Ocular safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a 2-year study

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of Inhaled and Intranasal Corticosteroids Exposure on the Risk of Ocular Hypertension and Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Starting in 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma recommended the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of reliever combination therapy in patients 12 years of age and older, thus dramatically increasing the population exposure to ICS. ICS and intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are commonly used for a variety of respiratory diseases. Chronic steroid use is a well-known risk factor for elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma regardless of route of administration. This study aimed to determine the reported risk of glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT) and IOP elevation associated with ICS and INS use.

Materials and Methods

Systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases from the date of inception identified studies that assess ocular outcomes related to glaucoma in ICS and INS users. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were done independently in duplicate. Meta-analysis assessed glaucoma incidence, OHT incidence and IOP changes in patients using ICS and INS. Study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Study protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020190241.

Results

Qualitative and quantitative analyses included 65 and 41 studies, respectively. Incidence of glaucoma was not significantly different in either ICS or INS users compared to control over 45,457 person-years of follow-up. Similarly, no significant difference in OHT incidence over 4431 person-years was detected. In studies reporting IOP, a significantly higher IOP was observed (0.69 mmHg) in 857 ICS or INS users compared to 615 controls. However, no significant increase in IOP was observed within ICS or INS users when compared to pre-treatment baseline.

Conclusion

Overall, use of ICS or INS does not significantly increase the incidence of glaucoma or OHT. However, ICS and INS patients had significantly higher IOPs compared to untreated patients. Awareness of these findings is significant in care of patients with additional risk factors for glaucoma.

Managing Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps in the Elderly: Challenges and Solutions

The proportion of the population over 65 years old continues to grow. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common in this population and causes a reduction in quality of life and an increase in health care utilization. Diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps follows the same principles for elderly patients as in the general population, but the elderly population presents some diagnostic challenges worth considering. Presbynasalis, the anatomic and functional changes of the nose and paranasal sinuses associated with aging must be accounted for when caring for these patients. In addition, polypharmacy and other medical issues that can cause similar symptoms must be considered. Medical therapy is generally similar to the general population but with additional concerns given the propensity for geriatric patients to be on multiple medications and to suffer from multiple medical issues. Sinus surgery should be considered following the same indications as in the general population. While some authors have found higher complication rates in endoscopic sinus surgery, others have found higher rates of success. As always, the risks of surgery must be considered with the possible benefits on a patient-to-patient basis.

The Effects of Intranasal, Inhaled and Systemic Glucocorticoids on Intraocular Pressure: A Literature Review

Topical glucocorticoids are a well-known risk factor of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation in one third of the general population and in up to 90% of glaucomatous patients. Whether this steroid response is caused by intranasal, inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids, is less known. This study presents an overview of the current literature on the topic, thereby providing guidance on when ophthalmological follow-up is indicated. A literature study was performed in Medline, and 31 studies were included for analysis. Twelve out of fourteen studies discussing intranasal glucocorticoids show no significant association with an elevated IOP. Regarding inhaled glucocorticoids, only three out of twelve studies show a significant association. The observed increase was either small or was only observed in patients treated with high inhaled doses or in patients with a family history of glaucoma. An elevated IOP caused by systemic glucocorticoids is reported by four out of the five included studies, with one study reporting a clear dose–response relationship. This review concludes that a steroid response can be triggered in patients treated with systemic glucocorticoids. Inhaled glucocorticoids may cause a significant IOP elevation when administered in high doses or in patients with a family history of glaucoma. At present, there is no evidence for a clinically significant steroid response caused by intranasally administered glucocorticoids.

Safety of intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis in children

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, affecting about 10-40% of children worldwide. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are the first line anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of pediatric AR. The systemic and local adverse effects of INCSs in children with AR should be assessed.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting local and systemic adverse effects of INCSs in pediatric populations with AR were searched out of PubMed and Embase.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, INCSs displayed a favorable safety profile and high local-systemic balance of bioavailability with a low incidence of adverse events in the treatment of AR children. Nevertheless, the use of INCSs should be designed depending on one patient's response and adverse effects. The benefits and risks of INCSs should be assessed to ensure the clinical efficacy and avoid the insidious events.

