Effectiveness of 0.05% oxymetazoline (Vicks Sinex Micromist®) nasal spray in the treatment of objective nasal congestion demonstrated to 12 h post-administration by magnetic resonance imaging

How Does Oxymetazoline Change Nasal Aerodynamics and Symptomatology in Patients with Turbinate Hypertrophy?

OBJECTIVES

Oxymetazoline relieves nasal obstructive symptoms via vasoconstriction, however, the changes in nasal structures and aerodynamics that impact symptoms the most remain unclear.

METHODS

This prospective, longitudinal, and single blinded cohort study applied Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) modeling based on CT scans at baseline and post-oxymetazoline on 13 consecutive patients with chronic nasal obstruction secondary to inferior turbinate hypertrophy from a tertiary medical center. To account for placebo effect, a sham saline spray was administered with subject blindfolded prior to oxymetazoline, with 30 min rest in between. Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and unilateral Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of nasal obstructions were collected at baseline, after sham, and 30 min after oxymetazoline.

RESULTS

Both VAS and NOSE scores significantly improved from baseline to post-oxymetazoline (NOSE: 62.3 ± 12.4 to 31.5 ± 22.5, p < 0.01; VAS: 5.27 ± 2.63 to 3.85 ± 2.59, p < 0.05), but not significantly from baseline to post-sham. The anatomical effects of oxymetazoline were observed broadly throughout the entire length of the inferior and middle turbinates (p < 0.05). Among many variables that changed significantly post-oxymetazoline, only decreased nasal resistance (spearman r = 0.4, p < 0.05), increased regional flow rates (r = -0.3 to -0.5, p < 0.05) and mucosal cooling heat flux (r = -0.42, p < 0.01) in the inferior but not middle turbinate regions, and nasal valve Wall Shear Stress (WSS r = -0.43, p < 0.05) strongly correlated with symptom improvement.

CONCLUSION

Oxymetazoline broadly affects the inferior and middle turbinates, however, symptomatic improvement appears to be driven more by global nasal resistance and regional increases in airflow rate, mucosal cooling, and WSS, especially near the head of the inferior turbinate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3: Well-designed, prospective, single blinded cohort trial. Laryngoscope, 134:1100-1106, 2024.

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.

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.

Treating acute rhinitis and exacerbations of chronic rhinitis - A role for topical decongestants?

Acute nasal symptoms are troublesome for patients. In addition, these symptoms are encountered frequently by individuals because of common infectious diseases, especially rhinovirus, giving rise to a ‘common cold’. Acute nasal symptoms include rhinorrhoea, sneezing, nasal itch and congestion. Of these, nasal congestion is the most irritating. Because topical nasal decongestants provide rapid and dramatic relief from these symptoms, especially nasal congestion, they are frequently used and abused by patients. Guidance for indications, choice of most efficacious decongestant and recommendations for limiting side effects are thus essential to be imparted to patients by doctors.

Chinese Society of Allergy and Chinese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Guideline for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

The current document is based on a consensus reached by a panel of experts from the Chinese Society of Allergy and the Chinese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rhinology Group. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) affects approximately 8% of Chinese adults. The inflammatory and remodeling mechanisms of CRS in the Chinese population differ from those observed in the populations of European descent. Recently, precision medicine has been used to treat inflammation by targeting key biomarkers that are involved in the process. However, there are no CRS guidelines or a consensus available from China that can be shared with the international academia. The guidelines presented in this paper cover the epidemiology, economic burden, genetics and epigenetics, mechanisms, phenotypes and endotypes, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, management, and the current status of CRS in China. These guidelines-with a focus on China-will improve the abilities of clinical and medical staff during the treatment of CRS. Additionally, they will help international agencies in improving the verification of CRS endotypes, mapping of eosinophilic shifts, the identification of suitable biomarkers for endotyping, and predicting responses to therapies. In conclusion, these guidelines will help select therapies, such as pharmacotherapy, surgical approaches and innovative biotherapeutics, which are tailored to each of the individual CRS endotypes.

Does oxymetazoline increase the efficacy of nasal steroids in treating nasal polyposis?

BACKGROUND

Although nasal steroids are the mainstay treatments in nasal polyposis, up to one-half of patients do not respond and need surgical treatment. This study aimed to evaluate whether oxymetazoline administration produces any additive effect on nasal steroid therapy and whether rebound congestion develops after oxymetazoline treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with nasal polyposis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oxymetazoline plus mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) or placebo plus MFNS, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, with an interval of 5 minutes between each medication for 4 weeks. All the patients were then treated with MFNS, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. The nasal symptoms score, peak inspiratory flow index, nasal mucociliary clearance time (NMCCT), and total nasal polyps score were used to evaluate treatment outcomes. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed, and a worst case sensitivity analysis was applied to missing cases.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were allocated to the oxymetazoline-MFNS group, and 34 to the placebo-MFNS group. One patient in each group was lost to last-visit follow-up. At 4 weeks after beginning treatment, the oxymetazoline-MFNS group showed significantly greater improvement in blocked nose, hyposmia, peak flow, NMCCT, and total nasal polyps score than the placebo-MFNS group. During the nasal steroid phase, both groups showed continuing improvement in all outcome variables. However, the oxymetazoline-MFNS group still showed significantly greater improvement in blocked nose, hyposmia, NMCCT, and total nasal polyps score, but not peak flow, than the placebo-MFNS group at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

The use of nasal steroids with oxymetazoline was more effective over 6 weeks than nasal steroids alone in improving blocked nose, hyposmia, nasal mucociliary clearance, and polyp size in treatment of nasal polyposis. There was no evidence of rebound congestion after 4 weeks of oxymetazoline treatment.

Nasal decongestants in monotherapy for the common cold

BACKGROUND

Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.