Intranasal corticosteroids compared with oral antihistamines in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Intranasal corticosteroid users in The Netherlands: A drug utilization study

Background

To improve (patient-tailored) instructions for intranasal corticosteroid (INC) administration, we need to gain insight into specific characteristics of INC users and comedication use.

Objective

We examined INC prescriptions obtained from the Dutch InterAction Database to gain insight into the prevalence and incidence rates, INC use in previous years, and comedication.

Methods

We retrospectively examined INC prescriptions written between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Prevalence and incidence rates were stratified by age and sex. The use of INCs in previous years and comedication were analyzed.

Results

In 2019, a total of 172,563 INC prescriptions were written and dispensed to 75,048 individuals. Also in 2019, the prevalence and incidence of INC users were 68.9 and 25.6 per 1000 individuals, respectively. INCs were used by all age groups. More than half of INC users in 2019 did not receive a prescription in 2018, almost a quarter received a prescription in 5 consecutive years, 28% used an INC in combination with an inhaler, 29% used an INC together with a systemic antihistamine, 9% used an INC along with ocular medication, and 1% used an INC with an intranasal antihistamine. Several corticosteroid-containing drugs were being used in combination with INCs by 2% to 16% of those studied.

Conclusion

This study gives insights into opportunities for patient-tailored instructions. INCs are used by various age groups and by new or intermittent users as well as by continuous users. On the bases of these results, patient-tailored instructions can be developed and subsequently studied to determine whether the instructions affect treatment adherence and efficacy. The insights gained about comedication provide opportunities for improved evaluation of the INC administration technique. Taken together, these suggestions might lead to a more patient-tailored approach, which might in turn lead to improved treatment with INCs.

Intranasal Versus Oral Treatments for Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments for allergic rhinitis include intranasal or oral medications.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists in improving allergic rhinitis symptoms and quality of life.

METHODS

We searched four bibliographic databases and three clinical trial datasets for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing patients aged 12 years and older with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis, and (2) comparing intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists. We performed a meta-analysis of the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), development of adverse events, and withdrawals owing to adverse events. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

RESULTS

We included 35 studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and displayed an unclear risk of bias. Superiority of intranasal treatments was found for all assessed outcomes. Intranasal corticosteroids were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (mean difference [MD], -0.86; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.51; I2 = 70%), Total Ocular Symptom Score (MD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.17; I2 = 0%), and RQLQ (MD, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.61; I2 = 0%), which were mostly associated with clinically meaningful improvements. Superiority of intranasal corticosteroids at improving the TNSS was also found against oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (MD, -1.05; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.77). Intranasal antihistamines were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (MD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.14; I2 = 0%) and RQLQ (MD, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.06; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized controlled trials suggest that intranasal treatments are more effective than oral treatments at improving symptoms and quality of life in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Recent Advances in Allergic Rhinitis: A Narrative Review

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent chronic respiratory condition characterized by nasal inflammation, sneezing, congestion, and itching, significantly impacting quality of life. Over recent years, considerable advancements have been made in understanding the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of AR. This narrative review aims to synthesize these recent developments, providing a comprehensive overview of key areas. Emerging insights into AR pathophysiology have elucidated the complex interplay between genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and immune system dysregulation. Notably, the role of the epithelial barrier and the microbiome in AR pathogenesis has garnered increasing attention, offering potential targets for novel therapies. Advances in diagnostic technologies, such as component-resolved diagnostics and molecular allergology, have enhanced the precision of allergy identification, enabling more personalized treatment approaches. In terms of management, significant progress has been made in pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Novel biologics targeting specific pathways involved in AR, including monoclonal antibodies against immunoglobulin (Ig)E and interleukin (IL)-4/13, have shown promise in reducing symptoms in refractory cases. Additionally, there has been a resurgence in interest in non-pharmacological strategies, including allergen avoidance, immunotherapy, and complementary therapies, which offer holistic options for patient care. The integration of digital health tools and mobile applications in AR management has further empowered patients, allowing for real-time symptom tracking and personalized treatment adjustments. Recent guidelines emphasize a multidisciplinary approach to AR management, promoting integrated care models that involve collaboration between allergists, primary care providers, and other specialists. These guidelines also highlight the importance of patient-centered care, advocating for shared decision-making and tailored treatment plans based on individual patient profiles. In conclusion, the landscape of allergic rhinitis management is rapidly evolving, with ongoing research and innovation paving the way for improved outcomes. This review underscores the importance of staying abreast of these advances to optimize the care and quality of life for individuals affected by allergic rhinitis.

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.

