The economic burden of allergic rhinitis: a critical evaluation of the literature

Inflammatory profiles in nasal mucosa of patients with persistent vs intermittent allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

To date there is little information on the inflammatory profiles of patients suffering from persistent (PER) and intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR). Also, it is not clear whether differences exist in eosinophilic inflammation and/or T-helper cell sub-populations and their markers. The aim of this study was to primarily evaluate the inflammatory profiles of patients with moderate/severe PER and IAR.

METHODS

Inferior nasal turbinate tissue was obtained from 12 PER, 12 IAR and 12 nonallergic nonrhinitic (control) patients, and symptoms (visual analogue scales, VAS) and impairment of life was monitored. All tissues were assessed for eosinophil and mast cell numbers by immunohistochemistry; IL-5, ECP and IgE concentrations by immunoassay; mRNA for transcription factors GATA-3, T-bet, FOXP3 and RORc by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; and IgE-induced release of LTC(4)/D(4)/E(4) and PGD(2)in vitro.

RESULTS

Eosinophils and mast cells were significantly increased in patients with PER and patients with IAR compared to control subjects; by patients with PER demonstrating even significantly greater increase of both cell types than patients with IAR. Similarly, ECP IL-5, GATA-3 mRNA expression and IgE-induced release of LTC4/D(4)/E(4) and PGD(2) from mast cells were significantly increased in patients with PER compared to patients with IAR. In contrast, the expression of T-bet, FOXP3 or RORc mRNA was not significantly different in the PER, IAR or control patients.

CONCLUSION

The findings from the present study suggest that PER is characterized by a significantly greater eosinophilic and predominantly Th2 cell-mediated nasal inflammatory profile compared to IAR.

Fluticasone furoate nasal spray: Profile of an enhanced-affinity corticosteroid in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Of the classes of pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis, intranasal corticosteroids are the preferred treatment and are recommended in practice guidelines as first-line pharmacotherapy for rhinitis with prominent nasal congestion. The enhanced-affinity intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone furoate nasal spray (GW685698X), is one of the newest additions to the armamentarium for allergic rhinitis. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical data on fluticasone furoate nasal spray and discusses its place in pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Important attributes of fluticasone furoate in seasonal allergic rhinitis include low systemic bioavailability (<0.5%), onset of symptom relief as early as eight hours after initiation of treatment, 24-hour symptom relief with once-daily dosing, comprehensive coverage of both nasal and ocular symptoms, safety and tolerability with daily use, and availability in a side-actuated device that makes medication delivery simple and consistent. With these attributes, fluticasone furoate nasal spray has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction and compliance and reduce the need for polypharmacy in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Epidemiology and burden of rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis in 9- to 11-year-old children

BACKGROUND

Rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) is regarded as the most common chronic disease of childhood; however, the currently available epidemiological studies on prevalence, burden, and risk factors of RC are insufficient. This analysis aimed to investigate potential risk factors, symptom frequency, and burden of RC.

METHODS

Using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood Phase II questionnaires, 6963 elementary school children aged 9-11 years were surveyed in five different city centers of Turkey. All participants were skin-prick tested with common aeroallergens.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ever rhinitis, physician-diagnosed rhinitis, current rhinitis, and current RC were 51.6, 31.0, 43.5, and 23.1%, respectively; 19.8% of children with RC symptoms were atopic to at least one allergen. Among students with RC symptoms, 42.2, 23.9, 35.8, and 28.2% reported moderate-severe interference of daily activities, at least 1 day of absence from school, visit to a health care professional, and any drug usage for rhinitis, respectively. Nasal decongestants and oral antihistamines were the most frequently used treatment. Approximately 70% of RC patients reported perennial symptoms and 42.8% were classified as mild to intermittent. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed family history of asthma and/or allergic rhinitis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.863; confidence interval, [CI] = 1.583-2.191; p < 0.001), living in a house with mold and dampness in the 1st year of life (OR = 1.651; CI = 1.356-2.01; p < 0.001), maternal smoking in pregnancy (OR = 1.425; CI = 1.089-1.864; p = 0.011), low monthly income (OR = 1.685; CI = 1.422-1.998; p = 0.001), current wheezing (OR = 2.543; CI = 2.151-3.006; p = 0.001), and current atopic eczema (OR = 2.503; CI = 1.96-3.196; p = 0.001) as significant risk factors for current RC.

CONCLUSION

Along with the high prevalence of RC in childhood, underdiagnosis and undertreatment of the disease are also frequent. The socioeconomic burden of the disease can be reduced by increasing awareness and proper diagnosis/treatment.

Azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis

Rhinitis affects millions of people around the world, places a huge burden on the economy and reduces patients' health-related quality of life. Azelastine nasal spray is a second-generation antihistamine, indicated for the treatment of allergic and nonallergic rhinitis in both adults and children. It offers a rapid onset of action (15 min) and flexibility of both dose (i.e., one or two sprays/nostril twice daily) as well as dosage (i.e., fixed or as needed). Compared with other agents used to treat allergic rhinitis, azelastine nasal spray exhibits superior efficacy to oral antihistamines (e.g., desloratadine and cetirizine), other intranasal antihistamines (e.g., levocabastine) and the intranasal corticosteroid mometasone furoate, and comparable efficacy to the potent intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP). Combination therapy with intranasal FP has the potential to enhance clinical benefit, as the combination of azelastine and FP nasal sprays reduce symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients more than either agent alone. Azelastine nasal spray has an excellent safety profile.

Levocetirizine: a modern H1-antihistamine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Levocetirizine is the latest of the H(1)-antihistamines indicated for adults and children (as young as 2 years old) suffering from allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Currently, it is the only therapy registered for treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis, as defined by the Allergic Rhinitis & its Impact on Asthma guidelines. Pharmacologic studies have shown levocetirizine to have a more favorable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile than other commonly employed H(1)-antihistamines. This reflects its superiority in controlling the symptoms of seasonal, perennial and persistent allergic rhinitis in well-controlled trials. Clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance have indicated that levocetirizine is safe and well tolerated, and leads to clinically significant improvements in the quality of life of patients. It is also reported to reduce comorbidities as well as overall treatment costs when administered continuously over the longterm.

