Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow

Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.

METHODS

Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.

CONCLUSION

After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.

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.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

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.

Measurements of nasal airflow and patency: a critical review with emphasis on the use of peak nasal inspiratory flow in daily practice

Objective measures can be used to assist the clinician to diagnose and treat nasal obstruction and also to quantify nasal obstruction in research. Objective measurements of nasal obstruction are as important as objective measurements of lung function. peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), acoustic rhinometry (AR) and rhinomanometry (RM), with their specific peculiarity, assess different aspects of nasal obstruction. From the studies available in the literature, it seems that these methods roughly correlate with each other and that all of them can be alternatively utilized very well in research as well as in clinical practice. This review describes the various methods that can be used to measure nasal patency, airflow and resistance, mainly peak nasal inspiratory flow, rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. PNIF has been demonstrated to be reproducible and as good an indication of objective nasal patency as formal rhinomanometry and has the advantage to be cheap, simple and suitable for serial measurements and for home use even in the paediatric population. PNIF normative data are available for children, adults and elderly subjects, and the availability of unilateral PNIF normal values allows evaluation of nasal sides separately. Just as in the lower airways, objective and subjective evaluation gives different information that together optimizes the diagnosis and the treatment of our patients. We argue that PNIF should be used regularly in every outpatient clinic that treats patients with nasal obstruction.

Nasal peak inspiratory and expiratory flow measurements for assessing nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Although nasal peak flow measurements have been proposed as a simple alternative method to assess nasal patency, which of nasal peak expiratory flow or nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPEF/NPIF) or the peak expiratory flow index or peak inspiratory flow index (PEFI/PIFI; the ratios between nasal and oral PEF or nasal and oral PIF, respectively) is the more accurate method is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between NPEF, NPIF, PEFI, and PIFI, and blocked nose score (BNS) and mucociliary clearance time (MCCT) in diagnostic and follow-up assessments.

METHODS

Ninety-nine allergic rhinitis (AR) patients were treated with 220 micrograms once daily of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide for 28 days. BNS, NPEF, NPIF, PEFI, and PIFI and MCCT were used to evaluate treatment outcome. Correlations of initial visit scores and score changes after treatment between peak flow rates and BNSs and MCCTs were analyzed.

RESULTS

All nasal symptoms, peak flows, and MCCTs showed statistically significant improvements after the nasal steroid treatment. PEFI showed the best negative correlation with BNS and MCCTs, followed by PIFI, NPEF, and NPIF. Nasal peak flows showed better correlations with MCCTs than BNSs. Mean changes of peak flow rates between visits showed better correlation with BNSs and MCCTs than absolute values of peak flow rates at the initial visit.

CONCLUSION

Among nasal peak flow measurements, PEFI is the most appropriate objective tool for assessing nasal patency in AR. Peak flows can indicate underlying mucosal inflammation and are more sensitive to assess score changes after treatment than cross-sectional assessment at the initial visit.

Perceptual accuracy of upper airway compromise in children: Clinical relevance and future directions for research

Approximately 80% of children with asthma have coexisting allergic rhinitis. The accurate recognition and assessment of asthma and rhinitis symptoms is an integral component of guideline-based treatment for both conditions. This article describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a novel paradigm for testing the accuracy of children's assessment of their upper airway (rhinitis) symptoms. This work is guided by our previous research showing the clinical efficacy of tools to evaluate children's perceptual accuracy of asthma symptoms and linking accurate asthma symptom perception to decreased asthma morbidity (Fritz G, et al., Ethnic differences in perception of lung function: A factor in pediatric asthma disparities? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 182:12-18, 2010; Klein RB, et al., The Asthma Risk Grid: Clinical interpretation of symptom perception, Allergy Asthma Proc 251-256, 2004). The pilot study tests a paradigm that allows for the examination of the correspondence of children's assessment of their upper airway functioning with actual values of upper airway flow through the use of a portable, handheld nasal peak flowmeter. Nine children with persistent asthma were evaluated over a 4-week period. The article describes the rhinitis perceptual accuracy paradigm and reviews the results of a pilot study, showing a large proportion of inaccurate rhinitis symptoms "guesses" by the sample of children with persistent asthma. Patterns of inaccuracy, rhinitis control, and asthma morbidity are also described. Directions for future work are reviewed. The development of clinical tools to evaluate children's accuracy of rhinitis symptoms are needed, given the central role of the self-assessment of symptoms in guideline-based care. Accurate perception of the severity of rhinitis symptoms may enhance rhinitis control, lessen the burden of asthma, and prevent unnecessary emergency use among this high-risk group of children.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists in allergic eye disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Allergic eye diseases are common and cause significant morbidity. Leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis (AC), commonly seen in conjunction with allergic rhinitis, and in vernal keratoconjunctivitis and atopic keratoconjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the available evidence for an effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) on the ocular symptoms of allergic eye diseases.

METHODS

Selected studies, identified with systematic review search methods, were single/double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that compared LTRAs with other common treatments.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials, using the LTRA montelukast (in AC only), were identified. Six studies were suitable for meta-analysis, in patients with seasonal AC [treated over a 2-week period, symptoms scored 0 (mild) to 3 (severe)]. These trials were at low risk of bias without significant heterogeneity. Six trials were analyzed and showed that montelukast improved patients' ocular symptoms to a greater extent than placebo, with a difference in mean change-from-baseline score of -0.10 (95% CI, -0.14 to -0.07; P < .00001). Three trials compared montelukast with oral antihistamine. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = .007), in favor of antihistamines. Two trials compared montelukast and oral antihistamine with placebo. The difference in mean change-from-baseline score was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.38 to -0.21; P < .00001), in favor of combination treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In seasonal AC LTRAs are more efficacious than placebo but less efficacious than oral antihistamines in adult patients. Clinical trials should be conducted to determine whether combination treatment with LTRA and oral antihistamine has a synergistic effect. Further research is required to clarify the role of LTRAs in other allergic eye diseases.

