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

V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis - 2024

Since we published the "IV Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis", in2017, several advances have been achieved and have enabled a further understanding of the different aspects of "Rhinitis". This new guideline, developed jointly by ASBAI, SBP and SBORL, represents a relevant milestone in the updated and integrated management of the different forms of the disease, and it aims to unify evidence-based approaches to improve the diagnosis and treatment of this common and often underestimated condition. The document covers a wide range of topics, including clear definitions of the different phenotypes and endotypes of rhinitis, risk factors, updated diagnostic criteria, and recommended methods for clinical and laboratory investigation. We stress the importance of detailed clinical history and objective assessment, as well as tools for control and assessing severity tools an accurate diagnostic approach to the disease. Regarding treatment, it emphasizes the treatment customization, considering the severity of symptoms, the presence of comorbidities and the impact on the patient's quality of life. We discuss different drug treatment, in addition to non-pharmacological measures, such as environmental control and specific immunotherapy; and the possible role of immunobiological agents. Furthermore, the consensus addresses issues related to patient education, prevention and management of special situations, such as rhinitis in children, in pregnant women and in the elderly. In short, the "V Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis" represents a comprehensive and updated guide for healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and management of rhinitis, aiming to improve patients' quality of life through an integrated and evidence-based approach.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

A Review on Novel Therapeutic Modalities and Evidence-based Drug Treatments against Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated atopic disease that occurs due to inhaled antigens in the immediate phase. Misdiagnosis, insufficient treatment, or no treatment at all are frequent problems associated with the widespread condition known as chronic allergic rhinitis. AR symptoms include runny, itchy, stuffy, and sneezing noses. Asthma and nasal polyps, for example, sometimes occur simultaneously in patients. In order for people living with AR to be as comfortable and productive as possible, treatment should center on reducing their symptoms. The online sources and literature, such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Medline, were reviewed to gather information regarding therapeutic modalities of AR and evidence-based treatments for the disease as the objectives of the present study. An increasing number of people are suffering from AR, resulting in a heavy financial and medical burden on healthcare systems around the world. Undertreating AR frequently results in a decline in quality of life. Treatment compliance is a critical challenge in the administration of AR. Innovative therapies are needed for RA to provide patients with symptom alleviation that is less expensive, more effective, and longer duration of action. Evidence-based guidelines are helpful for managing AR illness. Treating AR according to evidence-based standards can help in disease management. AR treatment includes allergen avoidance, drug therapy, immunotherapy, patient education, and follow-up. However, AR treatment with intranasal corticosteroids is more popular. Hence, in this review article, treatment options for AR are discussed in depth. We also discussed the incidence, causes, and new treatments for this clinical condition.

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

BACKGROUND

We aim to assess the impact of montelukast on paediatric patients with asthma/allergic rhinitis, measured using patient-reported outcome measures, compared with other treatments or placebo.

METHODS

Protocol registration CRD42020216098 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). MEDLINE and Embase databases were used to conduct the search. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data, and a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. Meta-analyses were constructed to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of 3937 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria, mostly randomised clinical trials (sample sizes: 21-689 patients). The SMD of change pooled estimators for the global, mental and physical domains of health-related quality of life were not statistically significant. For daytime and night-time symptoms scores, the SMD (95% CI) was in favour of inhaled corticosteroids (-0.12, -0.20- -0.05 and -0.23, -0.41- -0.06, respectively). The pooled estimator for global asthma symptoms was better for montelukast when compared with placebo (0.90, 0.44-1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The synthesis of the available evidence suggests that, in children and adolescents, montelukast was effective in controlling asthma symptoms when compared with placebo, but inhaled corticosteroids were superior in controlling symptoms, especially at night-time. These findings of our systematic review concur with current guidelines for asthma treatment.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a common ailment in primary and acute care settings. Diagnosis is clinical, by means of history and physical examination. Referral to an allergist is considered when symptoms are difficult to manage and/or confirmation by means of further testing is desired. Management of allergic rhinitis should not be considered trivial, as multiple secondary effects can present as the course progresses. Several treatment modalities exist but should begin with glucocorticoid nasal sprays and systemic second- or third-generation antihistamines.

