Oral Phenylephrine HCl for Nasal Congestion in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Open-label, Placebo-controlled Study

The Use and Efficacy of Oral Phenylephrine Versus Placebo Treating Nasal Congestion Over the Years on Adults: A Systematic Review

Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.

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.

A Synopsis of Guidance for Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Management From ICAR 2023

An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Consensus Statement from the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology

The goal of allergic rhinitis (AR) management is to achieve satisfactory symptom control to ensure good quality of life. Most patients with AR are currently treated with pharmacotherapy. However, knowledge gaps on the use of pharmacotherapy still exist among physicians, particularly in the primary care setting, despite the availability of guideline recommendations. Furthermore, it is common for physicians in the secondary care setting to express uncertainty regarding the use of new combination therapies like intranasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine combinations. Inadequate treatment leads to significant reduction of quality of life that affects daily activities at home, work, and school. With these concerns in mind, a practical consensus statement was developed to complement existing guidelines on the rational use of pharmacotherapy in both the primary and secondary care settings.

Why Is Oral Phenylephrine on the Market After Compelling Evidence of Its Ineffectiveness as a Decongestant?

Ineffective over-the-counter (OTC) drugs should be removed from the US market. Despite solid research showing that oral phenylephrine is ineffective as a decongestant, the US Food and Drug Administration has failed to respond to a 2015 citizen's petition to remove it from the OTC nasal decongestant monograph. Other examples of scientifically proven ineffective OTC medications include guaifenesin as an expectorant, dextromethorphan as a cough suppressant, and chlorpheniramine for cold symptoms.

Macrolactin A as a Novel Inhibitory Agent for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro: Bioinformatics Approach

COVID-19 is a disease that puts most of the world on lockdown and the search for therapeutic drugs is still ongoing. Therefore, this study used in silico screening to identify natural bioactive compounds from fruits, herbaceous plants, and marine invertebrates that are able to inhibit protease activity in SARS-CoV-2 (PDB: 6LU7). We have used extensive screening strategies such as drug likeliness, antiviral activity value prediction, molecular docking, ADME, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, and MM/GBSA. A total of 17 compounds were shortlisted using Lipinski’s rule in which 5 compounds showed significant predicted antiviral activity values. Among these 5, only 2 compounds, Macrolactin A and Stachyflin, showed good binding energy of −9.22 and −8.00 kcal/mol, respectively, within the binding pocket of the M^pro catalytic residues (HIS 41 and CYS 145). These two compounds were further analyzed to determine their ADME properties. The ADME evaluation of these 2 compounds suggested that they could be effective in developing therapeutic drugs to be used in clinical trials. MD simulations showed that protein–ligand complexes of Macrolactin A and Stachyflin with the target receptor (6LU7) were stable for 100 nanoseconds. The MM/GBSA calculations of M^pro–Macrolactin A complex indicated higher binding free energy (−42.58 ± 6.35 kcal/mol). Dynamic cross-correlation matrix (DCCM) and principal component analysis (PCA) on the residual movement in the MD trajectories further confirmed the stability of Macrolactin A bound state with 6LU7. In conclusion, this study showed that marine natural compound Macrolactin A could be an effective therapeutic inhibitor against SARS-CoV-2 protease (6LU7). Additional in vitro and in vivo validations are strongly needed to determine the efficacy and therapeutic dose of Macrolactin A in biological systems.

Use of Nonmedicated Control Substances in Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis

Importance

The effect of nonmedicated control substances in chronic rhinosinusitis remains unclear.

Objective

To assess the association of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials with disease outcomes in patients diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Data Sources and Study Selection

In this single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials with a preintervention and postintervention design for chronic rhinosinusitis that were published between 1946 and January 23, 2019.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment to rate the quality of the evidence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the association of nonmedicated control substances with 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores or nasal symptom scores when SNOT-22 was not available.