METHODS

The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Intranasal Schirmer Test in Allergic Rhinitis: Relationship to Symptom Scores and Role in Determining Response to Treatment

OBJECTIVES

The Intranasal Schirmer test (INS) is an easy to administer test that can yield objective measurement of the quantity of nasal secretion and has been studied in patients with various nasal and systemic pathologies; however, the role of INS in patients with allergic rhinitis remains unclear. Our aim was to determine the relationship between various allergic symptoms and the Intranasal Schirmer Test (INS) score and to evaluate the utility of INS in determining treatment effect in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

This prospective study included patients with allergic rhinitis who were randomly divided into 3 treatment groups (nasal steroid only, oral antihistamine only, nasal steroid and oral antihistamine). For all patients, Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was used to measure symptom severity and INS was administered before and after treatment. Pre-treatment and post treatment TNSS and INS scores were compared between different treatment groups and within each group.

RESULTS

The study included 120 patients, with 40 patients in each group. There were significant differences both in pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity score with changes of INS scores between treatment groups (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment symptom severity scores and the INS score in each treatment group (P < .001). There was also a significant positive correlation between INS score and TNSS (r = .591 and P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The Intranasal Schirmer Test can be used as an objective tool for patients with allergic rhinitis as an adjunct to subjective patient symptom reports and can also be used to determine the response to treatment.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids are some of the most frequently used drug classes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness differences may exist among different intranasal specific medications. This systematic review aims to analyse and synthesise all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in rhinitis nasal and ocular symptoms and in rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality-of-life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs (1) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis and (2) comparing the use of intranasal antihistamines or corticosteroids versus placebo. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis for each assessed medication and outcome, presenting results as pooled mean differences and standardised mean differences. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses, considering (1) the risk of bias, (2) the follow-up period and (3) the drug dose.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023416573.

Glycyrrhizin and Mannitol Nasal Therapy: Cytological and Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Rhinitis

Introduction  Chronic rhinitis (CR) represents a widespread inflammation with a high incidence in the general population. Although it is generally considered a benign condition, CR has a relevant impact on quality of life and requires a specific treatment approach. Objective  The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of glycyrrhizin and mannitol intranasal treatment on chronic rhinitis using cytological analysis and subjective evaluation of symptoms. Methods  A total of 55 patients suffering from chronic rhinitis were enrolled in the present study, 34 with allergic rhinitis (AR) and 21 with nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). The severity of four different nasal symptoms was determined by using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Specimens obtained by nasal scraping were collected for cytological analysis. Data were acquired before and after a 30-day treatment with glycyrrhizin and mannitol nasal spray. Statistical analyses were performed. Results  The VAS scores for all four nasal symptoms considered in the present study, as well as for neutrophil cells, reduced significantly after therapy in both allergic and nonallergic patients. The number of eosinophils was not significantly lower in nonallergic patients. Conclusion  A 30-day topical treatment with glycyrrhizin and mannitol may improve nasal symptoms and reduce inflammatory cells in the nasal mucosa in patients with chronic rhinitis without significant contraindications. Further studies could support our results and would better clarify all the aspects of this treatment.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of elective medications and procedures on the ocular surface

The word "elective" refers to medications and procedures undertaken by choice or with a lower grade of prioritization. Patients usually use elective medications or undergo elective procedures to treat pathologic conditions or for cosmetic enhancement, impacting their lifestyle positively and, thus, improving their quality of life. However, those interventions can affect the homeostasis of the tear film and ocular surface. Consequently, they generate signs and symptoms that could impair the patient's quality of life. This report describes the impact of elective topical and systemic medications and procedures on the ocular surface and the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, elective procedures performed for ocular diseases, cosmetic enhancement, and non-ophthalmic interventions, such as radiotherapy and bariatric surgery, are discussed. The report also evaluates significant anatomical and biological consequences of non-urgent interventions to the ocular surface, such as neuropathic and neurotrophic keratopathies. Besides that, it provides an overview of the prophylaxis and management of pathological conditions resulting from the studied interventions and suggests areas for future research. The report also contains a systematic review investigating the quality of life among people who have undergone small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Overall, SMILE refractive surgery seems to cause more vision disturbances than LASIK in the first month post-surgery, but less dry eye symptoms in long-term follow up.

Intranasal Anticholinergics for Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Topical intranasal anticholinergics are commonly prescribed for the relief of chronic rhinitis and associated symptoms, warranting thorough assessment of the supporting evidence. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticholinergic nasal sprays in the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis symptom severity and duration.