Stenting the nasal airway for maximizing inspiratory airflow: internal Max-Air Nose Cones versus external Breathe Right strip

BACKGROUND

Several nasal dilator devices designed to stent the anterior nasal airway to increase peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) currently exist; however, comparisons of such devices are limited. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of two different nasal dilator devices, an internal device (Max-Air Nose Cones; Sanostec Corp., Beverly Farms, MA) and an external device (Breathe Right nasal strip; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, Middlesex, U.K.) on stenting of the anterior nasal airway to maximize PNIF.

METHODS

Repeated measurements of PNIF were obtained in 30 individuals noting complaints of sleep-disordered breathing due to nasal breathing discomfort and nasal airway obstruction, both with and without the two different nasal dilator devices.

RESULTS

A one-within analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed among the three conditions (control, Max-Air Nose Cones, and Breathe Right nasal strip), and a statistically significant effect was found (F[2,58] = 298.13; p< 0.00001). Tukey post hoc contrasts revealed that the control condition PNIF (66.07 L/min) was significantly lower than both the Max-Air Nose Cones (138.73 L/min) and the Breathe Right nasal strip (102.17 L/min) conditions. The Max-Air Nose Cone increased inspiratory airflow by 73 L/min, or a 110% improvement over baseline. In addition, the Max-Air Nose Cone condition PNIF was significantly higher than both the control condition and the nasal strip condition.

CONCLUSION

Although both the Max-Air Nose Cones and the Breathe Right nasal strips increased PNIF from baseline, the Max-Air Nose Cones showed significantly greater efficacy at stenting the anterior nasal airway, providing twice the improvement in PNIF over baseline than did the Breathe Right nasal strips.

Fluticasone Furoate Nasal Spray is Effective and Well Tolerated for Perennial Allergic Rhinitis in Adolescents and Adults

Background

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), an intranasal corticosteroid, has been shown to be effective in perennial allergic rhinitis in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies but has been less extensively studied in perennial allergic rhinitis than seasonal allergic rhinitis. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FFNS in perennial allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults ≥12 years of age.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (FFU111439), patients ≥12 years old with perennial allergic rhinitis received FFNS, 110 micrograms (n = 160), or placebo (n = 155) q.d. for 4 weeks.

Results

Over the entire treatment period, FFNS was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than placebo with respect to mean changes from baseline in daily reflective total nasal symptoms (primary end point), morning and evening reflective total nasal symptoms, daily reflective individual nasal symptoms, morning predose instantaneous total and individual nasal symptoms, and morning and evening peak nasal inspiratory flow. FFNS did not show a statistically significant difference from placebo in comparisons of ocular symptom measures. Clinically meaningful improvement versus placebo was observed on the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities overall score. Adverse events reported in >3% of patients in a treatment group and reported more frequently with FFNS than placebo were epistaxis (15% FFNS, 8% placebo) and nasopharyngitis (5% FFNS, 1% placebo).

Conclusion

Once-daily FFNS was well tolerated and more effective than placebo at improving nasal symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults ≥12 years of age.

Intranasal mometasone furoate therapy for allergic rhinitis symptoms and rhinitis-disturbed sleep

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and related nasal congestion cause rhinitis-disturbed sleep (RDS). Intranasal corticosteroids reduce nasal congestion and improve sleep quality in AR but have not been extensively studied in RDS.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) on nasal symptoms, nasal patency, sleep variables, quality of life, and daytime functioning in perennial AR (PAR) and concomitant RDS.

METHODS

In this double-blind 4-week study, 30 adults with PAR and moderate RDS were randomized 2:1 to receive mometasone furoate NS, 200 microg, or placebo each morning. The primary end point was the apnea-hypopnea index. Secondary outcome measures included changes in total nasal symptom score (TNSS), nighttime symptom score, daytime peak nasal inspiratory flow, nighttime flow limitation index, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire-Standardized (RQLQ-S) score, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and Work Productivity and Activities Impairment-Allergy Specific (WPAI-AS) questionnaire score. Analysis of covariance was used for all efficacy end points.

RESULTS

The apnea-hypopnea index at study end was not statistically significantly different between groups. However, mometasone furoate NS therapy significantly improved morning (P = .04) and evening (P = .01) TNSSs, morning (P = .049) and evening (P = .03) nasal obstruction/blockage/congestion, daily peak nasal inspiratory flow (P = .03), flow limitation index (P = .02), Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (P = .048), RQLQ-S score (P = .03), and 2 of 5 WPAI-AS domains. Among patients receiving mometasone furoate NS, TNSS improvements were significantly correlated with improved work- and non-work-related productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PAR and RDS, mometasone furoate NS use improved nasal symptoms, sleepiness, and impairment in daily activities. Correlated reduced nasal symptoms and improved performance suggest that improving AR symptoms with mometasone furoate NS administration can benefit sleep and daytime functioning.

The minimal clinically important difference in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

When presented with results from clinical measurements or research findings, clinicians must first make an interpretation of their importance, not only in statistical terms, but also the 'clinical importance' given the size of the change observed. To do this, they require an understanding of the relationship between their outcome measures, and the patient's perception of change. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) illustrates this relationship by calculating the smallest change in a given outcome that is meaningful to a patient. There are few reports of calculated MCIDs in the Rhinology literature.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate MCIDs for common subjective and objective outcome measures in allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

Nine randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials in intermittent and persistent AR (pooled subjects, n=204) were analysed using anchor- and distribution-based approaches, applying regression and meta-analysis techniques.