Results

A total of 2305 abstracts were identified and screened, 725 articles were reviewed in full text, and 38 articles met the study criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 38 included studies, a total of 2258 adults (mean age range, 27-53 years; 20.0%-72.5% women) were randomized to receive nonmedicated control substances or sham interventions. Topical nonmedicated control substances were associated with significant reduction in SNOT-22 scores (mean difference [MD], -8.81; 95% CI, -12.60 to -5.03). A subgroup analysis of topical therapies, limited to saline irrigation and nasal spray diluents, found that topical diluents were associated with a greater reduction in SNOT-22 scores (MD, -11.45; 95% CI, -13.50 to -9.41) compared with saline irrigation (MD, -13.60; 95% CI, -19.95 to -7.25). Nonmedicated control substances were associated with a significant reduction in nasal obstruction scores (standardized MD [SMD], -0.42; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.03). No significant change was found in rhinorrhea scores (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -1.37 to 0.69), postnasal drip scores (SMD, -0.96; 95% CI, -2.18 to 0.25), facial pain scores (SMD, -0.57; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.55), or loss of smell scores (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of nonmedicated control substances in randomized clinical trials of chronic rhinosinusitis outcomes suggests that the use of nonmedicated control substances is associated with limited improvements in SNOT-22 and nasal obstruction scores. These findings highlight potential areas of future research directions and the importance of randomized clinical trials to accurately estimate treatment effect.

Contemporary Role and Regulation of Over-the-Counter Sinonasal Medications

OBJECTIVE

Numerous pharmaceutical options are available over-the-counter (OTC) for the relief of sinonasal symptoms. Patients typically utilize these drugs in an unsupervised manner, without appreciation of their relative efficacy or potential for adverse effects. This review covers the scope and regulation of the OTC drug market, the pros and cons of OTC availability, and specific concerns that surround the most common classes of OTC sinonasal drugs. Suggestions are provided for the improvement of patient care and public health.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE publications and market reports.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature review.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the most commonly used OTC sinonasal remedies, including decongestants and first-generation antihistamines, are less effective than alternative drugs and pose potential safety concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinicians should advocate to their patients for the appropriate use of alternative agents, such as intranasal corticosteroids and newer-generation antihistamines, and discourage the unsupervised use of oral and topical decongestants. Furthermore, health care practitioners should encourage dialogue with their patients about the use of OTC sinonasal remedies, with the goals of optimizing individual health and health care delivery.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

High-dose phenylephrine increases meningeal blood flow through TRPV1 receptor activation and release of calcitonin gene-related peptide

BACKGROUND

The α₁ -adrenoceptor agonist, phenylephrine, is used at high concentrations as a mydriatic agent and for the treatment of nasal congestion. Among its adverse side-effects transient burning sensations are reported indicating activation of the trigeminal nociceptive system.

METHODS

Neuropeptide release, calcium imaging and meningeal blood flow recordings were applied in rodent models of meningeal nociception to clarify possible receptor mechanisms underlying these pain phenomena.

RESULTS

Phenylephrine above 10 mM dose-dependently released calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) from the dura mater and isolated trigeminal ganglia, whereas hyperosmotic mannitol at 90 mM was ineffective. The phenylephrine-evoked release was blocked by the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) antagonist BCTC and did not occur in trigeminal ganglia of TRPV1-deficient mice. Phenylephrine at 30 mM caused calcium transients in cultured trigeminal ganglion neurons responding to the TRPV1 agonist capsaicin and in HEK293T cells expressing human TRPV1. Local application of phenylephrine at micromolar concentrations to the exposed rat dura mater reduced meningeal blood flow, whereas concentrations above 10 mM caused increased meningeal blood flow. The flow increase was abolished by pre-application of the CGRP receptor antagonist CGRP_8-37 or the TRPV1 antagonist BCTC.

CONCLUSIONS

Phenylephrine at high millimolar concentrations activates TRPV1 receptor channels of perivascular afferents and, upon calcium inflow, releases CGRP, which increases meningeal blood flow. Activation of TRPV1 receptors may underlie trigeminal nociception leading to cranial pain such as local burning sensations or headaches caused by administration of high doses of phenylephrine.

