Ipratropium bromide nasal spray 0.03% and beclomethasone nasal spray alone and in combination for the treatment of rhinorrhea in perennial rhinitis

Rhinitis Disease Burden and the Impact of Social Determinants of Health

Social determinants of health (SDHs) have a substantial impact on patient care and outcomes globally, both in low- to middle-income countries and in high-income countries. In the clinic, lack of availability of diagnostic tools, inequities in access to care, and challenges obtaining and adhering to prescribed treatment plans may further compound these issues. This article addresses a case of rhinitis in the context of SDHs and inequities in care that may affect various communities and populations around the world. SDHs may include various aspects of one's financial means, education, access to medical care, environment and living situation, and community factors, each of which could play a role in the rhinitis disease manifestations, diagnosis, and management. Allergic and nonallergic rhinitis are considered from this perspective. Rhinitis epidemiology, disease burden, and risk factors are broadly addressed. Patient evaluation, diagnostic tests, and management options are also reviewed, and issues related to SDHs are noted. Finally, inequities in care, knowledge gaps, and unmet needs are highlighted. It is critical to consider SDHs and care inequities when evaluating and treating patients for rhinitis and other allergic conditions.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Background: Loratadine and montelukast are clinical first-line drugs in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, there is no clear evidence of the efficacy of loratadine combined with montelukast in the treatment of AR. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the loratadine-montelukast combination on AR. Methods: In this meta-analysis, searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search terms included loratadine, montelukast, allergic rhinitis, and clinical trials. Meta-analyses were conducted using Rev Man 5.3 and Stata 15 statistical software. Results: A total of 23 studies with 4,902 participants were enrolled. For the primary outcome, pooled results showed that loratadine-montelukast can significantly reduce total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), when compared with loratadine (SMD, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.65, p < 0.00001), montelukast (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.25, p < 0.0001), or placebo (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.49, p < 0.00001). For secondary outcomes, pooled results showed that compared with loratadine, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, nasal itching, nasal sneezing, nasal rhinorrhea, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaires (RQLQ). Compared with montelukast, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal itching, and nasal sneezing. Compared with placebo, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, and RQLQ. Conclusion: Loratadine-montelukast combination is superior to loratadine monotherapy, montelukast monotherapy, or placebo in improving AR symptoms. Therefore, loratadine-montelukast combination can be an option for patients with moderate-severe AR or poorly response to monotherapy. Systematic review registration number: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42023397519.

Nasal sprays: commonly used medications that are often misunderstood

Sinonasal inflammatory disease is very common and all clinicians who care for these patients should understand the topical treatment options available. This article reviews the utility and application of steroidal, saline, decongestant, antihistamine and anticholinergic preparations for the treatment of sinonasal disease, with a particular focus on evidence-based guidelines for use in both specialist and non-specialist healthcare settings.

Development and validation of LC-MS/MS methods for the quantification of 101BHG-D01, a novel, long-acting and selective muscarinic receptor antagonist, and its main metabolite M6 in human plasma, urine and feces: Application to a clinical study in healthy Chinese subjects

101BHG-D01 is a novel, long-acting and selective muscarinic receptor antagonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and rhinorrhea in rhinitis. To support its clinical study, several liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods for the quantification of 101BHG-D01 and its main metabolite M6 in human plasma, urine and feces were developed. The plasma samples were prepared by protein precipitation, and the urine and fecal homogenate samples were pretreated by direct dilution, respectively. The chromatographic separation was performed on an Agilent InfinityLab Poroshell 120 C18 column with 0.1% formic acid and 10.0 mM ammonium acetate buffer solution in water and methanol as the mobile phase. The MS/MS analysis was performed by using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) under a positive ion electrospray ionization mode. The methods were validated with regards to selectivity, linearity, lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ), accuracy and precision, matrix effect, extraction recovery, dilution integrity, batch size, carryover and stability. The calibration ranges were as follows: 1.00-800 pg/mL for 101BHG-D01 and 1.00-20.0 pg/mL for M6 in plasma; 0.0500-20.0 ng/mL for 101BHG-D01 and M6 in urine; 0.400-400 ng/mL for 101BHG-D01 and 0.100-100 ng/mL for M6 in feces. There was no endogenous or cross interference observed at the retention time of the analytes and internal standard in various biological matrices. Across these matrices, for the lower limit of quantitation quality control (LLOQ QC) samples, the intra- and inter-batch coefficients of variation were within 15.7%. For other QC samples, the intra- and inter-batch coefficients of variation were within 8.9%. The intra- and inter-batch accuracy deviations for all QC samples were within the range of - 6.2-12.0%. No significant matrix effect was observed from the matrices. The extraction recoveries of these methods at different concentrations were consistent and reproducible. The analytes were stable in different matrices under various storage conditions. The other bioanalytical parameters were also fully validated and met the criteria given in the FDA guidance. These methods were successfully applied to a clinical study in healthy Chinese subjects after a single dose administration of 101BHG-D01 inhalation aerosol. After inhalation, 101BHG-D01 was absorbed into plasma rapidly with the time to reach the maximum drug concentration (T_max) of 5 min and eliminated slowly with a half-life time about 30 h. The cumulative urinary and fecal excretion rates revealed 101BHG-D01 was mainly excreted in feces, rather than urine. The pharmacokinetic results of the study drug laid a foundation for its further clinical development.

