Efficacy of buffered hypertonic saline nasal irrigation in children with symptomatic allergic rhinitis: a randomized double-blind study

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

The Beneficial Effects of Hydrogen-Rich Saline Irrigation on Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Purpose

Chronic rhinitis (CR) is a common chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa. Nasal saline irrigation has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for CR. In this study, we investigated the beneficial effects of hydrogen-rich saline irrigation as an anti-inflammatory irrigation therapy for CR and compared its effectiveness over saline irrigation. Hydrogen-rich saline (HRS) was investigated due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

Methods

A total of 120 patients with CR were randomly divided into two groups, patients irrigated with HR (HRS group) and the control group irrigated with saline (NS group). A randomized, double-blind control study was performed. The main observation index in this study was the total score of nasal symptoms (TNSS). In addition, eosinophilic protein (ECP) of the nasal secretions, nasal nitric oxide (nNO) levels, and levels of regulatory T cells (Treg) and regulatory B cells (Breg) were also compared between the two groups. Furthermore, patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) were also evaluated based on serum-specific IgE positivity.

Results

After treatment, TNSS and nasal ECP in the two groups decreased significantly (P<0.05), with patients in the HRS group showing significantly lower levels compared to the NS group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in Treg and Breg levels between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that TNSS in the AR-HRS group showed a more significant reduction compared to the AR-NS group (P<0.05); however, there were no significant differences for the other inflammatory biomarkers (P>0.05). ECP levels were reduced significantly in the NAR subgroup compared to NS irrigation (P<0.05). There were no obvious adverse events observed in patients during the entire treatment period.

Conclusion

Compared to saline irrigation, HRS nasal irrigation was found to improve CR clinical symptoms, especially in patients with AR. HRS could effectively be used for the clinical treatment of patients with CR.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/8YpkEFCYNzI

[Respiratory physiotherapy in pediatric practice]

Congestion of the upper (URT) and lower respiratory tracts (LRT) is a common symptom in several acute and chronic respiratory diseases that occur in childhood. To eliminate these secretions, airway clearance techniques (ACT) directed to the URT and LRT are frequently prescribed. The rationale for the application of these techniques is the same as in adults, but they need to be adapted to be transposed to children. The physiotherapist will be able to choose among a wide range of techniques, of which the most adequate will depend not only on the age of the child and the indication, but also on the basis of his preferences or habits, as well as those of the child. Upper airway clearance, including nasal irrigation, is now recommended for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis in children. It is also one of the symptomatic treatments recommended for infants with acute bronchiolitis. For LRT clearance, several indications, such as cystic fibrosis, primary ciliary dyskinesia and neuromuscular disease, are now widely advocated. Conversely, other indications, such as for infants with acute viral bronchiolitis, are highly controversial. Thoughtful application of these techniques is lacking in robust and precise tools to objectively assess the presence of bronchial congestion, and to treat it accordingly. Similarly, no precise and reliable evaluation of the effectiveness of these ACTs is available to date. This review is designed to explore the ACTs used by physiotherapists, to provide an overview of their current indications, and to consider complementary approaches.

The Role of Seawater and Saline Solutions in Treatment of Upper Respiratory Conditions

The history of saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is indeed a long one, beginning from the ancient Ayurvedic practices and gaining a foothold in the west at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, there is a growing number of papers covering the effects of SNI, from in vitro studies to randomized clinical trials and literature overviews. Based on the recommendations of most of the European and American professional associations, seawater, alone or in combination with other preparations, has its place in the treatment of numerous conditions of the upper respiratory tract (URT), primarily chronic (rhino)sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, acute URT infections and postoperative recovery. Additionally, taking into account its multiple mechanisms of action and mounting evidence from recent studies, locally applied seawater preparations may have an important role in the prevention of viral and bacterial infections of the URT. In this review we discuss results published in the past years focusing on seawater preparations and their use in clinical and everyday conditions, since such products provide the benefits of additional ions vs. saline, have an excellent safety profile and are recommended by most professional associations in the field of otorhinolaryngology.

Optimal Device and Regimen of Nasal Saline Treatment for Sinonasal Diseases: Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.

Review Methods

Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.

Results

Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.

Conclusion

Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.