METHODS

A search encompassing the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted. Primary studies describing rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and/or postnasal drip outcomes in rhinitis patients treated with an anticholinergic spray were included for review.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1,029 unique abstracts, of which 12 studies (n = 2,024) met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis and 9 (n = 1,920) for meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 4 weeks and ipratropium bromide was the most extensively trialed anticholinergic. Compared to placebo, anticholinergic treatment was demonstrated to significantly reduce rhinorrhea severity scores (standardized mean difference [95% CI] = -0.77 [-1.20, -0.35]; -0.43 [-0.72, -0.13]) and duration (-0.62 [-0.95, -0.30]; -0.29 [-0.47, -0.10]) in allergic and non-allergic rhinitis patients respectively. Benefit was less consistent for nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and sneezing symptoms. Reported adverse effects included nasal mucosa dryness or irritation, epistaxis, headaches, and pharyngitis, though comparison to placebo found significantly greater risk for epistaxis only (risk ratio [95% CI] = 2.19 [1.22, 3.93]).

CONCLUSION

Albeit treating other symptoms with less benefit, anticholinergic nasal sprays appear to be safe and efficacious in reducing rhinorrhea severity and duration in both rhinitis etiologies. This evidence supports their continued use in the treatment of rhinitis-associated rhinorrhea.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 Laryngoscope, 133:722-731, 2023.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma in Primary Care: Dispensations Do Not Align with Prescriptions

Background

Appropriate use of effective treatments is required for satisfactory control of allergic symptoms. Coherent medical care -regular prescribing by the same Health Care Professionals- is a preliminary need.

Objective

We investigated the numbers of distinct prescribers, the regularity of medical visits, and the agreement between prescriptions and associated dispensations in individual patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and asthma.

Methods

In primary care electronic health records (EHRs), a cohort of patients with PAR and asthma was identified. Individual EHRs were linked to corresponding claims recording all dispensations. Prescribing patterns were analyzed for the major treatment classes, and the dispensations linked to individual prescriptions were retrieved to compute the proportions of days covered (PDCs) for asthma and PAR therapy.

Results

A total of 3654 patients were included, with 62% being female (mean age, 46.1 years). At inclusion, asthma control was not optimal in 51% of the patients and 48% had received oral corticosteroids. The mean interval between successive prescriptions varied between 93 (leukotriene receptor antagonists, LTRAs) and 103 (inhaled corticosteroids, ICS) days, and 97 (antihistamines, AHs) and 103 days (nasal corticosteroids, NCS). On average, individual prescriptions lead to 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 and 1.8 dispensations of ICS, ICS/Long-Acting Beta-Agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations, LABAs, and LTRAs, respectively, and to 1.3 and 1.6 dispensations of NCS and AHs, respectively. PDCs then varied between 37.8% for ICS and 58.6% for LTRAs, and between 39.7% for NCS and 50.4% for AHs. Care was nonetheless coherent, with >90% of all dispensations related to prescriptions issued by single General Practitioners (GPs).

Conclusion

Despite regular healthcare visits and medication prescriptions, allergic patients only partly and selectively refilled their treatments, preferring the less effective therapy, in a context of poor control of asthma symptoms.

Pharmacology, particle deposition and drug administration techniques of intranasal corticosteroids for treating allergic rhinitis

This review presents an overview of the available literature regarding intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Various treatment options exist for AR including INCs, antihistamines and leucotriene antagonists. INCs are considered to be the most effective therapy for moderate-to-severe AR, as they are effective against nasal and ocular symptoms and improve quality of life. Their safety has been widely observed. INCs are effective and safe for short-term use. Local adverse events are observed but generally well-tolerated. The occurrence of (serious) systemic adverse events is unlikely but cannot be ruled out. There is a lack of long-term safety data. INC may cause serious eye complications. The risk of INCs on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, on bone mineral density reduction or osteoporosis and on growth in children, should be considered during treatment. Pharmacological characteristics of INCs (e.g. the mode of action and pharmacokinetics) are well known and described. We sought to gain insight into whether specific properties affect the efficacy and safety of INCs, including nasal particle deposition, which the administration technique affects. However, advances are lacking regarding the improved understanding of the effect of particle deposition on efficacy and safety and the effect of the administration technique. This review emphasizes the gaps in knowledge regarding this subject. Advances in research and health care are necessary to improve care for patients with AR.

Management of allergic rhinitis symptoms in the pharmacy Pocket guide 2022

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) management requires a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians.

Methods

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) first published a reference document on the pharmacist's role in allergic rhinitis management in 2004. Several guidelines were developed over the past 20 years improving the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach.

Results

This ARIA/EAACI/FIP Position Paper is based on the latest ARIA in the Pharmacy guidelines and provides: (a) a structured approach to pharmacists identifying people with AR and/or allergic conjunctivitis as well as those at risk of poor disease control; (b) an evidence-based clinical decision support tool for optimising the management of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy; and (c) a framework of referral to the physician.