Intranasal Anticholinergics for Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Topical intranasal anticholinergics are commonly prescribed for the relief of chronic rhinitis and associated symptoms, warranting thorough assessment of the supporting evidence. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticholinergic nasal sprays in the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis symptom severity and duration.

METHODS

A search encompassing the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted. Primary studies describing rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and/or postnasal drip outcomes in rhinitis patients treated with an anticholinergic spray were included for review.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,029 unique abstracts, of which 12 studies (n = 2,024) met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis and 9 (n = 1,920) for meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 4 weeks and ipratropium bromide was the most extensively trialed anticholinergic. Compared to placebo, anticholinergic treatment was demonstrated to significantly reduce rhinorrhea severity scores (standardized mean difference [95% CI] = -0.77 [-1.20, -0.35]; -0.43 [-0.72, -0.13]) and duration (-0.62 [-0.95, -0.30]; -0.29 [-0.47, -0.10]) in allergic and non-allergic rhinitis patients respectively. Benefit was less consistent for nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and sneezing symptoms. Reported adverse effects included nasal mucosa dryness or irritation, epistaxis, headaches, and pharyngitis, though comparison to placebo found significantly greater risk for epistaxis only (risk ratio [95% CI] = 2.19 [1.22, 3.93]).

CONCLUSION

Albeit treating other symptoms with less benefit, anticholinergic nasal sprays appear to be safe and efficacious in reducing rhinorrhea severity and duration in both rhinitis etiologies. This evidence supports their continued use in the treatment of rhinitis-associated rhinorrhea.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 Laryngoscope, 133:722-731, 2023.

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

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.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Bencycloquidium bromide nasal spray is effective and safe for persistent allergic rhinitis: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of bencycloquidium bromide nasal spray (BCQB) in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODS

We enrolled 720 patients from 15 hospitals across China and randomly assigned them into BCQB group or placebo group (90 μg per nostril qid) to receive a 4-week treatment. Visual analog scale (VAS) for rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion, itching and overall symptoms were recorded by patients every day. Anterior rhinoscopy scoring was completed by doctors on every visit. Adverse events were recorded in detail.

RESULTS

A total of 354 and 351 patients were included in BCQB group and in placebo group. Baseline information was comparable. At the end of the trial, the decrease of VAS for rhinorrhea from baseline was 4.83 ± 2.35 and 2.46 ± 2.34 in BCQB group and placebo group, respectively (P < 0.001). The change ratio from baseline of VAS for rhinorrhea in BCQB group was 72.32%, higher than 31.03% in placebo group (P < 0.001). VAS for other symptoms and overall symptoms also improved significantly in the BCQB group, while no inter-group difference was found in anterior rhinoscopy scoring. The incidence of adverse reaction was similar between the two groups. Most reactions were mild and no severe reactions happened.

CONCLUSION

90 μg BCQB per nostril four times daily is effective and safe in the treatment of rhinorrhea as well as sneezing, nasal congestion and itching for patients with PAR.

RETROSPECTIVELY REGISTERED

ChiCTR2000030924, 2020/3/17.

