Intranasal antihistamine and corticosteroid to treat allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Nasal Disorders

Nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, and epistaxis are common presenting concerns in primary care clinics. Nasal disorders affect the quality of life for many children and families. Rarely, these complaints may represent a life-threatening condition among infant obligate nasal breathers or cases of unusual pathology. The most common causes of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction vary by age and include physiologic, infectious, allergic, foreign body, irritant, and traumatic causes. Less commonly, children may have congenital malformations, sinonasal masses, or autoimmune disease. The most common causes of epistaxis are inflammatory, environmental, and traumatic causes and medication misuse, but rarely, children may have predisposing anatomic, hematologic, or vascular abnormalities or even sinonasal tumors. In this article, we provide a thorough review of the common nasal disorders treated every day in primary care clinics and mention briefly some of the rare but serious cases that may be overlooked without considering a full differential diagnosis.

Intranasal Morphology Transformation Nanomedicines for Long-Term Intervention of Allergic Rhinitis

Intranasal administration has been widely explored as a potential treatment for allergic rhinitis, and improving intranasal penetration and retention of drugs is a challenging requirement to further improve efficacy. Delivery strategies of nanocarriers that enhance mucosal adhesion or mucus penetration have been proposed to improve nasal drug delivery; however, delivery efficiency remains limited by excessive pulmonary deposition and nonspecific cell phagocytosis. In this work, a "nasal in situ assembly" strategy was presented to construct intranasal morphology transformation nanomedicines with enhanced effective drug concentration for long-term intervention of allergic rhinitis. The polymer-polypeptide nanomedicine (PHCK) with a CCR3 antagonistic peptide (C) and a pH-responsive polyethylene glycol (H) was developed, encapsulating ketotifen (KT). PHCK nanoparticles displayed nasal mucosa permeability and transformed to nanofibers in the acidic environment of the nasal cavity, realizing responsive burst release of KT simultaneously. The fibrotic reassembly reduced the cellular internalization of nanomedicine and increased the CCR3 blockade on the eosinophil (EOS) membranes. Both in vitro and in vivo data indicated that PHCK achieved improved drug accumulation and retention in the nasal cavity and decreased pulmonary deposition, then effectively inhibited mast cell degranulation and EOS chemotaxis. This study demonstrates that the "nasal in situ assembly" strategy can improve drug delivery efficiency upon nasal responsive morphologic transformation, providing exploratory perspectives for nasal delivery platforms establishment and boosting therapeutic effect of allergic rhinitis.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 1. Update in Pharmacotherapy

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life (QOL) of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence while considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines of AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine (INAH) combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.