Allergic rhinitis and the common cold--high cost to society

The common cold and allergic rhinitis constitute a global health problem that affects social life, sleep, school and work performance and is likely to impose a substantial economic burden on society because of absence from work and reduced working capacity. This study assesses the loss of productivity as a result of both allergic rhinitis and the common cold in the Swedish working population.

METHODS

Four thousand questionnaires were sent to a randomized adult population, aged 18-65 years, in Sweden, stratified by gender and area of residence (metropolitan area vs rest of the country). The human capital approach was used to assign monetary value to lost productivity in terms of absenteeism (absence from work), presenteeism (reduced working capacity while at work) and caregiver absenteeism (absence from work to take care of a sick child).

RESULTS

Thousand two hundred and thirteen individuals responded, response rate 32%. The mean productivity loss was estimated at 5.1 days or euro 653 per worker and year, yielding a total productivity loss in Sweden of euro 2.7 billion a year. Of the total costs, absenteeism (44%) was the dominant factor, followed by presenteeism (37%) and caregiver absenteeism (19%). Poisson regression analyses revealed that women, people in the 18-29 year age group, and respondents with 'doctor-diagnosed asthma' reported more lost days than the rest of the group.

CONCLUSION

In Sweden, the cost of rhinitis is euro 2.7 billion a year in terms of lost productivity. A reduction in lost productivity of 1 day per individual and year would potentially save euro 528 million.

The cost-effectiveness of treatment with desloratadine in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVES

A new classification of persistent allergic rhinitis (PER) has been developed by the ARIA working group. Although the burden of AR is significant, treatment itself is also costly. It is unclear if treatment based on the new definition of PER is cost-effective.

METHODS

The current study simulated the cost-effectiveness of desloratadine compared to placebo in the treatment of PER from the French societal perspective. Decision analysis was used to model the costs, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Costs included medical expenditures (physician visits and prescription drugs) attributable to PER and related comorbidities and lost productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism. Prices, tariffs and national wages were estimated from French national sources. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS INCLUDED: symptom-based visual analogue scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), Total 5 Symptoms Score (T5SS), categorical improvement in therapeutic response, interference with activities of daily living (ADL) and sleep outcomes. Mild or symptom-free days and 'responders' were also captured as outcomes. Univariate and second-order multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment with desloratadine dominated placebo (cost less and resulted in greater effectiveness) for all measures of effectiveness. Of the individuals taking desloratadine 46.8% were classified as 'responders' vs. 34.8% for placebo (p = 0.0012). Individuals taking desloratadine experienced mild/no symptoms for 57.6% of study days vs. 36.5% for placebo (p = 0.002). The expected annual cost of treatment with desloratadine (1819 euro) was less than placebo (2618 euro). Lost productivity was the most significant contributor to total cost. Results of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that treatment was cost-saving in 99.6% of simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of PER with desloratadine resulted in improved effectiveness and significant savings. While the cost of drug treatment is greater than that of no treatment, the downstream costs associated with not treating PER significantly outweigh the cost of treatment. Key limitations include the comparison of desloratadine to placebo and the sources of cost and effectiveness measures. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of all available treatments for PER. In addition, many utilization, productivity and effectiveness measures were taken from clinical trials and may not accurately reflect 'real world' treatment patterns and outcomes.

Prevalence of allergic rhinitis among the adult population in Turkey

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of self-reported and physician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis (AR) exhibits significant variability across the seven geographical regions in Turkey. Our findings may contribute to the formulation of public health policy and development of preventive and therapeutic strategies for AR in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of AR in the Turkish adult population, with emphasis on descriptive parameters in seven distinct geographical regions in Turkey.

METHODS

The volunteers were evaluated with a custom-designed questionnaire for AR. Sample size for the study was calculated by allowing for 2% error in prevalence along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). At the end of the study, we reached 4125 volunteers. The data were analyzed with chi(2), ANOVA, and Tukey (post hoc) tests.

RESULTS

A total of 4125 volunteers participated in the study; 2200 were female and 1925 were male. On the basis of self-reporting, 23.1% of the study population was considered to have AR (males 22.3%, females 23.8%). On the other hand, the prevalence of physician-diagnosed AR was 20.1% (males 19.7%, females 20.4%). The prevalence of self-reported AR was 23.8% in the urban and 18.4% in the rural areas.

The pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis

Treatment of AR requires a stepwise approach depending on the severity and duration of symptoms. Treatment options for AR consist of allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, immunotherapy and surgery. For the mechanisms of AR, anti-IgE antibody and specific antibody to cytokines such as IL-4 or IL-5 that correlate with allergic inflammation have recently emerged. SLIT is currently widely used due to its efficacy, safety and convenience, which replaces subcutaneous immunotherapy. Although allergen avoidance and immunotherapy are theoretically ideal, antihistamines and intranasal corticosteroids will play the main role in the management of AR until an innovative treatment develops. However, patients' main symptom, the duration and severity of AR, patients' compliance, safety of medication and cost-effectiveness should be considered when treatment options are chosen. In conclusion, physicians should be aware of etiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, signs and diseases related to AR in order to make a correct diagnosis and choose a proper treatment option for each patient.

Economic evaluation of sublingual immunotherapy vs. symptomatic treatment in allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

The worldwide increased prevalence of allergic diseases, and especially of respiratory allergy, is paralleled by increased health costs. This requires consideration of the cost to efficacy ratio of the available treatment to identify the optimal choice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the different economic relevance, over a long evaluation time, of symptomatic pharmacologic therapy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with allergic asthma.

