Role of nasal saline irrigation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children and adults: A systematic analysis

Farit NA. The Efficacy of Elonide Nasal Corticosteroids in Managing Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

Background: Mometasone furoate nasal spray is efficacious in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms. The objectives of this study were, firstly, to compare the efficacy of Elonide to Nasonex® and a placebo and secondly, to investigate the side effects of Elonide. Method: This was a prospective, single-centered, double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 163 participants from the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), were randomized into three treatment groups receiving Elonide (n = 56), Nasonex® (n = 54), and placebo (n = 53) nasal sprays using an online randomizer (Random.org). Treatment was administered for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Total Nasal Resistance (TNR), and the secondary outcomes were the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQOLQ) score. Side effects were recorded. Results: There were significant improvements for all groups from baseline. The Elonide group had the greatest mean difference for all primary and secondary outcomes compared to Nasonex® and the placebo (0.77 ± 2.44 vs. 0.35 ± 1.16, p = 1.00 vs. 0.17 ± 0.82, p = 0.01). Elonide is non-inferior to Nasonex (p = 1.00) and superior to the placebo (p < 0.05). The highest side effects reported were for Nasonex (n = 14, 26%), followed by the placebo (n = 8, 16%) and Elonide (n = 6, 12%); headaches (n = 9, 17%) and sore throat (n = 9, 17%) were the most common. Conclusions: Elonide has similar efficacy to Nasonex® when compared to a placebo in the treatment of AR in adults. Elonide is safe and tolerable, with fewer side effects and no adverse side effects.

Real-World Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of 2.3% Hypertonic Saline Soft Mist Spray for Sino-Nasal Symptoms

Introduction and aims Mildly hypertonic saline is more effective in relieving symptoms of nasal congestion compared to placebo or isotonic saline. Recently, a unique device, delivering a soft mist of 2.3% hypertonic sea-salt saline (Nasoclear PureHaleTM; Zydus Healthcare Ltd., India) has been introduced in India. The device uses a power-less manual technique to release the saline as a soft mist at 1 ml/min. Methods This is a retrospective, multi-centric, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2.3% hypertonic sea-salt saline nasal irrigation delivered through a soft mist device in patients with sino-nasal symptoms. This is an analysis of data of 130 patients collected from the medical records of 11 practicing pediatricians across India. Results The mean age of the patients was 5.23 ± 4.24 years; 63 % were boys and 37% were girls (n = 130). The mean reduction in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) at follow-up from baseline was 6.28 ± 0.18 (median days = 7) (95% CI = 5.92 to 6.64; p<0.0001; mean TNSS at baseline = 7.75 ± 2.01, mean TNSS at follow-up = 1.47± 1.30). Out of 130 patients, 33 patients (25.3%) showed complete improvement in TNSS, 93 patients (71.5%) had ≥ 50% improvement in TNSS while 4 patients (3.07%) showed <50% improvement in TNSS. The effectiveness of the device was rated as excellent (75%-100% improvement) and very good (50%-75% improvement) in 41 and 74 patients, respectively. It was rated as very easy to use and easy to use by 62 patients and 57 patients, respectively. One hundred nineteen patients (91.5%) were compliant with the prescribed frequency of the device and 110 patients (84.6%) were compliant with the prescribed duration of use of the device. No serious adverse events were reported; two patients reported mild side effects - stinging and irritation of the throat. Conclusions The 2.3% hypertonic sea-salt saline nasal irrigation delivered through the soft mist device was found to be well-tolerated and effective in patients with sino-nasal symptoms in real-world clinical settings. Clinical trial number The clinical trial number of this study is CTRI/2022/07/043751.

An evidence gap map of interventions for noncommunicable diseases and risk factors among children and adolescents

Substance misuse, obesity, mental health conditions, type 1 diabetes, cancers, and cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases together account for 41% of disability-adjusted life years linked to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) among children and adolescents worldwide. However, the evidence on risk factors and interventions for this age group is scarce. Here we searched four databases to generate an evidence gap map of existing interventions and research gaps for these risk factors and NCDs. We mapped 159 reviews with 2,611 primary studies; most (96.2%) were conducted in high-income countries, and only 100 studies (3.8%) were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The efficacy of therapeutic interventions on biomarkers and adverse events for NCDs appears to be well evidenced. Interventions for mental health conditions appear to be moderately evidenced, while interventions for obesity and substance misuse appear to be moderate to very low evidenced. Priority areas for future research include evaluating digital health platforms to support primary NCD prevention and management, and evaluating the impact of policy changes on the prevalence of obesity and substance misuse. Our findings highlight the wide disparity of evidence between high-income countries and LMICs. There is an urgent need for increased, targeted financing to address the research gaps in LMICs.

Highlights of the treatment of allergic rhinitis according to Chinese guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aimed to introduce the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis according to the 2022 updated Chinese guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite recent advances in basic and clinical research worldwide, pharmacotherapy remains a mainstream in allergic rhinitis treatment. Usually, the first-line drugs, involving intranasal corticosteroids, second-generation oral and intranasal H1-antihistamines, or leukotriene receptor antagonists, can achieve acceptable outcomes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The second-line drugs, such as oral corticosteroids, intranasal decongestants and intranasal anticholinergics, can assist in controlling severe symptoms, like nasal congestion/blockage and watery rhinorrhea. For those with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis, evidence-based stepwise strategies are suitable, in which the types and dosages of drugs are de-escalated or upgraded according to their therapeutic efficacy. Meanwhile, omalizumab, a novel biological agent, has burgeoned to satisfy the need of patients.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the staples in Chinese guidelines about the pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis to better understand the guidelines and promote the clinical practice.

