Management Of Allergic Rhinitis Research Articles

Step Up Approach in The Management of Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis

Step Up Approach in The Management of Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis

Bilastine for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria: results from an international Delphi study.

Second-generation oral H1-antihistamines, including bilastine, represent the emerging treatments of allergic rhinitis (including rhinoconjunctivitis) and chronic urticaria in both adults and children. This study analyses available evidence supporting the use of bilastine amongst second-generation antihistamines for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria in adults and children. Consensus amongst experts from 17 countries on the ideal treatment of rhinitis and urticaria, and the specific role of bilastine was measured by means of a modified Delphi process. A total of 12 statements were voted on by the experts using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). The definition of consensus was set at a minimum of 80% concordance for 4+5 scores (agree or strongly agree). All proposed statements reached consensus, with a concordance of ≥98% for five statements and ≥96% for seven. The wide consensus obtained for the proposed statements suggests a prominent role for bilastine in the management of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

The effectiveness of pharmacist-led educational model in adult patients with allergic rhinitis: a single-center randomized control trial protocol (AR-PRISE RCT)

BackgroundAllergic rhinitis is a chronic respiratory disorder that significantly impacts patients’ quality of life (QoL) and work performance. Pharmacists are recognized as suitable professionals to provide patient education and pharmaceutical care for managing allergic rhinitis patients. However, local clinical practice guidelines, particularly regarding pharmaceutical care in public healthcare institutions, are lacking. This study protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led educational model (AR-PRISE Model) in managing allergic rhinitis in adult patients compared to standard pharmaceutical care. The AR-PRISE model delivers patient educational material and a pharmaceutical care algorithm.MethodThis is a 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, two-arm, and parallel-group controlled trial. The trial recruits patients attending the otorhinolaryngology clinics of a tertiary referral hospital. Participants are randomized into control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using permuted block randomization. The total number of participants estimated is 154, with each group requiring 77 participants. The control group receives standard pharmaceutical care, while the intervention group receives pharmacist-led education according to the AR-PRISE model. Both groups are assessed for middle turbinate endoscopy findings, disease severity, knowledge level, symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL at baseline and the end-of-study follow-up (day 180 ± 7). Depending on feasibility, intermediate follow-ups are conducted on days 60 ± 7 and 120 ± 7, either virtually or face-to-face. During intermediate follow-ups, participants are assessed for symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL. The intention-to-treat analysis includes all participants assigned to each group. An independent T-test compares the mean difference in knowledge level between the two groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis is employed to determine between-group differences for scores of symptom control, adherence rate, and QoL. A P-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.DiscussionThis study protocol will provide a framework for conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led education intervention in managing allergic rhinitis within public healthcare settings. The parameters measured in this trial will quantify outcomes associated with improvements in symptoms and QoL. By systematically assessing these outcomes, we aim to contribute valuable insights into the role of pharmacist-led interventions in enhancing the management of allergic rhinitis in public healthcare settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06027736. Registered on 9 July 2023—retrospectively registered.

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

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

AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial.

Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR. A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability. AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment. AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.

Recent advances in the practical management of allergic rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease, and its prevalence is still growing. AR may be associated with other diseases, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on history, physical examination, documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, also using molecular diagnostics in selected patients. Treatments is based on education, engagement, allergen avoidance, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (Ait). Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids. This article also aims to discuss new management strategies for AR patients. The self-management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered to intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines without medical prescription, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of Ait.