3CLpro and PLpro affinity, a docking study to fight COVID19 based on 900 compounds from PubChem and literature. Are there new drugs to be found?

The spread of a novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and a resulting COVID19 disease in late 2019 has transformed into a worldwide pandemic and has effectively brought the world to a halt. Proteases 3CLpro and PLpro, responsible for proteolysis of new virions, represent vital inhibition targets for the COVID19 treatment. Herein, we report an in silico docking study of more than 860 COVID19-related compounds from the PubChem database. Molecular dynamic simulations were carried out to validate the conformation stability of compound-ligand complexes with best docking scores. The MM-PBSA approach was employed to calculate binding free energies. The comparison with ca. 50 previously reported potential SARS-CoV-2's proteases inhibitors show a number of new compounds with excellent binding affinities. Anti-inflammatory drugs Montelukast, Ebastine and Solumedrol, the anti-migraine drug Vazegepant or the anti-MRSA pro-drug TAK-599, among many others, all show remarkable affinities to 3CLpro and with known side effects present candidates for immediate clinical trials. This study reports thorough docking scores summary of COVID19-related compounds found in the PubChem database and illustrates the asset of computational screening methods in search for possible drug-like candidates. Several yet-untested compounds show affinities on par with reported inhibitors and warrant further attention. Furthermore, the submitted work provides readers with ADME data, ZINC and PubChem IDs, as well as docking scores of all studied compounds for further comparisons.

Synthesis of vinyl sulfides and thioethers via a hydrothiolation reaction of 4-hydroxydithiocoumarins and arylacetylenes/styrenes

The synthesis of vinyl sulfides (3a-m) and thioethers (7a-k), exclusive Markovnikov products, is reported by a copper(I) iodide catalyzed regioselective hydrothiolation reaction of terminal alkynes/alkenes and 4-hydroxydithiocoumarins. However, anti-Markovnikov hydrothiolation products (5a-f) were obtained in the case of 2-ethynylpyridine, with exclusive Z selectivity in good yields. The important aspects of this protocol are the absence of expensive metal complexes and additives to act as ligands, mild reaction conditions, high regioselectivity, good yields, and shorter reaction times.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

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

Medical Treatment of Nasal Airway Obstruction

Nasal obstruction is a common, and potentially debilitating, problem. It is caused by a combination of structural factors and/or mucosal swelling/inflammation. The medical treatment of nasal obstruction is aimed at decreasing mucosal inflammation and edema and is generally guided by the underlying cause. Several different drug classes are commonly used in the treatment of nasal obstruction, each with different indications, and pros and cons to their use. This article discusses the most commonly used therapies for nasal obstruction. Current evidence on the efficacy and side effect profile of each therapy is reviewed.

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.

IV Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis - an update on allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

The guidelines on allergic rhinitis aim to update knowledge about the disease and care for affected patients. The initiative called "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma", initially published in 2001 and updated in 2008 and 2010, has been very successful in disseminating information and evidence, as well as providing a classification of severity and proposing a systemized treatment protocol. In order to include the participation of other medical professionals in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, it is important to develop algorithms that accurately indicate what should and can be done regionally.

OBJECTIVE

To update the III Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis - 2012, with the creation of an algorithm for allergic rhinitis management.

METHODS

We invited 24 experts nominated by the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology, Brazilian Association of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery and Brazilian Society of Pediatrics to update the 2012 document.

RESULTS

The update of the last Brazilian Consensus on Rhinitis incorporated and adapted the relevant information published in all "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma" Initiative documents to the Brazilian scenario, bringing new concepts such as local allergic rhinitis, new drugs and treatment evaluation methods.

CONCLUSION

A flowchart for allergic rhinitis treatment has been proposed.

Allergic Rhinitis

Among the atopic disorders, allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent. Patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis sustain significant morbidity and loss of productivity. Cardinal symptoms include nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching, although multiple related symptoms may occur. Causes should be ruled out with a thorough history and physical examination, with particular attention to red flag or atypical symptoms. Skin testing or serum sampling can confirm diagnosis and also guide therapy. Therapy is multimodal, tailored to a particular patient's symptom burden and quality of life.