METHODS

Seventy patients with perennial allergic asthma, sensitized to dust mites, were enrolled; 50 of these patients were treated with SLIT against house dust mites and 20 were treated with symptomatic drugs. The patients were evaluated for 2 years after discontinuing immunotherapy, which was performed for 3 years, to obtain a more complete follow-up. Symptom scores, medication scores, and all other direct medical costs were evaluated with a specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients treated with SLIT plus drugs had a higher mean annual cost in the first year of SLIT treatment compared with patients only receiving drug treatment, but the mean annual cost became significantly lower since the end of SLIT both in the whole population and in the subgroups defined by disease severity.

CONCLUSION

The economic advantage measured alongside this prospective observational study was long lasting and still present at the fifth year of the follow-up (2 years after discontinuing SLIT) and could positively be related to the persistent good clinical control of patients.

Preferences of adult patients with allergic rhinitis for the sensory attributes of fluticasone furoate versus fluticasone propionate nasal sprays: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Product attributes influence patient preference for intranasal corticosteroid therapy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the product sensory attributes and patient preferences of fluticasone furoate (FF) and fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal sprays in patients with symptomatic perennial and/or seasonal AR.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study enrolled 127 patients with a diagnosis of AR as determined by respiratory symptoms and a positive skin test to perennial and/or seasonal allergens within 12 months prior to the study. Patients could not use FF or FP within 4 weeks prior to the start of the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FF (110 microg) followed by FP (200 microg) or FP followed by FF. A 10-minute washout period occurred before crossover dosing. Following each treatment, patient-rated sensory attributes were assessed immediately and 2 minutes after treatment on 2 questionnaires using a 7-point Likert scale (scored from 0-6) rating odor, taste, aftertaste, drip down the throat, urge to sneeze, soothing feeling, irritation, and nose runoff. At the end of the crossover dosing and after completion of the attributes questionnaires, preference for individual attributes of FF or FP nasal spray and overall patient preference were evaluated in a third questionnaire that asked "Based on these attributes, which product did you prefer overall?" Additionally, a follow-up phone call was conducted 24 hours after the study to assess any adverse events following study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age, 39.7 years; 80% white; 65% women) preferred FF nasal spray over FP nasal spray overall (60% vs 33%; P = 0.003) and based on the individual attributes of odor (64% vs 29%; P < 0.001), taste (47% vs 21%; P < 0.001), aftertaste (44% vs 22%; P = 0.002), drip down the throat (43% vs 27%; P = 0.037), and nose runoff (49% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Patient ratings favored FF versus FP (median differences, P < 0.001) with respect to odor, taste, dripping down the throat, and nose runoff, both immediately and 2 minutes after dosing, but there were no significant differences with respect to whether the medication felt soothing, caused nasal irritation, or made patients sneeze. Fifty-two percent (63/121) of patients replied that they were very likely to comply with FF treatment versus FP treatment (38% [45/120]; P = 0.02) if the medications were prescribed. Three patients (2%) reported adverse events (dizziness, headache, nasal congestion) during treatment with FF.

CONCLUSION

In this study of adult AR patients, the sensory attributes of FF were preferred over those of FP following single-dose administration.

Allergic rhinitis in children: incidence and treatment in Dutch general practice in 1987 and 2001

Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic disorder in children, mostly diagnosed in primary health care. This study investigated the national incidence and treatment of allergic rhinitis among children aged 0-17 yr in Dutch general practice in 1987 and 2001 to establish whether changes have occurred. A comparison was made with data from the first (1987) and second (2001) Dutch national surveys of general practice on children aged 0-17 yr. Incidence rates were compared by age, sex, level of urbanization and season. The management of the general practitioner was assessed regarding drug prescriptions and referrals to medical specialists, and compared with the clinical guideline issued in 1996. The incidence rate of allergic rhinitis increased from 6.6 (1987) to 9.2 (2001) per 1000 person-years. We found a male predominance with a switch in adolescence to a female predominance at both time points. The increase in incidence was the highest in rural (<30,000 inhabitants) and suburban areas (30,000-50,000 inhabitants). Compared to 1987, there was a significant increase in incidence in the central part of the Netherlands in 2001. In both years, the incidence was higher in spring compared with the other seasons. In 2001, children of natives and western immigrants visited the general practitioner more often with complaints of allergic rhinitis compared to 1987. In 1987, prescribed medication consisted mainly of nasal corticosteroids (36%) and in 2001 of oral antihistamines (45%). Although a clinical guideline was not issued until 1996, overall, the treatment of allergic rhinitis by general practitioners was in both years in accordance with the current clinical guideline, but with a stronger adherence in 2001. The results show an increased incidence in the past decades of allergic rhinitis in children in Dutch general practice. The shift to a smaller spectrum of prescriptions in 2001 may be a result of the 1996 clinical guideline.

Skin prick test reactivity to common aeroallergens among allergic rhinitis patients in Iran

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is the most common allergic disease with negative impacts on patients' quality of life. The prevalence and pattern of sensitisation vary between different countries and populations. Identification of the most prevalent aeroallergens in each area has a very important role in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Iran is a fairly large country with different geo-climatic conditions and there are no data about the most prevalent aeroallergen in Mashhad City, which is the second largest city in Iran, with a semiarid climate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of positive skin test to various common aeroallergens among allergic rhinitis patients in the city of Mashhad.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Skin prick tests were performed with 27 common regional aeroallergens including grass, weed, tree, mite and mould in 311 patients with allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

The overall rate of sensitisation to any allergen was 81 %. 76 % of patients were poly-sensitised and weed and grass were the most prevalent allergens (77 % and 62 % respectively). Salsola Kali and mould were the most and the least prevalent individual allergens (72.5 % and 6.5 % respectively). Mean total IgE in patients with positive skin prick test was significantly higher than in patients without any positive skin prick test (308 vs 128 IU/mL, P = 0.016). 97 % of atopic patients were sensitised to Salsola kali and or Fraxinus americana.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work showed the importance of weeds, especially the Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae families. Diagnosis of pollen allergy can be simplified by using a combination of a few common aeroallergens.

