A placebo-controlled evaluation of butterbur and fexofenadine on objective and subjective outcomes in perennial allergic rhinitis

Medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single medicinal plants in the management of allergic rhinitis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials which evaluated the use of single medicinal plant for allergic rhinitis among adults and children. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (n = 1879) were eligible while 27 (n = 1769) contributed data for meta-analyses. Most studies (studies = 20) compared medicinal plants against placebo and Petasites hybridus was most frequently investigated (studies = 5). Very-low-to-low-certainty evidence suggests that compared to placebo, single medicinal plants may improve overall total nasal symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02; participants = 249; studies = 5; I2 = 21%) especially nasal congestion and sneezing; and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ) scores (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.07; participants = 148; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Moderate-certainty evidence show no clear differences between single medicinal plants and antihistamine in overall symptoms (Total nasal symptoms: SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.18; participants = 149; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). As adjunctive therapy, moderate-certainty evidence shows that medicinal plants improved SNOT-22 scores when given as intranasal treatment (MD -7.47, 95% CI -10.75 to -4.18; participants = 124; studies = 2; I2 = 21%). Risk of bias domains were low or not clearly reported in most studies while heterogeneity was substantial in most pooled outcomes. Route of administration and age were identified to be plausible source of heterogeneity for certain outcomes. Medicinal plants appear to be well tolerated up to 8 weeks of use. Clear beneficial evidence of medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis is still lacking. There is a need for improved reporting of herbal trials to allow for critical assessment of the effects of each individual medicinal plant preparation in well-designed future clinical studies.

Safety Considerations for Natural Products Commonly Used By Patients with Allergic Disease

Natural products are a category of Complementary and Alternative Medicine that includes medicinal plants, vitamins, and dietary supplements. These products are often utilized by patients with allergies in conjunction with, or as an alternative to, their conventional medical therapies. Despite the wide use of these modalities, many clinicians often have limited knowledge and training in their use. It is important for health care providers to know the safety and risks of these products that their patients may use. This Clinical Commentary reviews the side effects and adverse reactions of several natural products commonly used by patients with allergies and gives an overview of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for manufacturing, advertising and distribution.

Allergies and Natural Alternatives

Complementary and integrative medicine therapies in the treatment of allergy and allergic rhinitis (AR) are divided broadly into the categories of nutritional supplements, herbal supplements, Ayurvedic, and Chinese traditional medicine. Some therapies are likely completely safe, such as Manuka honey, with no known side effects. Others have significant risks, such as ephedra, which was ultimately banned for use by the Food and Drug Administration. The efficacy of these therapies is varied and under-researched. The therapies with the strongest evidence in the treatment of allergy and AR are Manuka honey, butterbur, and Sinupret.

A review on the ethnobotany, phytochemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of butterbur species (Petasites L.)

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Petasites (butterbur, Asteraceae) species have been used since Ancient times in the traditional medicine of Asian and European countries to treat central nervous system (migraine), respiratory (asthma, allergic rhinitis, bronchitis, spastic cough), cardiovascular (hypertension), gastrointestinal (ulcers) and genitourinary (dysmenorrhea) disorders.

AIM OF THE REVIEW

This study summarized and discussed the traditional uses, phytochemical, pharmacological and toxicological aspects of Petasites genus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of Petasites in online databases (Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) was performed, with the aim to find the phytochemical, toxicological and bioactivity studies. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Plants of the World Online, World Flora Online and The Plant List databases were used to describe the taxonomy and geographical distribution.

RESULTS

The detailed phytochemistry of the potentially active compounds of Petasites genus (e.g. sesquiterpenes, pyrrolizidine alkaloids, polyphenols and essential oils components) was presented. The bioactivity studies (cell-free, cell-based, animal, and clinical) including the traditional uses of Petasites (e.g. anti-spasmolytic, hypotensive, anti-asthmatic activities) were addressed and followed by discussion of the main pharmacokinetical and toxicological issues related to the administration of butterbur-based formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a complete overview of the Petasites geographical distribution, traditional use, phytochemistry, bioactivity, and toxicity. More than 200 different sesquiterpenes (eremophilanes, furanoeremophilanes, bakkenolides), 50 phenolic compounds (phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans) and volatile compounds (monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes) have been reported within the genus. Considering the phytochemical complexity and the polypharmacological potential, there is a growing research interest to extend the current therapeutical applications of Petasites preparations (anti-migraine, anti-allergic) to other human ailments, such as central nervous system, cardiovascular, malignant or microbial diseases. This research pathway is extremely important, especially in the recent context of the pandemic situation, when there is an imperious need for novel drug candidates.