Expert opinion on the clinical use of a combination of antihistamines with leukotriene receptor antagonists in the management of allergic rhinitis in Indian settings

Background: Various clinical studies have reported that the combination of montelukast and levocetirizine was effective in alleviating residual symptoms and the improvement of quality of life associated with allergic rhinitis. However, there was a dearth of data regarding the prescription practice among clinical practitioners. So, this study aims to gather clinicians' opinion regarding the use of antihistamines, with a special focus on the combined use of antihistamines with leukotriene receptor antagonists for the management of AR in Indian settings. Methods: The multiple-response questionnaire-based survey involving 19 questions gathered information on current recommendations, clinical observations, clinical experience of specialists in AR management, and the use of montelukast with levocetirizine in routine settings. Results: Out of 388 participants, approximately 84% of respondents preferred a combination of antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists for managing AR. Additionally, 36% stated that 26 to 50% of patients presenting to routine practice may require montelukast and antihistamine combination as treatment. Around 61% endorsed the combination of antihistamines with leukotriene receptor antagonists as the preferred AR treatment strategy. In long-term AR management, 65% of clinicians rated montelukast with levocetirizine as excellent, and 78% of respondents reported montelukast confers additive benefits when combined with antihistamines. Conclusions: The significant preference for the combined use of antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists underscores their perceived efficacy in AR treatment. The combination of antihistamines with leukotriene receptor antagonists emerges as the favored strategy for managing AR.

Expert opinion on the prescription practice of antihistamines for the management of allergic rhinitis in Indian settings

Several clinical studies corroborate the synergistic effects of montelukast in conjunction with antihistamine for reducing the symptoms and quality of life of AR patients. Some studies also highlighted a significant quantitative differences in the prescribing patterns of antihistamines across different countries. So, this study aimed to gather expert opinions on the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) using antihistamines alone or in various combinations in Indian settings.The cross-sectional, multiple-response, 23-item survey was primarily focused on current practices, clinical observations, and experiences related to AR and the utilization of oral histamines for disease management. The study involved otorhinolaryngologist from diverse settings in India.Out of 435 participants, 29% reported sneezing as the common AR symptoms. The majority (84.83%) favoured antihistamine and leukotriene receptor antagonist combinations for AR treatment. Specifically, 52% preferred levocetirizine, while 43% favoured fexofenadine. About 63% opted for polytherapy with oral antihistamines and anti-leukotrienes for AR management. Of these, 48% chose levocetirizine and montelukast for various AR symptoms. According to 60% of participants, fexofenadine + montelukast effectively improved nasal and eye symptoms. Around 64% preferred levocetirizine + montelukast for nighttime nasal symptoms, while 55% chose fexofenadine + montelukast for daytime nasal symptoms. Around 64% of the respondents favoured levocetirizine + montelukast for improving all AR symptoms, and 69% favoured antihistamine + montelukast for its cost-effectiveness.Experts recommend antihistamine and leukotriene receptor antagonist combinations for managing AR symptoms, with levocetirizine and fexofenadine being popular choices. Polytherapy with these combinations was favoured, especially for managing nighttime and daytime nasal symptoms.

A Perception-Based Survey on Practice Patterns Pertaining to the Diagnosis and Management of Allergic Rhinitis in India.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasingly prevalent in India, affecting a significant portion of the population and adversely impacting their quality of life. This nationwide survey aimed to explore the perceptions and clinical preferences of Indian physicians regarding the perceived prevalence, common symptoms, and various available treatments for AR. This cross-sectional, observational, digital questionnaire-based survey was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023, involving physicians sharing insights on prevalence rates, diagnostic approaches, medication preferences, and immunotherapy practices in AR management. A total of 1608 physicians participated in this survey. The majority of physicians (n=684, 42.5%) reported that the prevalence of AR in routine clinical practice is between 21 and 40%. Physicians also noted a substantial burden of AR with asthma (n=626, around 40%). Total IgE count was reported as a mandatory test for the diagnosis of AR by 47.5% of physicians (n=764). For the management of mild cases of seasonal or perennial AR, 980 (60.9%) physicians preferred fexofenadine as an oral antihistamine of choice. Fluticasone furoate was the preferred intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) option (67.1% of physicians (n=1079)), for the management of patients with moderate to severe AR, the most recommended duration of INCS therapy was two to fourmonths (40.9% of physicians). Doctors recommended a montelukast and antihistamine combination in mild AR (n=152, 9.5%), mild AR not responding to antihistamine alone (n=291, 18.1%), moderate to severe AR along with INCS (n=252, 15.7%), and AR with mild asthma (n=74, 4.6%). The majority of physicians (n=1512, 75.6%) preferred using fexofenadine in combination with montelukast for the management of AR. The majority of physicians (n=839, 52.2%) opined that the efficacy rate of oral montelukast-fexofenadine was 60-90% in the management of mild-moderate AR. Around 55.3% of physicians (n=889) had not used immunotherapy in their clinical practice. These observations offer a holistic view of how Indian physicians perceive the management of AR, a condition highly prevalent in India and often associated with asthma. It also highlights the treatment strategies employed in their day-to-day clinical practice.