RESULTS

MCIDs were obtained for the Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire: 0.4 units, peak nasal inspiratory flow: 5 L/min and total nasal symptoms score: 0.55 units. Nasal NO measurement changes had no correlation with patient perceptions of benefit.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of MCIDs were obtained for common subjective and objective rhinological outcomes. MCIDs can and should be applied by physicians interpreting research findings, as well as researchers reporting their findings. We can then be confident that our changes in practice will be of perceptible benefit to the patient.

Allergic rhinitis: epidemiological aspects, diagnosis and treatment

This study was a review of the literature on the epidemiological, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of allergic rhinitis. Bibliographic searches were based on the information contained within the Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and HighWire databases, covering the last thirty years and using the following search terms: 'allergic rhinitis', 'epidemiology', 'diagnosis' and 'treatment'. Sixty articles were selected. This study describes the increase in the prevalence of allergic rhinitis, its relationship with asthma, the diagnostic criteria and the treatment. The classification of allergic rhinitis and strategies for its treatment are presented. Therapeutic modalities presented and discussed include the administration of antihistamines, corticosteroids, immunotherapy, anti-leukotrienes, sodium cromoglycate and anti-IgE antibodies, as well as minimizing exposure to inhaled allergens. Finally, the importance of the management of allergic rhinitis in public health is emphasized.

Cysteinyl leukotriene receptor CysLT1 as a novel therapeutic target for allergic rhinitis treatment

BACKGROUND

Cysteinyl leukotrienes (cys-LTs) play an important role in allergic rhinitis because CysLT(1) receptor antagonists relieve the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

I overview the clinical pharmacology of CysLT(1) receptor antagonists and their potential role in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

I review the evidence regarding the release of cys-LTs and localization of CysLT(1) receptor on nasal mucosa, and evaluate the clinical efficacy of CysLT(1) receptor antagonist in allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemical studies show that in allergic rhinitis, the major target of CysLT(1) receptor antagonists are the vascular bed and infiltrated leukocytes such as mast cells, eosinophils and macrophages. CysLT(1) receptor antagonists provide a new opportunity for simultaneous management of allergic diseases of the upper and lower respiratory tract.

Efficacy of nasal corticosteroids alone or combined with antihistamines or montelukast in treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Topical corticosteroids are recommended as initial therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. We investigated clinical efficacy of monotherapy with topical steroid and combined therapy in AR patients.

METHODS

Ninety-five AR patients sensitive to grass pollens according to skin prick test results were enrolled in this placebo-controlled and open study. Patients were divided to four groups. Group-1 received only intranasal mometasone furoate (MF) 200microg (n=25), group-2 received intranasal MF and oral desloratadine (DLR) 5mg (n=25), group-3 received intranasal MF and oral montelukast (MSK) 10mg (n=25), group-4 received only placebo (n=20). Efficacy was assessed on the basis of total nasal symptom scores, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores and nasal inspiratory peak flow rates.

RESULTS

All groups that received treatment had better results when compared to the placebo group. Significant improvement in total nasal symptom scores was first evident at the end of the 2nd week in group-2. Group-3 had better results than those of the other groups at the end of the 1st month (p<0.05). Quality of life scores were significantly better in group-2 and -3 when compared to those in group-1 (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment in allergic rhinitis, montelukast may be considered as an additional agent especially in treatment of patients with impaired quality of life and it may be used to reduce nasal symptom scores.

FcgammaRIIIa-V/F 158 polymorphism in Turkish children with asthma bronchiale and allergic rhinitis

Fc receptors (FcR) play an important role in immune regulation. This might be linked to the variability in immune response, therefore relating to the pathogenesis of atopic diseases. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the FcgammaRIIIa gene polymorphism in Turkish children with asthma and allergic rhinitis. The study included 364 atopic children (184 bronchial asthma, 180 allergic rhinitis) and 234 healthy subjects as the control group, aged between 5 to 16 years. Patients were recruited from outpatient clinics of allergy and general pediatric care. Plasma IgE concentrations were measured by immunoassays and skin prick test was done in children with atopic diseases. The FcgammaRIIIa gene polymorphism was determined using the polymerase chain reaction method. Distribution of V158V genotype was significantly different among patient groups compared to controls (for asthmatic children OR: 5.33, 95% CI: 2.80-10.23, p < 0.001; for allergic rhinitis OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.75-6.07, p = 0.001). Distribution of 158 V allele was significantly different among asthmatic children (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.65-2.92, p < 0.001) and allergic rhinitis patients (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.32-2.35, p < 0.001) compared to healthy controls. Our study shows that the V158V genotype in FcgammaRIIIa gene polymorphism may be a genetic risk factor for the development of atopic diseases.

[Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow: learning curve for the measurement method and reproducibility]

OBJECTIVES

A prospective study on the learning curve and reproducibility of PNIF measurement with 18 different operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five hundred twenty-eight patients in two groups were prospectively enrolled in this study from September 2003 to April 2004. The learning curve of the technique was monitored after five patients had been measured. Reproducibility was evaluated with all patients after two consecutive measurements.

RESULTS

The technique was acquired by all operators after the fifth patient. The mean PNIF measurements in controls and patients were 86.02+/-36.96 l/min and 89.59+/-41.97 l/min, respectively. Reproducibility (PNIF2-PNIF1=5.51+/-24.93 l/min) was obtained for all operators, whatever the number of measurements taken.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the good reproducibility and the easy training in PNIF measurement.