Intranasal corticosteroids for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Non-allergic rhinitis is defined as dysfunction and non-infectious inflammation of the nasal mucosa that is caused by provoking agents other than allergens or microbes. It is common, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% to 20%. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, anterior rhinorrhoea/post-nasal drip and sneezing. Several subgroups of non-allergic rhinitis can be distinguished, depending on the trigger responsible for symptoms; these include occupation, cigarette smoke, hormones, medication, food and age. On a cellular molecular level different disease mechanisms can also be identified. People with non-allergic rhinitis often lack an effective treatment as a result of poor understanding and lack of recognition of the underlying disease mechanism. Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the most common types of medication prescribed in patients with rhinitis or rhinosinusitis symptoms, including those with non-allergic rhinitis. However, it is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids are truly effective in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of non-allergic rhinitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal corticosteroids, delivered by any means and in any volume, with (a) placebo/no intervention or (b) other active treatments in adults and children (aged ≥ 12 years).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a significant adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were (disease-specific) health-related quality of life, objective measurements of airflow and other adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies (4452 participants); however, only 13 studies provided data for our main comparison, intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo. The participants were mainly defined as patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms and negative allergy tests. No distinction between different pheno- and endotypes could be made, although a few studies only included a specific phenotype such as pregnancy rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa or senile rhinitis. Most studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary healthcare setting. No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Intranasal corticosteroid dosage in the review ranged from 50 µg to 2000 µg daily. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo Thirteen studies (2045 participants) provided data for this comparison. These studies used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data in each analysis using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.15 to -0.33; 4 studies; 131 participants; I2 = 22%) (low-certainty evidence). However, between four weeks and three months the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.20; 3 studies; 85 participants; I2 = 0%) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may slightly improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score change from baseline when compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 4 studies; 1465 participants; I2 = 35%) (low-certainty evidence). All four studies evaluating the risk of epistaxis showed that there is probably a higher risk in the intranasal corticosteroids group (65 per 1000) compared to placebo (31 per 1000) (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.57; 4 studies; 1174 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute risk difference (RD) was 0.04 with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 25 (95% CI 16.7 to 100). Only one study reported numerical data for quality of life. It did report a higher quality of life score in the intranasal corticosteroids group (152.3 versus 145.6; SF-12v2 range 0 to 800); however, this disappeared at longer-term follow-up (148.4 versus 145.6) (low-certainty evidence). Only two studies provided data for the outcome objective measurements of airflow. These data could not be pooled because they used different methods of outcome measurement. Neither found a significant difference between the intranasal corticosteroids and placebo group (rhinomanometry SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.14; 44 participants; peak expiratory flow rate SMD 0.78, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.03; 11 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids probably resulted in little or no difference in the risk of other adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3 studies; 1130 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids versus other treatments Only one or a few studies assessed each of the other comparisons (intranasal corticosteroids versus saline irrigation, intranasal antihistamine, capsaicin, cromoglycate sodium, ipratropium bromide, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroids with saline compared to saline alone). It is therefore uncertain whether there are differences between intranasal corticosteroids and other active treatments for any of the outcomes reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes in this review was low or very low. It is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids reduce patient-reported disease severity in non-allergic rhinitis patients compared with placebo when measured at up to three months. However, intranasal corticosteroids probably have a higher risk of the adverse effect epistaxis. There are very few studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids to other treatment modalities making it difficult to draw conclusions.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

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.

Combination therapy in allergic rhinitis: What works and what does not work

Allergic rhinitis and other rhinitis subtypes are increasingly becoming some of the most prevalent and expensive medical conditions that affect the U.S.

POPULATION

Both direct health care costs and indirect costs significantly impact the health care system due to delays in diagnosis, lack of treatment, ineffective treatment, poor medication adherence, and associated comorbidities. Many patients who have AR turn to over-the-counter medications for relief but often find themselves dissatisfied with the results. Determining the correct diagnosis, followed by initiation of the most-effective treatment(s), is essential to provide patients with better symptomatic management and quality of life. Although there are many options, currently available combination therapies, e.g., azelastine with fluticasone and intranasal corticosteroids with nasal decongestants, offer distinct advantages for the management of complex rhinitis phenotypes. Further research is required to investigate the pathomechanisms and biomarkers for mixed rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis subtypes that will lead to novel targeted therapies for these conditions.

