Desloratadine relieves nasal congestion and improves quality-of-life in persistent allergic rhinitis

Efficacy and Safety of Phytotherapy and Anthroposophic Medicine in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is a common health condition that is associated with an increased risk for bronchial asthma. Besides conventional medicine, treatments from traditional, complementary and integrative medicine are widely used by individuals with SAR. This review aims to systematically summarize evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of European/Western phytotherapy (PT) and medications from anthroposophic medicine (AM) in individuals with SAR.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were screened for clinical studies published between January 1990 and March 2023. The results were qualitatively synthesized and the study quality was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies were included, 11 from European/Western PT and three from AM. About half of the studies were rated as being of sufficient quality. The most frequently studied plant was Petasites hybridus (butterbur), showing beneficial effects on immunological parameters, subjective symptoms, and nasal airflow. Beneficial immunological and clinical effects were also shown for an herbal preparation combining Citrus limonis (lemon) and Cydonia oblonga (quince). The medications examined by studies of sufficient quality were judged to be safe.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this systematic review highlights two herbal preparations, one from European/Western PT and one from AM, that appear to be promising options in the treatment of SAR.

Pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy of allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mite, grass, and birch pollen allergens: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral antihistamines (AHs), intranasal antihistamines (INAH) intranasal glucocorticosteroids (INCS), subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR). The authors focused on the division into selected AR's triggers: house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen, and birch pollen.

METHODS

For each drug and allergen class, a meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) was performed. The obtained results were presented as a therapeutic index (TIX-Score).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The best total efficacy was observed for: HDMs for INCS and grass pollen for combination of INCS with INAH in a single device and for INAH. Considering the data that was obtained for birch pollen, SLIT showed statistically significant total efficacy. Summation scores for efficacy and AEs showed highest TIX-Score for combination of INCS and INAH in a single device in grass pollen.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment methods selected for this review may serve as an effective and safe treatment in reducing perennial and seasonal AR's symptoms. However, due to high heterogeneity probably associated with potential confounders existence in control in some cases, results should be interpreted with caution.

Discovery of anti-allergic components in Guomingkang Formula using sensitive HEMT biochips coupled with in vitro and in vivo validation

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent allergic disease, which seriously affects the sufferers' life quality and increases the socioeconomic burden. Guominkang (GMK), a well-known prescription for AR treatment, showed satisfactory effects; while its anti-allergic components remain to be disclosed. AlGaN/GaN HEMT biochip is more sensitive and cost-effective than other binding equipments, indicating its great potential for screening of active ingredients from herbal medicines.

METHODS

AR mouse models were first established to test the anti-allergic effect of GMK and discover the ingredients absorbed into blood by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectra (UHPLC-MS). Then, novel Syk/Lyn/Fyn-functionalized high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) biochips with high sensitivity and specificity were constructed and applied to screen the active components. Finally, the results from HEMT biochips screening were validated via in silico (molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation), in vitro (RBL-2H3 cells), and in vivo (PCA mice model) assays.

RESULTS

GMK showed a potent therapeutic effect on AR mice, and fifteen components were identified from the medicated plasma. Furthermore, hamaudol was firstly found to selectively inhibit the Syk and Lyn, and emodin was to selectively inhibit Lyn, which were further confirmed by isothermal titration calorimetry, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation analyses. Suppression of the activation of FcεRI-MAPK signals might be the possible mechanism of the anti-allergic effect of hamaudol.

CONCLUSIONS

The targets of emodin and hamaudol were discovered by HEMT biochips for the first time. This study provided a novel and effective strategy to discover active components in a complex herbal formula by using AlGaN/GaN HEMT biochips.

Impact of Treatment for Nasal Cavity Disorders on Sleep Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of treatment for patients with nasal obstruction secondary to allergic rhinitis (AR) and nasal septal deviation (NSD) on sleep quality.

DATA SOURCES

Primary studies were identified though PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review was performed by querying databases for articles published through August 2020. Studies were included that reported on objective sleep parameters (apnea-hypopnea index) and sinonasal and sleep-specific patient-reported outcome measures: Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (EpSS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1414 unique articles, of which 28 AR and 7 NSD studies were utilized for meta-analysis. A total of 9037 patients (8515 with AR, 522 with NSD) were identified with a mean age of 35.0 years (35.3 for AR, 34.0 for NSD). Treatment for AR and NSD significantly improved subjective sleep quality. For AR, the EpSS mean difference was -1.5 (95% CI, -2.4 to -0.5; P = .002) and for the PSQI, -1.7 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.2; P < .00001). For NSD, the EpSS mean difference was -3.2 (95% CI, -4.2 to -2.2; P < .00001) and for the PSQI, -3.4 (95% CI, -6.1 to -0.6; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Subjective sleep quality significantly improved following treatment for AR and NSD. There were insufficient data to demonstrate that objective metrics of sleep quality similarly improved.