Allergic rhinitis: more than just a stuffy nose

Allergic rhinitis is more than just sneezing and an itchy nose. Complications of this disease are numerous and can have a significant impact, both mentally and physically. That is why it is important not only to detect, investigate and treat allergic rhinitis but also to actively identify potential complications. Mental functions such as learning, sleep and activity levels can deteriorate, and the eustachian tubes, sinuses and airway functions can be affected. Otitis, sinusitis and asthma are overrepresented among individuals who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This article highlights how allergic rhinitis can affect cognitive functions, and what consequences this can have on school performance, work and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals and school personnel need to increase their awareness of the ramifications of this disease and actively work to prevent deterioration in both academic achievement and workplace productivity.

Classification of Nonallergic Rhinitis Syndromes With a Focus on Vasomotor Rhinitis, Proposed to be Known henceforth as Nonallergic Rhinopathy

Many patients have nasal syndromes that are nonallergic and noninfectious and not caused by mechanical or anatomic abnormalities. There are at least 8 recognized nonallergic rhinitis syndromes: drug-induced rhinitis including rhinitis medicamentosa, gustatory rhinitis, hormonally induced rhinitis including the rhinitis of pregnancy, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome, senile rhinitis, atrophic rhinitis, cerebral spinal fluid leak, and vasomotor rhinitis. Few studies have explored etiologic causes. These syndromes are distinguished by clinical characteristics, recognized triggering conditions, and concomitant observations such as nasal eosinophilia or cerebral spinal fluid leak. Until more specific subjective clinical characteristics and/or objective measures can better define and differentiate underlying causes for these disparate diseases, they will remain a murky group of overlapping syndromes.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs desloratadine 5 mg in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Bilastine is a novel, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamine developed for symptomatic treatment of Allergic Rhinitis and Chronic Idiopathic Urticaria. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of bilastine 20 mg vs placebo and desloratadine 5 mg in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

This randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicentre study evaluated the effect of 2 weeks' treatment with bilastine 20 mg, desloratadine 5 mg or matched placebo once daily, in 12-70 years old symptomatic SAR patients. All subjects assessed the severity of nasal (obstruction, rhinorrhoea, itching, and sneezing) and nonnasal (ocular itching, tearing, ocular redness, itching of ears and/or palate) symptoms on a predetermined scale to provide a total symptom score (TSS), composed of nasal and nonnasal symptom scores (NSS and NNSS, respectively). The primary efficacy measure was the area under the curve (AUC) for the TSS over the entire treatment period.

RESULTS

Bilastine 20 mg significantly reduced the AUC of TSS to a greater degree from baseline compared to placebo (98.4 with bilastine vs 118.4 with placebo; P < 0.001), but not compared to desloratadine 5 mg (100.5). Bilastine 20 mg was not different from desloratadine 5 mg but significantly more effective than placebo in improving the NSS, NNSS, and rhinitis-associated discomfort scores (P < 0.05), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire total (P < 0.005) and four out of seven individual domain (P < 0.05) scores. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was similar for bilastine (20.6%), desloratadine (19.8%), and placebo (18.8%).

CONCLUSION

Bilastine 20 mg once daily was efficacious, safe and not different from desloratadine 5 mg once daily in the treatment of SAR symptoms.

Is reliance on self-medication and pharmacy care adequate for rhinitis patients?

INTRODUCTION

Many people with rhinitis choose to self-medicate, frequently relying on pharmacy advice. We have investigated the effectiveness of such a treatment.

METHODS

To obtain data regarding treatment and outcome of individuals with rhinitis who have not consulted a physician in the past 2 years, a cross-sectional survey was performed. A random sample of the French, German and United Kingdom general population (n = 15,085) was screened, resulting in 818 individuals with rhinitis. Each of these respondents was sent a postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 610 (74.6%) individuals returned the questionnaire. A sum of 42% (256) respondents described their symptoms as moderate and 5% (31) as severe. Multiple triggers were reported by 442 (72.5%) and 30% of respondents reported sleep disturbance (increased to 44% in sedating antihistamine users) > or = 8 nights/month, resulting in reduced cognition and productivity loss in 14.5%. Individuals stated that they did not attend the physician because their symptoms were too trivial (378 - 63.9%) or over-the-counter (OTC) medication was adequate (341 - 57.6%). Only 217 respondents reported currently taking OTC medication (France 30; Germany 82; UK 105). In all countries, antihistamine was the main treatment taken (non-sedating in 38% and sedating in 23% of subjects). Intranasal corticosteroid use (18 - 8.3%) was mainly in the UK where it is available OTC.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with rhinitis who do not consult a physician report multiple sensitization, reduced sleep and cognition. Drug utilization appears suboptimal, particularly for those reporting moderate or severe symptoms. Reliance on pharmacy or self-medication may not be adequate for some people.

Pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis: a pharmaco-economic approach

This article reports on a systematic literature review of the costs of allergic rhinitis (AR), the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR, and the factors affecting costs and economic value of pharmacotherapy. Included studies had carried out a cost-of-illness analysis, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit analysis. Allergic rhinitis imposes a substantial economic burden on society, with indirect costs of productivity loss being larger than the direct healthcare costs. Cost estimates were biased because of difficulties of diagnosis; exclusion of patients who do not seek healthcare; exclusion of over-the-counter medication; difficulties in estimating productivity loss. There is limited evidence on costs of seasonal/perennial and intermittent/persistent AR. Little is known of the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR, although levocetirizine appears to be cost-effective as compared with placebo. Economic evaluations suffered limitations from small sample sizes, short trial duration, lack of standardized effectiveness measure, restricted scope of costs. Finally, the economic value of pharmacotherapy of AR is influenced by the perspective of the economic evaluation, relative effectiveness and costs of available drugs, patient compliance with treatment.

The global burden of mental disorders: an update from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys

AIMS

The paper reviews recent findings from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys on the global burden of mental disorders.

METHODS

The WMH surveys are representative community surveys in 28 countries throughout the world aimed at providing information to mental health policy makers about the prevalence, distribution, burden, and unmet need for treatment of common mental disorders.

