Over-the-counter intranasal corticosteroids: why the time is now. Pro

Contemporary Incremental Healthcare Costs for Allergic Rhinitis in the United States

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Describe contemporary changes in healthcare expenditure and utilization associated with allergic rhinitis (AR) over the past decade.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

METHODS

Patients reporting a diagnosis of AR were extracted from the 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and linked to the consolidated expenditures file. AR patients were then compared to non-AR patients to demonstrate differences in healthcare utilization for office visits, emergency facility visits, and prescriptions. In addition, differences in total healthcare costs, office-based costs, and prescription costs were calculated, using demographic- and comorbidity-adjusted multivariate models. Results were compared to those obtained in 2007.

RESULTS

In 2018, an estimated 1.94 ± 0.2 million adult patients reported AR (0.8% of the US population receiving medical care), a 90% decrease from the 17.8 ± 0.7 million patients seen in a formal healthcare setting for AR in 2007 (7.9%). AR patients still formally seen in 2018 had an average of 4.4 ± 1.3 more office visits (P = .001) and 9.7 ± 2.2 more prescription fills (P < .001) than non-AR patients. In contrast to the 2007 findings, there was no difference in total health care expenditure per person with AR per year. When comparing total healthcare expenditure between 2018 and 2007, there was a net decrease of $1,176 per person with AR per year (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reporting AR in a formal healthcare encounter fell significantly over the past decade, and per-person expenditure associated with an AR diagnosis also decreased significantly. The transition of nasal corticosteroids to over-the-counter was potentially a key driver behind these changes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

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.