The role of antileukotriene drugs in management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis

Antileukotriene drugs have been studied for more than 15 years. In this review we examine the role of leukotrienes in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, and explore the clinical literature supporting the use of anti-leukotriene agents in these diseases. Although these medications clearly are efficacious in rhinitis, it is unclear where in the armamentarium they should be used. The evidence for use in sinusitis has not been well studied except in sinusitis-associated aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. In this circumstance there is information that allows use of antileukotriene agents to be considered efficacious. We provide our rationale for use and await future clinical studies to answer this important question.

Efficacy of pollen immunotherapy in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of subcutaneous pollen immunotherapy has been documented in published double-blind, placebo-controlled studies related to treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. In the present study, subjective (symptom scores) and objective (nasal peak inspiratory flow, nasal smear, nasal biopsy) parameters were used to study the efficacy of pollen immunotherapy.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients (32 male), mean +/- SE age 13.6 +/- 2.8 years allergic to grass-pollen participated in the present study. Patients were divided into three groups: group I, 24 patients who did not receive pollen immunotherapy; group II, 12 patients who received the build-up phase of pollen immunotherapy; and group III, 12 patients who had just finished pollen immunotherapy. With regard to objective and subjective parameters these three groups were compared.

RESULTS

When group I was compared to groups II and III, the patients who had not received any immunotherapy were found to have a high daytime nasal symptoms score (P < 0.01), high daytime eye symptoms score(P < 0.01) and high night-time symptoms score (P < 0.01). In objective parameters, it was found that group I had low nasal peak inspiratory flow (P < 0.05), and a high eosinophil count in nasal smears (P < 0.05) and peripheral blood (P < 0.05). It was also demonstrated that there was an increased eosinophil infiltration (P < 0.01) and mast cell infiltration (P < 0.05) in nasal biopsy in group I. There was no significant difference between group II and group III according to these results (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy leads to a better clinical and histopathological prognosis in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The Fc gammaRIIa polymorphism in Turkish children with asthma bronchial and allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Fc gammaRIIa polymorphism in Turkish children with atopic asthma and allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In this study, 372 atopic children (192 asthma bronchial, 180 allergic rhinitis) between ages of 5 and 16 years old (11.3+/-2.9) who were followed at Aegean University Paediatric Allergy and Pulmonology Outpatient Clinics and 234 healthy subjects as the control group were included. The evaluation of subjects included routine biochemical blood analysis and allergic workup based on the following laboratory determinants. The Fc gammaRIIa polymorphism was determined using the polymerase chain reaction method.

RESULTS

Distribution of R131R genotype was significantly different among patient groups compared to controls (for asthmatic children OR: 2.64 95%CI: 1.22-5.79, p=0.006; for allergic rhinitis OR: 2.58 95%CI: 1.18-5.71, p=0.009). Frequency of 131R allele was significantly different among patient groups compared to controls (for asthmatic children OR: 1.66 95%CI: 1.22-2.26, p=0.0007; for allergic rhinitis OR: 1.93 95%CI: 1.42-2.63, p=0.00001).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that Fc gammaRIIa gene 131R allele represents an important genetic risk factor for bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis susceptibility.

Effects of levocetirizine as add-on therapy to fluticasone in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Addition of H(1) antagonists to intranasal corticosteroid treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) is common in clinical practice and recommended by guidelines, despite some evidence that the additive benefits are negligible.

OBJECTIVE

To assess additional benefits of 5 mg levocetirizine dihydrochloride in seasonal AR patients using 200 mcg fluticasone propionate nasal spray once daily.

METHODS

In a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study of 27 patients, following 2 weeks without treatment, subjects used fluticasone with levocetirizine or identical placebo for 2 weeks each. Assessments were the Juniper mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (mini-RQLQ), domiciliary peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), total nasal symptoms (TNS) scores and nasal nitric oxide concentrations. Effects were interpreted and tested against minimal clinically important differences.

RESULTS

Add-on effects for levocetirizine vs. placebo excluded any clinically significant benefits: mean effects (one sided 95% confidence intervals) were mini-RQLQ -0.11 (-0.34), PNIF +0.57 (+5.23), and TNS -0.11 (-0.60). Numbers needed to treat (95% confidence intervals) by outcome were mini-RQLQ 14 (5 to 49), PNIF 4 (3-7), and TNS 3 (2-6). No significant within or between treatment effects were seen for nasal nitric oxide.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to current practice, the present results demonstrate that for the majority of patients, antihistamine add-on to effective nasal steroid treatment is inappropriate. Further work is required to confirm that this is also true in the most severe cases, and the available evidence needs to be put into guidelines and implemented.

Montelukast in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Allergic rhinitis is common. This systematic review outlines the evidence regarding montelukast in allergic rhinitis and provides a meta-analysis of its efficacy. The evidence suggests that montelukast does reduce nasal symptom score by 3.4% (95% CI: 2.5% to 4.2%) when compared with placebo. Montelukast is not as effective as topical nasal steroids or antihistamines and should therefore be regarded as second line therapy. When used, montelukast should be used in combination with an antihistamine.

Pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatment of allergic rhinitis ARIA update (in collaboration with GA2LEN)

The pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis proposed by ARIA is an evidence-based and step-wise approach based on the classification of the symptoms. The ARIA workshop, held in December 1999, published a report in 2001 and new information has subsequently been published. The initial ARIA document lacked some important information on several issues. This document updates the ARIA sections on the pharmacologic and anti-IgE treatments of allergic rhinitis. Literature published between January 2000 and December 2004 has been included. Only a few studies assessing nasal and non-nasal symptoms are presented as these will be discussed in a separate document.