Conclusion

This document is not intended to be a mandatory standard of care but is provided as a basis for pharmacists and their staff to develop relevant local standards of care for their patients, within their local practice environment. Pharmacy care varies between countries, and the guide should be adapted to the local situation.

Mometasone furoate nasal spray in Italian children with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a comprehensive assessment

OBJECTIVE

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is a common disease of childhood and is characterized by type 2 inflammation, bothersome symptoms, and impaired quality of life (QoL). Intranasal corticosteroids are effective medications in managing SAR. In addition, mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is a well-known therapeutic option. However, the literature provided no data about the effects of MFNS in European children with SAR. Thus, this study addressed this unmet requirement.

METHODS

MFNS was compared to isotonic saline. Both treatments were prescribed: one drop of spray per nostril, twice a day, for 3 weeks. Nasal cytology, total symptom score (TSS), visual analogic scale concerning the parental perception of severity of symptoms, and the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) were assessed at baseline, after 7 and 21 days, and 1 month after discontinuation.

RESULTS

MFNS significantly reduced eosinophil and mast cell counts, improved QoL, and relieved symptoms, as assessed by doctors and perceived by parents. These effects persisted over time, even after discontinuation. Both treatments were safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study documented that a 3-week MFNS treatment was able to significantly dampen type 2 inflammation, improve QoL, and reduce severity of symptoms in Italian children with SAR, and was safe.

Control of allergic rhinitis in four latin american countries: Rinola study

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of the general population, there are large-scale multicenter studies that have described its characteristics and few studies have focused on studying patients with AR in Latin America (LA).

Methodology

A cross-sectional, descriptive, multicenter study was carried out in four LA countries (Colombia, Argentina, Cuba and Peru). Patients diagnosed with AR between November 2017 and June 2020 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data, sensitization profile and current treatment were collected in the Electronic Data Collection (BDClinic). Patients also filled out this questionnaires: Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT), Reflexive Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS), Modified ARIA Criteria for AR Severity (mARIA) and ESPRINT-15. Risk of bias was examined by applying the STROBE checklist.

Results

The study included 412 patients. Median age was 25 years (15–39). Two hundred and twenty four (54.3%) were women. Nasal obstruction was present in 303 (73.5%). Three hundred and thirty four (81%) had a persistent AR. One hundred and twenty one (31.3%) had associated asthma. The most frequently positive skin tests were: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus in 365 (88.6%) and Dermatophagoides farinae in 331 (81.3%). Four hundred and eleven patients (99%) reported that AR affected their quality of life. The median score of ESPRINT-15 was 1.87 (0.93–2.93), The mean values of RCAT and rTNSS were 19.01 (±4.59) and 5.4 (±2.97) respectively. Two hundred and fifty (60%) were receiving only oral antihistamines. Physicians decided to start nasal corticosteroids in 296 (71.8%). Only seventy patients (16.9%) were receiving immunotherapy.

Conclusion

These findings confirm that most of patients with AR in LA have a persistent disease with a negative impact on quality of life. Dust mites are the main sensitizers. These findings will allow to know the true impact of AR and can lead to a better disease management.

Comparing available treatments for pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in children

INTRODUCTION

Pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (PIAR) is a widespread disease in children, and its prevalence is rapidly evolving. In addition, it may be associated with other atopic diseases, in particular asthma. In most cases, PIAR can be treated effectively by avoiding exposure to responsible allergens and using symptomatic treatments, including intranasal/oral antihistamines or/and nasal corticosteroids, according to ARIA guidelines. In recent decades, new medicines have been studied and developed: allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), anti-IgE antibodies, and probiotics. In addition, nutraceuticals have also been used as add-on treatments. This review aims to discuss and compare the old and new therapeutic strategies for PIAR in children.

AREAS COVERED

Allergic rhinitis is a type 2 inflammatory disease. The management of patients with PIAR entails medications, AIT, and ancillary therapies. In addition, children with PIAR and associated severe asthma may be inclusively treated with biologics. Namely, subjects with allergic comorbidities could benefit from biological agents. However, AIT presently remains the unique causal treatment for PIAR.

EXPERT OPINION

New strategies may include combined treatments, mainly concerning fixed associations with antihistamines and corticosteroids, nutraceutical products, and new AIT formulations.

Allergic rhinitis: diagnosis and management

Allergic rhinitis affects 20% of the population of the UK. It confers a significant health burden upon the individual as it affects the patient's quality of life and is associated with serious comorbidities including asthma, sinusitis and conjunctivitis. Owing to its prevalence, it has a significant economic impact through its effects on education, productivity and use of healthcare resources. This review focuses on the management of allergic rhinitis and potential future treatments, because of the lack of clear national guidelines and because this illness is often misdiagnosed and mismanaged. The article provides a comprehensive overview of allergic rhinitis and illustrates the assessment criteria for various subcategories.

Efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and budesonide in management of allergic rhinitis—a prospective comparative study

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) or Hay fever is a chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa induced by IgE-mediated hypersensitivity due to exposure of various allergens. AR occurs as a response against these inhaled allergens that cause inflammation of nasal mucosal membranes. In this study, a reliable treatment for allergic rhinitis with maximum effectiveness and minimal side effects was assessed. This study compared the effectiveness of intranasal Fluticasone propionate (FUP) and intranasal Budesonide (BUD) in reducing the eosinophil count and in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms. This prospective study was conducted on 62 cases of allergic rhinitis and patients with mild-to-moderate allergic rhinitis were selected for the study. They were randomly divided into two groups; group I consists of 30 patients who received intranasal Fluticasone propionate aqueous spray, total daily dose of 200 μg (50 μg/spray) as 2 sprays in each nostril administered once daily, whereas the group II consists of 32 patients who received intranasal Budesonide aqueous spray, total daily dose of 400 μg/day (100 μg/spray) as 1 spray in each nostril administered twice daily.

Results

Analysis on patient-based symptom scores revealed that both the groups showed statistically significant reduction in symptoms. Fluticasone propionate was found to be significantly more effective (P < 0.05) than Budesonide in reducing sneezing, nasal itching and majority of symptoms of individual symptom scores. Budesonide showed somewhat similar effect in reducing nasal blockage at 4 weeks of treatment.

Conclusion

Clinically, both the drugs showed statistically significant improvement when compared to baseline, but Fluticasone propionate was superior at reducing nasal symptoms, ocular symptom and eosinophil count.

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.

Intranasal Corticosteroids: Topical Potency, Systemic Activity and Therapeutic Index

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

Effect of rhinophototherapy on nasal congestion in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

Objective

The aim of the present study was to objectively and subjectively evaluate the effects of adding rhinophototherapy to intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate to treat nasal congestion in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Method

Seventy-five seasonal allergic rhinitis patients were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in Group 1 received intranasal beclomethasone dipropionate for two weeks and patients in Group 2 had rhinophototherapy added to the same medical therapy as Group 1. The effectiveness of treatments was evaluated with the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale (NOSE) questionnaires and active anterior rhinomanometry.

Results

After treatment, significant improvement was observed in Group 2 vs Group 1 in terms of RQLQ (p = 0.011) and NOSE (p = 0.001) scores. In Group 2, significant differences were observed between before and after treatment for inspiratory total nasal resistance (p = 0.004). However, no significant differences vs. baseline were observed in Group 1.

Conclusion

Our study shows that adding intranasal phototherapy with a combination of UVA, UVB and visible light therapy to nasal beclomethasone dipropionate treatment objectively improves nasal patency in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

[Pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis: position of a clinical pharmacologist]

Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis is based on different categories of drugs used either in monotherapy or in combination regimens. The current clinical guidelines suggest a stepwise approach to pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis. The use of intranasal corticosteroids is considered as the preferred second-stage pharmacotherapy. Inadequate control of AR symptoms in first-line therapy is a common problem. Integrated care pathways (ICP), developed taking into account the data obtained about patients using a mobile application, suggest the use of intranasal corticosteroids as the first line of therapy, including in patients with intermittent rhinitis who have not previously received treatment when assessing the condition according to the VAS for more than 5 points, in patients who received earlier treatment when assessing the condition according to the VAS less than 5 points. According to the data in the medical decision support system and continuing medical education UpToDate, inhaled corticosteroids are considered as the first-line drugs for the pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis. In terms of pharmacodynamic efficacy, intranasal corticosteroids are comparable to each other. The selection criteria can be considered: the value of systemic absorption; lipophilicity; the start time of the action; frequency of introduction, organoleptic properties; the possibility of influencing non-nasal symptoms. The use of sprays containing both a glucocorticoid and an antihistamine (mometasone furoate/azelastine hydrochloride) opens up additional pharmacotherapeutic possibilities in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases

BACKGROUND

In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine.

METHODS

Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published.

RESULTS

The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

Effectiveness and Response Predictors of Omalizumab in Treating Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Real-World Study

Background

Omalizumab has been proven effective and safety in treating seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) by several randomized clinical trials in many countries. However, there is lack of clinical reports of Chinese patients with SAR treated by omalizumab.

Objective

In the present real-world-designed study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of omalizumab in treating patients with SAR.

Methods

SAR patients administered omalizumab in various dosages were recruited, and follow-up was done. Their quality of life (QOL) and symptoms were assessed by the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), Total Nasal Symptoms Score (TNSS), Asthma Control Test (ACT), and clinical outcomes were compared between post- and pre-treatment conditions.