SIGNIFICANCE

Phenylephrine is used at high concentrations as a mydriaticum and for treating nasal congestion. As adverse side-effects burning sensations and headaches have been described. Phenylephrine at high concentrations causes calcium transients in trigeminal afferents, CGRP release and increased meningeal blood flow upon activation of TRPV1 receptor channels, which is likely underlying the reported pain phenomena.

Prospective trial examining safety and efficacy of microcurrent stimulation for the treatment of sinus pain and congestion

Background

Inflammation and swelling of the sinus and nasal mucosa are commonly caused by viral infection, bacterial infection, or exposure to allergens and irritants. Sinonasal inflammation can cause symptoms of nasal congestion, facial pressure, and rhinogenic facial pain or “sinus pain”. A previous randomized controlled study demonstrated that acute treatment with non-invasive periorbital microcurrent stimulation resulted in a rapid and clinically meaningful reduction in self-report of sinus pain that significantly outperformed sham control treatment. Here, we assessed the acute durability of microcurrent pain relief and longitudinal effects of 4 weeks of daily microcurrent treatment in patients presenting with sinus pain.

Methods

Thirty subjects with moderate facial pain (numeric rating scale ≥5) attributed to self-reported sinonasal disease were enrolled in a single-arm, prospective interventional study. At enrollment, subjects were given a microcurrent treatment device and written instructions and self-administered the device to the bilateral periorbital regions for 5 mins. Subjects were instructed to treat themselves at home once daily and up to four times daily as needed for 4 weeks. Pain was measured both acutely and weekly during the 4 weeks of treatment using the numeric rating scale. Congestion and medication use data were collected weekly using the Congestion Quantifier 7 (CQ7) and medication diary, respectively.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled and completed the study. Microcurrent therapy rapidly reduced post-treatment numeric rating scale for pain by − 1.2 at 10 mins (p = 0.0076), − 1.6 at 1 hr (p = 0.0007), − 1.9 at 2 hrs (p < 0.0001), − 2.1 at 4 hrs (p < 0.0001), and − 2.1 at 6 hrs (p < 0.0001). With daily microcurrent treatment, numeric rating scale for pain was reduced over 4 weeks by − 1.3 (− 20.1%) after 1 week (p = 0.0018), − 2.1 (− 32.1%) after 2 weeks (p < 0.0001), − 2.4 (− 36.6%) after 3 weeks (p < 0.0001) and − 2.9 (− 43.3%) after 4 weeks (p < 0.0001). For subjects who enrolled with moderate or worse congestion, mean congestion scores (CQ7) were reduced by − 4.2 (− 22.0%) after 1 week (p < 0.0001), − 5.8 (− 33.0%) after 2 weeks (p < 0.0001), − 7.2 (− 37.4%) after 3 weeks (p < 0.0001) and − 8.6 (− 44.3%) after 4 weeks (p < 0.0001) of microcurrent treatment.

Conclusion

Self-administered periorbital microcurrent treatment given at home was efficacious in significantly reducing moderate sinus pain for up to 6 hrs and significantly reducing moderate pain and congestion over 4 weeks of daily use. Microcurrent therapy was found to be safe with only minor side effects that resolved without intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03888274. Registered 25 March 2019. Retroactively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03888274.

Medical Treatment of Nasal Airway Obstruction

Nasal obstruction is a common, and potentially debilitating, problem. It is caused by a combination of structural factors and/or mucosal swelling/inflammation. The medical treatment of nasal obstruction is aimed at decreasing mucosal inflammation and edema and is generally guided by the underlying cause. Several different drug classes are commonly used in the treatment of nasal obstruction, each with different indications, and pros and cons to their use. This article discusses the most commonly used therapies for nasal obstruction. Current evidence on the efficacy and side effect profile of each therapy is reviewed.

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.