Aberrant expressions of circulating lncRNA NEAT1 and microRNA‐125a are linked with Th2 cells and symptom severity in pediatric allergic rhinitis

Objective

Long noncoding RNA nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (lnc‐NEAT1) and its target microRNA‐125a (miR‐125a) are reported to regulate immune and inflammation process in allergic rhinitis (AR). Hence, this study intended to investigate the correlation between lnc‐NEAT1 and miR‐125a expressions, as well as their clinical values in pediatric AR patients.

Methods

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples from 80 pediatric AR patients, 40 disease controls (DCs), and 40 healthy controls (HCs) were collected to detect lnc‐NEAT1 and miR‐125a expressions by reverse transcription‐quantitative polymerase chain reaction. For pediatric AR patients only, serum interferon‐gamma (IFN‐γ) and interleukin (IL)‐10 were measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay; meanwhile, T helper (Th) 1 and Th2 cells in CD4⁺ T cells were analyzed by flow cytometry.

Results

Lnc‐NEAT1 was overexpressed, while miR‐125a downregulated in pediatric AR patients compared to DCs and HCs (all p < 0.001). Moreover, lnc‐NEAT1 expression negatively correlated with miR‐125a expression in pediatric AR patients (p = 0.002), but not in DCs (p = 0.226) or HCs (p = 0.237). Furthermore, in pediatric AR patients, lnc‐NEAT1 expression positively associated with TNSS (p < 0.001), sneezing score (p = 0.006), and congestion score (p = 0.008); miR‐125a expression was negatively related to TNSS (p < 0.001), itching score (p = 0.040), and sneezing score (p = 0.005). Additionally, lnc‐NEAT1 expression positively, while miR‐125a expression negatively correlated with Th2 cells and IL‐10 (all p < 0.05), but they were not correlated with Th1 cells or IFN‐γ in pediatric AR patients.

Conclusion

Circulating lnc‐NEAT1 and miR‐125a are aberrantly expressed and linked with Th2 cells and symptom severity in pediatric allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy of sodium hyaluronate in relieving nasal symptoms of children with intermittent allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Nasal irrigation is recommended as add-on therapy in patients with intermittent allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of adding hyaluronic acid (HA) or normal saline solution (NSS) to nasal corticosteroid (NC) therapy as add-on therapy in improving quality of life and reducing nasal symptom scores of children with intermittent AR compared to NC therapy.

METHOD

In this 28-day long, open-label, randomized controlled trial, one puff of NC was administered once a day through both nostrils of 76 children with SAR (6-12 years old), whose Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was ≥ 4. Twenty-six patients received NC only (Group 1); 24 patients received NSS (Group 2), and 26 patients received HA (Group 3) twice a day by means of nasal douche device. Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) and TNSS were measured as subjective parameters, and nasal eosinophil count (NEC) in nasal cytology, nasal airflow (NAF), and resistance were measured as objective parameters.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in post-treatment between groups in terms of TNSS, PRQLQ, and NEC values. Mean values of post-treatment left NAF of the groups were significantly different (p = 0.030), and the mean value of Group 3 was the highest (mean ± SD = 247.62 ± 155.8 ccm/sn). In comparing pre- and post-treatment intragroup mean total NAR (TNAR) values, a statistically significant decrease was recorded only in group three (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

The addition of HA to NC as an adjunct therapy in children with intermittent AR has limited beneficial effects in our study and deserves further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRY

The clinical trial registration number ID:NCT04752956.

Comparison of Isotonic Seawater Nasal Spray Containing Chamomile Liquid Extract and Other Isotonic Seawater Nasal Washing Solutions for Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

We aim to demonstrate the effect of an isotonic seawater spray containing chamomile liquid extract on symptoms and nasal mucociliary clearance in patients with allergic rhinitis by comparing it with other isotonic seawater nasal washing solutions.

METHODS

The study included 123 patients. Based on Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines, mometasone furoate intranasal spray treatment was started for all patients in the group diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. In addition to this treatment, isotonic seawater spray with chamomile liquid extract was added to Group A, isotonic seawater spray to Group B, and isotonic seawater nasal irrigation to Group C. The fourth group (Group D) was given only nasal steroid spray without nasal washing treatment. Before and after treatment in all patients, the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 was performed, and nasal mucociliary clearance times were measured by the saccharin test.