Capsaicin for Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. Non-allergic rhinitis is characterized by rhinitis symptoms without systemic sensitization of infectious etiology. Based on endotypes, we can categorize non-allergic rhinitis into an inflammatory endotype with usually eosinophilic inflammation encompassing at least NARES and LAR and part of the drug induced rhinitis (e.g., aspirin intolerance) and a neurogenic endotype encompassing idiopathic rhinitis, gustatory rhinitis, and rhinitis of the elderly. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis have a higher baseline TRPV1 expression in the nasal mucosa than healthy controls. Capsaicin (8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide) is the active component of chili peppers, plants of the genus Capsicum. Capsaicin is unique among naturally occurring irritant compounds because the initial neuronal excitation evoked by it is followed by a long-lasting refractory period, during which the previously excited neurons are no longer responsive to a broad range of stimuli. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis benefit from intranasal treatment with capsaicin. Expression of TRPV1 is reduced in patients with idiopathic rhinitis after capsaicin treatment. Recently, in a Cochrane review, the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of idiopathic rhinitis was evaluated and the authors concluded that given that many other options do not work well in non-allergic rhinitis, capsaicin is a reasonable option to try under physician supervision. Capsaicin has not been shown to be effective in allergic rhinitis nor in other forms of non-allergic rhinitis like the inflammatory endotypes or other neurogenic endotypes like rhinitis of the elderly or smoking induced rhinitis.

Optimal Duration of Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines have been published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for the conduct of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) studies. These guidelines have differences regarding the duration of such trials: the FDA suggests 2 weeks for SAR and 4 weeks for PAR but the EMEA suggests 2 to 4 weeks for SAR and 6 to 12 weeks for PAR trials. In the interest of global harmonization, it would be desirable to have a uniform duration of such trials so that investigators, internationally, would be able to readily compare results for various types of treatments based on a single standard. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based review to answer the clinical question, What is the optimal duration for SAR and PAR clinical trials?

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search of the published literature from 1995 to the present. We used appropriate search terms, such as allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, SAR, and PAR, to identify pertinent articles. These articles were reviewed and graded according to the evidence quality.

RESULTS: After an initial screening of more than 300 articles, 138 articles were analyzed thoroughly. No study specifically addressed the question of the optimal duration of SAR or PAR clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the current FDA (draft) guidelines calling for a study length of 2 weeks for the assessment of drug efficacy for SAR and 4 weeks for the study of drug efficacy in PAR are appropriate and that longer study periods are not likely to add meaningfully to the assessment of drug efficacy.

Phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis and their impact on management: a PRACTALL report

Rhinitis is an umbrella term that encompasses many different subtypes, several of which still elude complete characterization. The concept of phenotyping, being the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of clinical presentation, has been well established in the last decade. Classification of rhinitis entities on the basis of phenotypes has facilitated their characterization and has helped practicing clinicians to efficiently approach rhinitis patients. Recently, the concept of endotypes, that is, the definition of disease subtypes on the basis of underlying pathophysiology, has emerged. Phenotypes/endotypes are dynamic, overlapping, and may evolve into one another, thus rendering clear-cut definitions difficult. Nevertheless, a phenotype-/endotype-based classification approach could lead toward the application of stratified and personalized medicine in the rhinitis field. In this PRACTALL document, rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes are described, and rhinitis diagnosis and management approaches focusing on those phenotypes/endotypes are presented and discussed. We emphasize the concept of control-based management, which transcends all rhinitis subtypes.

Nonallergic rhinitis, with a focus on vasomotor rhinitis: clinical importance, differential diagnosis, and effective treatment recommendations

The term "rhinitis" denotes nasal inflammation causing a combination of rhinorrhea, sneezing, congestion, nasal itch, and/or postnasal drainage. Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent and most frequently recognized form of rhinitis. However, nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is also very common, affecting millions of people. By contrast, NAR is less well understood and less often diagnosed. Nonallergic rhinitis includes a heterogeneous group of conditions, involving various triggers and distinct pathophysiologies. Nonallergic vasomo-tor rhinitis is the most common form of NAR and will be the primary focus of this review. Understanding and recognizing the presence of NAR in a patient is essential for the correct selection of medications and for successful treatment outcomes.

