Comparative nasal airflow with loratadine-pseudoephedrine and fluticasone nasal spray for allergic rhinitis

Rise and fall of decongestants in treating nasal congestion related diseases

INTRODUCTION

Decongestants are commonly used drugs in clinical practice, and they can relieve nasal congestion caused by factors like influenza, rhinitis, and acute upper respiratory tract infection.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we review the research outcomes about decongestants, which aim to provide beneficial information that can guide the clinical application of decongestants for clinicians.

EXPERT OPINION

Although the use of nasal decongestants is increasingly limited, caution rather than prohibition is now advocated. Scientific and accurate use of nasal decongestants can achieve satisfactory clinical effectiveness on nasal congestion, and it is not easy to produce adverse reactions. Patients with severe nasal congestion may use nasal decongestants solely or in combination with nasal corticosteroids or nasal antihistamines to exert a synergistic effect. The concentration, dose, frequency, and time of nasal decongestants determine whether drug-induced rhinitis will occur. Additionally, we recommend patients not to buy nasal sprays with unknown ingredients on the internet or in pharmacy, so as to avoid the risk of rhinitis medicamentosa. For patients with rhinitis medicamentosa, the use of nasal decongestants should be stopped immediately. However, more evidence is still needed to standardize the clinical use of nasal decongestants.

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

[Peak nasal inspiratory flow in the assessment of nasal airway obstruction]

RELEVANCE

Nasal congestion is one of the most common complaints in otolaryngology practice and can significantly impact the quality of life for patients. Objective and subjective assessments provide different information, but objective assessment of nasal obstruction is crucial for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. This review demonstrates that peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) is a reproducible and reliable measure of objective nasal patency. It is inexpensive, easy to use, suitable for serial measurements, and can be applied to patients of different age groups. PNIF is recommended for use in every outpatient clinic that treats patients with nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the data on the application of PNIF in diagnosing conditions of the nasal airways.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Publications (articles and relevant abstracts) available in the PubMed and eLibrary databases were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

PNIF offers an objective and non-invasive assessment of nasal airflow, aiding in diagnosis, therapy monitoring, and preoperative planning. Further research, standardization, and establishment of normative data will enhance the informative value of peak nasal inspiratory flow in assessing nasal obstruction.

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.

Bridging nanoplatform and vaccine delivery, a landscape of strategy to enhance nasal immunity

Vaccination is an urgently needed and effective option to address epidemic, cancers, allergies, and other diseases. Nasal administration of vaccines offers many benefits over needle-based injection including high compliance and less risk of infection. Inactivated or attenuated vaccines as convention vaccine present potential risks of pathogenic virulence reversal, the focus of nasal vaccine development has shifted to the use of next-generation (subunit and nucleic acid) vaccines. However, subunit and nucleic acid vaccine intranasally have numerous challenges in development and utilization due to mucociliary clearance, mucosal epithelial tight junction, and enzyme/pH degradation. Nanoplatforms as ideal delivery systems, with the ability to enhance the retention, penetration, and uptake of nasal mucosa, shows great potential in improving immunogenic efficacy of nasal vaccine. This review provides an overview of delivery strategies for overcoming nasal barrier, including mucosal adhesion, mucus penetration, targeting of antigen presenting cells (APCs), enhancement of paracellular transportation. We discuss methods of enhancing antigen immunogenicity by nanoplatforms as immune-modulators or multi-antigen co-delivery. Meanwhile, we describe the application status and development prospect of nanoplatforms for nasal vaccine administration. Development of nanoplatforms for vaccine delivery via nasal route will facilitate large-scale and faster global vaccination, helping to address the threat of epidemics.

Intranasal corticosteroid use in patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases in the world, which is based on IgE-mediated inflammation that develops after exposure to various allergens. About 40% of people suffer from the same or other allergic diseases, every third inhabitant of the Earth has symptoms of AR and every tenth has bronchial asthma. According to the ARIA classification, ARs are divided: by the nature of the flow, by the severity of the flow and by the stage of the flow; for symptoms, the proposed therapy, consisting of sequential steps. Groups of drugs include: systemic or topical blockers of histamine H1 receptors, intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers (intranasal cromones), M-antagonists, antagonists of leukotriene receptors. Medicines do not give a lasting effect after their cancellation, therefore, with persistent AR, treatment should be prolonged; methods of application more often oral or intranasal. The advantages of the pharmacological antiallergic effect of InHCS are the simultaneous inhibition of both the early and late phases of the allergic response and the inhibition of all AR symptoms. The advantage of InHCS over oral administration is the minimal risk of developing systemic side effects against the background of the creation of adequate concentrations of the substance in the nasal mucosa, which allows to control the symptoms of AR. Based on data from a number of studies, the advantages of intrasal corticosteroids for AR, in particular fluticasone propionate, are used.