RESULTS

The differences in duration of nasal mucociliary clearance and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 values were taken before and after treatment. In Group A, B, C, and D the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 differences were statistically significant (P ≤.001; P ≤ .001; P ≤ .001, and P = .048, respectively). Only Group A and Group B experienced a significant difference in nasal mucociliary clearance times (P ≤ .001; P = .010, respectively). When the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 score and nasal mucociliary clearance time differences before and after treatment were compared between all groups, the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 score difference was higher in Group A than in Groups B, C, and D, the differences were found as statistically significant (P = .010; P = .003; P ≤ .001, respectively). The nasal mucociliary clearance time difference was higher in Group A than in Groups C and D, the differences were found as statistically significant (P = .010; P = .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Isotonic seawater spray containing chamomile liquid extract is seen as a good alternative treatment option for allergic rhinitis patients.

Efficacy of buffered hypertonic seawater in different phenotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps after endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Nasal douching is commonly used as a postoperative management strategy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Few studies to date have compared the effectiveness of nasal douching in CRSwNP phenotypes after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). We evaluated the efficacy of seawater types in eosinophilic CRSwNP (ECRSwNP) and noneosinophilic CRSwNP (nonECRSwNP) after ESS.

METHODS

Patients with bilateral CRSwNP who had undergone ESS were blindly randomized to receive buffered hypertonic seawater (BHS) (n = 48) or physiological seawater (PS) (n = 45). CRSwNP patients were stratified by phenotypes (ECRSwNP and nonECRSwNP) retrospectively according to whether tissue eosinophils exceeded 10%. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 2, 8, 16, and 24 weeks after surgery. Evaluations included the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), visual analog scale (VAS), Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (LKES), saccharine clearance time (SCT), and adverse events.

RESULTS

All of the patients experienced significant improvements in SNOT-22 scores, VAS scores, and LKES over time. BHS resulted in better improvement of LEKS and SCT relative to PS at 8 weeks postoperatively. Mucosal edema formation was significantly reduced with less crusting among HBS recipients at 8 weeks. After stratification, only patients in the nonECRSwNP + BHS subgroup showed a significant improvement in LEKS and SCT at 8 weeks postoperatively. Side effect profiles were not significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BHS has a better inhibitory effect on mucosal edema and crusting during the early postoperative care period of CRSwNP. Among all of the patients, nonECRSwNP patients showed a significant improvement in LEKS and SCT at 8 weeks.

Role of nasal saline irrigation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children and adults: A systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aims to access the efficacy of nasal saline irrigation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in adults and children.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched databases up to December 2018. Differences in efficacy between saline irrigation and other treatments were compared. Subgroup analyses of discrepancy in effects between children and adults were performed.

RESULTS

(1) Saline irrigation vs. no irrigation, in both children and adults groups, saline irrigation showed significant efficacy. (2) Saline+medication vs. medication, in children group, there was no statistical difference of efficacy between saline+medication and medication; in adults group, efficacy of saline+medicine was superior to that of medication. (3) Saline irrigation vs. medication, in children group, there was no statistical difference between efficacy of saline irrigation and medication; in adults group, efficacy of medication was superior to that of saline irrigation. (4) Hypertonic saline vs. isotonic saline, for children, efficacy of hypertonic saline was superior to that of isotonic saline. Additionally, no adults reported adverse events in all trials. Adverse effects were reported during the first nasal irrigation in 20 children, and one child withdrew due to adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Saline irrigation can significantly improve symptoms of AR in children and adults. Saline irrigation can serve as a safe adjunctive treatment to medication of AR in adults. Saline irrigation can be an alternative therapy for children and pregnant women with AR. Efficacy of hypertonic saline may be better than that of isotonic saline in treating AR of children.

Budesonide vs Saline Nasal Irrigation in Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objectives

Budesonide nasal irrigation is currently widely used in the treatment of chronic sinusitis typically following endoscopic sinus surgery to improve inflammatory control. Its application in treatment of allergic rhinitis has not been previously studied. This study assesses the subjective and clinical response to budesonide buffered hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and hypertonic saline nasal irrigation in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Study Design

This is a prospective, single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Setting

Tertiary care hospital.