Intranasal steroids in the treatment of allergy-induced rhinorrhea

While nasal congestion has been identified as one of the most bothersome and prevalent symptoms of allergic rhinitis, it is underappreciated that many patients find rhinorrhea also to be bothersome. Rhinorrhea as a symptom of allergic rhinitis virtually never occurs alone; about 97% of patients with allergic rhinitis suffer from at least two symptoms, a finding that underscores the advantage of treating a broad range of symptoms with a single medication. Along with sneezing and nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea is a classic acute symptom of allergic rhinitis; it appears as a late-phase symptom as well. In this review, the characterization and epidemiology of rhinorrhea, the pathophysiology of rhinorrhea in allergic rhinitis, the roles played by mediators in early- and late-phase rhinorrhea, the prevalence and impact of this symptom, and the efficacy and safety of available treatment options are all discussed in context of relevant literature. A review of the clinical studies assessing the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INS) for rhinorrhea is presented. Many clinical studies and several meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that, in addition to being safe and well-tolerated, INS are more effective than other agents (including oral and intranasal antihistamines) across the spectrum of AR symptoms, including rhinorrhea and nasal congestion.

Management of rhinitis: guidelines, evidence basis, and systematic clinical approach for what we do

Whereas very mild rhinitis may be simply and successfully self-managed by patients using medications available over the counter, most patients with rhinitis who present to medical offices have more severe rhinitis that may need a more comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Optimal care may require special diagnostic studies and combination therapies that are arrived at only after trying multiple different medication and therapeutic options. This article presents a systematic approach to office care of rhinitis from the perspective of an allergist-immunologist. More emphasis is given to discussion of dilemmas that face the specialist or more involved considerations that have been highlighted in recently published guidelines.

Nonallergic rhinopathy (formerly known as vasomotor rhinitis)

This review focuses on the poorly understood condition of nonallergic rhinopathy (NAR) at a clinical level, with an eye on current optimal treatment. NAR is the new designation for the conditions formerly referred to as vasomotor rhinitis or nonallergic idiopathic rhinitis. The clinical characteristics and differential diagnosis are provided in detail in this review, and the disease should now be characterized sufficiently for clinical studies.

Subchronic toxicity and toxicokinetics of long-term intranasal administration of bencycloquidium bromide: a 91-day study in dogs

The subchronic toxicity and toxicokinetics of Bencycloquidium bromide (BCQB) were evaluated after 91-day intranasal administration in dogs at daily dose levels of 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/kg. Following repeated exposure to medium- or high-dose of BCQB, apparent changes were observed in the levels of blood glucose, creatinine or blood urea nitrogen in both male and female dogs. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of BCQB was considered to be 2.5 mg/kg/day under the present study conditions. There were no significant gender differences in most indexes of subchronic toxicity throughout the experimental period with the exception of food consumption and body weight, or in the parameters of plasma toxicokinetics after either single-dose or repeated administrations of BCQB at each dosage. In dog, BCQB did not accumulate in blood plasma, while much higher concentrations of BCQB residues were found in most tissues examined (especially the kidney) following 91-day repeated exposure relative to a single dose. In all tissues except the reproductive organs, BCQB concentrations reverted to low levels by 2 weeks post-dosing. The results indicate that blood glucose levels and renal function should be closely monitored when BCQB is used in long-term therapy.

Anticholinergic drugs in nonallergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The parasympathetic nervous system contributes to the pathophysiology of multiple forms of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis. Stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system leads to glandular activation, which produces watery secretions. In excess, these secretions discharge from the anterior Nares and produce the symptom of watery anterior rhinorrhea.

METHOD

Review of literature.

RESULTS

Treatment with topical, intranasal anticholinergic drugs inhibits activation of the nasal mucosal glands and is effective in reducing the watery secretions associated with parasympathetic stimulation of the glands with little, if any, effect on the symptoms of congestion and sneezing. In general, these drugs have no systemic adverse effects, but can cause crusting and local irritation.

CONCLUSION

Anticholinergic drugs are useful for the treatment of anterior rhinorrhea associated with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

The treatment of vasomotor rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids

Objective

Intranasal steroids (INS) are firmly established as the therapy for choice for allergic rhinitis, but their role in vasomotor rhinitis (VMR) is not fully characterized. This review examines the potential mechanisms of action and reported efficacy of INS in patients with VMR.