Petasites for Migraine Prevention: New Data on Mode of Action, Pharmacology and Safety. A Narrative Review

Petasins are the pharmacologically active ingredients of butterbur and of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of migraine and tension headaches. Here, we summarize the pharmacology, safety and clinical efficacy of butterbur in the prevention of migraine attacks and present new data on its mode of action. We review published literature and study reports on the safety and clinical efficacy of the butterbur root extract Petadolex® and report new findings on petasins in dampening nociception by desensitizing calcium-conducting TRP ion channels of primary sensory neurons. Importantly, butterbur diminishes the production of inflammatory mediators by inhibiting activities of cyclooxygenases, lipoxygenases and phospholipase A2 and desensitizes nociception by acting on TRPA1 and TRPPV1 ion channels. It inhibits the release of calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) of meningeal afferents during migraine attacks. We also evaluated the safety of a butterbur root extract in repeated dose studies for up to 6 months. A no-observable-adverse-effect-level at 15-fold of the maximal clinical dose (3 mg/kg/day MCD) was established for rats. At supratherapeutic doses, i.e., 45–90-fold MCD, we observed bile duct hyperplasia, and mechanistic studies revealed regulations of solute carriers to likely account for bile duct proliferations. Additionally, liver function tests were performed in cultures of primary human hepatocytes and did not evidence hepatotoxicity at therapeutic butterbur level and with migraine co-medications. Lastly, in randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trials with Petadolex® migraine attack frequency was reduced significantly at 150 mg/day, and no relevant abnormal liver function was reported. Together, butterbur is effective in the prevention of migraine attacks by blocking CGRP signaling.

Effect of Medical Therapy in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR); however, appraisal of treatment effect has been heterogenous, and few studies have interpreted these outcomes in context with measures of nasal airflow.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for common therapy classes for AR to assess standardized treatment effect on validated patient-reported outcomes and physiologic measures of airflow.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane library databases to identify randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Treatment effects of INCS, POAH, and ASIT on total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were analyzed by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with 4673 AR patients were identified, with 5 INCS, 8 POAH, and 9 ASIT trials. INCS improved TNSS (mean difference [MD] 0.90; P = .002) and PNIF (MD 13.31 L/min [P = .0007]. POAH improved quality of life assessed by RQLQ [MD 0.36; P < .001], but no improvement was found in PNIF. ASIT improved RQLQ [MD 0.65; P < .001], with a trend toward improvement in TNSS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, INCS resulted in a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in symptom scores and physiologic measures in AR. POAH and ASIT both improved symptom scores and quality of life, but their impacts upon nasal airflow are uncertain. There is a lack of studies assessing the effect of INCS on quality of life and the effect of POAH on symptom severity, particularly for mild AR. Future studies should assess the effect of treatment for each of these patient-reported measures.

Herbal Medicines for Allergic Rhinitis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Thirty-two studies were included (2,697 patients, mean age 34.6 years). For the ≤ 4 weeks of treatment duration, HM brought greater benefits over placebo in reduction of total nasal symptoms score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98, -0.38; p <0.01) and improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.81, -0.25; p <0.01). For the 4-12 weeks duration, total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.22; 95%CI -0.4, -0.05; p =0.01) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.48; 95% CI -0.89, -0.06; p =0.03) favored the HM. However, HM therapy for longer than 12 weeks was related to tachyphylaxis and showed no benefit over placebo in any outcomes. There was no difference between the HM and standard treatment on symptoms improvement. Anti-allergic effect, anti-inflammatory effect, anti-leukotriene effect, and anti-histaminic effect of HM were revealed. HM was safe and their adverse effects were comparable placebo. HM therapy is safe and provides better results than placebo in improving nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in patients with AR. Its beneficial effects are demonstrated only in less than 12 weeks of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168367.