RESULTS

The first 17 WMH surveys show that mental disorders are commonly occurring in all participating countries. The inter-quartile range (IQR: 25th-75th percentiles) of lifetime DSM-IV disorder prevalence estimates (combining anxiety, mood, externalizing, and substance use disorders) is 18.1-36.1%. The IQR of 12-month prevalence estimates is 9.8-19.1%. Prevalence estimates of 12-month Serious Mental Illness (SMI) are 4-6.8% in half the countries, 2.3-3.6% in one-fourth, and 0.8-1.9% in one-fourth. Many mental disorders begin in childhood-adolescence and have significant adverse effects on subsequent role transitions in the WMH data. Adult mental disorders are found to be associated with such high role impairment in the WMH data that available clinical interventions could have positive cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental disorders are commonly occurring and often seriously impairing in many countries throughout the world. Expansion of treatment could be cost-effective from both employer and societal perspectives.

Rhinitis symptoms and comorbidities in the United States: burden of rhinitis in America survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the burden of nasal symptoms in the United States (U.S.) and the comorbid conditions associated with nasal symptoms.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A self-administered screening questionnaire and follow-up survey was sent to targeted households from a representative sample of 15,000 households in the U.S. Subjects with comorbid asthma completed the Asthma Control Test (ACT).

RESULTS

Out of 7024 evaluable subjects who responded, 3831 subjects were classified as rhinitis "sufferers." Individuals with active rhinitis symptoms were 1.5 to 4.5 times more likely to suffer from comorbid conditions including asthma, conjunctivitis, otitis media, sinusitis, eczema, food and insect bite allergies, migraine, and depression. Almost half of all respondents with moderate or severe rhinitis symptoms and comorbid asthma had poorly controlled asthma as defined by an ACT score of < or =19.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong relationship exists between rhinitis symptoms and various comorbidities, including asthma, in the U.S. population. Poorly controlled rhinitis contributes to the public health burden of rhinitis and asthma.

Economic burden of rhinitis in managed care: a retrospective claims data analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the specific cost effect of rhinitis on third-party payers. No recently reported studies have examined the economic burden of rhinitis in managed care. Furthermore, the direct costs of chronic rhinitis have not been evaluated and potential differences in health care use and costs of allergic rhinitis have not been examined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic burden of allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinitis to third-party payers in a large US managed care plan.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis using pharmacy and medical claims data from a US health plan covering approximately 15 million members, health care use and cost data were summarized for patients with allergic or chronic rhinitis (n = 301,001) for the 13-month study period (January 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005).

RESULTS

Average rhinitis-related total costs were $657 per patient each year ($319 in medical costs and $338 in pharmacy costs). Ambulatory visits were the primary contributor to rhinitis-related medical costs. Antihistamines were the most common rhinitis medication, followed by intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) and montelukast. Many patients (37% with at least 1 filled prescription for an antihistamine, an INS, or montelukast) used combination therapy. Of the 3 main pharmacotherapy categories, montelukast was associated with the highest pharmacy cost ($353 vs $198 for antihistamines and $231 for INSs per patient each year for monotherapy) and drove the average annual cost of combination therapy regardless of the concomitant medication(s). The most common comorbidities were sinusitis and asthma, present in 51.1% and 27.9% of patients, respectively. Comorbidities increased rhinitis-related health care costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinitis imposed a significant financial burden on third-party payers in a large US managed care plan. The presence of comorbidities further increased the rhinitis-related treatment costs.

Allergic rhinitis in family practice: the role of levocetirizine in clinical care

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most common presentations of allergic disorders in the United States, affecting more than 20% of the population. Chronic rhinitis affects patients' quality of life and exacerbates comorbid conditions. Its widespread burden affects society by substantially decreasing worker and scholastic productivity. Allergic rhinitis is typically managed with pharmacotherapy to alleviate symptoms and control comorbid conditions, yet many of these agents carry their own burden due to bothersome and sometimes severe side effects that can compromise patient safety. A new generation of non- or less-sedating antihistamines has recently emerged. These agents offer the promise of enhanced efficacy and tolerability. Of these agents, levocetirizine is the latest antihistamine introduced in the United States. It appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In addition to covering the above topics, this article reviews the value of levocetirizine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis based on its pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic profile, its efficacy compared with placebo and other new-generation antihistamines, and its safety and tolerability.

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

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

Olfactory receptor gene polymorphisms and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis

We sought a genotype-phenotype association: between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in olfactory receptor (OR) genes from the two largest OR gene clusters and odor-triggered nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (nVMR). In the initial pedigree screen, using transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) analysis, six SNPs showed "significant" p-values between 0.0449 and 0.0043. In a second case-control population, the previously identified six SNPs did not re-emerge, whereas four new SNPs showed p-values between 0.0490 and 0.0001. Combining both studies, none of the SNPs in the TDT analysis survived the Bonferroni correction. In the population study, one SNP showed an empirical p-value of 0.0066 by shuffling cases and controls with 10(5) replicates; however, the p-value for this SNP was 0.83 in the pedigree study. This study emphasizes that underpowered studies having p-values between < 0.05 and 0.0001 should be regarded as inconclusive and require further replication before concluding the study is "informative." However, we believe that our hypothesis that an association between OR genotypes and the nVMR phenotype remains feasible. Future studies using either a genomewide association study of all OR gene-pseudogene regions throughout the genome--at the current recommended density of 2.5 to 5 kb per tag SNP--or studies incorporating microarray analyses of the entire "OR genome" in well-characterized nVMR patients are required.

Disability and treatment of specific mental and physical disorders across the world

BACKGROUND

Advocates of expanded mental health treatment assert that mental disorders are as disabling as physical disorders, but little evidence supports this assertion.

AIMS

To establish the disability and treatment of specific mental and physical disorders in high-income and low- and middle-income countries.

METHOD

Community epidemiological surveys were administered in 15 countries through the World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative.