Rhinologic disease and its impact on sleep: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rhinologic disease can be responsible for systemic symptoms affecting mood, cognition, and sleep. It is unclear whether sleep disturbance in specific rhinologic disorders (chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS], rhinitis, and nasal septal deviation [NSD]) is an obstructive phenomenon or due to other mechanisms. In this review we examine the impact of CRS, rhinitis, and NSD on objective and subjective sleep outcome metrics and draw comparisons to normal controls and patients with known obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

A systematic review of 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) was performed. Studies reporting on objective (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI], respiratory disturbance index [RDI], oxygen nadir) and subjective (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [EpSS], Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI], Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS]) sleep parameters and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22], Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ], Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation [NOSE]) were included.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 1414 unique articles, of which 103 were included for analysis. Baseline PROMs were at the high end of normal to abnormal for all 3 conditions: EpSS: CRS (9.8 ± 4.0), rhinitis (9.7 ± 4.3), and NSD (8.9 ± 4.6); and PSQI: CRS (11.0 ± 4.5), rhinitis (6.1 ± 3.7), and NSD (8.6 ± 3.5). Objective measures demonstrated a mild to moderate OSA in the studied diseases: AHI: CRS (10.4 ± 11.5), rhinitis (8.6 ± 8.8), and NSD (13.0 ± 6.9). There were significant differences when compared with reported norms in all measured outcomes (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sleep quality is impacted by rhinologic (CRS, rhinitis, NSD) disease. There is likely a mild obstructive component contributing to poor sleep, but other contributing factors may be involved.

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.

A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Focusing on Different Allergic Rhinitis Medications

This study is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of 4 allergic rhinitis (AR) drugs (loratadine, cetirizine, montelukast, and desloratadine) in reducing functional problems in patients, as indicated by rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. After an exhaustive search of electronic databases containing published scientific literature, high-quality randomized controlled trials relevant to our study were selected based on a stringent predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA 2.0) software. The literature search broadly identified 386 studies, and after a multistep screening and elimination process, a total of 13 randomized controlled trials contributed to this network meta-analysis. These 13 high-quality studies contained a combined total of 6867 patients with AR on 4 different medications. The results of network meta-analysis revealed that, compared with placebo, all 4 mediations treated AR effectively [cetirizine: mean: -0.62, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = -0.90 to -0.34, P < 0.001; loratadine: mean: -0.32, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.097, P = 0.005; montelukast: mean: -0.28, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.023, P = 0.033; desloratadine: mean: -0.39, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.18, P < 0.001]. A comparison of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of these 4 interventions clearly showed that cetirizine is the most optimal medication for AR treatment. In conclusion, this network meta-analysis provides the first evidence that cetirizine is the most efficacious treatment for AR compared with loratadine, montelukast, and desloratadine, significantly reducing the functional problems in patients with AR.

Burden of allergic respiratory disease: a systematic review

This meta-analysis compared the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or allergic asthma (AA) caused by perennial house dust mite (HDM) versus AR and/or AA caused by seasonal pollen allergy. Following a systematic search, the identified studies used the disease-specific rhinitis quality of life questionnaire or generic instruments (SF-36 and SF-12). Summary estimates obtained by meta-analysis showed that HRQL in patients with perennial HDM allergy was significantly worse than that of patients with seasonal pollen allergy, when measured by both disease-specific and generic HRQL instruments, and was reflected by an impact on both physical and mental health. A systematic review of cost data on AR and AA in selected European countries demonstrated that the majority of the economic burden was indirectly caused by high levels of absenteeism and presenteeism; there was little or no evidence of increasing or decreasing cost trends. Increased awareness of the detrimental effects of AR and/or AA on patients’ HRQL and its considerable cost burden might encourage early diagnosis and treatment, in order to minimize the disease burden and ensure beneficial and cost-effective outcomes.

The efficacy and safety of H1-antihistamine versus Montelukast for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In order to verify the differences of effectiveness and safety between SAHs and Montelukast, and to find out potential uncared-for problems, we performed a systematic review and Meta-analysis to proceed a qualitative describe and quantitative assessment.

METHODS

We searched the databases of Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Nature and Science as well as Wanfang data and CNKI from 2000 to March 2016, using key words "Montelukast SAH" or "H1-antihistamine Montelukast", or "Loratadine Montelukast", or "Desloratadine Montelukast", or "Levocetirizine Montelukast", or "Cetirizen Montelukast", or "Fexofenadine Montelukast". And also we included studies through relevant citations in related literature. Meta-analysis and bias of risk were performed. We analyzed Heterogeneity and publish bias as well.

RESULT

Montelukast seems more effective in nighttime symptoms compare with SAHs (P=0.008, MD=-0.04, 95%CI: -0.08, -0.01). No significant difference was found between Montelukast and SAHs in CSS (P=0.10, MD=0.03, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.07). Montelukast and SAHs combined therapy was more effective than Montelukast DNSS (P=0.0006, MD=0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.24) but not in CSS (P=0.04, MD=0.08, 95%CI: 0.00, 0.15; Bonferroni correction α=0.017).