Evaluation of the ocular safety associated with the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. Although INCS are generally considered safe and effective, there is a concern that chronic use may lead to ocular adverse effects. Objective: To assess ocular safety of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (EDS-FLU) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Methods: Ocular safety data were collected during two randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies with open-label extensions. Ophthalmologists performed tonometry, slit-lamp, and visual acuity examinations to assess intraocular pressure (IOP) and the presence of cataracts. Ocular examinations were conducted before double-blind treatment, at the end of the 16-week double-blind phase, and at the end of the 8-week open-label phase. The results of pooled data from patients who received EDS-FLU 186 µg (n = 160), EDS-FLU 372 µg (n = 161), and EDS-placebo (n = 161) twice daily are reported here. Results: At the end of the double-blind phase, six patients developed elevated average IOP > 21 mm Hg: two patients (1.2%) in the EDS-placebo group, three patients (1.9%) in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and one patient (0.6%) in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. In addition, 6 of 482 patients developed cataracts: 3 patients in the EDS-placebo group, 2 patients in the EDS-FLU 186 µg group, and 1 patient in the EDS-FLU 372 µg group. At the end of the open-label phase, two additional patients showed IOP > 21 mm Hg and two additional patients developed cataracts. Conclusion: No increased risk of elevated IOP was detected with EDS-FLU; the rate of cataract development was similar to EDS-placebo and to that reported with other INCS.Clinical trials NCT01622569 and NCT01624662, <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov">www.clinicaltrials.gov</ext-link>.

Safety of Intranasal Steroids: an Updated Perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intranasal corticosteroid sprays have been available as over-the-counter (OTC) medications since 2013. As such, clinicians need to be up-to-date with the risks and the safety of INS, as patients may have concerns and detailed questions. The following is a review of the recent medical literature regarding the safety profile, adverse reactions, and special populations using INS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest research on intranasal steroid sprays (INS) continue to confirm that INS rarely have significant local side effects, such as severe and persistent epistaxis. Recent studies looking at systemic side effects such as hypothalamic pituitary axis suppression, growth effects, and ocular effects do not indicate any new concerns nor have found significant differences from the past literature. The use of combination INS and topical antihistamine medications did not reveal any new safety issues. Use of INS with topical decongestants found some limited effects of tachyphylaxis and rebound congestion. Studies continue to support the use of newer INS for children and continued monitoring of growth in this population. The HIV population should avoid use of INS with the prescription of ritonavir, given demonstration of adrenal suppression. This updated perspective has found that newer generation INS should be used at the lowest effective dose for the selected population, that clinicians can inform patients using the OTC INS preparations that there are very few safety concerns, and that regular follow-up visits can provide further reassurance with physical examinations and address patient's questions. Future research regarding the safety of INS should study newer preparations when developed and if used in combination with other topical agents.

Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Safety and Adverse Effects in Adults

Objectives

To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population.

Data Source

Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles.

Review Methods

A structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta-analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA-approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.14; P = .007).

Conclusions

Overall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non-FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

Epistaxis Risk Associated with Intranasal Corticosteroid Sprays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are widely utilized for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Epistaxis is a known adverse effect of INCSs, but it is not known if the risk of epistaxis differs among INCSs.

Data Sources

Systematic review of primary studies identified through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and Cochrane databases.

Review Methods

Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA standard. English-language studies were queried through February 1, 2018. The search identified randomized controlled trials of INCSs for treatment of allergic rhinitis that reported incidence of epistaxis. An itemized assessment of the risk of bias was conducted for each included study, and meta-analysis was performed of the relative risk of epistaxis for each INCS.

Results

Of 949 identified studies, 72 met the criteria for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk of epistaxis of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.32-1.67) for all INCSs. The INCSs associated with the highest risk of epistaxis were beclomethasone hydrofluoroalkane, fluticasone furoate, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate. Beclomethasone aqueous, ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane, and ciclesonide aqueous were associated with the lowest risk of epistaxis. Conclusions about epistaxis with use of budesonide, triamcinolone, and flunisolide are limited due to the low number of studies and high heterogeneity.

Conclusions

While a differential effect on epistaxis among INCS agents is not clearly demonstrated, this meta-analysis does confirm an increased risk of epistaxis for patients using INCSs as compared with placebo for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal Corticosteroids Do Not Lead to Ocular Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The safety and efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are well established, but there remains apprehension that INCS could lead to systemic side effects, as with oral steroids. The objective of this systematic review was to assess whether the use of INCS lead to increased intraocular pressure (IOP) above 20 mm Hg, glaucoma, or formation of posterior subcapsular cataracts in adult patients with rhinitis.

METHODS

Two medical librarians searched the published literature for records discussing the use of "nasal steroids" in "rhinitis" and their effect on "intraocular pressure," "cataracts," or "glaucoma."

