The effect of combined medical treatment on quality of life in persistent allergic rhinitis

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.

Individualized treatment for allergic rhinitis based on key nasal clinical manifestations combined with histamine and leukotriene D4 levels

Introduction

The types of allergic rhinitis are roughly classified based on the causative antigens, disease types, predilection time, and symptom severity.

Objective

To examine the clinical typing and individualized treatment approach for allergic rhinitis and to determine the optimal treatment method for this disease using various drug combination therapies.

Methods

A total of 108 participants with allergic rhinitis were divided into three groups based on symptoms. Subsequently, each group was further categorized into four subgroups based on the medications received. The efficacy of the treatments was evaluated using the visual analog scale VAS scores of the total and individual nasal symptoms, decline index of the symptom score, histamine and leukotriene levels, and mRNA and protein expression levels of histamine 1 and cysteinyl leukotriene 1 receptors.

Results

Loratadine + mometasone furoate and loratadine + mometasone furoate + montelukast significantly improved the sneezing symptom and reduced the histamine levels compared with the other combination therapies (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, montelukast + mometasone furoate and montelukast + mometasone furoate + loratadine considerably improved the nasal obstruction symptom and decreased the leukotriene D4 levels compared with the other combination therapies (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Clinical symptom evaluation combined with experimental detection of histamine and leukotriene levels can be an objective and accurate method to clinically classify the allergic rhinitis types. Furthermore, individualized treatment based on allergic rhinitis classification can result in a good treatment efficacy.

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

BACKGROUND

A combination of H1 antihistamine (AH) with intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is commonly prescribed to patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have an inadequate response to monotherapy. In this systematic review we aimed to determine the effects of AH combined with INCS (AH-INCS) for treating AR.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed using Medline and Embase. Randomized, controlled trials that studied the effects of AH-INCS vs INCS monotherapy for treating patients with AR were included. The primary outcomes were total nasal symptom scores, total ocular symptom scores, and disease-specific quality of life. The secondary outcomes were objective tests for nasal patency and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4026 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with INCS, AH-INCS decreased total nasal symptom scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to -0.06; p < 0.001; 10 trials, 3348 patients) and total ocular symptom scores (SMD, -0.12, 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.04; p = 0.003; 6 trials, 2378 patients). Subgroup analysis indicated no benefit with the oral AH-INCS combination but did show benefit with intranasal AH-INCS (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.09; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to disease-specific quality of life (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.02; p = 0.12; 6 trials, 1981 patients), nasal inspiratory flow (MD, -0.03 L/min; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.50; p = 0.91; 1 trial, 54 patients), or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal AH-INCS has benefit over INCS on nasal and ocular symptom improvement for treating AR. Oral AH-INCS is not recommended.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.