Tap water nasal irrigation in adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized double-blind study

Non-pharmacological interventions for pollen-induced allergic symptoms: Systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Allergic diseases pose a health problem worldwide. Pollen are widespread aeroallergens which can cause symptoms like shortness of breath, cough, itchy eyes, or rhinitis. Apart from preventive measures and pharmacological treatment, also non-pharmacological interventions have been suggested to reduce symptoms. The objective of this work was to review studies investigating the effectiveness of non-pharmacologic interventions to reduce allergic symptoms.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically reviewed in July 2018 and April 2020. Several authors worked on the screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts. One author for each literature search performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria defined by the PECOs. Studies which investigating the effect of non-pharmacologic interventions on patients with allergic rhinitis were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies investigating eleven types of non-pharmacologic interventions to avoid and reduce allergic symptoms due to pollen exposure were included in this review. Out of all studies, seven studies addressed nasal rinsing and 22 included acupuncture, air filtering, artisanal tears, individual allergen avoidance advice, various nasal applications, self-hypnosis, rhinophototherapy, and wraparound sunglasses.

CONCLUSION

Most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes. There were only a few high-quality studies that give hints about the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. For future research, more high-quality studies are required to confirm the effectiveness of simple, safe, and cost-effective interventions.

Nasal irrigation with Glycyrrhiza glabra extract for treatment of allergic rhinitis - A study of in vitro, in vivo and clinical trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Glycyrrhiza glabra, a family of licorice and a traditional Chinese medicine with sweet taste and favorable smell, has anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic and immunomodulatory functions.

AIM OF THE STUDY

We developed a licorice extract (LE) by using glycyrrhiza glabra and administered it through nasal irrigation to treat allergic rhinitis (AR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LE was prepared into extract powder, and the anti-inflammatory effect of the LE was evaluated by calcium ionophore-induced activated mast cell model (in vitro). Then, local passive anaphylaxis assays were applied to investigate the anti-IgE-mediated allergic reaction of the LE in mice (in vivo). A developed LE was administered through nasal irrigation to treat AR in clinic settings. A total of 60 participants diagnosed with AR were included in this clinical trial; they were randomly assigned to three interventions: licorice nasal irrigation (LNI), corticosteroid nasal irrigation (CNI), and saline nasal irrigation (SNI). They performed nasal irrigation once a day for 1 month. Both subjective questionnaires (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22] and visual analog scale [VAS]) and objective examinations (acoustic rhinometry and nasal endoscopy) were used for effectiveness assessments.

RESULTS

All three interventions could improve SNOT-22 scores, but the effects of LNI and CNI were more significant. According to VAS scores for nasal blockage, rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal pruritus, postnasal discharge, and olfactory disturbance, the effect of LNI was superior to those of CNI and SNI. The results of rhinometry revealed that LNI significantly improved nasal resistance. Endoscopic analysis showed that both LNI and CNI, but not SNI, could significantly improve turbinate hypertrophy. Moreover, the best procedural comfort was found for LNI, which had no side effects or complications during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

LNI is a natural, safe, and innovative therapy that can effectively treat AR. Its effect is superior to those of CNI and SNI, and it has greatly improved procedural comfort.

Saline irrigation for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.

The effect of different nasal irrigation solutions following septoplasty and concha radiofrequency: a prospective randomized study

Introduction

Nasal irrigation solutions are widely used following endonasal surgery. These irrigation solutions remove infective debris and crusts, reducing the probability of synechia formation, and accelerate mucosal healing.

Objective

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of nasal irrigation solutions with different contents following septoplasty and concha radiofrequency.

Methods

The present study was a prospective, randomized, controlled simple blind study of 120 patients who underwent septoplasty and bilateral concha radiofrequency. Patients were divided into four groups according to the nasal irrigation solution used: tap water, buffered isotonic saline, saline with xylitol, and hypertonic sea water. Patients were examined on the 7th and 15th postoperative days. A saccharine test was applied to determine mucociliary activity preoperatively and on the 7th and 15th postoperative days. Patients were asked about drying and obstruction using a 10 cm visual analog scale. In addition, patients were examined to determine the crusting score.

Results

There was no significant difference found in the preoperative and 7th and 15th postoperative days’ mucociliary clearance times among the four groups. The crusting score was found to be significantly lower in the hypertonic sea water group (p < 0.001). Drying and obstruction on the 7th and 15th postoperative days were found to be significantly more comfortable in the hypertonic sea water group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Hypertonic sea water is the recommended irrigation solution, as it is associated with less crusting, drying, and obstruction in the nose for the postoperative period following septoplasty and concha radiofrequency.