Position statement of the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology on the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes, and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory sinonasal diseases

Introduction

Inflammatory conditions of the nose and paranasal sinuses are very prevalent in the general population, resulting in marked loss of quality of life in affected patients, as well as significant work, leisure, and social activity losses. These patients require specific and specialized treatment. A wide range of oral medications are available.

Objective

The present document is aimed to clarify, for professionals treating patients with inflammatory sinonasal diseases, both specialists and general practitioners, specific oral therapies in noninfectious nasal inflammatory conditions.

Methods

The methodology used to create this article included the search for the key words: oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, antileukotrienes, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in the last 5 years. Since no relevant article was found for the text on the subject of interest in the last 5 years, the search was extended for another 5 years, and so on, according to the authors’ needs.

Results

Relevant literature was found regarding the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and oral corticosteroids in these conditions. The Brazilian Academy of Rhinology emphasizes, after extensive discussion by the collegiate, key points in the treatment with these drugs.

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for the use of these drugs; however, final considerations about the role of each of them have been made.

Medications for Allergic Rhinitis

Objectives Adherence to the allergic rhinitis clinical practice guideline is being considered as a potential focus for national performance metrics. To help inform this discussion, we assessed patient- and clinician-reported medication administration among nationally representative populations of patients with allergic rhinitis. Study Design Cross-sectional analyses. Setting and Subjects Home health assessments, ambulatory visits. Methods Participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were assessed. The primary outcomes were the percentage of patients reporting receipt of antihistamines and/or nasal steroids among those with allergy-related symptoms and the percentage for whom a clinician administered these medications when diagnosing allergic rhinitis. Secondary outcomes included assessments of those with worse quality of life, confirmatory allergy testing, and leukotriene receptor antagonist use. Results Within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 29.2 million patients were diagnosed with "hay fever," while 92.2 million were diagnosed with "allergies." Patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis reported that antihistamines or nasal steroids were prescribed in 21.1% to 24.0% of cases. Leukotriene receptor antagonists were given to 1.7% of those without asthma or use of other allergy medications. Within the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey / National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, observations representing 149.5 million visits for allergic rhinitis demonstrated that nasal steroids were administered in 29.6% of cases, while nonsedating and sedating antihistamines were given in 22.4% and 17.2%, respectively. Conclusions Despite a high prevalence of allergic rhinitis, per patient report and clinician entry, a substantial number of affected patients do not receive antihistamines and nasal steroids.

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.

Allergic Rhinitis: Mechanisms and Treatment

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has been estimated at 10% to 40%, and its economic burden is substantial. AR patients develop specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibody responses to indoor and outdoor environmental allergens with exposure over time. These specific IgE antibodies bind to high-affinity IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils. Key outcome measures of therapeutic interventions include rhinitis symptom control, rescue medication requirements, and quality-of-life measures. A comprehensive multiple modality treatment plan customized to the individual patient can optimize outcomes.

Antileukotrienes in upper airway inflammatory diseases

Leukotrienes (LTs) are a family of inflammatory mediators including LTA4, LTB4, LTC4, LTD4, and LTE4. By competitive binding to the cysteinyl LT1 (CysLT1) receptor, LT receptor antagonist drugs, such as montelukast, zafirlukast, and pranlukast, block the effects of CysLTs, improving the symptoms of some chronic respiratory diseases, particularly bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis. We reviewed the efficacy of antileukotrienes in upper airway inflammatory diseases. An update on the use of antileukotrienes in upper airway diseases in children and adults is presented with a detailed literature survey. Data on LTs, antileukotrienes, and antileukotrienes in chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, asthma, and allergic rhinitis are presented. Antileukotriene drugs are classified into two groups: CysLT receptor antagonists (zafirlukast, pranlukast, and montelukast) and LT synthesis inhibitors (5-lipoxygenase inhibitors such as zileuton, ZD2138, Bay X 1005, and MK-0591). CysLTs have important proinflammatory and profibrotic effects that contribute to the extensive hyperplastic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis (NP) that characterise these disorders. Patients who receive zafirlukast or zileuton tend to show objective improvements in, or at least stabilisation of, NP. Montelukast treatment may lead to clinical subjective improvement in NP. Montelukast treatment after sinus surgery can lead to a significant reduction in eosinophilic cationic protein levels in serum, with a beneficial effect on nasal and pulmonary symptoms and less impact in NP. Combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists treatments are most effective for preventing exacerbations among paediatric asthma patients. Treatments with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, combined inhaled corticosteroids and LT receptor antagonists, and low-dose inhaled corticosteroids have been reported to be equally effective. Antileukotrienes have also been reported to be effective for allergic rhinitis.