RESULTS

Respondents in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries attributed higher disability to mental disorders than to the commonly occurring physical disorders included in the surveys. This pattern held for all disorders and also for treated disorders. Disaggregation showed that the higher disability of mental than physical disorders was limited to disability in social and personal role functioning, whereas disability in productive role functioning was generally comparable for mental and physical disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite often higher disability, mental disorders are under-treated compared with physical disorders in both high-income and in low- and middle-income countries.

Combination therapy with azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, there are no published studies that evaluated the efficacy of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid, although anecdotal reports of the use of these agents in combination are common.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if greater efficacy could be achieved with the intranasal antihistamine azelastine and the intranasal corticosteroid fluticasone propionate used concurrently compared with the efficacy of each agent alone.

METHODS

This randomized, 2-week, multicenter, double-blind trial was conducted during the Texas mountain cedar season. After a 5-day placebo lead-in period, 151 patients with moderate to severe nasal symptoms were randomized to treatment with the following: (1) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily; (2) fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily; or (3) azelastine nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril twice daily, plus fluticasone nasal spray, 2 sprays per nostril once daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), consisting of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose, and nasal congestion.

RESULTS

All 3 groups had statistically significant (P < .001) improvements from their baseline TNSS after 2 weeks of treatment. The TNSS improved 27.1% with fluticasone nasal spray, 24.8% with azelastine nasal spray, and 37.9% with the 2 agents in combination (P < .05 vs either agent alone). All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant improvement in the TNSS with combination therapy relative to the individual agents alone is in contrast to previously published studies that found no advantage with an oral antihistamine and an intranasal corticosteroid in combination. Azelastine nasal spray and fluticasone nasal spray in combination may provide a substantial therapeutic benefit for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with therapy with either agent alone.

Clinical effects of far-infrared therapy in patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the sixth most common chronic illness worldwide, which has a significant impact on patients' quality of life. The actual cost of AR is staggering, approximately $5.6 billion being spent annually in direct medical costs and other indirect costs. Therefore, it should be taken seriously upon its evaluation and treatment. AR is an IgE-mediated inflammation, which symptoms are likely due to increased vascular permeability. Current therapeutic options such as avoidance of allergen, medication and immunotherapy are unsatisfactory. Far-infrared (FIR) is an invisible electromagnetic wave with a wavelength longer than that of visible light. It has been used to treat vascular diseases as a result of an increase in blood flow. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of FIR therapy in patients with AR. Thirty-one patients with AR were enrolled in this study. A WS TY101 FIR emitter was placed to face the patient's nasal region at a distance of 30 cm. The treatment was performed for 40 min every morning for 7 days. Every day, patients recorded their symptoms in a diary before and during treatment. Each symptom of rhinitis was rated on a 4-point scale (0-3) according to severity. During the period of FIR therapy, the symptoms of eye itching, nasal itching, nasal stuffiness, rhinorrhea and sneezing were all significantly improved. Smell impairment was not improved until after the last treatment. No obvious adverse effect was observed in the patients during treatment and follow-up. We concluded that FIR therapy could improve the symptoms of AR and might serve as a novel treatment modality for AR.

Intranasal corticosteroids: the development of a drug delivery device for fluticasone furoate as a potential step toward improved compliance

Devices for the aqueous delivery of intranasal corticosteroids to patients with allergic rhinitis have been available since 1984, so there is a need for new devices to be developed to provide ease of use, efficacy and safety. A novel drug delivery system has been developed for fluticasone furoate (FF; GlaxoSmithKline): a new enhanced-affinity glucocorticoid with a scent-free formulation. The FF system was developed, giving attention to patients' unmet needs, in order to promote acceptance and compliance. It demonstrates a number of key features including its ergonomic design, side-actuation system and short delivery nozzle. Exploiting issues with present devices highlighted the need for the FF system. This review reports data from key studies and surveys conducted by GlaxoSmithKline during development, to determine ease of use and acceptance of the FF system. Findings suggest that the FF system should aid in improving attitudes to the use of intranasal corticosteroids amongst physicians and patients.

Rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and quality of life in children

Quality of life (QoL) or, rather, health-related QoL, is currently regarded as a crucial aspect of the general well-being of patients and, in consequence, of the effects of a disease and its treatment. This is particularly true for respiratory allergy (asthma and rhinitis), which are chronic diseases and also for sinusitis (rhinosinusitis). A number of questionnaires (instruments), either generic or specific, have been developed and validated to assess the QoL in adults and children, for asthma and rhinitis, whereas there are few specific instruments for chronic rhinosinusitis. The literature provides strong evidence of the effects of allergic rhinitis, asthma and their treatments on QoL in paediatric patients, as well as in adults, whereas the number of experimental data on rhinosinusitis is limited, especially in children. Clinical trials evidenced some controversial points, mainly the weak correlation existing between QoL and traditional objective parameters. It has become clear that the QoL questionnaires measure the aspects of the disease that partially differ from the routinely evaluated parameters and that QoL should integrate, not replace, the objective measurements.

Desloratadine improves quality of life and symptom severity in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Desloratadine is associated with decreased signs and symptoms and improved nasal airflow in multiple clinical trials in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). The effect of desloratadine on quality of life (QOL) in AR has not been widely reported to date. We compared the effects of desloratadine and placebo on QOL in seasonal AR using validated, disease-specific measures.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of desloratadine 5 mg or placebo daily for 2 weeks in patients with symptomatic seasonal AR. QOL was assessed at baseline and at day 14 using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). AR signs/symptoms and the global response to therapy were measured at baseline and at day 14; signs/symptoms were also rated AM/PM in patient diaries. Adverse events (AE) were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall 234 patients received desloratadine and 249 received placebo. At day 14 desloratadine was associated with a significantly larger improvement from baseline in the mean total RQLQ score vs placebo (P = 0.0003). Desloratadine also led to significant improvements from baseline in all RQLQ sub-domains (P < or = 0.043). At day 14 significant decreases from baseline were noted in the desloratadine group for total nasal (P = 0.0003), total non-nasal (P = 0.001) and total symptoms scores (P = 0.0001). Morning AR symptoms were significantly decreased in the desloratadine group after 1 day of treatment. Desloratadine was well tolerated, with an AE rate similar to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Significant reductions in signs and symptoms of AR with desloratadine treatment were accompanied by improved disease-specific QOL measures.