Results

INS, through intracellular activation of the glucocorticoid receptor, down-regulate the recruitment and activation of inflammatory cells (T-lymphocytes, eosinophils, mast cells, basophils, neutrophils, macrophages), increase degradation of neuropeptides, and reduce epithelial cell activity, vascular permeability, and chemokine secretion. It is likely that more than vasoconstriction is responsible for the clinical effects of INS.

Eight INS can be prescribed for rhinitis in the US; only 4 have been studied for VMR. Seventy-four percent of patients treated with beclomethasone dipropionate considered themselves symptom-free or greatly improved versus 31% with placebo. Budesonide significantly reduced rhinitis symptoms and methacholine-induced nasal secretions compared with placebo. Fluticasone propionate compared with placebo provided significantly greater relief from nasal obstruction; computed tomographic scans showed significant reductions in the mucosal area of the lower turbinates. Mometasone furoate produced numerically better rhinitis symptom scores and, when discontinued, lower relapse rates than placebo.

Conclusion

Data supports INS as beneficial pharmacotherapy for VMR.

Nonallergic rhinitis, with a focus on vasomotor rhinitis: clinical importance, differential diagnosis, and effective treatment recommendations

The term "rhinitis" denotes nasal inflammation causing a combination of rhinorrhea, sneezing, congestion, nasal itch, and/or postnasal drainage. Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent and most frequently recognized form of rhinitis. However, nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) is also very common, affecting millions of people. By contrast, NAR is less well understood and less often diagnosed. Nonallergic rhinitis includes a heterogeneous group of conditions, involving various triggers and distinct pathophysiologies. Nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis is the most common form of NAR and will be the primary focus of this review. Understanding and recognizing the presence of NAR in a patient is essential for the correct selection of medications and for successful treatment outcomes.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE

The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Idiopathic rhinitis, the ongoing quest

The term rhinitis in daily practice is used for nasal dysfunction causing symptoms-like nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhea and or nasal blockage. Chronic rhinitis can roughly be classified into allergic, infectious or nonallergic/noninfectious. When allergy, mechanical obstruction and infections have been excluded as the cause of rhinitis, a number of poorly defined nasal conditions of partly unknown aetiology and pathophysiology remain. The differential diagnosis of nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis is extensive. Although the percentage of patients with nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis with a known cause has increased the last decades, still about 50% of the patients with nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis has to be classified as suffering from idiopathic rhinitis (IR), or rather e causa ignota. Specific immunological, clinical and sometimes radiological and functional tests are required to distinguish known causes. Research to the underlying pathophysiology of IR has moved from autonomic neural dysbalans to inflammatory disorders (local allergy), the nonadrenergic noncholinergic (NANC) sensory peptidergic neural system and central neural hyperaesthesia, still without solid ground or proof. This review summarizes the currently known causes for nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis and possible treatments. Also possible pathophysiological mechanisms of IR are discussed.

Use of 0.06% ipratropium bromide nasal spray in children aged 2 to 5 years with rhinorrhea due to a common cold or allergies

BACKGROUND

Rhinorrhea from common colds or allergies in children is similar to that in adults, yet there are few data on the use of ipratropium bromide nasal spray in children younger than 5 years.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 0.06% ipratropium bromide nasal spray in 2- to 5-year-old children with rhinorrhea from a common cold or allergies.

METHODS

A total of 230 children (43 with common colds and 187 with allergies) participated in an open-label, multicenter study. Patients with a common cold received ipratropium bromide nasal spray (84 microg per nostril) 3 times daily for 4 days; those with allergies received ipratropium bromide nasal spray (42 microg per nostril) 3 times daily for 14 days.

RESULTS

In the common cold and allergy groups, 91% and 90% of the parents, respectively, found that ipratropium bromide was either "very useful" or "somewhat useful." Furthermore, 67% and 91% of parents in the common cold and allergy groups, respectively, found that administration of a nasal spray was either "extremely easy" or "very easy." Symptom scores were improved from baseline in both groups. The nasal spray was well tolerated and was not associated with serious or systemic anticholinergic adverse effects. Most adverse events were infrequent and mild to moderate, and study discontinuation due to an adverse event occurred in less than 3% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 0.06% ipratropium bromide nasal spray, 42 or 84 microg per nostril 3 times daily, is easy to administer, safe, and effective for the control of rhinorrhea in children aged 2 to 5 years with a common cold or allergies.