The role of antileukotriene therapy in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as monotherapy or combined with other drugs in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), and Cochrane databases; review articles; and references of included trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Published (1966-2005) randomized controlled trials with nasal and eye symptoms and quality-of-life scores as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 6,231 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis were selected. Oral leukotriene antagonists significantly reduced daytime nasal symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.33 to -0.16), nighttime nasal symptoms (SMD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.16), and eye symptoms and significantly improved quality of life compared with placebo. There were no significant differences between oral leukotriene antagonists and oral histamine H1 antagonists on nasal and eye symptoms and quality-of-life overall score. We also found that leukotriene receptor antagonists were inferior to intranasal corticosteroids for decreasing daytime (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.56) and nighttime nasal symptoms. The combination of leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists produced greater relief of eye symptoms compared with histamine H1 antagonists alone. Finally, intranasal corticosteroids significantly reduced nasal congestion compared with leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

Leukotriene receptor antagonists were better than placebo, equivalent to oral histamine H1 antagonists, and inferior to intranasal corticosteroids for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis. Alternatively, leukotriene receptor antagonists plus histamine H1 antagonists were more effective than histamine H1 antagonists alone but inferior to intranasal corticosteroids.

Desloratadine therapy for symptoms associated with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) has a substantial negative social and economic impact. Recent studies emphasize the potential seriousness of PAR and the need for improved treatment of this condition.

OBJECTIVE

To confirm the efficacy and safety of the H1-antihistamine desloratadine in reducing the symptoms of PAR in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients with PAR (N = 1,179) from 67 US/international centers received desloratadine, 5 mg once daily, or identical placebo tablets. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 4 in average morning and evening reflective total symptom scores (TSSs). Secondary end points included changes from baseline in total nasal and nonnasal symptom scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) rates.

RESULTS

Desloratadine was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing morning and evening reflective TSSs for each week and during weeks 1 through 4 (P = .001). Mean changes in TSSs during the 4-week study were -3.9 (26.6% reduction) and -3.2 (22.3% reduction) for the desloratadine and placebo groups, respectively (P = .001, desloratadine vs placebo). With desloratadine therapy, significant improvements were also seen in secondary efficacy end points compared with placebo use (total nasal and nonnasal symptom scores: P < or = .04). Improvements in mean morning PNIF were significantly greater in the desloratadine-treated group than in the placebo group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm and extend previous findings that desloratadine is safe and is associated with a statistically significant reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with PAR. Objective nasal airflow, evaluated by PNIF, was statistically significantly improved after desloratadine treatment.

Efficacité de Dérinox® chez des patients souffrant d’une rhinite virale évaluée par un PNIF (Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of Dérinox (D) to Rhinofluimucil (R) and placebo (P) in the treatment of common cold, using an objective measure of nasal obstruction, the Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF--Clement Clarke International, Harlow, Angleterre).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study enrolled 354 patients (34 P, 165 D et 155 R) included by 85 general practitioners. The treatment duration was 5 days at usual recommended dosage regimens. PNIF measures were done before drug administration (T0) as well as 15 min and 3 h after each intake. Moreover, nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea and global discomfort were subjectively assessed.

RESULTS

The efficacy of D was superior to that of P and R when comparing PNIF from T0 to T3 h after the first intake. At T15 min, rhinorrhea was significantly improved with both active treatments and global discomfort was significantly improved with D only. Treatment tolerance was satisfactory and comparable between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of Dérinox(R) was superior to that of P and R for the improvement of the nasal obstruction (PNIF) between T0 and T3h (main criteria) after the first intake in patients suffering from common cold.

Efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and tolerability of mometasone furoate, levocabastine, and disodium cromoglycate nasal sprays in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend intranasal glucocorticosteroids as first-line therapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and tolerability of the topical glucocorticosteroid mometasone furoate, the topical antihistamine levocabastine hydrochloride, and the cromone disodium cromoglycate in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This study was performed during the 2003 grass pollen season as an open, randomized, parallel-group, single-center study of 123 patients assigned to receive mometasone furoate (200 microg once daily), levocabastine hydrochloride (200 microg twice daily), or disodium cromoglycate (5.6 mg 4 times daily). Symptom scores and nasal inspiratory peak flow measurements were recorded in a patient diary. The global efficacy of the study medication was evaluated by patients after treatment. Eosinophil cationic protein concentrations were measured in nasal secretions before and after treatment. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated as medication cost per treatment success.

RESULTS

Mometasone furoate therapy was significantly superior to the use of levocabastine or disodium cromoglycate with respect to all nasal symptoms, the global evaluation of efficacy, and eosinophil cationic protein concentration. Furthermore, mometasone furoate therapy was significantly superior to disodium cromoglycate therapy with respect to nasal inspiratory peak flow. Medication cost per treatment success was lowest with mometasone furoate use and highest with levocabastine use.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to compare mometasone furoate nasal spray with nonsteroidal topical treatments for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Mometasone furoate nasal spray was confirmed as a first-choice topical treatment option for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Second-Generation Antihistamines

Antihistamines are useful medications for the treatment of a variety of allergic disorders. Second-generation antihistamines avidly and selectively bind to peripheral histamine H1 receptors and, consequently, provide gratifying relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in a majority of atopic patients. This tight receptor specificity additionally leads to few effects on other neuronal or hormonal systems, with the result that adverse effects associated with these medications, with the exception of noticeable sedation in about 10% of cetirizine-treated patients, resemble those of placebo overall. Similarly, serious adverse drug reactions and interactions are uncommon with these medicines. Therapeutic interchange to one of the available second-generation antihistamines is a reasonable approach to limiting an institutional formulary, and adoption of such a policy has proven capable of creating substantial cost savings. Differences in overall efficacy and safety between available second-generation antihistamines, when administered in equivalent dosages, are not large. However, among the antihistamines presently available, fexofenadine may offer the best overall balance of effectiveness and safety, and this agent is an appropriate selection for initial or switch therapy for most patients with mild or moderate allergic symptoms. Cetirizine is the most potent antihistamine available and has been subjected to more clinical study than any other. This agent is appropriate for patients proven unresponsive to other antihistamines and for those with the most severe symptoms who might benefit from antihistamine treatment of the highest potency that can be dose-titrated up to maximal intensity.