Management of allergic rhinitis in the era of effective over-the-counter treatments

Allergic rhinitis (AR) may be regarded as a trivial issue unworthy of the doctor's time, and with the availability of many different over-the-counter (OTC) treatments, up to two thirds of patients self-manage AR before seeking medical care. Yet, AR can have a significant impact on health-related quality of life and is associated with a greater detriment to work productivity than other chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. For many patients, the impact on quality of life is greater than suggested by reported symptoms and should also be a focus of treatment. Although many patients can effectively manage AR symptoms independently, a significant percentage will need direction from a physician to obtain optimal results. The availability of several different classes of treatment - including decongestants, sedating and non-sedating antihistamines, and more recently intranasal corticosteroids (INS) - has increased the complexity of self-management, leaving patients confused about the best approach to treatment. Treatment guidelines universally classify INS as the most effective medical agents available for use in the OTC and primary care settings. Many patients are unaware that INS are available OTC and that they are more effective than other therapies. Patients may have negative perceptions about the safety of INS and may have experienced unpleasant taste, scent, and feel with nasal sprays. Unless a patient volunteers the information, healthcare professionals (HCPs) may be unaware that the patient has significant AR and is using one or more OTC AR therapies. To address this gap in communication, HCPs must be proactive in identifying, assessing, and advising patients with AR, including best strategies to assess allergen trigger symptoms, which treatments are appropriate, and when and how to use them. Proper use of delivery devices is especially important. This article reviews the primary care management of AR in the context of the availability of effective OTC medicines.

Position statement of the Brazilian Academy of Rhinology on the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes, and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of inflammatory sinonasal diseases

Introduction

Inflammatory conditions of the nose and paranasal sinuses are very prevalent in the general population, resulting in marked loss of quality of life in affected patients, as well as significant work, leisure, and social activity losses. These patients require specific and specialized treatment. A wide range of oral medications are available.

Objective

The present document is aimed to clarify, for professionals treating patients with inflammatory sinonasal diseases, both specialists and general practitioners, specific oral therapies in noninfectious nasal inflammatory conditions.

Methods

The methodology used to create this article included the search for the key words: oral corticosteroids, antihistamines, antileukotrienes, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in the last 5 years. Since no relevant article was found for the text on the subject of interest in the last 5 years, the search was extended for another 5 years, and so on, according to the authors’ needs.

Results

Relevant literature was found regarding the use of antihistamines, antileukotrienes and oral corticosteroids in these conditions. The Brazilian Academy of Rhinology emphasizes, after extensive discussion by the collegiate, key points in the treatment with these drugs.

Conclusion

There is support in the literature for the use of these drugs; however, final considerations about the role of each of them have been made.

Phenylephrine hydrochloride modified-release tablets for nasal congestion: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Over-the-counter phenylephrine hydrochloride (PEH) is used for relief of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis; however, data to support its efficacy are lacking. The US Food and Drug Administration recommended clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH in patients with this condition.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEH 30-mg modified-release (MR) tablets in patients with nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group study.

METHODS

Eligible adults at least 18 years old with documented hypersensitivity to fall pollen allergens were randomized to PEH-MR or placebo every 12 hours for 7 days from August 30 to October 12, 2011. The primary end point was mean change from baseline during the entire treatment period in daily reflective nasal congestion score. Secondary end points included changes in other symptom score assessments, time to maximal effect, duration of effect, and quality of life. Safety assessments included adverse events, serious adverse events, vital signs, physical examination, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Of 575 patients, 288 received PEH-MR and 287 received placebo. No significant beneficial difference was detected between PEH-MR and placebo for the primary end point (PEH-MR, mean -0.394, SD 0.4880; placebo, mean -0.412, SD 0.5383; P = .2655). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for most secondary end points or quality of life. Overall, 89 of 575 patients (15.5%), equally distributed between the PEH-MR and placebo groups, experienced at least 1 treatment-emergency adverse event.

CONCLUSION

PEH-MR 30-mg tablets taken orally every 12 hours for 7 days is not more efficacious than placebo in relieving nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01413958, protocol CL2011-06.