Development and validation of a new Spanish instrument to measure health-related quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis: the ESPRINT questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate an instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) specific to patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and primarily for use in Spanish and Spanish-speaking populations.

METHODS

An initial item pool was generated from literature review, focus groups with AR patients, and consultations with clinical experts. Item reduction was performed using clinimetric and psychometric approaches after administration of the item pool to 400 AR patients. The resulting instrument's internal consistency, test-retest (2-4 weeks) reliability, known groups and convergent validity, and sensitivity to change were tested in a longitudinal, observational, multicenter study in 210 AR patients who also completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ).

RESULTS

The new questionnaire took a mean (SD) of 7.1 (5.4) minutes to answer. Floor and ceiling effects were less than 15% on all dimensions. Cronbach's alpha values and intraclass correlation coefficient values for six of the sevendimensions and the overall score exceeded 0.70. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) were observed on all ESPRINT-28 dimensions and the overall score between patients with mild (mean overall score 1.97, SD 0.99), moderate (mean overall score 2.78, SD 0.88), and severe AR (mean overall score 3.89, SD 0.87). Patients with persistent AR had worse scores (P < 0.05) on all dimensions than patients with intermittent AR. Correlations between the ESPRINT-28 and the RQLQ were generally as expected. Effect sizes for score changes between the two study visits ranged from 0.96 to 1.76 for individual dimensions and the overall score.

CONCLUSIONS

This new, Spanish-developed instrument to measure HRQOL in AR patients has shown good reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. It has also proved easy to use and administer.

Development and validation of the Congestion Quantifier seven-item test (CQ7): a screening tool for nasal congestion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a short, simple, patient-completed instrument for identifying patients with congestion in a 15-day study. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common allergic condition worldwide, with congestion as one of the most salient symptoms. Nevertheless, there is no short screening tool designed specifically to identify congestion that can help patients make decisions about seeking treatment.

METHODS

Patients (N = 354) received a clinical exam to confirm congestion and assess its possible causes including confirmation of AR. They completed the 13-item draft of the Congestion Quantifier (CQ) and five additional patient-reported outcome instruments.

RESULTS

The 13-item draft CQ was reduced to a seven-item version, the CQ7. Internal consistency reliability was 0.93; test-retest reliability = 0.85. Construct validity was demonstrated by significant correlations with the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Allergy Specific, and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale Fatigue subscale (r = 0.23-0.67). The CQ7 can discriminate between controls and patients (AUC > 0.9). Moreover, it can discriminate between different levels of severity of symptoms of AR. A score of 7 provided optimum balance of sensitivity (91%), specificity (86%), and correct classification (90%) for detecting congestion.

CONCLUSION

The CQ7 is reliable, valid, and responsive to differences in severity of nasal congestion. The CQ7 can identify patients with congestion that may need to be evaluated by a clinician.

Inhibition of the histamine-induced weal and flare response: a valid surrogate measure for antihistamine clinical efficacy?

Histamine plays a central role in allergic responses. Inhibition of the weal and flare response to histamine is a traditional pharmacodynamic tool to measure the activity of H(1)-receptor antagonists. The time course and duration of cutaneous weal and flare inhibition are often used as surrogate measures of clinical efficacy. Pharmacodynamic differences among antihistamines are often interpreted to indicate differences in clinical efficacy. A systematic review of literature from 1980 to 2006 regarding the histamine induced weal and flare was undertaken. Search terms included 'histamine', 'skin test', 'weal', 'flare', and 'antihistamine'; retrieved articles were searched for relevant studies not identified initially. Data from human studies on the inhibition of the weal and flare by second-generation antihistamines were extracted and assessed. A literature search from 1980 to 2006 was undertaken for comparative studies of second-generation antihistamines in the clinical settings of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria; data extracted from these studies underwent systematic review. Differences were noted among second-generation antihistamines in terms of their ability to inhibit the histamine-induced weal and flare. Corresponding differences in terms of clinical efficacy in AR and chronic urticaria were not identified following a systematic review. The reasons for the disconnect between pharmacodynamic effects and clinical efficacy may include differences between the route and concentration of histamine, the involvement of mediators other than histamine in the allergic response, and the short time course of pharmacodynamic studies. The histamine-induced weal and flare response is a pharmacodynamic test that should not be used to compare the clinical efficacy of different antihistamines, and is not an adequate alternative to clinical end-point assessments in AR or chronic idiopathic urticaria.

Meta-Analysis of Azelastine Nasal Spray for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database.

PATIENTS

Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46).

CONCLUSION

Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.

The safety and efficacy of desloratadine for the management of allergic disease

Allergic disease is an increasing problem worldwide. Allergic rhinitis, an inflammatory response to an allergen, affects an estimated 20-40 million people in the US, while chronic idiopathic urticaria is a dermatoallergic condition that affects 0.1-3% of people in the US and Europe. The primary goals of treatment for allergic rhinitis are to reduce symptoms, which include sneezing, rhinorrhoea and nasal congestion, improve quality of life and prevent the sequelae associated with this disease, while the goal for chronic idiopathic urticaria is the rapid and prolonged control of symptoms. Quantitatively, histamine is the most abundant mediator present during an allergic episode - thus, antihistamines (historically called histamine H(1) receptor antagonists, now called H(1) receptor inverse agonists) are a first-line defense against allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. Although first-generation antihistamines can cause sedation and cognitive impairment, second-generation antihistamines are relatively non-sedating and free of such adverse events owing to their comparative inability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Desloratadine is one such second-generation antihistamine and is indicated for the treatment of allergic diseases, including allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. It has proven efficacy against the symptoms associated with seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, including nasal congestion, and chronic idiopathic urticaria. As a result, it has been shown to improve patients' quality of life. The safety and efficacy profiles of desloratadine are well established, and published postmarketing analyses have assessed >54 000 patients. Although earlier second-generation antihistamines have been associated with cardiovascular adverse effects, desloratadine has been shown to be safe and well tolerated at nine times the recommended dose. In addition, it has been shown to not interact with concomitantly administered drugs and food. Overall, current data indicate that desloratadine is a safe and effective treatment for allergic diseases.