Results

Sixty SAR patients received omalizumab therapy in the study (mean age 35.47±17.02 years, 35 females). Omalizumab treatment significantly improved the quality of life (change in RQLQ overall score: -2.08±1.01, paired t-test p<0.001) and nasal symptoms (change in TNSS: -7.33±2.50, paired t-test p<0.001) of SAR patients. In 21 patients with co-existing asthma, the ACT score significantly increased from 16.10 to 22.57 on average (paired t-test p<0.001), indicating better-controlled asthma. Using a threshold of ≥1 point improvement in RQLQ overall score, 83.3% of patients responded to omalizumab. The responder group had a higher baseline RQLQ score and TNSS (p<0.05), but both responders and non-responders had comparable scores after treatment. Multiple linear regression analysis identified the baseline RQLQ overall score as a predictor of change in the RQLQ score in omalizumab-treated SAR.

Conclusion

Omalizumab is effective and safe in SAR treatment in a real-world setting.

The Quality of Instructional YouTube Videos for the Administration of Intranasal Spray: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder affecting both children and adults. Recommended treatment consists of intranasal corticosteroid spray administration, but only few patients administer the nasal spray in the correct technical manner. A wrong administration technique may result in side effects and affect the efficacy and adherence, thus making accurate administration instructions indispensable. Unfortunately, information about intranasal drug administration is generally not explained accurately, thereby leading to confusion among patients and inaccuracy in the self-administration of drugs.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we analyzed instructional videos available on YouTube for the administration of nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis. Our aim was to determine if the videos provided instructions in accordance with the standardized nationwide patient protocol in the Netherlands for intranasal spray administration.

METHODS

Instructional videos for the administration of aqueous formulations of nasal spray for allergic rhinitis were found on YouTube. All videos were reviewed by 2 researchers and scored using the instructions from the Dutch standardized protocol. Correct instructions were given a score of 1, while incorrect or missing instructions were given a score of 0. The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was used to determine the differences in the scores between the researchers.

RESULTS

We identified 33 YouTube videos made by different health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies around the world. None of the videos displayed all the steps correctly, while 5 of the 33 (15%) videos displayed over 75% of the steps correctly. The median score of the correctly displayed steps was 11 out of 19 (range 2-17, IQR 6). The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was statistically significant (range 0.872-1.00, P<.001). The steps "neutral position of the head," "breathing out through the mouth," and "periodically cleaning with water" scored the lowest and were incorrectly displayed in 28 (85%), 28 (85%), and 30 (91%) of the 33 videos, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study revealed that only few instructional videos on YouTube provided correct instructions for the administration of nasal sprays to patients. The inaccuracy of the instructions for nasal spray administration in the majority of the videos may lead to confusion in patients and incorrect use of nasal sprays. In the future, it is important to make evidence-based instructional videos that show patients the correct technique of nasal spray administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Towards definitive management of allergic rhinitis: best use of new and established therapies

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa impacting up to 25% of Canadians. The standard of care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account patient preferences, the severity of the disease, and most essentially involves a shared decision-making process between patient and provider.

BODY

Since their introduction in the 1940s, antihistamines (AHs) have been the most utilized class of medications for the treatment of AR. First-generation AHs are associated with adverse central nervous system (CNS) and anticholinergic side effects. On the market in the 1980s, newer generation AHs have improved safety and efficacy. Compared to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have significantly greater efficacy but longer onset of action. Intranasal AH and INCS combinations offer a single medication option that offers broader disease coverage and faster symptom control. However, cost and twice-per-day dosing remain a major limitation. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying option and can be provided through subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes. While SCIT has been the definitive management option for many years, SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) have also been proven to be safe and efficacious.

CONCLUSION

There is a range of available treatment options for AR that reflect the varying disease length and severity. For mild to moderate AR, newer generation AHs should be the first-line treatment, while INCS are mainstay treatments for moderate to severe AR. In patients who do not respond to INCS, a combination of intranasal AH/INCS (AZE/FP) should be considered, assuming that cost is not a limiting factor. While SCIT remains the option with the most available allergens that can be targeted, it has the potential for severe systemic adverse effects and requires weekly visits for administration during the first 4 to 6 months. SLIT-T is a newer approach that provides the ease of being self-administered and presents a reduced risk for systemic reactions. In any case, standard care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account disease severity and patient preferences.