Reproducibility of response to nasal lysine-aspirin challenge in patients with aspirin-induced asthma

BACKGROUND

Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and acoustic rhinometry objectively measure the effects of nasal provocation testing. Although the latter is conventionally used in nasal lysine-aspirin challenge, use of the former in aspirin-induced asthma (AIA) has never been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reproducibility of PNIF and acoustic rhinometry following nasal lysine-aspirin challenge in AIA.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with a clear-cut history of AIA underwent nasal lysine-aspirin challenge at 2 separate visits 1 week apart. Both PNIF and minimum cross-sectional area (MCA) were measured using acoustic rhinometry for 120 minutes following standard nasal lysine-aspirin challenge (25 mg).

RESULTS

Prechallenge values were not significantly different at visit 1 vs visit 2 for mean [SEM] PNIF (128 [13] vs 127 [9] L/min) and MCA (6.89 [0.51] vs 6.94 [0.57] cm2). The mean (SEM) maximum percent PNIF change from baseline for visit 1 and visit 2 was -42 (5) and -42 (6), respectively, and the mean (SEM) average percent PNIF change from baseline was -25 (4) and -25 (6), respectively. The mean (SEM) maximum percent MCA change from baseline for visit 1 and visit 2 was -49 (4) and -48 (3), respectively, and the mean (SEM) average percent MCA change from baseline was -25 (8) and -24 (4), respectively. Coefficients of variation for maximum and average responses were 2.3% and 6.5%, respectively, for PNIF and 7.4% and 16.1% for MCA.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of PNIF following nasal lysine-aspirin challenge is a simple and reproducible alternative to acoustic rhinometry, with maximum response being a more reproducible outcome measure than average response.

Simultaneous treatment of asthma and allergic rhinitis

Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) form a well-recognized comorbidity. This study aims at assessing the efficacy of nasally inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) in their simultaneous treatment. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 78 allergic rhinitis and asthma patients aged 5-17 years. Seventy-five individuals completed the study. During 8 weeks, 38 subjects received BDP-CFC aerosol (>or= 500 mcg/day) exclusively via nasal inhalation through a facemask attached to a plastic valved spacer. The control group (37 patients) received 200 mcg/day of aqueous intranasal beclomethasone plus oral inhalation of BDP-CFC (>or= 500 mcg/day) through a mouthpiece connected to the same spacer. Primary outcomes analyzed in order to assess the response to treatment were clinical scoring for allergic rhinitis and measurements of nasal inspiratory peak flow (NIPF). AR clinical scoring and NIPF did not differ in the two groups at admission or at nearly all follow-up visits. Nasal inhalation of beclomethasone dipropionate provides AR symptom relief while maintaining control of asthma by delivering it to the lungs. Therefore, this therapeutic strategy might be considered for patients suffering from this comorbidity, especially in low-resource countries, since it is less expensive than the conventional treatment.

Effects of butterbur treatment in intermittent allergic rhinitis: a placebo-controlled evaluation

BACKGROUND

Butterbur (Petasites hybridus) contains the active ingredient petasin, which exhibits antileukotriene and antihistamine activity. Previous studies of intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR) have demonstrated a comparable response to butterbur compared with a histamine H1-receptor antagonist on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey quality-of-life score. However, there has been no placebo-controlled study of the effects of butterbur use on objective and subjective outcomes in IAR.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of treatment with butterbur vs placebo on objective and subjective outcomes in IAR.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study was carried out during the grass pollen season in Tayside, Scotland. Thirty-five patients (14 men and 21 women) with IAR received butterbur, 50 mg twice daily, or placebo for 2 weeks. Domiciliary measurements were taken in the morning and evening for peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) (the primary outcome variable), nasal and eye symptoms, and rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality-of-life score.

RESULTS

Butterbur treatment had no significant effect on PNIF, total nasal symptom score, eye symptom score, or quality of life compared with placebo use. Mean (SEM) morning and evening PNIF values were 107 (6) and 114 (6) L/min, respectively, for butterbur vs 105 (6) and 117 (6) L/min for placebo. Mean (SEM) morning and evening total nasal symptom scores (maximum total score, 12) were 3.4 (0.4) and 3.5 (0.4), respectively, for butterbur vs 3.7 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.4) for placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant clinical efficacy of butterbur use vs placebo use on objective and subjective outcomes in IAR. Further studies are now indicated to investigate the use of butterbur in persistent allergic rhinitis.

The emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in allergic rhinitis

Leukotriene modifiers have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of asthma. Because of this success, and the fact that leukotrienes can be recovered not only from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid but also nasal lavage fluid, some researchers have suggested that these medications may also be useful for treating allergic rhinitis. Because the upper and lower airways are linked physically, there has been an assumption that therapy for upper and lower airway disease should be similar. This critical appraisal examines available data both supporting and refuting the emerging role of leukotriene modifiers in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although many studies have shown an improvement in nasal symptoms when comparing a leukotriene modifier with placebo, few studies have conclusively shown that a leukotriene modifier is any more effective in treating allergic rhinitis than an antihistamine. Results from several reported studies suggest that the addition of a leukotriene antagonist to an antihistamine is no more efficacious than antihistamine alone. However, many of these studies were small and/or primarily designed to examine the asthmatic response, with nasal symptoms being a lesser endpoint. To better understand how, where, and when leukotriene modifiers should be used in the armamentarium of therapies for allergic rhinitis, larger clinical investigations designed specifically to study allergic rhinitis need to be undertaken. We conclude that currently, the data do not support widespread use of a leukotriene modifier with or without an antihistamine in place of an intranasal corticosteroid with or without an antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of leukotriene receptor antagonists with that of placebo, antihistamines, and nasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis or nasal polyposis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists in patients with rhinitis. Composite daily rhinitis symptom scores (as a percentage of the maximum score) and rhinitis-specific quality of life (unit scores ranging from 0 to 6) were pooled after assessing heterogeneity among studies. The pooled estimates were expressed as weighted mean differences between treatments in a random-effects model. We considered a difference of 10% in nasal score and 0.6 units in quality-of-life score to be clinically relevant.

RESULTS

Of the 196 citations, 11 studies on seasonal allergic rhinitis were used in the analysis: eight evaluating leukotriene receptor antagonists alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or other treatments (n = 3924) and three evaluating leukotriene receptor antagonists plus an antihistamine (n = 80). Leukotriene receptor antagonists reduced mean daily rhinitis symptom scores (in absolute terms) 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3% to 7%) more than did placebo. However, antihistamines improved the nasal symptoms score 2% (95% CI: 0% to 4%) more than did leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal corticosteroids improved the score 12% (95% CI: 5% to 18%) more than did leukotriene antagonists. Leukotriene receptor antagonists significantly improved rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life by 0.3 units (95% CI: 0.24 to 0.36 units) when compared with placebo. There were no randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists on perennial allergic rhinitis or polyposis.

CONCLUSION

Leukotriene receptor antagonists are modestly better than placebo, as effective as antihistamines, but less effective than nasal corticosteroids in improving symptoms and quality of life in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Monosodium benzoate hypersensitivity in subjects with persistent rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Very few data are available from the literature on whether nonatopic subjects affected by persistent rhinitis may show the appearance of objective symptoms of rhinitis after the ingestion of food additives such as tartrazine (E102), erythrosine (E127), monosodium benzoate (E211), p-hydroxybenzoate (E218), sodium metabisulphite (E223), and monosodium glutamate (E620). It is still unclear whether the ingestion of food additive may cause, as well, a consensual reduction of nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIFR). Therefore, we used a double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study to evaluate this hypothesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and twenty-six consecutive patients (76 males and 150 females) aged 12-60 years (mean age 40.2 +/- 16.3 years). After 1 month of an additive-free diet regimen, an open challenge was carried out (food additive-rich diet for 2 weeks). After this period, challenges were administered in a DBPC manner using the above-mentioned substances under investigation.

RESULTS

Twenty of 226 subjects (8.8%) reported an improvement of the symptoms of rhinitis after additive-free diet. More precisely, six of 226 (2.6%) were symptom-free and 14 of 226 (6.2%) showed an improvement in their symptoms after an additive-free diet. As far as the results for DBPC are concerned, 20 challenges with monosodium benzoate induced both objective (i.e. sneezing and rhinorrhoea) and subjective symptoms (nasal blockage and nasal itching) of rhinitis with reduction of NPIFR >/=20%, 45 challenges induced subjective symptoms of rhinitis (i.e. nasal blockage and nasal itching), without reduction of NPIFR >/=20% of the basal value, two with tartrazine, seven with erythrosine, 19 with monosodium benzoate, three with p-hydroxybenzoate, six with sodium metabisulphite, and eight with monosodium glutamate, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The observation that nonatopic persistent rhinitis may be caused by the frequent, probably daily, ingestion of small doses of a nontolerated substance is intriguing and suggests that at least some patients with 'chronic vasomotor rhinitis' may be intolerant to a particular food additive. Therefore, food additives can be considered triggers or aggravating factors, rather than aetiological factors.

The nose and sleep-disordered breathing: what we know and what we do not know

The relationship between sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and nasal obstruction is unclear. In order to better understand, we performed an extensive computer-assisted review and analysis of the medical literature on this topic. Data were grouped into reports of normal control subjects, patients with isolated nasal obstruction, and those with SDB. We conclude that SDB can both result from and be worsened by nasal obstruction. Nasal breathing increases ventilatory drive and nasal occlusion decreases pharyngeal patency in normal subjects. Nasal congestion from any cause predisposes to SDB. Although increased nasal resistance does not always correlate with symptoms of congestion, nasal congestion typically results in a switch to oronasal breathing that compromises the airway. Moreover, oral breathing in children may lead to the development of facial structural abnormalities associated with SDB. We postulate that the switch to oronasal breathing that occurs with chronic nasal conditions is a final common pathway for SDB.

