Idiopathic rhinitis

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7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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.

The study of a possible correlation between serum levels of interleukin 17 and clinical severity in patients with allergic rhinitis

Introduction:

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common allergic diseases, which affects ∼20% of the world's population. T-helper (Th) type 2 cells produce interleukin (IL) 4 and IL-13, and mediate allergic responses, and these cytokines have been extensively studied as key players in the atopic airway diseases. However, the involvement of Th17 cells and IL-17 in AR has not been clearly examined.

Aim:

To reevaluate AR clinical severity with serum IL-17, whether IL-17 affects the disease alone or in contribution with the atopic predisposition.

Patients and Methods:

During an 18-month period, 39 individuals were divided into three groups: A, (13 control), B (13 with mild-to-moderate AR), and C (13 with severe AR). Both group B and group C patients (26) were subjected to clinical examination and allergy skin testing, and to measurement of both total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IL-17 levels. Eleven patients with AR then were exposed to 6 months of cluster immunotherapy, whereas the rest of the patients were not exposed.

Results:

Revealed a significant elevation of serum IL-17 levels with an associated increase in serum IgE in the patients with AR compared with controls and revealed that the serum levels of both total serum IgE and IL-17 decreased significantly after cluster immunotherapy.

Conclusion:

These preliminary results added new data about the use of injective immunotherapy as well as reported on the use of sublingual immunotherapy.

Nonallergic rhinitis and lower airway disease

In the past years, several investigators have demonstrated the existence of local nasal responses in some patients with typical allergic rhinitis symptoms but without atopy and have defined a new phenotype called local allergic rhinitis (LAR) or 'entopy'. In a percentage of LAR subjects, the upper airway disease is also associated with lower airway symptoms. After the description of this phenotype, the differential diagnosis between LAR and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) has become a challenge for the clinician. To correctly identify LAR patients is of high importance for treatment and management of these patients, and for an appropriate inclusion of patients in clinical trials and genetics studies. The treatment of LAR patients, in contrast with NAR, is oriented to allergen avoidance and specific treatment. Allergen immunotherapy, the aetiological treatment for allergic respiratory diseases, has demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment in LAR, increasing immunological tolerance, and reducing the clinical symptoms and the use of medication. In this article, the important and novel aspects of LAR in terms of mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment will be discussed. Also, the involvement of the lower airway and the potential role of IgE in the bronchial disease will be also reviewed.

Identification and Prevalence of Allergic, Nonallergic, and Local Allergic Rhinitis Patients in Western Area, Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic yield of skin prick test (SPT) and serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies level in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and the role of nasal provocation test (NPT) for the determination of local allergic rhinitis (LAR) in patients with nonallergic rhinitis (NAR).

METHODOLOGY

This multi-center study included 1230 patients with clinical manifestations for ≥2 years. Patients were classified according to the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and scored according to the quantitative Score for Allergic Rhinitis (SFAR). The SPT and total IgE antibody levels were done for all patients. Patients gave negative SPT underwent NPT, and its result was interpreted using Lebel Symptom Score Scale.

RESULTS

The SPT was positive in 77.8% of patients, mostly for grass pollen and dust mites. All patients were sensitive to multiple allergens. Median serum IgE antibody level for total study population was 162 IU/ml. Forty-two patients (3.4%) with negative SPT showed a weak response to NPT, while 231 patients (18.7%) with negative SPT had a high response to NPT and were considered to have LAR.

CONCLUSION

The SPT could discriminate between AR and NAR patients. The NPT could identify LAR in 84.6% of patients with rhinitis among those considered as NAR.

Rhinitis Subtypes, Endotypes, and Definitions

Rhinitis is often seen as posing a small burden. However, rhinitis is a complex disease that is underpinned by a plethora of different mechanisms and causes. Rhinitis is frequently associated with other comorbid conditions but, by itself, is a source of considerable morbidity for patients and creates a significant financial burden on health systems worldwide. This article approaches this condition from both a phenotypic and mechanistic standpoint, focusing on the complexity of characterizing these subtypes. Developing a clearer demarcation of the currently obscure rhinitis phenotypes and endotypes will substantially improve their future prevention and treatment.

Capsaicin for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.Two studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).One study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.One study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.Finally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).Only one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.We sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Capsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.

Capsaicin for non-allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

There are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.Two studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).One study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.One study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.Finally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).Only one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.We sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Capsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.

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.

Immunopathogenesis of allergic disorders: current concepts

Allergic disorders are a group of immune-mediated disorders that are associated with considerable morbidity and ill health. There has been significant rise in the prevalence of allergy in the last few years. This has heightened interest in uncovering the novel mechanisms involved in etiopathogenesis of allergic disorders. Understanding the pathways underlying allergy will help in developing effective modalities for its prevention and treatment. This review focuses primarily on common IgE-mediated allergic conditions and recent developments in their immunopathogenesis, especially those involving respiratory mucosa.

Primary surgery versus chemoradiotherapy for advanced oropharyngeal cancers: a longitudinal population study

Background

Treatment for advanced stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) includes combined chemoradiation therapy or surgery followed by radiation therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy. The goal of this study was to utilize available evidence to examine survival outcome differences in patients with advanced stage OPSCC treated with these different modalities.

Methods

Patients with advanced stage OPSCC were identified. Primary outcome measurements were disease specific and overall survival rates with differences examined via Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analysis.

Results

344 patients were enrolled. 94 patients underwent triple modality therapy inclusive of surgery followed by adjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy (S-CRT). 131 had surgery and radiation therapy (S-RT), while 56 had chemoradiation (CRT) therapy as their primary treatment. A total of 63 patients had single modality radiation therapy and were excluded from analysis due to the large number of palliative patients.

Kaplan-Meier overall survival analysis showed that therapy with S-CRT had the highest disease specific survival at five years (71.1%). This is contrasted against S-RT and CRT, with five year survival rates at 53.9%, and 48.6%, respectively.

Cox regression showed that the comparison of S-CRT vs. S-RT, and CRT is associated with statistically significant increased hazard ratios of 1.974, and 2.785, indicating that both S-RT and CRT are associated with a reduced likelihood of survival at 5 years when compared to S-CRT.

Conclusions

In this population based cohort study S-CRT is associated with a 17–22% 5 year disease specific survival benefit compared to CRT or S-RT.