Subjects and Methods

Fifty-two patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis were randomized into 2 groups to receive either buffered hypertonic saline nasal irrigation with a placebo respule or buffered hypertonic saline nasal irrigation with a budesonide respule. Patients were assessed at baseline and 4 weeks subjectively using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test–22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS). Clinical assessment was done using the modified Lund-Kennedy score.

Results

The average SNOT-22, VAS, and modified Lund-Kennedy scores improved in both groups ( P < .001). The budesonide irrigation group was found to have significantly better improvement than the saline nasal irrigation group with the SNOT-22 scores ( P = .012) and VAS scores ( P = .007). However, the difference in the clinical response between the 2 groups was not significant ( P = .268).

Conclusion

This study adds evidence to the use of saline nasal irrigation in allergic rhinitis but also demonstrates efficacy of the addition of budesonide to irrigations. Budesonide nasal irrigation thus appears to be a viable treatment option for allergic rhinitis.

Relationship between nasal mucociliary clearance and disease severity in children with allergic rhinitis: A comparative cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Mucociliary clearance (MCC) is impaired due to chronic inflammation in allergic rhinitis. Our aim was to evaluate MCC in children with allergic rhinitis, to determine its relationship with disease severity and evaluate MCC change after nasal irrigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Saccharin test was performed in 51 patients with allergic rhinitis and in 50 controls. Nasal irrigation was performed to the patients and saccharin test was repeated at the 10th minute. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) results were recorded. Patients were divided into mild/moderate-severe groups according to TNSS, VAS, and ARIA guidelines. Nasal MCC time (NMCCT) of the patients and the controls and NMCCT before and after nasal irrigation of the patients were compared. Correlations between NMCCT and TNSS/VAS were evaluated. NMCCTs of the mild and moderate-severe groups were compared. The cut-off values ​​were calculated to discriminate the patient group.

RESULTS

The mean NMCCT of the patient group was higher than the controls. Mean NMCCTs were different between before and after irrigation. NMCCT was higher in uncontrolled/moderate-severe groups than in controlled/mild groups. NMCCT correlated positively with VAS and TNSS. The sensitivity and specificity of NMCCT>535s were found to be 86.27% and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with allergic rhinitis, the prolongation of MCC may be identified with the easily applicable saccharin test, the deterioration in MCC increases as disease severity increases. Nasal irrigation is important in children with allergic rhinitis to improve MCC.

Effectiveness of Hypertonic Saline Nasal Irrigation for Alleviating Allergic Rhinitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to explore the efficacy of hypertonic saline nasal irritation (HSNI) for improving nasal symptoms and quality of life, and for decreasing oral antihistamine consumption in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Chinese Electronic Periodicals Service, and Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials databases for prospective randomized, controlled trials assessing HSNI effects in children with AR and published before December 2017. Two authors independently assessed each trial's quality and extracted data for a meta-analysis. We included four trails comprising 351 patients. HSNI improved patients' nasal symptom scores (mean difference 1.82 points after treatment; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.35⁻3.30; I² = 64%; p = 0.02) and a significantly lower rescue antihistamine use rate (risk ratio (RR), 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48⁻0.95; I² = 28%; p = 0.02). Analyses comparing HSNI with isotonic saline nasal irrigation (ISNI) showed better nasal symptom scores (mean difference, 1.22 points; 95% CI, 1.01⁻1.44; I² = 0%; p < 0.001) in patients in the HSNI group, although the antihistamine use (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.64⁻1.10; I² = 0%; p = 0.2) and adverse effect rates were similar between groups. Compared with ISNI, HSNI may be a reasonable adjunctive treatment for children with AR.

Influence of Intranasal Drugs on Human Nasal Mucociliary Clearance and Ciliary Beat Frequency

The nasal mucociliary clearance system, which comprises epithelial cilia and mucus from goblet cells, is an important intrinsic defense mechanism of the upper respiratory tract. Intranasal drugs and additives can have a detrimental effect on ciliary activity and mucociliary clearance, and thus impact the integrity of nasal defense mechanisms. This article discusses the current literature on the effects of different classes of intranasal drugs including intranasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, decongestants, antimicrobials and antivirals, as well as various drug excipients and nasal irrigation solutions on human nasal mucociliary clearance and ciliary beat frequency. Available data indicate that some intranasal formulations tend to hamper nasal ciliary function and mucociliary clearance. Therefore, it is of great importance to assess the effects of intranasal drugs and additives on mucociliary function before they are recommended as therapy for different nasal conditions.