RESULTS

A total of 484 studies were identified, and 10 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 2,226 patients revealed that the relative risk of elevated IOP in those who received INCS was 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 7.34) compared to placebo. The absolute increased incidence of elevated IOP in patients using INCS compared to placebo was 0.8% (95% CI: 0% to 1.6%). There were zero cases of glaucoma in both placebo and INCS groups at 12 months. The absolute increased incidence of developing a posterior subcapsular cataract was 0.02% (95% CI: -0.3% to 0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of INCS is not associated with a significant risk of elevating IOP or developing a posterior subcapsular cataract in patients with allergic rhinitis. Presence of glaucoma, however, is the real clinical adverse event of concern. There were zero reported cases of glaucoma at 12 months. Future studies should formally evaluate for glaucoma rather than use IOP measures as a surrogate. Laryngoscope, 129:6-12, 2019.

The effect of long-term use of intranasal steroids on intraocular pressure

Long-term use of topical nasal steroids (especially older generation steroids) has been shown to elevate intraocular pressure (IOP), but newer intranasal steroids are thought to have a minimal effect on IOP because of their low bioavailability. This study aimed to investigate alterations in IOP with two commonly used intranasal steroids for a 6-month period of time. One-hundred allergic rhinitis patients, divided equally into two groups, used mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate intranasal steroids for 6 months. IOPs were measured before treatment and repeated at the 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th weeks of treatment. The IOPs of the groups were then compared. No statistically significant alteration was observed between the groups during the treatment time period. It was found that new generation intranasal steroids can be used safely, and there may not be an increased risk of IOP elevation in prolonged use in normal healthy people.

Factors Associated with Cataract in Korea: A Community Health Survey 2008-2012

PURPOSE

To investigate sociodemographic factors, health behaviors, and comorbidities associated with cataracts in a large, nationally representative Korean sample.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 715554 adults aged 40 years or older who participated in the 2008-2012 Community Health Survey. Significant risk factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis for self-reported cataract, and a nomogram for analysis of cataract risk was generated.

RESULTS

Roughly 11% of participants (n=88464) reported being diagnosed with cataracts by a doctor. Age was the most important independent risk factor [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.11, 99% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.11 for each increasing year]. Significant comorbidities with descending order of effect size (aOR, 99% CI), included diabetes mellitus (1.78, 1.71-1.85), osteoporosis (1.62, 1.56-1.69), arthritis (1.54, 1.48-1.59), hepatitis B infection (1.46, 1.31-1.63), atopic dermatitis (1.50, 1.33-1.69), angina (1.46, 1.35-1.57), allergic rhinitis (1.45, 1.36-1.55), dyslipidemia (1.38, 1.31-1.45), asthma (1.35, 1.26-1.44), and hypertension (1.23, 1.19-1.28). Subjects who sleep less than 6 hours/day were more likely to have cataract than subjects who sleep more than 9 hours/day as a reference group (aOR=1.22, 99% CI, 1.11-1.34).

CONCLUSION

While the most important cataract risk factor was age, the ten comorbidities mentioned above were also significant risk factors. Interestingly, longer duration of sleep was associated with a protective effect against cataract development.

Orbital Complications Associated with the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Orbital injuries from endoscopic sinus surgery are rare but potentially catastrophic. The most feared complications from sinus surgery include blindness and diplopia. Recent publications note that the rate of orbital complications has decreased when compared with the past, reflecting the use of endoscopes, better technology, and improved training. The sinus surgeon must have mastery over the procedure she or he plans to undertake and be aware of the specific potential for orbital injury given the patient's anatomy and disease. The sinus surgeon must also have expert knowledge of the appropriate and immediate medical and surgical management of orbital complications.

Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis

OBJECTIVE

This update of a 2007 guideline from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation provides evidence-based recommendations to manage adult rhinosinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses and nasal cavity. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the update group, evidence from 42 new systematic reviews, enhanced information on patient education and counseling, a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships, expanded opportunities for watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as initial therapy of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), and 3 new recommendations for managing chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in managing adult rhinosinusitis and to create explicit and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specifically, the goals are to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, promote appropriate use of ancillary tests to confirm diagnosis and guide management, and promote judicious use of systemic and topical therapy, which includes radiography, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. Emphasis was also placed on identifying multiple chronic conditions that would modify management of rhinosinusitis, including asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The update group made strong recommendations that clinicians (1) should distinguish presumed ABRS from acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions and (2) should confirm a clinical diagnosis of CRS with objective documentation of sinonasal inflammation, which may be accomplished using anterior rhinoscopy, nasal endoscopy, or computed tomography. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should either offer watchful waiting (without antibiotics) or prescribe initial antibiotic therapy for adults with uncomplicated ABRS; (2) should prescribe amoxicillin with or without clavulanate as first-line therapy for 5 to 10 days (if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic); (3) should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days after diagnosis or worsens during the initial management; (4) should distinguish CRS and recurrent ARS from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms; (5) should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent ARS for multiple chronic conditions that would modify management, such as asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia; (6) should confirm the presence or absence of nasal polyps in a patient with CRS; and (7) should recommend saline nasal irrigation, topical intranasal corticosteroids, or both for symptom relief of CRS. The update group stated as options that clinicians may (1) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation for symptomatic relief of viral rhinosinusitis; (2) recommend analgesics, topical intranasal steroids, and/or nasal saline irrigation) for symptomatic relief of ABRS; and (3) obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent ARS. The update group made recommendations that clinicians (1) should not obtain radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for ARS, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected, and (2) should not prescribe topical or systemic antifungal therapy for patients with CRS.

