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 15-center US study conducted in fall of 1992 SAR patients ages  18 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of four dose levels over a 16-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 8 symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing, eye itching and burning, tearing of eyes, eye redness, itching of ears and/or palate] scored on 0-6 scale every morning.

Drug C: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 15-center US study conducted in fall of 1992 SAR patients ages  18 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of four dose levels over a 16-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 8 symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing, eye itching and burning, tearing of eyes, eye redness, itching of ears and/or palate] scored on 0-6 scale every morning.

Drug C: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 15-center US study conducted in fall of 1992 SAR patients ages  18 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of four dose levels over a 16-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 8 symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing, eye itching and burning, tearing of eyes, eye redness, itching of ears and/or palate] scored on 0-6 scale every morning.

Drug C: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 15-center US study conducted in fall of 1992 SAR patients ages  18 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of four dose levels over a 16-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 8 symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing, eye itching and burning, tearing of eyes, eye redness, itching of ears and/or palate] scored on 0-6 scale every morning.

Drug C: Dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray Natural exposure, 15-center US study conducted in fall of 1992 SAR patients ages  18 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by four-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of four dose levels over a 16-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 8 symptoms [runny nose, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing, eye itching and burning, tearing of eyes, eye redness, itching of ears and/or palate] scored on 0-6 scale every morning.

Drug C: Comparative dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 32-center US study conducted in 1999 spring SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by two-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels from 2 devices over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 4 nasal symptoms [rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching] scored on 0-3 scale twice daily. Sum of the 4 symptoms is total nasal symptom score.

Drug C: Comparative dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 32-center US study conducted in 1999 spring SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by two-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels from 2 devices over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 4 nasal symptoms [rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching] scored on 0-3 scale twice daily. Sum of the 4 symptoms is total nasal symptom score.

Drug C: Comparative dose-ranging study with a suspension nasal spray and aerosol Natural exposure, 32-center US study conducted in 1999 spring SAR patients ages  12 years Design: one-week baseline period, followed by two-week double-blind treatment period QD dosing of 3 dose levels from 2 devices over an 8-fold range Efficacy: 12-hour reflective recording of 4 nasal symptoms [rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching] scored on 0-3 scale twice daily. Sum of the 4 symptoms is total nasal symptom score.

Summary comments Rhinitis studies of nasal sprays and aerosols do not consistently show dose-response relationship Reasons of failure to show dose-response –Symptom score is not a sensitive discriminative measure –The approved doses of some drugs may be at the upper flat portion of the dose-response curve