Butterbur (Petasites hybridus) Extract Ameliorates Hepatic Damage Induced by Ovalbumin in Mice

The liver is the most vital organ that could be influenced by inducers of hypersensitivity such as ovalbumin. The current study was carried out to explore the effects of butterbur (Petasites hybridus) extract on the ovalbumin-induced liver hypersensitivity in Swiss albino male mice. Animals were divided into 4 groups, 1^st group served as a control group, 2^nd group treated with daily oral administration of 75 mg/kg of butterbur extract, 3^rd group received single oral dose 100 mg/kg of ovalbumin to induce hypersensitivity, and 4^th group treated with oral administration of butterbur extract one-day post to the hypersensitivity induction. Ovalbumin induces a significant increase in the activity of liver enzymes and MDA and decreased the activity of CAT after the ovalbumin treatment. Histopathological investigations revealed marked pathological alterations in liver tissues in the form of hyaline degeneration and fibrosis. Additionally, heavy immune response indicated by immunostaining of MDA and TNF-α could be observed. In contrast, posttreatment with butterbur extract after hypersensitivity induction resulted in a significant decrease of liver enzymes and oxidative stress and reduced the inflammation and fibrosis of liver tissues. These results suggest that butterbur extract is considered as anti-inflammatory and antioxidant therapeutic herb for hypersensitivity treatment of liver.

Complementary and alternative medicine for allergic rhinitis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is extensively used in patients with allergic diseases worldwide. The purpose of this study was to investigate the actual situation of CAM practice in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

We distributed questionnaires to otolaryngologists at 114 facilities in Japan. The subjects who participated in this study included children <16 years of age and adults ≥16 years of age diagnosed with allergic rhinitis by otolaryngologists. The survey was performed in the period from September 2007 to August 2009. Furthermore, we performed the same investigation out of the hospital setting, such as during general health examinations. All questionnaires were returned to Chiba University and analyzed.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients who had ever experimented with CAM in the hospital survey were 7.1% (225/3170) and 19.2% (1416/7363) of children and adults, respectively. Approximately 36.2% of the adult patients thought that the treatments were effective. The main reasons for CAM use were safety, convenience and low price. However, the group who spent more than $1000 on CAM felt more dissatisfaction and anxiety related to treatment at the hospital. The situation of CAM practice was not consistent and was instead influenced by the backgrounds of the subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients who receive CAM report feeling that the effects of treatment provided by hospitals are insufficient and have concerns about the side effects of such treatments. Information regarding standard treatments, as described in the guidelines, should become widely known and diffused, and strong communication with patients should be considered.

The use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients attending a general otolaryngology clinic: can we afford to ignore it?

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among the general population. Little information is available, however, on CAM use in adults attending an otolaryngology outpatient clinic in the UK.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to study the prevalence and pattern of CAM use among adult patients attending the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) clinic in a UK teaching hospital.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was used.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

All patients on their primary visit to an ENT clinic were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire for a 14-week period from October 2005 to January 2006.

RESULTS

Based on 1366 completed questionnaires, 53% (728/1366) were female and 47% (638/1366) were male. Twenty-nine percent (395/1366) were older than 60 years, and 56% (763/1366) were married. Twenty percent (275/1366) had a university education. Sixty-one percent (833/1366) had used CAM, almost 36% in the preceding 12 months. The popular remedies were cod liver oil (368/833), garlic (197/833), cranberry (181/833), aloe vera (176/833), primrose oil (174/833), and Echinacea (163/833). Nonherbal therapies included massage (230/833), acupuncture (186/833), aromatherapy (135/833), chiropractic (121/833), reflexology (119/833), and homeopathy (110/833). Seventeen percent (143/833) used CAM for their current illness. Only 8% (64/833) found CAM ineffective; yet, 57% (473/833) would recommend CAM to others. Fifty-one percent (421/833) failed to inform their primary physician of their CAM use.

CONCLUSION

Despite concerns over CAM efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness, use of CAM is popular among patients attending an ENT clinic. Their use is not generally related to their presenting illness. Otolaryngologists should be aware of current trends in CAM use when managing patients, including possible interactions with other medication.