Special considerations--asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is among the most common chronic diseases of childhood. Management of pediatric asthma requires an understanding of the issues that uniquely effect children. This review provides the reader with the current state and future directions of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Review of the pediatric asthma literature was undertaken with emphasis on randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The prevalence of pediatric asthma remains elevated and is increasingly being appreciated in select global regions. Effective treatment in any setting begins with a focused medical history that queries key asthma features that inform both diagnostic and monitoring strategies. A thorough medical history may yield comorbid upper airway disorders and allergic triggers that could potentially exacerbate airway inflammation. Pre-bronchodilator and post-bronchodilator lung function testing is a preferable diagnostic strategy to quantitatively assess obstructive pulmonary disease among children capable of performing the testing maneuvers. Pediatric asthmatics who continue to have poor disease control require monitoring of medication adherence and drug delivery techniques, because both are often linked with disease outcomes. Therapeutic strategies in children are notably distinct from adults due to the possible effects of inhaled corticosteroids on reduced bone mineral density and growth. Adolescents may also require more time to address the psychosocial complexities that may complicate the required daily usage of asthma medicines.

CONCLUSION

Asthmatic children are distinct from their adult counterparts due to limitations inherent in the pediatric age group. A unified and evidence-based approach to pediatric asthma may improve clinical outcomes.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Cysteinyl leukotriene receptor-1 antagonists as modulators of innate immune cell function

Cysteinyl leukotrienes (cysLTs) are produced predominantly by cells of the innate immune system, especially basophils, eosinophils, mast cells, and monocytes/macrophages. Notwithstanding potent bronchoconstrictor activity, cysLTs are also proinflammatory consequent to their autocrine and paracrine interactions with G-protein-coupled receptors expressed not only on the aforementioned cell types, but also on Th2 lymphocytes, as well as structural cells, and to a lesser extent neutrophils and CD8⁺ cells. Recognition of the involvement of cysLTs in the immunopathogenesis of various types of acute and chronic inflammatory disorders, especially bronchial asthma, prompted the development of selective cysLT receptor-1 (cysLTR1) antagonists, specifically montelukast, pranlukast, and zafirlukast. More recently these agents have also been reported to possess secondary anti-inflammatory activities, distinct from cysLTR1 antagonism, which appear to be particularly effective in targeting neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages. Underlying mechanisms include interference with cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases, 5′-lipoxygenase, and the proinflammatory transcription factor, nuclear factor kappa B. These and other secondary anti-inflammatory mechanisms of the commonly used cysLTR1 antagonists are the major focus of the current review, which also includes a comparison of the anti-inflammatory effects of montelukast, pranlukast, and zafirlukast on human neutrophils in vitro, as well as an overview of both the current clinical applications of these agents and potential future applications based on preclinical and early clinical studies.

Paediatric rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.

Current and future directions in pediatric allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common pediatric problem that significantly affects sleep, learning, performance, and quality of life. In addition, it is associated with significant comorbidities and complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide an update on the epidemiology, comorbidities, pathophysiology, current treatment, and future direction of pediatric AR.

METHODS

Literature reviews in each of these areas were conducted, and the results were incorporated.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AR is increasing in the pediatric population and is associated with significant morbidity, comorbidities, and complications. The mainstay of current treatment strategies includes allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen specific immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, diagnosis will be improved by microarrayed recombinant allergen testing and therapy will be expanded to include emerging treatments such as sublingual immunotherapy and combination products.

