Effects of H1 antihistamine addition to intranasal corticosteroid for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of clinical traits for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis during allergen exposure

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is traditionally subdivided into seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR) according to the type of allergen and the occurrence of symptoms during the year. There are currently no reports on the comparison of trait profiles for SAR and PAR during the allergen exposure. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical characteristics of SAR and PAR during respective allergen exposure periods to provide valuable information for the development of treatment strategies. Methods: This study was performed between August 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022, in the Department of Allergy, Beijing Tongren Hospital. We continuously included diagnosed SAR and PAR outpatients who volunteered to participate in the survey. A questionnaire with regard to medical history, severity of symptoms, and diagnosis and treatment status was collected. Results: A total of 296 patients with SAR and 448 with PAR were finally recruited. Patients with SAR had more severe rhinorrhea compared with patients with PAR (p < 0.001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of itching, sneezing, and congestion between the two entities (p ≥ 0.05). Both the gritty and watery eyes of patients with SAR were noticeably more severe than those of patients with PAR (PTotal Ocular Symptom Score [PTOSS] < 0.001). AR symptom severity is mainly associated with the comorbid allergic conjunctivitis (odds ratio 1.94 [95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.09]). SAR patients and PAR patients show no statistically significant differences in terms of their frequency of visits, annual expenditure, and choice of medication treatment for AR (p > 0.05). The overall control under standard medication of both patients with PAR and those with SAR is not ideal, especially in SAR. Conclusion: The current cross-sectional study demonstrated that the patients with SAR exhibited more severe overall clinical symptoms than those with PAR, especially nasal rhinorrhea and gritty and watery eyes. Both of the two disease entities have poor control under standardized medication treatment, especially in SAR. Further multicenter longitudinal studies that involve larger and more diverse populations should be conducted to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the condition.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Evidence-based use of antihistamines for treatment of allergic conditions

Available since the 1940s, H1 antihistamines are mainstay treatments for allergic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and urticaria. They function as inverse agonists that bind to the H1 receptor to inhibit histamine-induced inflammation. The older, first-generation drugs are no longer recommended for patient use because of their well-documented negative adverse effect profile. Evidence has been accumulating to support a newer generation of H1 antihistamines in oral and intranasal formulations, including in combination with intranasal corticosteroids. The literature is replete with large meta-analyses and systematic reviews establishing the safety and efficacy of second-generation H1 antihistamines in adult and pediatric allergic rhinitis populations, including combination nasal spray agents (eg, MP29-02 or MP-AzeFlu). Although intraclass differences do exist, patient preference, access, and costs should be the priority. Robust data on the regular, not as needed use of H1 antihistamines for urticaria have been published, including in the management of children and pregnant or lactating women. In addition, H1 antihistamines can be used in other related allergic conditions, such as the secondary symptoms of anaphylaxis, to provide patients with greater comfort, including in allergic asthma, depending on the individual.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

The add-on effect of an intranasal antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid in Japanese cedar pollinosis

OBJECTIVE

Combination intranasal drugs with a corticosteroid and antihistamine are available in several countries with better effect than treatments with single agents. However, it remains unclear whether this effect is also seen in Japanese cedar pollinosis (JCP), the most prevalent seasonal allergic rhinitis in Japan. We investigated the effect of an add-on intranasal antihistamine with an intranasal corticosteroid in JCP during the pollen dispersal period. (UMIN000025508) METHODS: We performed a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial from March 1 to 14, 2017. Patients (n = 20 per group) received either a mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) plus a levocabastine nasal spray (levocabastine group) or MFNS plus a placebo nasal spray (placebo group). The primary endpoint was the difference in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) after treatment between the two groups. Differences in the total ocular symptom score, total symptom score, total medication score, total symptom-medication score, and five individual symptoms as well as safety were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The change in the TNSS from baseline was significantly greater in the levocabastine group than in the placebo group. A significant reduction in the TNSS was observed more than 6 days earlier in the levocabastine group than in the placebo group. Such add-on effects were also seen in the secondary endpoints. Both treatments were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The intranasal antihistamine provided better control of not only nasal symptoms, but also of ocular symptoms, and decreased the need for rescue medications when added to intranasal corticosteroid treatment in JCP patients.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Consensus Statement from the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology

The goal of allergic rhinitis (AR) management is to achieve satisfactory symptom control to ensure good quality of life. Most patients with AR are currently treated with pharmacotherapy. However, knowledge gaps on the use of pharmacotherapy still exist among physicians, particularly in the primary care setting, despite the availability of guideline recommendations. Furthermore, it is common for physicians in the secondary care setting to express uncertainty regarding the use of new combination therapies like intranasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine combinations. Inadequate treatment leads to significant reduction of quality of life that affects daily activities at home, work, and school. With these concerns in mind, a practical consensus statement was developed to complement existing guidelines on the rational use of pharmacotherapy in both the primary and secondary care settings.

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

Pharmacological Benefits of Triphala: A Perspective for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is considered a major nasal condition impacting a large number of people around the world, and it is now becoming a global health problem. Because the underlying mechanisms of AR are complex, the development of single-drug treatment might not be enough to treat a wide spectrum of the disease. Although the standard guidelines classify and provide suitable diagnosis and treatment, the vast majority of people with AR are still without any means of controlling it. Moreover, the benefits of AR drugs are sometimes accompanied by undesirable side effects. Thus, it is becoming a significant challenge to find effective therapies with limited undesirable side effects for a majority of patients suffering from uncontrolled AR. Aller-7/NR-A2, a polyherbal formulation, has revealed promising results in patients by reducing nasal symptoms and eosinophil counts without serious adverse effects. Interestingly, three out of seven of the herbals in the Aller-7/NR-A2 formulation are also found in an Ayurvedic polyherbal formulation known as “Triphala,” which is a potential candidate for the treatment of AR. However, there are no current studies that have examined the effects of Triphala on the disease. This review aims to describe the complexity of AR pathophysiology, currently available treatments, and the effects of Triphala on AR in order to help develop it as a promising alternative treatment in the future.

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases

Background

In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine.

Methods

Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published.

Results

The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm.

Conclusions

We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

Modulation of Allergic Inflammation in the Nasal Mucosa of Allergic Rhinitis Sufferers With Topical Pharmaceutical Agents

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic upper respiratory disease estimated to affect between 10 and 40% of the worldwide population. The mechanisms underlying AR are highly complex and involve multiple immune cells, mediators, and cytokines. As such, the development of a single drug to treat allergic inflammation and/or symptoms is confounded by the complexity of the disease pathophysiology. Complete avoidance of allergens that trigger AR symptoms is not possible and without a cure, the available therapeutic options are typically focused on achieving symptomatic relief. Topical therapies offer many advantages over oral therapies, such as delivering greater concentrations of drugs to the receptor sites at the source of the allergic inflammation and the reduced risk of systemic side effects. This review describes the complex pathophysiology of AR and identifies the mechanism(s) of action of topical treatments including antihistamines, steroids, anticholinergics, decongestants and chromones in relation to AR pathophysiology. Following the literature review a discussion on the future therapeutic strategies for AR treatment is provided.