Complementary/alternative medicines in allergic disease

Complementary/alternative medicines is a generic term that encompasses a variety of approaches, including homeopathy, acupuncture, phytotherapy and numerous holistic or behavioral techniques. Complementary/alternative medicines are widely used in a number of conditions, including asthma and rhinitis. The medical literature on complementary/alternative medicines is impressive, but there are few clinical studies conducted with an appropriate methodology, and their results are negative or conflicting. In general, the results are insufficient to provide recommendations for the use of complementary/alternative medicines in clinical practice. Regarding diagnostic techniques, none have demonstrated the capability of distinguishing between healthy and allergic subjects and none are able to identify sensitizations.

Effect of levocetirizine on nasal provocation testing with adenosine monophosphate compared with allergen challenge in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

End-organ hyperreactivity is an important feature of the allergic airway. There are no data directly comparing the responsiveness to treatment of different nasal provocation tests (NPT).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effect of levocetirizine on nasal adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) with specific allergen challenge in patients with intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

Patients with AR were randomized in double-blind cross-over fashion to receive single doses of levocetirizine 5 mg or identical placebo, with nasal challenge performed 12 h after dosing. Sixteen participants completed per protocol. Nasal AMP or allergen challenge was conducted on separate days with 1- and 2-week washout periods in between, respectively. Measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were made over 60 min after each challenge. The primary end-point was the provocative concentration of AMP or allergen causing a 20% drop in the PNIF (PC(20)).

RESULTS

The time-profile for PNIF recovery [area under the 60 min time-response curve as % PNIF change (min)] were significantly attenuated for AMP challenge, as mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 11.57 (3.87, 19.25), P=0.005 and for allergen challenge: 17.82 (0.11, 35.53), P=0.04. A highly significant correlation was shown between methods for the area under the curve: (R=0.86, P<0.001). A statistically significant correlation was also seen for the PC(20): (R=0.94, P<0.001). PC(20) improvement amounted to a 1.26 (95% CI 0.16, 2.35) and 0.16 (95% CI -0.41, 0.73) doubling-dilution shifts for allergen and AMP challenges, respectively. Bland-Altman plots confirmed good agreement between methods.

CONCLUSION

A high correlation and statistical agreement has been demonstrated between AMP and allergen challenge for all outcome measures. In particular, the recovery profile after NPT is a sensitive and discriminatory measure of anti-allergic treatment.

S-petasin and butterbur lactones dilate vessels through blockage of voltage gated calcium channels and block DNA synthesis

Eremophilanlactones isolated from roots of Petasites hybridus (L.) G.M. et Sch. (Asteraceae) and S-petasin have vasodilatory effects with pD(2) -log (EC(50)) values of 6.01+/-0.08, 5.24+/-0.10, 4.74+/-0.13, and 5.43+/-0.06 for S-petasin, the (Z)-3-methylthioacrylic ester of 2beta-hydroxy-8betaH-7(11)-eremophilene-12,8-olide, the angelic ester of 2beta-hydroxy-8alphaH-7(11)-eremophilene-12,8-olide, and the angelic ester of 2beta-hydroxy-8betaH-7(11)-eremophilene-12,8-olide, respectively, in the mesenteric arteries. The pD(2) values were somewhat lower for all compounds in aortic segments. The vasodilation was caused by a blockage of the voltage gated calcium channels. S-petasin, (Z)-3-methylthioacrylic ester of 2beta-hydroxy-8betaH-7(11)-eremophilene-12,8-olide, and the angelic ester of 2beta-hydroxy-8alphaH-7(11)-eremophilene-12,8-olide displayed similar potencies in inhibiting DNA synthesis in cardiomyocytes and vascular smooth muscle cells.

Complementary therapy in allergic rhinitis

The term complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) refers to those therapeutic and diagnostic approaches different from conventional allopathic medicine. CAM may encompass homeopathy, acupuncture, phytotherapy, antioxidant therapy, and numerous holistic or behavioral techniques. Allergists and physicians of all disciplines are confronted with patients using CAM treatments, making it imperative that they become familiar with the scientific literature surrounding them. Given the high prevalence of allergic diseases and associated costs of CAM treatments, proof of CAM therapies is needed to establish appropriate guidelines for their use. Efficacy of CAM modalities should be established with randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, including adverse-effects monitoring. Of all the CAM therapies examined to treat allergic rhinitis, some herbal therapies and antioxidants demonstrate a trend toward some clinical efficacy. Researchers have yet to determine how to integrate these CAM modalities into the general treatment paradigm of allergic rhinitis.

Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases until November 8, 2005; bibliographies of located articles; manufacturers of commercially available preparations; and experts in the field.

STUDY SELECTION

We only included double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which tested a herbal medicine against placebo or active comparator, in patients with AR, and evaluated clinically relevant outcomes. Study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of methodological quality were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and by seeking the opinion of the third reviewer. Meta-analysis was only performed if data were considered suitable for pooling.

RESULTS

Sixteen eligible RCTs, testing 10 different herbal products against placebo or active comparator, were included. Six RCTs studied Petasites hybridus (butterbur) extract for AR and suggest that P hybridus is superior to placebo or similarly effective compared with nonsedative antihistamines for intermittent AR. Two RCTs studied an Indian herbal combination, Aller-7, in patients with AR and reported positive results. Single RCTs were identified for 8 other herbal products as treatments for AR, reporting positive outcomes, except for grape seed extract. The median methodological quality score was 4 of a possible maximum of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

There is encouraging evidence suggesting that P hybridus may be an effective herbal treatment for seasonal (intermittent) AR. However, independent replication is required before a firm conclusion can be drawn because of the financial support from the manufacturer of P hybridus extract to the 3 large trials. There are also promising results generated for other herbal products, particularly Aller-7, Tinospora cordifolia, Perilla frutescens, and several Chinese herbal medicines. Although these results are confined to the paucity of data and the small sample size, confirmation in larger and more rigorously designed clinical trials is warranted.

A proof-of-concept study to assess the putative dose response to topical corticosteroid in persistent allergic rhinitis using adenosine monophosphate challenge

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess whether nasal adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenge may be used to quantify dose response to topical fluticasone propionate (FP) in persistent allergic rhinitis (PER).

METHODS

Eligible subjects with PER entered a randomized double-blind crossover study of 2 weeks of intranasal FP at 100 microg or 400 microg daily, with a 2-week placebo washout period before each randomized treatment. Measurements after each washout or treatment comprised: peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) response to nasal AMP (the primary outcome), domiciliary PNIF, the mini rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (miniRQLQ), symptom scores, nasal nitric oxide levels and overnight urinary cortisol:creatinine ratios.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients completed per protocol. Maximal PNIF response to AMP was attenuated 0.9% (95% confidence interval -7.1 to 9.0, P=NS) by FP 100 microg, and 12.9% (4.8-20.9, P=0.009) by FP 400 microg. The 400-100 microg difference was 12.0% U (2.6-21.3, P=0.049). None of the other outcomes were responsive enough to detect any significant treatment effects. The standardized response means to FP 400 microg were 81% for AMP challenge, 54% for domiciliary PNIF, 53% for miniRQLQ, 24% for symptom scores and 18% for nasal nitric oxide. No adrenal suppression was detected at either dose.

CONCLUSION

FP exhibited dose-related suppression of nasal airway hyperresponsiveness to AMP challenge, but without associated detectable adrenal suppression at the higher dose. Moreover, the AMP response demonstrated the highest signal to noise ratio compared with other outcome measures in PER.

Treatment Options for the Management of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis, with a Focus on Intranasal Corticosteroids

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. While allergen avoidance is the first line of management for PAR, complete avoidance is difficult. Therapeutic options available for PAR include intranasal corticosteroids (INS), H1-antihistamines, decongestants and local chromones, as well as immunotherapy. For mild symptoms, INS and antihistamines are the standard of care, whereas for moderate-to-severe PAR, INS are the preferred therapy due to their proven efficacy. Patient quality of life and therapy preference play a role in maintaining adherence to treatment.

Effects of intranasal corticosteroid on nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge in persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Response to a single dose nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge has been used as a surrogate inflammatory marker for allergic rhinitis. Attenuation of response following intranasal corticosteroid would further validate the challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of 4 weeks of 200 mcg once daily mometasone furoate nasal spray on a simplified (single 160 mg dose) nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge.

METHODS

Twenty participants with persistent allergic rhinitis completed a double blind placebo-controlled crossover study. Outcome measures were the peak nasal inspiratory flow and total nasal symptoms score responses to nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge, as well as domiciliary peak nasal inspiratory flow and patient symptom diary cards.