Interventions Delivered in the Community Pharmacy to Manage Allergic Rhinitis- A Systematic Review of the Literature

Pharmacists have a valuable role in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) at the community pharmacy level. This role has been reported extensively in numerous papers. However, a systematic review of the available literature and a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes has not been published. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions developed by pharmacists on clinical AR outcomes. A thorough search was performed in three electronic databases, including studies published between January 2000 and June 2019. After the selection process, only three articles met the inclusion criteria and were further analysed. Despite the scarcity of the available studies, in all of them was clear that the pharmacist plays a pivotal role in the management of AR, significantly improving the patients’ quality of life and symptom control. This systematic review also stresses the utmost importance to investigate and report practices and interventions developed by pharmacists using measurable outcomes.

Glucocorticoid prescribing habits of sports medicine physicians working in high-performance sport: a 30-nation survey

Objectives

Glucocorticoids are commonly prescribed in medicine. When administered via certain routes, glucocorticoids are prohibited for incompetition use by WADA. The glucocorticoid prescribing habits of sports medicine doctors have not been reported.

Methods

An online survey was distributed internationally to physicians working in high-performance sports. The survey queried the doctors about their use of glucocorticoids with athletes and their understanding of WADA’s regulations regarding glucocorticoid use in competition.

Results

603 sports medicine doctors from 30 different countries participated. The majority (>85%) routinely injected glucocorticoids and/or prescribed glucocorticoids by other routes. There were substantial differences in the common routes of injection as well as types of glucocorticoid used among the physicians from various countries. A relatively small percentage of sports doctors (<25%) accurately identified which routes of glucocorticoid administration are prohibited in competition by WADA. There was a great variation in how long before competition the use of glucocorticoids would cause the doctor to consider applying for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). A better understanding of the clearance rates of glucocorticoids from athletes’ bodies would greatly aid sports medicine doctors’ decisions on how and when to apply for a TUE. A small number of doctors had observed side effects of glucocorticoid administration, with the majority of side effects being minor in nature.

Conclusion

Glucocorticoids are widely prescribed by sports physicians. There is a need to better educate sports physicians on the current WADA regulations in relation to glucocorticoid administration.

Evaluation of Nasal Decongestants by Literature Review

Over-the-counter drugs are medicines that are available to consumers without a prescription. The most common оver - the-counter preparations in self - medication are nasal decongestants that can be used systemically or locally in the form of drops or nasal sprays. The most common indications for nasal decongest-ants are viral infections and allergic conditions in order to alleviate the symptoms so it is necessary to inform the users about the type of drug, the active substance it contains and the correct dosage regimen. Given their availability and the prevailing safety precaution, these preparations can lead to numerous prolonged conditions and complications. The mechanism of action of nasal decongestants is based on the reduction of blood vessels’ swelling in the nose, which helps the opening of the airway. As a result, most nasal decongestants cause vasoconstriction (narrowing of blood vessels). There are nasal decongestants that block histamine and have a good effect on people who suffer from seasonal allergies.

Availability (free sale) and prolonged use of the decongestant lead to a decrease in the sensitivity of the alpha receptor, which leads to the need to increase the dose at shorter time intervals to achieve the same effect. As a consequence, patients use excessive, uncontrolled doses of nasal decongestants, which is a public problem and warns of the necessity of identification and the taking of measures to prevent their uncontrolled procurement and use.

A qualitative investigation of the allergic rhinitis network from the perspective of the patient

Patient self-selection of over-the-counter medicines for the management of allergic rhinitis is suboptimal. The mapping of the allergic rhinitis network demonstrates that patients’ decisions with regards to their allergic rhinitis management can be influenced by up to 11 individuals/resources (alters). This study aimed to identify the role of alters within the allergic rhinitis network and identify the factors that determined their degree of influence as perceived by the patient. This research was a qualitative exploration embedded in an empirical framework and social network theory. People with allergic rhinitis were interviewed about their network and transcripts were analysed deductively and inductively. Transcripts were coded by researchers independently and then discussed until agreement was reached. Forty-one participants described the roles of 17 alters on their allergic rhinitis management. The roles of alters fell within five categories: diagnosis, medication prescription/supply/administration, medication recommendation, information about allergic rhinitis and emotional support. Participant interactions with these alters were often acute and had a long standing effect, with the participants often navigating the long-term management on their own. The significance of the influence of each alter on their allergic rhinitis management was dependent on the level of trust in their relationship, impact of the role made to the participants’ day-to-day management of allergic rhinitis and/or the participant’s beliefs. Allergic rhinitis management was fragmented and had opportunity to be improved by developing strategies, resources and policies to support self-management in collaboration with patients and health-care professionals.

The impact of evidence from clinical trials on counselling for over-the-counter drugs: A national survey of pharmaceutical staff in German pharmacies

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Evidence from clinical trials should form the foundation of healthcare advice. Comparatively little has been investigated about the implementation of evidence in over-the-counter (OTC) counselling in community pharmacies. The objective of this study was to explore the current impact of clinical trials on OTC counselling from the perspective of pharmaceutical staff.