Allergic rhinitis: current options and future perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis due its high prevalence and burden needs to be properly treated. The disease's clinical features impose well tolerated drugs usable for long-term treatment. Nowadays, second-generation antihistamines and inhaled steroids represent the milestone of rhinitis therapy. The aim of the present review is to provide an update on allergic rhinitis treatment. A particular attention has been deserved to clinical trials, published in the last year that assess the efficacy and safety of new formulation of available drugs or new molecules.

RECENT FINDINGS

Available and new drugs under investigation seem able to control rhinitis symptoms without a significant patient's burden. The challenge for the next years will be to improve treatment adherence rather than to introduce new drugs.

SUMMARY

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines have brought attention to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma, but have also proposed a new classification in terms of symptoms severity and persistence useful for tailoring treatment on patients' phenotypes. Their further dissemination is needed; furthermore, they represent a cornerstone for the scientific community through a continuous update on relevant issues such as rhinitis phenotypes, disease management on the basis of new treatments, clinical trials transferability in real life, and allergic rhinitis management in public health programs.

The anatomical and functional relationship between allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis

There are numerous anatomic connections between the allergic conjunctivitis and allergic rhinitis. The most obvious reason is the physical connection via the nasolacrimal apparatus. However, a closer look at innervation, circulatory, lymphatic, and neurogenic systems reveals much more than a physical connection. The eye is richly innervated by parasympathetic nerves that enter the eyes after traveling in conjunction with the parasympathetic input to the nasal cavity. Parasympathetic innervation governing the tear film and nasal secretion can intersect at the pterygopalatine ganglion. Neurogenic inflammation affects both the eye and the nose as evidenced by the presence of the same neurogenic factors. Venous flow is in the SOV area connecting the eye and the nose, once thought to be without valves. In the past, this thinking is the basis for concern about the danger triangle of the face. Recent literature has shown otherwise. Although valves are present, there are still pathways where bidirectional flow exists and a venous connection is made. The most likely area for venous communication is the pterygoid plexus and cavernous sinus. The venous flow and connections also offers a pathway for allergic shiners. Understanding the mutual connections between the nasal mucosa and the ocular surface can also affect treatment strategies.

Twenty-Four–hour Duration of Effect of Intranasal Corticosteroids for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Symptoms: Clinical Evidence and Relevance

Background

Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms are often most severe and/or disruptive during overnight and morning hours, resulting in cognitive/performance impairments and reduced quality of life throughout the following day. Surveys of allergy patients and health care practitioners reveal a common perception that intranasal steroids (INSs), many of which are dosed q.d., fail to adequately relieve symptoms for a full 24 hours. This review assessed whether perceptions of the 24-hour duration of action of INSs correspond with duration of action documented in clinical literature.

Methods

SAR clinical trial literature of the last 5 years was reviewed to identify studies of INSs incorporating morning instantaneous (A.M. NOW) or instantaneous assessments of 24-hour duration of action.

Results

In numerous placebo-controlled trials of INSs in patients with SAR, treatment was associated with significantly greater improvements in A.M. NOW symptoms from baseline versus placebo. For congestion, this is noteworthy, because patients often cite this symptom, especially in the morning, as the most bothersome symptom. Comparison of A.M. NOW and daily scores suggests minimal drop in efficacy at 24 hours postdose. In several studies, INS treatment was found superior to intranasal or oral antihistamines in A.M. NOW symptom improvement.

Conclusion

Once-daily INSs have potential for effective 24-hour symptom relief; however, there is an apparent disconnect between these findings and patient/physician perceptions. This discrepancy may be explained, in part, by less-than-ideal treatment adherence among “real-world” patients versus subjects treated in clinical trials. Proactive counseling can encourage proper INS use and help maximize treatment benefits.