Levocetirizine in persistent allergic rhinitis and asthma: effects on symptoms, quality of life and inflammatory parameters

Background Levocetirizine (LCZ) has been shown to be effective in allergic rhinitis. We evaluated its clinical efficacy, antinflammatory actions and its effects on quality of life (QoL) with a specific instrument in the asthma-rhinitis comorbidity. Methods Fifty adult patients with persistent rhinitis with/without asthma were enrolled. After a 1-week run-in for baseline evaluation, they were randomized to LCZ or placebo for 8 weeks. Cromolyn and salbutamol were permitted on demand. Rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma symptoms were evaluated by diary cards. QoL was assessed by the specific Rhinasthma questionnaire and the generic SF-36 at different time-points. Nasal scrapings and lavages were also performed for inflammatory cell count and mediator assessment. Results Ten patients dropped out for unrelated reasons and the remaining completed the study with no side-effect. Symptoms began to decrease in the active group at the second week of treatment when the difference with the placebo group became significant (0.05) and so remained until the end of the trial. Starting from 2 weeks of therapy, there was a significant decrease vs. baseline in all the four components of the Rhinasthma questionnaire only in the active group. The intergroup comparison became significant (P<0.05) at 4 weeks. The SF-36 detected only sporadic differences between groups. Eosinophils and neutrophils in nasal scraping were significantly decreased in the LCZ group vs. baseline at all times. Nasal mediators were under the detection limits and no analysis could be performed. In the active group, only two patients used rescue medications compared with 13 patients in the placebo group. Conclusions LCZ is clinically effective and capable of improving the rhinitis-asthma-related QoL.

Questionnaire evaluation and risk factor identification for nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinitis, a prevalent primary care disorder associated with significant comorbidities, is often incorrectly diagnosed. As a result, inappropriate treatment leads to higher health care costs and poor clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To verify whether responses to specific questions may help in the diagnosis of nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis (NAVMR).

METHODS

A questionnaire listing allergic and nonallergic triggers was blindly distributed to 100 random new patients with chronic rhinitis in an allergist's office. Questionnaire and physician diagnoses were compared. Allergic triggers included cat, dog, feathers, other furry animals, and symptoms during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Nonallergic triggers included temperature changes, diesel and car exhaust, tobacco smoke, perfumes and fragrances, incense, cleaning products, newsprint, hairspray, and alcoholic beverages, spicy foods, or eating.

RESULTS

The construct validity and internal consistency indicated that the questionnaire was a good tool for diagnosing NAVMR. Multivariate analysis revealed that the absence of outdoor symptoms in the spring (odds ratio [OR], 7.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-51.22; P = .03), no parental history of allergy (OR, 5.16; 95% CI, 1.05-25.20; P = .04), no symptoms around cats (OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 0.59-24.83; P = .16), the presence of symptoms around perfumes and fragrances (OR, 4.875; 95% CI, 1.05-22.60; P = .04), and age at symptom onset (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; P = .008) were predictive of NAVMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific questionnaire responses may help primary care physicians accurately diagnose NAVMR. Questions asked of patients by physicians to diagnose allergic rhinitis do not correlate well with physician diagnosis.

Once-daily immediate-release fexofenadine and sustained-release pseudoephedrine combination: a new treatment option for allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis symptoms, in particular nasal congestion, can have a significant impact on patient quality of life, resulting in reduced productivity and daytime sleepiness. Newer-generation antihistamines are commonly used to treat allergic rhinitis; however, in patients with severe congestion, a combination of a newer-generation antihistamine and a decongestant is particularly beneficial. A new once-daily fexofenadine/pseudoephedrine combination has been developed and recently approved in the US. The combination provides an effective, well-tolerated antihistamine and a reliable, sustained-release pseudoephedrine system. In addition, small tablet size and once-daily dosing may provide patients with increased convenience and improve adherence. In summary, the combination of immediate-release fexofenadine/sustained-release pseudoephedrine offers an important additional option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Costs associated with persistent allergic rhinitis are reduced by levocetirizine

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis was recently classified by the ARIA guidelines as persistent or intermittent. Levocetirizine was shown to improve symptoms and health-related quality of life of patients with persistent allergic rhinitis in the XPERT study, a 6-month randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the total costs of persistent allergic rhinitis, and the effect of long-term treatment with levocetirizine on these costs from several perspectives (societal, social security system, and employers).

METHODS

Direct medical cost parameters (medications, physician visits and hospitalizations) and time lost parameters (workdays and Usual Daily Activities (UDA) lost) related to persistent allergic rhinitis and its comorbidities (asthma, sinusitis, otitis and upper respiratory infection) were measured. A cost analysis was performed using 2002 French costing data.

RESULTS

From a societal perspective, the total cost of persistent allergic rhinitis without long-term treatment was estimated at 355.06/patient/month. From a social security perspective, levocetirizine treatment yielded an additional cost of 2.78/patient/month, compared to no-treatment. However, levocetirizine reduced the total cost of persistent allergic rhinitis and its comorbidities by 152.93/patient/month from a societal perspective and by 64.70/patient/month from an employer perspective. Most gains resulted from a decrease in the lost workdays and UDA in the levocetirizine group.

CONCLUSION

The cost of persistent allergic rhinitis is substantial. Treatment with levocetirizine reduces the cost of persistent allergic rhinitis and its comorbidities to the society by 152.93/patient/month while improving symptoms and health-related quality of life.