AKT question relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT question relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT question relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT question relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT answer relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT answer relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT answer relating to management of allergic rhinitis

AKT answer relating to management of allergic rhinitis

The impact of allergic rhinitis on bronchial asthma: What therapy?

Childhood asthma constitutes a significant healthcare burden due to its chronic nature and prevalence, affecting approximately 5–10 % of the pediatric population. Asthma is often heterogeneous and characterized by chronic airway inflammation. It is classified into two main phenotypes based on airway inflammation: T2-high (eosinophilic) and T2-low (neutrophilic/pauci-granulocytic) phenotype. Allergic sensitization is commonly associated with T2-high asthma, involving T helper 2 and innate immunity cells and type 2-associated cytokines, including interleuikin-4 (IL-4), IL-5, and IL-13. Type 2 inflammation is characterized by eosinophilic infiltrate. Asthma and allergic rhinitis share common mechanisms, and their association, known as united airways disease, highlights the close interconnection between upper and lower airways. Effective allergic rhinitis control positively impacts asthma, emphasizing the importance of early identification and personalized therapeutic strategies. One is allergen immunotherapy, a disease-modifying approach demonstrating preventive and therapeutic efficacy in children. However, more research is needed to optimize pediatric allergic rhinitis management.

SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ALLERGIC RHINITS AND RHINOSINUSITIS IN JEMBER, EAST JAVA

Allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis are global problems that are frequently encountered in daily clinical practice. This disease has an impact on the quality of life of sufferers who can resulting in decreased productivity, interpersonal relationships, and social activities. Socialization is needed regarding allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis so that medical personnel can participate in early diagnosis and management of allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis. Educational activities are carried out through outreach activities using lecture methods, discussions, training, as well as pretest and posttest. Based on the results of the pretest and posttest, the pretest average was 56,55 (± 27.51) and the posttest average was 89.27 (±12.95). Based on the comparison of pretest and posttest results, we found a statistically significant difference (p &lt; 0.05). Medical personnel's knowledge of allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis needs to be increased so that they can participate in early diagnosis and management of allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis.

Development and validation of a pharmacist-led education model in allergic rhinitis management: a multi-phase study