Allergic rhinitis in children : diagnosis and management strategies

The incidence of allergic rhinitis has been increasing for the last few decades, in keeping with the rising incidence of atopy worldwide. Allergic rhinitis has a prevalence of up to 40% in children, although it frequently goes unrecognized and untreated. This can have enormous negative consequences, particularly in children, since it is associated with numerous complications and comorbidities that have a significant health impact on quality of life. In fact, allergic rhinitis is considered to be a risk factor for asthma. There are numerous signs of allergic rhinitis, particularly in children, that can alert an observant clinician to its presence. Children with severe allergic rhinitis often have facial manifestations of itching and obstructed breathing, including a gaping mouth, chapped lips, evidence of sleep deprivation, a long face, dental malloclusions, and the allergic shiner, allergic salute, or allergic crease. The medical history is extremely important as it can reveal information regarding a family history of atopy and the progression of atopy in the child. It is also important to identify the specific triggers of allergic rhinitis, because one of the keys to successful management is the avoidance of triggers. A tripartite treatment strategy that embraces environmental control, immunotherapy, and pharmacologic treatment is the most comprehensive approach. Immunotherapy has come to be viewed as potentially prophylactic, capable of altering the course of allergic rhinitis. The most recent guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis issued by the WHO recommend a tiered approach that integrates diagnosis and treatment, in which allergic rhinitis is subclassified both by frequency, as either intermittent or persistent, and by severity, as either mild or moderate to severe. Oral or topical antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for allergic rhinitis, depending upon its severity, and several agents have been approved for use in children aged 5 years old and younger.

Recognizing And Treating Non-Infectious Rhinitis

PURPOSE

To increase clinicians' familiarity with nonallergic and mixed rhinitis and to differentiate these from allergic rhinitis, thus providing for an accurate diagnosis and facilitating a successful initial treatment program.

DATA SOURCES

A Medline search of published journal articles was supplemented with known books and proceedings pertaining to rhinitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is significant overlap of symptoms among the three types of rhinitis (i.e., allergic, nonallergic, and mixed), the patient history often contains clues that can aid in establishing a correct diagnosis. The new Patient Rhinitis Screen, a questionnaire developed for use in the primary care arena, facilitates the diagnostic process.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As the most common condition in the outpatient practice of medicine, rhinitis is frequently treated by primary care practitioners. Recent guidelines for the diagnosis and management of rhinitis suggest that a specific diagnosis of allergic, nonallergic, or mixed rhinitis leads to more effective treatment strategies. The result is successful and efficient care utilizing, as appropriate, broad-based and symptom-specific therapies.

Non-allergic rhinitis: diagnosis and management

Patients in the rhinitis clinic with negative skin prick tests present a challenge. Non-allergic rhinitis consists of a variety of conditions including infection, hormonal changes, drugs and autonomic dysfunction. There is also a range of systemic disorders to be considered. The pathogeneses of many of these are less well understood than that of allergic rhinitis, diagnosis and treatment pathways are also more complex. A detailed accurate history needs to be taken followed by relevant investigations which may include allergen challenge, because skin prick and RAST-negative allergic rhinitis is now recognised. Nitric oxide levels may prove helpful: elevated levels suggest inflammation, very low levels indicate the possibility of primary ciliary dyskinesia or cystic fibrosis. Treatment is of the underlying cause when found: for those without obvious pathology a trial of combined therapy with topical corticosteroids plus antihistamine or plus anti-cholinergic may be worth while. A complex inter-relationship between allergic and infectious rhinitis is becoming apparent.

Thoughts on the pathophysiology of nonallergic rhinitis

Nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis is a diagnosis by exclusion, meaning that a number of poorly defined nasal conditions that have in common allergy and infection as a cause of the rhinitis have been excluded. The etiology of some subgroups of nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis, like nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia (NARES) and drug-induced rhinitis, are quite well defined, but in the majority of the patients, the etiology and pathophysiology are unknown. These patients are classified as idiopathic rhinitis patients. A careful determination of the intensity of the symptoms combined with modern diagnostic tools enables us to discriminate idiopathic rhinitis patients from normal controls. This review discusses the possible pathophysicologic mechanisms of nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis, with emphasis on idiopathic rhinitis.