Changes in unilateral nasal airflow in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis measured in and out of season

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.

The role of nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide as an objective parameter independent of nasal airflow resistance in the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) show augmented activity of nitric oxide (NO) metabolism, similar to those in bronchial asthma (BA). We hypothesized that measurements of nasal fractional exhaled NO (FeNO) could be used as an objective marker to detect the presence of AR. Our objective was to clarify the influence of nasal airflow resistance (NAR) on nasal FeNO levels through an exhalation maneuver in symptomatic AR patients. We also examined the diagnostic test validity of the mean nasal FeNO level for disease discrimination by means of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

METHODS

Fifty-nine untreated perennial AR patients without BA and 60 healthy controls were enrolled in this retrospective cross-sectional study. The subjective symptoms were recorded and the disease severity was classified according to the Japanese guideline for AR. The oral and nasal FeNO measurements were carried out using a handheld electrochemical analyzer according to the ATS/ERS guidelines. NAR was measured using a rhinomanometer by the anterior method.

RESULTS

The patients in the moderate-to-most severe AR group showed significantly higher levels of oral FeNO compared to the controls. The AR patients in both the mild (n=25) and the moderate-to-most severe (n=34) groups showed significantly higher levels of nasal FeNO compared to the controls (44.1ppb, 54.5ppb, and 26.5ppb, respectively). There was no significant difference in total NAR between the AR patients and the controls. The results of our comparison of nasal FeNO and NAR values of the ipsilateral nasal cavity for each individual indicated no significant correlation between the two-paired parameters. The optimal cut-off point of the mean nasal FeNO level was calculated as 38.5ppb (with 71% sensitivity and 86% specificity) to discriminate the presence of AR.

CONCLUSION

Nasal FeNO measurements can be an objective parameter for the diagnosis and classification of perennial AR in Japanese individuals. Nasal FeNO and NAR appear to be two independent measures that can be used to objectively evaluate nasal functions.

Nasal patency by rhinomanometry in patients with sensation of nasal obstruction

BACKGROUND

The objective assessment of nasal patency is a common challenge in clinical practice. This study was designed to show and compare the values of active anterior rhinomanometry (RMM) in patients with sensation of nasal obstruction.

METHODS

According to the physical examination, 7283 individuals with sensation of nasal obstruction were divided into the nasal septal deviation (NSD) group and normal nasal anatomy group. The NSD group and normal nasal anatomy group were further divided into subgroups according to skin-prick test positivity or negativity, respectively. Nasal airway resistances (NARs) of the subgroups were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The mean value of total inspiratory NAR was 0.51 and 0.34 Pa/cm3 per second at 150-Pa pressure point in allergic rhinitis subjects with and without NSD, respectively; 0.48 and 0.32 Pa/cm3 per second were the mean values of total inspiratory NAR in nonallergic rhinitis subjects with and without NSD, respectively. The total inspiratory resistances in groups with NSD were significantly higher than the others.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the results of so large a number of participants in this test will make an obvious contribution to the medical literature.

Objective monitoring of nasal patency and nasal physiology in rhinitis

Nasal obstruction can be monitored objectively by measurement of nasal airflow, as evaluated by nasal peak flow, or as airways resistance/conductance as evaluated by rhinomanometry. Peak flow can be measured during inspiration or expiration. Of these measurements, nasal inspiratory peak flow is the best validated technique for home monitoring in clinical trials. The equipment is portable, relatively inexpensive, and simple to use. One disadvantage, however, is that nasal inspiratory peak flow is influenced by lower airway as well as upper airway function. Rhinomanometry is a more sensitive technique that is specific for nasal measurements. The equipment, however, requires an operator, is more expensive, and is not portable. Thus, it is applicable only for clinic visit measures in clinical trials. Measurements require patient cooperation and coordination, and not all can achieve repeatable results. Thus, this objective measure is best suited to laboratory challenge studies involving smaller numbers of selected volunteers. A nonphysiological measure of nasal patency is acoustic rhinometry. This sonic echo technique measures internal nasal luminal volume and the minimum cross-sectional area. The derivation of these measures from the reflected sound waves requires complex mathematical transformation and makes several theoretical assumptions. Despite this, however, such measures correlate well with the nasal physiological measures, and the nasal volume measures have been shown to relate well to results obtained by imaging techniques such as computed tomography scanning or magnetic resonance imaging. Like rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry is not suitable for home monitoring and can be applied only to clinic visit measures or for laboratory nasal challenge monitoring. It has advantages in being easy to use, in requiring little patient cooperation, and in providing repeatable results. In addition to nasal obstruction, allergic rhinitis is recognized to be associated with impaired mucociliary clearance and altered nasal responsiveness. Measures exist for the monitoring of these aspects of nasal dysfunction. Although measures of mucociliary clearance are simple to perform, they have a poor record of reproducibility. Their incorporation into clinical trials is thus questionable, although positive outcomes from therapeutic intervention have been reported. Measures of nasal responsiveness are at present largely confined to research studies investigating disease mechanisms in allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. The techniques are insufficiently standardized to be applied to multicenter clinical trials but could be used in limited-center studies to gain insight into the regulatory effects of different therapeutic modalities.

Mouse models of global airway allergy: what have we learned and what should we do next?

Recent epidemiological and clinical data indicate that allergic rhinitis and asthma coexist and should be considered as one airway allergy syndrome. In spite of the importance of this new concept of global airway allergy, it has not fundamentally changed our daily diagnostic and therapeutic strategies so far because of the lack of essential clues to understand the correlation between allergic inflammation in upper and lower airways. Because of the resemblance of experimentally induced allergic airway inflammation in mice to inflamed airways of allergic patients, mouse models can enhance our insight into mechanisms underlying the global airway allergy syndrome. We here review data generated in mice that are relevant for understanding the development of airway allergy and provide new options for research on the so-called 'united airway disease'.