BackgroundPatient education is identified as one of the core and fundamental management strategies in the management of allergic rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed guidance for the management of allergic respiratory disease, and the guidelines are applicable to the international context. The ARIA guidelines for the pharmacy have specifically encouraged the creation of local pharmacist-led intervention in allergic rhinitis management. This study aims to develop a pharmacist-led educational model using a multi-phase study approach.MethodIn phase one, we conducted a literature review using four databases to extract relevant articles and clinical practice guidelines published between 2017 and 2022. The information was structured into a questionnaire consisting of patient education material (10 domains with 130 items) and pharmacist counseling scopes (15 domains with 43 items), with each item having a rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) level of agreement. Fifty-two panellists, including otorhinolaryngologists and pharmacists, were invited to complete the questionnaire. A consensus agreement was considered when at least 70% of panellists scored 7 to 9 (critically important). A two-round survey was conducted, and descriptive analysis, inter-rater reliability (≥ 0.5–1 indicate moderate to excellent reliability), variation in the relative interquartile (VRIR < 0.3 indicate good stability), and variation in the coefficient of variation (VCV < 40% considered consensus achieved) were performed. In phase two, patient education material was developed into audio-visual format, and in phase three, patients rated its understandability and actionability using a validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool.ResultsIn the round one Delphi survey, 43 panellists responded, with 171 out of 173 items achieving “consensus agreement” (75.4–100%). In the second survey, 32 out of 43 panellists responded, with most items (171 out of 173 items) stable across rounds and all items had acceptable internal consistency (VCV: − 12.21–15.81). Two items did not achieve “consensus agreement” (64%) but improved in round two (92.9%), however, instability was observed (VRIR: 0.36). These two items were retained in the model due to achieving the minimum level of agreement and internal consistency (VCV = 15.81). Inter-rater reliability was 0.608 and 0.970 in the respective rounds. Patients rated the educational material as understandable (81.8–100%) and actionable (100%).ConclusionThe validated pharmacist-led education model, with its educational materials tested on end-users, provides structured patient education and pharmaceutical care in assisting patients with allergic rhinitis. The educational material allows the delivery of standardized information by the healthcare providers to the patients. Further research on the effectiveness of this model in improving patients’ symptom control and quality of life is warranted.

Using Intranasal Corticosteroids and Oral Antihistamines to Treat Allergic Rhinitis: A Comparison of The Mean Total Nasal Symptom Score

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global public health issue. The disease is a leading cause of death and disabilities globally. Objective: To compare the mean total nasal symptom score using intranasal corticosteroids with oral anti-histamine in management of allergic rhinitis. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Settings: Department of ENT, Shalamar Medical and Dental College/ Shalamar Hospital, Lahore Pakistan. Duration: 1st January 2023 to 30 June 2023. Methods: 100 cases equally divided in two groups A&amp;B, Intranasal corticosteroids were administered in Group A and oral anti-histamine in Group B cases, The final evaluation was done after 4 weeks of treatment. Results: Comparison of mean total nasal symptom score using intranasal corticosteroids with oral anti-histamine in management of allergic rhinitis shows that 1.51 ± 0.37 score in Group-A and 1.27 ± 0.11 score in Group-B, (p-value &lt; 0.05). Conclusion: We found that the use of intranasal corticosteroids resulted in a substantially reduced mean total nasal symptom score compared to the use of oral anti-histamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Melatonin as a Potential Therapeutic Tool in Allergic Rhinitis Induced by House-Dust Mite

Melatonin is known as an important regulator of circadian rhythm in humans. In the literature, there are no studies evaluating the efficacy of melatonin in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) or nasal polyps (Np). Np tissue was taken from nasal cavity and mucosal tissue (Mu) was taken from the nasal septal area. Melatonin (25-200nM) and Mite Allergen (2.5-12.5%) were prepared in complete media. Cell viability, apoptosis, intracellular reactive oxygen species production and gene expression levels were determined. Our results showed that there is no toxic effect of Melatonin, Mite and their combination which was given to Np-MSCs and Mu-MSCs. Melatonin significantly reduced reactive oxygen species levels in both mite-treated Np-MSCs and Mu-MSCs. Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase level was significantly decreased in melatonin-treated cells. Cyclooxygenase-1 level was significantly decreased in melatonin-treated healthy and allergic Np-MSCs while there was no significant difference in 100 and 150nM Melatonin-treated Mu-MSCs. Interestingly, 50nM Melatonin significantly increased Cyclooxygenase-1 level in Mu-MSCs. 50, 100 and 150nm Melatonin significantly decreased Interleukin-6 level in Mite-treated Np-MSCs. In addition, 100 and 150nM Melatonin significantly decreased Interleukin-6 level in Mite-treated Mu-MSCs. Melatonin has well-established anti-oxidant and anti-neoplastic activity, could be a promising therapeutic agent in the treatment of AR and nasal polyposis.