RESULTS

Mometasone significantly (P < 0.05) attenuated response time profiles vs. placebo for peak nasal inspiratory flow but not total nasal symptom scores. For the maximum percentage fall this amounted to a mean difference of 9.6% (95% confidence interval 1.3-17.9%). The coefficient of variation for repeatability was 48.7%. Improvements were seen in prechallenge and domiciliary measurements of peak nasal inspiratory flow (both P < 0.05) and total nasal symptom scores (both P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mometasone attenuates the peak nasal inspiratory flow response to a single 160 mg nasal adenosine monophosphate challenge. Such challenges have been shown to be sensitive to the effects of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and now nasal steroids. This further supports their application as surrogate inflammatory markers for therapeutic trials in allergic rhinitis, potentially as 20 min challenges which can be conducted in a non-hospital setting.

ARIA update: I--Systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine for rhinitis and asthma

Complementary-alternative medicines are extensively used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but evidence-based recommendations are lacking. To provide evidence-based recommendations, the literature was searched by using MedLine and the Cochrane Library to March 2005 (Key words: Asthma [OR] Rhinitis, [AND] Complementary [OR] Alternative Medicine, [OR] Herbal, [OR] Acupuncture, [OR] Homeopathy, [OR] Alternative Treatment). Randomized trials, preferably double-blind and published in English, were selected. The articles were evaluated by a panel of experts. Quality of reporting was assessed by using the scale validated by Jadad. The methodology of clinical trials with complementary-alternative medicine was frequently inadequate. Meta-analyses provided no clear evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture in rhinitis and asthma. Some positive results were described with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found. Therefore it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and further trials are needed. A limited number of studies of herbal remedies showed some efficacy in rhinitis and asthma, but the studies were too few to make recommendations. There are also unresolved safety concerns. Therapeutic efficacy of complementary-alternative treatments for rhinitis and asthma is not supported by currently available evidence.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of montelukast for treating perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is a persistent allergic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract due to year-round allergen exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for the treatment of PAR.

METHODS

Protocol 265 was a 2-arm study performed during the winter. After a placebo run-in period, adults with perennial allergen sensitivity and active symptoms of PAR were randomized to receive 10 mg of montelukast (n=1002) or placebo (n=990) once daily during a 6-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. The primary end point was the daytime nasal symptoms score, defined as the average of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing rated daily by patients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in PAR symptoms were seen in patients treated with montelukast. Their daytime nasal symptoms scores were reduced during treatment compared with those of the placebo group: the difference between treatments in least squares mean change from baseline was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001). Montelukast treatment also improved global evaluations of allergic rhinitis by patients and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores: differences vs the placebo group were -0.15 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.04; P < .01) and -0.15 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.06; P < .001), respectively. Other end points that showed statistically significant improvement with montelukast treatment were nighttime symptoms and each of the 4 nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching). The treatment effects of montelukast were stable and persistent during the entire 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast provided statistically significant relief of PAR symptoms during 6 weeks of treatment.

Treating intermittent allergic rhinitis: a prospective, randomized, placebo and antihistamine-controlled study of Butterbur extract Ze 339

BACKGROUND

Intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR) causes patients distress and impairs their work performance and quality of life. A variety of medicines are used by sufferers whose anguish frequently leads to trying new treatments, increasingly from herbal sources.

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group comparison study of Butterbur extract (Ze 339; 8 mg total petasine; one tablet thrice-daily), fexofenadine (Telfast 180, one tablet once-daily) and placebo in 330 patients. Protocol and analysis were according to the latest guidelines on new treatments for allergic rhinitis. The primary efficacy variable was a change in symptoms from baseline to endpoint during daytime. The secondary efficacy variables were: (a) as per primary variable (evening/night); (b) Physician's global assessment; (c) Responder rates. Safety was closely monitored.

FINDINGS

Both active treatments were individually significantly superior to placebo (p<0.001) in improving symptoms of IAR, while there were no differences between the two active treatments (p=0.37). Superiority to placebo was similarly shown during the evening/night (p<0.001), by physicians' own assessment and by responder rates. Both treatments were well tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Butterbur Ze 339 and Fexofenadine are comparably efficacious relative to placebo. Despite being a herbal drug, Butterbur Ze 339 has now been subject to a series of well controlled trials and should be considered as an alternative treatment for IAR.