Effect of the temperature of nasal lavages on mucociliary clearance: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The respiratory epithelium is mainly constituted by caliciform (produces mucus, responsible of keeping moisture and trapping particles) and ciliated cells (transports mucus into the pharynx, by the movement of multiple cilia). For centuries, nasal lavages have been used for different rhinosinusal conditions. Some studies suggest not only a direct effect on the mobilisation of secretions, but also an improvement in mucociliary clearance rates. To our knowledge, the impact of temperature in nasal lavages has been scarcely studied.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

We used the saccharin test-applying it in the inferior turbinate and timing the detection of its taste-, to estimate mucociliary clearance rates before and after nasal lavages with saline solution at room (20 °C) or body (37 °C) temperatures.

RESULTS

78 healthy subjects were studied, with a mean saccharin test time of 13.88 min. Then, a nasal lavage was performed, half with 20 °C saline and the other with 37 °C. In both, times improved from baseline (from 13.66 to 11.59 and 14.06 to 9.4 min, respectively) with p values < 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal lavages with saline solution improve mucociliary clearance as measured by saccharin test. Temperature seems to matter, which should be taken into account when indicating nasal lavages to our patients.

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.

Hypertonic Saline Versus Isotonic Saline Nasal Irrigation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background Saline nasal lavage is one of the treatments of sinonasal diseases. Evidence from basic research favors hypertonic saline (HS) over isotonic saline (IS) for mucociliary clearance, but evidence from clinical studies is controversial. Conversely, HS may carry greater side effects. Objective To compare the effects of HS and IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. Methods Systematic search with Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Manual additional sources was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing HS with IS nasal irrigation in treating any sinonasal diseases, including rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, were included. Data were pooled for meta-analyses. Outcomes were symptom scores, sinonasal outcome test (SNOT), and adverse events. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses. Results Nine studies (740 patients) were included. HS nasal irrigation brought greater benefits over IS in symptom reduction (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.76, -0.40); however, no difference was shown in SNOT-20 improvement (mean difference 1.81; 95% CI: -0.68, 4.30). In subgroup analyses, effects favoring HS on symptoms were larger in 4 subgroups. These were (1) patients with rhinitis (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) compared with rhinosinusitis (SMD -0.37; 95% CI: -0.58, -0.15), P < .01; (2) patients under the age of 18 years (SMD -1.22; 95% CI: -1.53, -0.91) compared with patients over the age of 18 years (SMD -0.26; 95% CI: -0.49, -0.04), P < .01; (3) saline irrigation using high volume (SMD -0.89; 95% CI: -1.18, -0.60) compared with low volume (SMD -0.39; 95% CI: -0.62, -0.16), P < .01; and (4) saline irrigation with hypertonicity of <3% (SMD -1.09; 95% CI: -1.42, -0.76) and hypertonicity of 3%-5% (SMD -1.20; 95% CI: -1.61, -0.78) compared with hypertonicity of >5% (SMD 0.20; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.55), P < .01. Buffered saline and operative status did not have impact. HS brought greater minor adverse effects. No major adverse effects were reported. Conclusion HS improves symptoms over IS nasal irrigation in treating sinonasal diseases. There is no difference in disease-specific quality of life. However, HS brings greater minor side effects than IS.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Efficacy of Buffered Hypertonic Saline Nasal Irrigation for Nasal Symptoms in Children with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Saline nasal irrigation is labelled as an add-on treatment in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 21-day use of buffered hypertonic saline (BHS) versus normal saline solution (NSS) on reducing nasal symptoms in children with seasonal AR (SAR). Comparing their efficacy on nasal cytology counts (NCC), quality of life, and sleep quality was the secondary aim.

METHODS

In this 21-day, open-label, randomized controlled study, 36 SAR children (aged 6-13 years) with a Total 5 Symptom Score (T5SS) ≥5 received twice-daily BHS or NSS delivered through a nasal douche. Efficacy measures were least square mean changes (LSmc) in T5SS, NCC, Paediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores.