Role of leukotriene antagonists and antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is the most common atopic disorder seen in ENT clinics. It is diagnosed by history, physical exam and objective testing. Patient education, environmental control measures, pharmacotherapy, and allergen-specific immunotherapy are the cornerstones of allergic rhinitis treatment and can significantly reduce the burden of disease. Current treatment guidelines include antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, oral and intranasal decongestants, intranasal anticholinergics, intranasal cromolyn, and leukotriene receptor antagonists. In the mechanism of allergic rhinitis, histamine is responsible for major allergic rhinitis symptoms such as rhinorrhea, nasal itching and sneezing. Its effect on nasal congestion is less evident. In contrast, leukotrienes result in increase in nasal airway resistance and vascular permeability. Antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists are commonly used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The published literature about combined antihistamines and leukotriene antagonists in mono- or combination therapy is reviewed and presented.

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.

Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis

BACKGROUND

Dilation of sinus ostia using a high-pressure balloon has been introduced as a treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical treatment. The efficacy of this technology, however, has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of balloon sinus ostial dilation as a treatment for patients suffering with CRS refractory to medical treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 20 December 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in patients of any age with rhinosinusitis lasting longer than 12 weeks who have failed a prolonged course of medical treatment. Studies compared either balloon sinus ostial dilation or a hybrid procedure (balloon dilation in conjunction with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS)) versus conventional surgery (e.g. FESS) or a waiting list control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One study (34 patients) met our inclusion criteria although it was not yet a peer reviewed publication. The study randomised patients with chronic frontal sinusitis who had failed a prolonged course of medical treatment into two groups: balloon dilatation of the frontal recess (plus conventional FESS of other involved sinuses) versus conventional FESS (Draf type 1/2a procedures on the frontal sinuses). At 12 months follow up there was no statistically significant difference in radiological resolution of frontal sinuses between the two groups. The percentages of directly observed patent frontal recesses at 12 months were 75% in the balloon dilation group versus 63% in the FESS-only group. The authors state that this was statistically significant but details of the analysis were not presented. Indeed the study as a whole suffers from a bias in the way its outcome measures were reported.No major complications were reported. Three patients in the FESS-only group required further revision frontal sinus surgery compared to one in the balloon dilation group, although synechiae were more common in the latter.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is no convincing evidence supporting the use of endoscopic balloon sinus ostial dilation compared to conventional surgical modalities in the management of CRS refractory to medical treatment. With the escalating use of balloon sinuplasty, there is an urgent need for more randomised controlled trials to determine its efficacy over conventional surgical treatment modalities.

Leukotriene receptor antagonist in the treatment of childhood allergic rhinitis--a randomized placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the hypothesis that leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) would provide additional symptom relief in asthmatic children with persistent AR already taking regular antihistamine. The effects of 16-week treatment of LTRA in addition to fexofenadine (FEX) on persistent AR in asthmatic children were examined.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive children with stable asthma and persistent AR were invited in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 2-week run-in period in which subjects were given FEX alone, they were randomly assigned to take LTRA or placebo in addition to FEX for 16 weeks, followed by 8 weeks of follow-up phase with FEX taken alone. Symptom scoring, rhinoscopy, acoustic rhinometry, spirometry, nasal secretion extraction and blood taking for IL-4 and IL-13 analysis were performed after a 2-week run-in and at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-four subjects with a median (IQR) age of 12.2 (10.1-14.1) years were recruited. At week 4 of treatment, the between-group differences in the mean changes of daytime sneezing score (mean difference (95% CI) = -0.35 (-0.59, -0.12), P = 0.004), nighttime sneezing score (mean difference (95% CI) = -0.37 (-0.62, -0.11), P = 0.007) and daytime composite score (mean difference (95% CI) = -1.08 (-1.92, -0.25), P = 0.013) were significant. Acoustic rhinometry also demonstrated a nearly significant difference in nasal volume change between groups at 16 weeks of treatment (mean difference (95% CI) = 0.572 (0.090-1.054), P = 0.021). IL-4 and IL-13 were not detected in the majority of nasal secretion or serum samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional LTRA provided a more rapid relief on sneezing at the 4-week time point. This combination therapy also maintained a greater nasal volume and this might translate to lesser nasal congestion.