Updates in the diagnosis and practical management of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease that can be associated with other conditions, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on the history and documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, preferably using molecular diagnostics. Treatments are based on patient education, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), and surgery. Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses current and emerging management strategies for AR, covering pharmacological and non-pharmacological remedies, AIT, and biologics in selected cases with associated severe asthma. However, AIT presently remains the unique causal treatment for AR.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered in the fixed association between intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of AIT.

Clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray for perennial allergic rhinitis in children: a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) versus placebo on nasal symptoms and safety in children with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted with data obtained from Medline and Embase databases up to April 2023. The population of interest was patients aged 2-12 years with perennial AR. The selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing FFNS with placebo. Outcomes of interest included the reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) and safety. To assess the minimal clinically important difference for rTNSS, the Cohen's guideline was used. If the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceeded the threshold of -0.20, effects were considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were selected. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, another evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and another evaluated both the short-term and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction over placebo in rTNSS (SMD -0.18; 95 percent CI -0.35 to -0.01, p = 0.03) in long-term treatment studies, but not in short-term treatment studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD -0.20), these results were considered clinically not relevant. Safety outcomes with FFNS were similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS, 110 μg once daily, compared to placebo, does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptom in children with perennial AR.

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.

Computational investigation of nasal surface coverage from squeeze bottle and Neti Pot saline irrigation flow

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nasal saline irrigation is a common therapy for inflammatory nasal and paranasal disease or for managing post nasal and sinus surgery recovery. Two common irrigation devices include the netipot and squeeze bottles, where anecdotally, these devices alleviate congestion, facial pain, and pressure. However, a quantitative evaluation of these devices' performance and the fluid dynamics responsible for the irrigation distribution through the nose is lacking. This study tracked the liquid surface coverage and wall shear stresses during nasal saline irrigation produced from a Neti Pot and squeeze bottle.

METHODS

This study used transient computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to investigate the saline irrigation flow field in a subject-specific sinonasal model. The computational nasal cavity model was constructed from a high-resolution computed tomography scan (CT). The irrigation procedure applied a head position tilted at 90° forward using an 80 ml squeeze bottle and 120 ml Neti Pot.

RESULTS

The results from a single sinonasal model demonstrated that the Neti Pot irrigation was more effective in delivering saline solution to the nasal cavity on the contralateral side of irrigation due to typically larger volumes but at the expense of reduced flow and shearing rates, as the flow entered under gravitational forces. The squeeze bottle irrigation provided greater surface coverage on the side of irrigation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the single patient model, demonstrated the Neti Pot increased surface coverage in the paranasal sinuses. Reducing the jet diameter may aid the direct targeting of a specific region at the side of irrigation by preventing the impingement of the jet to the nasal passage surface and redirection of the flow. Evaluating this performance across a wider cohort of patients can strengthen the findings.

Nasal irrigation with various solutions for adults with allergic rhinitis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nasal douching or irrigation has been recommended for adjunctive therapy of sinonasal diseases including allergic rhinitis (AR) for many years. Previous study reported large-volume high-pressure device as an effective standard application, but the solutions was remains controversy. This study systematically review the clinical efficacy of nasal irrigation with various solutions for adults with AR from medical literature.

METHODS

This research systematically asses clinical trial about nasal irrigation with various solutions for adults with AR from medical literature. The sources were PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases, and gray literature from google scholar and RAMA repository limited to English and Bahasa Indonesia language articles, published from January 2017 to July 2022. Only randomized controlled trials involving the human subjects studies will be included. The inclusion criteria research must be related to nasal irrigation for AR, and should be full texted available. Literature management, screening, data extraction will use Rayyan.ai tools. The quality assessment of qualified paper and risk of bias will be assessing independent conducted by 2 reviewer with risk of bias 2. We will use Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020 tools to produce the systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

After completion of the study process, the data analysis and review will be reported. The results will be publicized through a peer-review journal publication.

CONCLUSION

The results of the systematic review will summarize the efficacy of various nasal irrigation for adults with AR, so it can be used as clinician recommendation.

The Beneficial Effects of Hydrogen-Rich Saline Irrigation on Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Purpose

Chronic rhinitis (CR) is a common chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa. Nasal saline irrigation has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for CR. In this study, we investigated the beneficial effects of hydrogen-rich saline irrigation as an anti-inflammatory irrigation therapy for CR and compared its effectiveness over saline irrigation. Hydrogen-rich saline (HRS) was investigated due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

Methods

A total of 120 patients with CR were randomly divided into two groups, patients irrigated with HR (HRS group) and the control group irrigated with saline (NS group). A randomized, double-blind control study was performed. The main observation index in this study was the total score of nasal symptoms (TNSS). In addition, eosinophilic protein (ECP) of the nasal secretions, nasal nitric oxide (nNO) levels, and levels of regulatory T cells (Treg) and regulatory B cells (Breg) were also compared between the two groups. Furthermore, patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) were also evaluated based on serum-specific IgE positivity.

Results

After treatment, TNSS and nasal ECP in the two groups decreased significantly (P<0.05), with patients in the HRS group showing significantly lower levels compared to the NS group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in Treg and Breg levels between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that TNSS in the AR-HRS group showed a more significant reduction compared to the AR-NS group (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences for the other inflammatory biomarkers (P>0.05). ECP levels were reduced significantly in the NAR subgroup compared to NS irrigation (P<0.05). There were no obvious adverse events observed in patients during the entire treatment period.

Conclusion

Compared to saline irrigation, HRS nasal irrigation was found to improve CR clinical symptoms, especially in patients with AR. HRS could effectively be used for the clinical treatment of patients with CR.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/8YpkEFCYNzI

Optimal Device and Regimen of Nasal Saline Treatment for Sinonasal Diseases: Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.

Review Methods

Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.

Results

Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.

Conclusion

Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.