RESULTS

BHS improved the T5SS total score to a greater extent than NSS (LSmc -6.45 vs. -5.45, p < 0.001). Concerning NCC, BHS significantly reduced the scores of neutrophils (LSmc -0.76, p = 0.004) and eosinophils (LSmc -0.46, p = 0.018), while NSS did not. Similarly, only BHS yielded a significant improvement in the PRQLQ score (LSmc -0.57, p = 0.009), whereas the improvement in PSQI score was comparable between the BHS (LSmc -0.77, p = 0.025) and NSS (LSmc -1.39, p < 0.001) groups. Overall, BHS was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with SAR, BHS is effective in improving nasal symptoms and NCC, with an associated beneficial effect on quality of life.

The acceptability and tolerability of nasal douching in children with allergic rhinitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a significant issue in children. Treatment options include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy. The use of nasal saline douching (NSD) in children has recently gained acceptability. However, there is limited data regarding the acceptability and tolerability of NSD in children with AR.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline and Embase databases from January 1946 until June 2015 on the use of NSD in children aged 4-12 years with AR. All publications identified that assessed the beneficial effects, acceptability and tolerability were included.

RESULTS

40 studies were analyzed. Data varied considerably in terms of saline solutions used, modality of application, participant numbers, study design, follow up and outcomes. Factors that appear to influence the acceptability and tolerability of NSD include parental and health professionals' preconceptions, and characteristics of the solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal saline douching appears to be effective, being accepted and tolerated in the majority of children (78-100%). NSD has a significant positive impact on the quality of life in children with allergic rhinitis. When used as an adjunctive treatment having mainly a cleansing property, NSD potentiates the effects and may reduce the dose required of AR medications. Among the principal factors that influence the acceptability and tolerability of NSD are the child's age, delivery system and method, and tonicity. Nasal saline douching provides an accessible, low cost, low morbidity, easy to use treatment in children with allergic rhinitis.

Nasal Irrigation as Treatment in Sinonasal Symptoms Relief: A Review of Its Efficacy and Clinical Applications

Nasal irrigations have been used for centuries without any scientific data to determine its efficacy. Despite their widespread use, much confusion exist about the mechanism of action, preparation, indications and therapeutic advantage of nasal irrigations. Anecdotal evidence and poorly controlled studies add to the confusion. Recent evidence provides strong scientific justification of the benefits and advantages of using nasal irrigations in sinonasal symptoms relief. The present review of the evidence based literature highlights its efficacy and clinical applications.

Nasal Rinsing with an Atomized Spray Improves Mucociliary Clearance and Clinical Symptoms during Peak Grass Pollen Season

Background

Nasal rinsing with an atomizer spray was found to be effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Two parameters express the nasal functions: (1) mucociliary clearance (MCC), and (2) the pH and its stability. MCC is the main factor that defines the time of pollen transition on the nasal mucosa and, therefore, the amount of the allergen glycoprotein elution.

Objective

We hypothesized that the nasal wash efficacy could be due to the reduction of contact time of the grass pollen on the nasal mucosa (improving MCC).

Methods

Forty patients with seasonal grass pollen oculorhinitis were randomized in two groups: 20 received three times daily nasal rinsing with hypertonic solution buffered to pH 6.1, before and during the peak pollen season in 2015 (active group), and another 20 patients were allocated to the control group and received no nasal treatment. The daily symptoms score and the use of oral antihistamines when required were evaluated during the grass pollen peak season. All the patients completed the study.

Results

In comparison with the control group, in the active group, a significant decrease of both nasal symptoms (p = 0.01) and consumption of antihistamines (p = 0.035) was found. Furthermore, the MCC was significantly worse (p = 0.011) only in the control group.

Conclusion

The nasal treatment maintained the efficiency of the MCC in the patients in the active group, who showed a significant reduction of symptoms and medication score. The MCC decreased the transit time of the pollen on the nasal mucosa, which favored an elution of the allergenic proteins.