METHODS

Pharmaceutical staff in German community pharmacies were invited to participate in a nationwide cross-sectional survey using SoSci Survey. Within the questionnaire, the following items were queried: (i) attitudes towards influencing factors on OTC drug recommendation, (ii) practical procedure of OTC drug recommendations, (iii) experiences and challenges in handling clinical trials, and (iv) current and desired continuing education on self-medication. Multiple logistic regression was employed to identify predictors for OTC recommendations based on clinical trials in routine.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 1068 participants completed the survey. (i) Clinical trial data were rated as 'very important' for drug recommendations by 33% and as 'rather important' by 50%. (ii) 8% reported that they base their recommendations on clinical trial data 'in almost all consultations', 40% 'in most consultations'. (iii) 69% faced difficulties in including clinical trial data into their counselling. (iv) 7% read original clinical trials at least once a month. Predictors for routine OTC recommendations based on clinical trials were as follows: male gender, university degree, clinical trials considered to be important for recommendations, inclusion of clinical trials in counselling assessed as easy, higher frequency of reading specialized literature per year, increasing number of working pharmacists in the pharmacy, and more casual than regular customers in the pharmacy.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Most of the pharmaceutical staff recognize the importance of clinical studies for self-medication advice. Based on self-report, however, clinical trial data are not taken routinely into account in practice. Only a minor proportion of staff routinely deal with studies. Therefore, appropriate instruments are required to make knowledge from clinical trials available in community pharmacies.

Prescription Profile and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis Treated with Oral Antihistamines or Nasal Corticosteroids

Introduction  Oral antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids have been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, the evidence suggests a level of superiority of corticosteroids, so they should be preferred over the former.

Objective  To know the prescription profile of two second generation antihistamines (cetirizine and levocetirizine) and two nasal corticosteroids (mometasone and furoate-ciclesonide) in a cohort of patients with allergic rhinitis, and to compare the clinical outcomes obtained.

Methods  A cohort study was carried including patients with allergic rhinitis treated with cetirizine, levocetirizine, mometasone furoate or ciclesonide. The improvement was evaluated with the total nasal symptoms score (TNSS). This scale yields results between 0 and 12. Zero indicates absence of symptoms.

Results  A total of 314 patients completed 12 weeks of follow-up. Seventy-five percent were treated with antihistamines, 20% with corticosteroids, and 5% with a combination of the above. The TNSS median for corticosteroid was 2.5 points; for antihistamines, its was 5 points, and for combination, it was 4 points. We found differences between corticosteroids and antihistamines.

Conclusion  The prescription percentage of second generation oral antihistamines is higher than that of intranasal corticosteroids. However, patients with allergic rhinitis treated with the second option obtained better control of symptoms.

New guidelines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

The paper discusses the classification and forms of allergic rhinitis with a special focus on seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The general principles of SAR management are presented, including the role of nasal glucocorticoids, nasal and oral antihistamines, and antileukotrienes. Based on the latest guidelines, the current rules for the selection of drugs in the therapy of SAR are given, paying special attention to the initial treatment. The aim of the paper is to present updated guidelines for the pharmacological management of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Pharmacological Characterization of the RPMI 2650 Model as a Relevant Tool for Assessing the Permeability of Intranasal Drugs

The RPMI 2650 cell line has been described as a potent model of the human nasal mucosa. Nevertheless, pharmacological data are still insufficient, and the role of drug efflux transporters has not been fully elucidated. We therefore pursued the pharmacological characterization of this model, initially investigating the expression of four well-known adenosine triphosphate [ATP]-binding cassette (ABC) transporters (P-glycoprotein (P-gp), multidrug resistance associated protein (MRP)1, MRP2, and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP)) by means of ELISA and immunofluorescence staining. The functional activity of the selected transporters was assessed by accumulation studies based on specific substrates and inhibitors. We then performed standardized bidirectional transport experiments under air-liquid interface (ALI) culture conditions, using four therapeutic compounds of local intranasal relevance in upper airway diseases. Protein expression of P-gp, MRP1, MRP2, and BCRP was detected at the membrane of the RPMI 2650 cells. In addition, all four transporters exhibited functional activity at the cellular level. In the bidirectional transport experiments, the RPMI 2650 model was able to accurately discriminate the four therapeutic compounds according to their physicochemical properties. The ABC transporters tested did not play a major role in the efflux of these compounds at the barrier level. In conclusion, the RPMI 2650 model represents a promising tool for assessing the nasal absorption of drugs on the basis of preclinical pharmacological data.