CONCLUSION

Montelukast has a significant influence in improving patients' nasal symptoms quality of live but is not as effective as SAHs, and may have a slight advantage over SAHs in relieving nighttime symptoms significantly. Combined therapy is more effective in improving patients' day time symptom than Montelukast. Probably, patients might have a lower asthenia incidence rate when using Montelukas.

Safety evaluation of desloratadine in allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Desloratadine is a biologically active metabolite of second-generation antihistamine loratadine. It is also indicated for the treatment of allergic diseases, including allergic rhinitis.

AREAS COVERED

A Medline search was conducted to identify preclinical and clinical studies of desloratadine. This was supplemented with additional articles obtained from online sources. The focus of this review is on the safety profile of desloratadine.

EXPERT OPINION

The review of these data indicates that the safety profile of desloratadine is similar to other second-generation antihistamines. Desloratadine is highly selective for histamine H₁-receptors, does not cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), and has minimal adverse events (very low sedation rate), with a better safety and tolerability than first-generation antihistamines. Desloratadine is safe and well tolerated without having central nervous system (CNS) or cardiovascular effects and with low drug interaction.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis with desloratadine: results of a multinational observational study in the middle East gulf region

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 36% of the population in the Middle East Gulf States. The second-generation nonsedating antihistamine desloratadine has demonstrated safety and efficacy in the treatment of AR; however, few studies have evaluated this agent in Arab and Asian populations in the Middle East.

Methods

This open-label study enrolled subjects ≥ 12 years with moderate-to-severe AR; they received desloratadine 5 mg QD for 2 weeks. Endpoints included change in mean individual nasal and ocular symptom scores, total symptom score (TSS), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and percentage improvement in global response to therapy.

Results

There were 602 subjects from 5 Middle East countries enrolled. After 2 weeks, desloratadine significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced mean scores for individual nasal and total ocular symptom scores and TSS. PNIF measures of nasal congestion were significantly (P < 0.0001) improved after treatment. Most subjects obtained complete (38.1%) or marked (47.2%) relief of AR symptoms. Treatment failure was reported in 2.2% of subjects. No adverse events were reported, and no subjects discontinued treatment.

Conclusion

Most subjects reported significant symptom relief with desloratadine 5 mg/d for 2 weeks. Desloratadine is effective in the treatment of AR in Arab and Asian subjects in the Middle East Gulf region.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA): achievements in 10 years and future needs

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.

Use of montelukast alone or in combination with desloratadine or levocetirizine in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the course of treatment in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (AR) treated with montelukast, levocetirizine, or desloratadine alone or combinations of antihistamine and montelukast.

METHODS

A 32-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-armed study in 40 adult patients with history of persistent AR, clinical allergy to house-dust mites, and a total nasal symptom score of at least 5 (congestion of at least 2) has been performed. Patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nonallergic rhinitis with clinical allergy associated with seasonal allergens, and other serious diseases were excluded. There were four 6-week treatment periods separated by 2-week washout periods. Twenty patients received either montelukast or antihistamine, a combination of montelukast and antihistamine, or placebo. The sequence of treatment was randomly assigned. Nasal symptoms were assessed using a 4-point scale at baseline, daily during the 1st week and on days 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 of treatment.

RESULTS

Montelukast alone, levocetirizine alone, desloratadine alone, and the montelukast/antihistamine combinations significantly improved nasal symptoms during the first 24 hours. Improvement gradually increased during the 6 weeks of treatment, especially in patients receiving montelukast alone or in combination therapy with the antihistamine in both arms. Improvement at 42 days of treatment was significantly greater than that achieved on the 1st day of therapy in patients treated with the combination of montelukast and levocetirizine.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast alone or in combination with antihistamines gave a gradual increase in nasal symptom improvement within 6 weeks of treatment in patients with persistent AR.

Occupational rhinitis in bell pepper greenhouse workers: determinants of leaving work and the effects of subsequent allergen avoidance on health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of occupational allergens or reduction in exposure has been advocated as the mainstay of the management of occupational rhinitis. Sparse data to the effect of allergen avoidance are available.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that may lead to leaving work and to address the effect of subsequent allergen avoidance on quality of life.

METHODS

A survey to the prevalence of occupational allergy to bell pepper performed in 1999 comprised 472 employees, of which 254 had work-related rhinitis and 228 completed the Rhinitis-related Quality of Life Questionnaire. After 8-year follow-up in 2007, 91 workers with rhinitis in 1999 were available to fill out the questionnaire again and were used to evaluate the course of nasal disease in terms of perceived severity and impact on daily life.

RESULTS

Workers with rhinitis at baseline were more likely to leave their job in bell pepper cultivation for another job (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 0.95-2.75). Among the 91 workers, 58 subjects were still at work, whereas 33 subjects had left work. The subjects who left jobs reported substantial improvement in quality of life. The magnitude of the changes ranged from -0.31 to -1. The effect of quitting work on the mean quality of life score amounted -0.76 ± 0.15.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is the first large longitudinal studies showing that leaving work and subsequent occupational allergen avoidance have a beneficial effect on rhinitis-related quality of life. The study suggests that occupational rhinitis can be a reason to leave work.