Real-world physician practices on the diagnosis and management of allergic rhinitis in the Philippine setting.

Physician awareness and adherence to guidelines varies among countries and between types of physician practice. Identifying the needs of the physician and patient is essential to improve patient outcome. Data on physician diagnosis and management of allergic rhinitis (AR) in the Philippines is currently limited. Study objectives are to assess awareness and use of guidelines, practices on diagnosis and management of intermittent and persistent AR, reasons for choice of therapy, and familiarity with immunotherapy. A cross-section of 590 specialist and 223 subspecialist physicians from 17 regions of the Philippines were surveyed from October 2021 to July 2022. Survey consisted of a 12-point validated online questionnaire on knowledge and use of guidelines for diagnosis and treatment, use of diagnostic tests, preferred pharmacologic treatment, preferred adjuvant therapy, reasons for treatment choice, and familiarity with immunotherapy. Seventy-seven percent of respondents used Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines for diagnosis and management of AR. Three-fifths of respondents "always" routinely evaluated AR patients' history and performed a physical examination for asthma; 57% of respondents "always" routinely evaluated asthma patients' history and performed a physical examination for AR. Allergy testing was "sometimes" recommended by 62.2%. Oral second-generation antihistamines were the preferred choice for the treatment of intermittent AR. Intranasal steroids were the preferred treatment for persistent AR. Top reasons for choice of treatment were guideline recommendations, efficacy, onset of action, cost, and availability of treatment. Filipino specialists and subspecialists are aware and use guidelines in diagnosis and management of AR. Clinical history and physical examination are the cornerstone of diagnosis. Management practices for intermittent and persistent AR are similar for both groups. Recognizing the role of patient treatment preferences and allergen-specific immunotherapy remains to be a gap in the management of AR by Filipino physicians.

Early inhalant allergen sensitization at component level: an analysis in atopic Dutch children.

Allergic rhinitis is a common respiratory disease in children and sensitization to inhalant allergens plays a significant role in its development. However, limited knowledge exists regarding sensitization profiles of inhalant allergen components in atopic children, particularly in the very young individuals. Understanding these profiles could provide insights into the early development of allergic rhinitis. The objective of this cross-sectional retrospective study was to evaluate the IgE-sensitization profiles to multiple inhalant allergen components and their clinical relevance in Dutch atopic children, with specific focus on children under the age of 4 years. A total of 243 atopic children were included in the study and sensitization profiles were analyzed using multiplex microarray analysis (ISAC). Clinical information was obtained from records of a pediatric allergy outpatient clinic between 2011 and 2020. Specific IgE responses to inhalation allergen components from five allergen sources (grass pollen, tree pollen, house dust mite, cat and dog), were examined. The study encompassed children of different age groups and compared those with and without symptoms. The results demonstrated that sensitization to inhalant allergen components was present in 92% of the cohort. Sensitization was already evident at a young age (87%), including infancy, with a rapid increase in prevalence after 1 year of age. House dust mite emerged as the most predominant sensitizing allergen in early childhood, followed by tree pollen in later years. Sensitization patterns were similar between symptomatic and asymptomatic children, although symptomatic children exhibited higher frequencies and values. The sensitization profiles in very young children were comparable to those of children across all age groups. These findings highlight the presence of sensitization to inhalant allergen components and the early onset of allergic rhinitis before the age of 4, including infancy, in Dutch atopic children. Notable allergen molecules in Dutch atopic children under the age of 4 years include Bet v 1, Fel d 1, Der f 1, Der p 1, Der p 10 and Phl p 4, with house dust mite sensitization being the most common among Dutch infants. Moreover, the prevalence of sensitization to inhalant allergens in this Dutch cohort surpassed that of general European populations, emphasizing the importance of early assessment and management of allergic rhinitis in young atopic children.