Comparison between the use of saline and seawater for nasal obstruction in children under 2 years of age with acute upper respiratory infection

BACKGROUND/AIM

The effectiveness of isotonic and hypertonic saline solutions used to open the nasal passage and improve clinical symptoms was compared in children under 2 years of age admitted with the common cold.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was performed as a randomized, prospective, and double-blind study. The study included 109 children. The children using saline (0.9%) and seawater (2.3%) as nasal drops (the patient group) and the control group (in which nasal drops were not administered) were compared. Seventy-four patients received nasal drops from package A (seawater) in single days and from package B (physiological saline) in double days.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 9.0 ± 3.9 months and the numbers of boys and girls were 65 (59.6%) and 44 (40.4%), respectively. There was no significant difference between Groups A and B in terms of nasal congestion (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found between the control group and Groups A and B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Relief was seen in nasal congestion, weakness, sleep quality, and nutrition with the use of both saline and seawater in children with the common cold. Seawater or saline drops may be added to standard treatment protocols.

Variations in peak nasal inspiratory flow among healthy students after using saline solutions

Introduction

Nasal hygiene with saline solutions has been shown to relieve congestion, reduce the thickening of the mucus and keep nasal cavity clean and moist.

Objective

Evaluating whether saline solutions improve nasal inspiratory flow among healthy children.

Methods

Students between 8 and 11 years of age underwent 6 procedures with saline solutions at different concentrations. The peak nasal inspiratory flow was measured before and 30 min after each procedure. Statistical analysis was performed by means of t test, analysis of variance, and Tukey's test, considering p < 0.05.

Results

We evaluated 124 children at all stages. There were differences on the way a same concentration was used. There was no difference between 0.9% saline solution and 3% saline solution by using a syringe.

Conclusion

The 3% saline solution had higher averages of peak nasal inspiratory flow, but it was not significantly higher than the 0.9% saline solution. It is important to offer various options to patients.

Food and environmental allergies

Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic responses to food and environmental allergens can cause symptoms ranging from mild allergic rhinitis and rashes to gastrointestinal distress and, most seriously, anaphylaxis. The diagnosis can be difficult, as it relies on complex interplay between patient history and diagnostic tests with low specificity. Adding to the difficulty in confirming the diagnosis is an increased public interest in food intolerances, which can be inappropriately attributed to an allergic response. Treatment of allergic diseases with avoidance strategies and pharmacologic treatments can improve quality of life and control of other chronic conditions, such as asthma and eczema.

Hyperactivity and impulsivity in children with untreated allergic rhinitis: corroborated by rating scale and continuous performance test

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common chronic allergic disease in school-age children. An increased prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in AR patients has been reported; however, inattention and hyperactivity in AR children have not been investigated using objective and scientific measurements.

METHODS

We used AR symptom score, ADHD symptom scale, and computerized continuous performance test (CPT) to study the attention and impulsivity in AR children, age-matched controls, and ADHD children (aged 6-15 years). Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were applied to identify risk factors for impulsivity and inattention in AR children.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine controls, 10 ADHD, and 105 AR children were enrolled. There were no differences in age and sex among the three groups. The scores of Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscales of ADHD symptoms from both parents and teachers were significantly higher in the AR children. The CPT in AR children revealed higher commission errors, shorter reaction times, and more perseveration. Risk factors for inattention and impulsivity in AR children included younger age, male sex, higher AR symptom scores, persistent AR, moderate/severe AR, multiple atopic diseases, family history of atopy, and possible comorbidity with ADHD.

CONCLUSION

Care for AR children should not only involve treating their allergy, but also monitoring the possible comorbidities of impulsivity and inattention. In children with impulsivity, AR should be considered in addition to ADHD.

Subacute rhinitis in infants: gastroesophageal reflux must be considered

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to evaluate the influence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and allergy on subacute rhinitis in infants.

METHODS

Mothers of 74 infants with subacute rhinitis completed the Infant Gastroesophageal Reflux Questionnaire Revised. Participants with GERD were randomized to undergo one of the following regimens for 10 days: use of fluorometholone nasal drops with positional and feeding changes; positional and feeding changes; or a placebo.

RESULTS

The daily amount of nasal secretion decreased by 75.9% (p < 0.001), the intensity of swallowing difficulty by 79.2% (p < 0.001), and the incidence of uneasiness by 92.0% (p < 0.001) in infants treated with nasal glucocorticoid and positional and feeding changes; and the percentage differences in the amount of nasal secretion (p < 0.001), feeding difficulty (p < 0.001), and uneasiness (p < 0.001) were greater than those in the group treated with positional and feeding changes. The infants treated with placebo did not improve. The influence of nasal allergy was nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease might contribute to aggravation of subacute rhinitis in infants.