Efficacy and safety of desloratadine in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The evidence base for the use of H1-antihistamines in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis is considerably smaller than it is in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that desloratadine, a new, nonsedating selective H1-antihistamine, would be efficacious and safe in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study, 676 patients with symptomatic perennial allergic rhinitis were randomly assigned to 4 weeks of treatment with either 5 mg of desloratadine once daily or placebo. Efficacy was assessed by using a morning-evening instantaneous total symptom score (TSS), which was composed of scores for 4 individual nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip) and 3 individual nonnasal symptoms (itching eyes, watering eyes, and itching of the ears or palate). Secondary outcome measures included a morning-evening reflective TSS, total nasal and nonnasal symptoms scores, and individual symptom scores. Safety evaluations, including 12-lead electrocardiograms, were performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-four patients completed the study. Desloratadine consistently diminished perennial allergic rhinitis symptoms, reducing the morning-evening instantaneous TSS (P =.005), the morning-evening reflective TSS (P =.007), the morning-evening reflective total nonnasal score (P =.023), and the individual nasal symptom scores for rhinorrhea, nasal itching, sneezing, and postnasal drip/drainage (P =.05 to P =.013) during weeks 1 through 4. Improvement in symptoms was observed after the first dose. Dropouts, and the type and frequency of adverse events (headache, viral infection, pharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection), were similar in both treatment groups. No clinically significant changes in QTc intervals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Desloratadine rapidly and safely reduced the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis, and its efficacy did not diminish during 4 weeks of treatment.

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis: a critical review of leukotriene receptor antagonists compared with other treatments

OBJECTIVE

To review the mechanisms and clinical efficacy of leukotriene receptor antagonists, which are investigational therapies for allergic rhinitis, compared with intranasal corticosteroids and nonsedating antihistamines, which are the most commonly prescribed pharmacotherapies for allergic rhinitis.

DATA SOURCES

Computer-assisted MEDLINE searches for articles and manual searches of conference proceedings on intranasal corticosteroid, antihistamine, leukotriene receptor antagonist, leukotriene modifier, zafirlukast, montelukast, allergic rhinitis, rhinitis, and asthma.

SELECTION

Published articles and pertinent abstracts on the topics identified above were selected. Head-to-head comparator trials as well as data from placebo-controlled trials were selected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The studies published to date demonstrate that leukotriene receptor antagonists are sometimes more effective than placebo, are no more effective than nonsedating antihistamines, and are less effective than intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist and an antihistamine has not been proven to be more effective than either agent alone. This review reveals several inconsistencies that require resolution. First, whereas leukotriene receptor antagonists are predicted on the basis of their mechanism of action to improve nasal congestion significantly, clinical studies reveal leukotriene receptor antagonists to be no better than antihistamines at improving congestion. Second, leukotriene receptor antagonists would not be expected on the basis of their putative mechanism of action or nasal challenge data to improve significantly sneezing, nasal itching, or drainage. However, some studies show improvement in these symptoms during treatment with leukotriene receptor antagonists. Considered in aggregate, the data available to date do not clearly support a unique role of leukotriene receptor antagonists in the treatment of allergic rhinitis whether or not it is accompanied by asthma.

Effects of fexofenadine and desloratadine on subjective and objective measures of nasal congestion in seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

In vitro studies have shown much higher H1-receptor antagonist potency with desloratadine (DL) compared to fexofenadine (FEX), although it is unclear whether this has any clinical relevance on disease control parameters in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), especially for nasal congestion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy between presently recommended doses of DL and FEX on daily measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and nasal symptoms in SAR.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients with SAR were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study during the grass pollen season, comparing 2 weeks of once daily treatment with (a) 180 mg FEX or (b) 5 mg DL, taken in the morning. There was a 7-10 day placebo run-in and washout prior to each randomized treatment. Measurements were made in the morning (AM) and in the evening (PM) for PNIF (the primary outcome variable), nasal and eye symptoms. The average of AM/PM values were used for analysis.

RESULTS

There were significant (P < 0.05) improvements, compared to placebo, with FEX and DL, for PNIF, nasal blockage, nasal irritation, and total nasal symptoms, but not nasal discharge or eye symptoms. There were no significant differences between active treatments. Values for PNIF (L/min) for mean placebo baseline, mean difference from baseline (95% CI for difference) were 126, 10 (4-16) for FEX; and 122, 11 (4-17) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) between FEX vs. DL was 1 L/min (-7-8). Values for total nasal symptoms (out of 12) were: 3.2, 0.7 (0.2-1.2) for FEX; and 3.4, 0.9 (0.3-1.5) for DL, and for nasal blockage (out of 3) were: 1.1, 0.2 (0.1-0.4) for FEX; and 1.2, 0.3 (0.1-0.5) for DL. The mean difference (95% CI) in total nasal symptoms and nasal blockage between FEX vs. DL was 0.1 (-0.6-0.8) and 0.1 (-0.2-0.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommended once daily doses of fexofenadine and desloratadine were equally effective in improving nasal peak flow and nasal symptoms in SAR.

A randomized comparison of the effects of budesonide and mometasone furoate aqueous nasal sprays on nasal peak flow rate and symptoms in perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Using conventional methods, it has been difficult to show differences in efficacy between intranasal corticosteroids in perennial rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of budesonide and mometasone on nasal symptoms and nasal airflow in perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-eight patients (age > 18 years old) were randomized to budesonide, 256 microg or 128 microg, mometasone furoate 200 microg, or placebo, once daily for 4 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by nasal index score (NIS; the sum of scores for blocked nose, runny nose, and itchy nose/sneezing) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF).

RESULTS

All three active treatments significantly reduced the NIS compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between the treatments, although the effect of budesonide, 256 microg, tended to be greater than that of the other regimens. PNIF was significantly improved with all three active treatments: the effect of budesonide 256 microg on morning and evening PNIF was significantly greater than that of mometasone furoate and 128 microg budesonide. Budesonide had a rapid onset of action, showing a significantly greater effect on evening PNIF than mometasone furoate during the first 10 days. For all active treatments, significant improvements in NIS were seen within 4 hours of the first dose. All three treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The objective parameter PNIF was capable of demonstrating greater efficacy of budesonide 256 microg compared with budesonide 128 microg and mometasone furoate 200 microg, whereas the combined nasal symptom score could only distinguish active treatment from placebo.