Efficacy comparison of levocetirizine vs montelukast in ragweed sensitized patients

BACKGROUND

To date, no adequate data are available on direct comparison of the efficacy of levocetirizine, a recently approved histamine1-antihistamine, with that of a leukotriene antagonist in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of therapeutic doses of 5 mg of levocetirizine and 10 mg of montelukast in ragweed sensitized patients.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted between July and October 2006. Symptomatic patients with SAR were exposed to ragweed pollen under controlled conditions in an environmental exposure chamber for 4 to 5 hours after treatment with 5 mg of levocetirizine, 10 mg of montelukast, or matched placebo on 2 consecutive days. The mean change from baseline in pollen-induced rhinitis symptoms, expressed as a major symptoms complex (MSC) score (sum of scores for rhinorrhea, itchy nose, sniffles, nose blows, sneezes, and watery eyes), in period 1 (first 5 hours after first drug intake) was the primary efficacy outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 611 patients were screened, of whom 403 were randomized to receive treatment (102 placebo, 152 levocetirizine, and 149 montelukast). The MSC score in period 1 was progressively decreased to a significantly greater extent in the levocetirizine group compared with the montelukast and placebo groups (adjusted mean differences, -2.18 [95% confidence interval, -3.35 to -1.01; P < .001] and -2.22 [95% confidence interval, -3.51 to -0.92; P < .001] for levocetirizine vs montelukast and vs placebo, respectively). The effect of 10 mg of montelukast was not significantly different compared with placebo. Levocetirizine also achieved a significantly faster onset of action within 2.5 hours of administration. Both products were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study in an environmental exposure chamber confirms the therapeutic efficacy of 5 mg of levocetirizine in improving symptoms of SAR, which was superior to 10 mg of montelukast.

Oral montelukast and cetirizine for thyroid eye disease

PURPOSE

To study the efficacy of oral montelukast, a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, in combination with cetirizine, a histamine-1 receptor antagonist, in the treatment of thyroid eye disease.

METHODS

Patients considering surgical correction of eyelid retraction for inflammatory symptoms of thyroid eye disease were offered a preoperative medical regimen of oral montelukast/cetirizine. Exclusion criteria included prior use of oral montelukast (i.e., for seasonal allergy or asthma), compressive optic neuropathy, severe ophthalmopathy requiring systemic corticosteroids, and orbital and/or muscle surgery. A 6-week course of oral cetirizine (10 mg every morning) and oral montelukast (10 mg every evening) was administered and patients subjectively rated their ocular surface dryness, tearing, itching, injection, eyelid swelling, eyelid retraction, double vision, proptosis, and visual clarity, at baseline, after 3 weeks and 6 weeks of medical therapy, and after 3 weeks off of the medications.

RESULTS

Six of the 12 patients recruited for the study reported a subjective improvement in tearing, dryness, and itching. Less effect on diplopia and proptosis was noted after 6 weeks of medical therapy. Two of the patients who did not report response chose to proceed with eyelid retraction surgery and both had evidence of mast cell infiltration in their Müller muscle specimens.

CONCLUSION

The response observed in this open-label trial suggests that oral montelukast and cetirizine may be an effective medical regimen for patients with thyroid eye disease who experience mild to moderate orbital congestion and inflammation.

The link between allergic rhinitis and asthma: a role for antileukotrienes?

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are both chronic heterogeneous disorders, with an overlapping epidemiology of prevalence, health care costs and social costs in quality of life. Both are inflammatory disorders with a similar pathophysiology, and both share some treatment approaches. However, each disorder has an array of treatments used separately in controlling these atopic disorders, from inhaled corticosteroids, beta(2)-agonists and antihistamines to newer monoclonal antibody-based treatments. The present article reviews the shared components of allergic rhinitis and asthma, and examines recent evidence supporting antileukotrienes as effective agents in reducing the symptoms of both diseases.