Using intranasal corticosteroids

Budenoside aqueous nasal spray: an updated reappraisal in rhinitis management

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis are prevalent diseases. In western countries, type 2 inflammation usually characterizes these medical conditions and mainly sustains nasal obstruction. Budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) is an intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) that has been available since the early 1980s. BANS is indicated for treating allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis, and nasal polyps (both as treatment and prevention after surgery). Consolidated evidence confirms its efficacy in treating seasonal and perennial AR, and nonallergic rhinitis. In addition, BANS is safe with negligible local and systemic side effects. Recent guidelines for patients with AR recommend using INCS as the first line in many situations. In particular, patients may assess the perception of symptoms' severity using the Visual Analog Scale. A score ≥5/10 means uncontrolled symptoms and requires adequate treatment. BANS could appropriately be used in patients with uncontrolled symptoms and/or moderate/severe nasal obstruction. In conclusion, BANS represents a valuable option in managing patients with type 2 inflammation of the nose.

Development and validation of a pharmacist-led education model in allergic rhinitis management: a multi-phase study

BACKGROUND

Patient education is identified as one of the core and fundamental management strategies in the management of allergic rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed guidance for the management of allergic respiratory disease, and the guidelines are applicable to the international context. The ARIA guidelines for the pharmacy have specifically encouraged the creation of local pharmacist-led intervention in allergic rhinitis management. This study aims to develop a pharmacist-led educational model using a multi-phase study approach.

METHOD

In phase one, we conducted a literature review using four databases to extract relevant articles and clinical practice guidelines published between 2017 and 2022. The information was structured into a questionnaire consisting of patient education material (10 domains with 130 items) and pharmacist counseling scopes (15 domains with 43 items), with each item having a rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) level of agreement. Fifty-two panellists, including otorhinolaryngologists and pharmacists, were invited to complete the questionnaire. A consensus agreement was considered when at least 70% of panellists scored 7 to 9 (critically important). A two-round survey was conducted, and descriptive analysis, inter-rater reliability (≥ 0.5-1 indicate moderate to excellent reliability), variation in the relative interquartile (VRIR < 0.3 indicate good stability), and variation in the coefficient of variation (VCV < 40% considered consensus achieved) were performed. In phase two, patient education material was developed into audio-visual format, and in phase three, patients rated its understandability and actionability using a validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

In the round one Delphi survey, 43 panellists responded, with 171 out of 173 items achieving "consensus agreement" (75.4-100%). In the second survey, 32 out of 43 panellists responded, with most items (171 out of 173 items) stable across rounds and all items had acceptable internal consistency (VCV: - 12.21-15.81). Two items did not achieve "consensus agreement" (64%) but improved in round two (92.9%), however, instability was observed (VRIR: 0.36). These two items were retained in the model due to achieving the minimum level of agreement and internal consistency (VCV = 15.81). Inter-rater reliability was 0.608 and 0.970 in the respective rounds. Patients rated the educational material as understandable (81.8-100%) and actionable (100%).

CONCLUSION

The validated pharmacist-led education model, with its educational materials tested on end-users, provides structured patient education and pharmaceutical care in assisting patients with allergic rhinitis. The educational material allows the delivery of standardized information by the healthcare providers to the patients. Further research on the effectiveness of this model in improving patients' symptom control and quality of life is warranted.

Efficacy of topical steroids for the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of topical steroids on acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction in patients infected with COVID‐19.

Design and Setting

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of cohort studies.

Participants

Patients infected with COVID‐19.

Main outcome measures

PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for articles up to September 2021. We analysed studies comparing the improvement of olfactory dysfunction between topical steroid treatment and control groups (placebo or no treatment). In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis by study type.

Results

The improvement of olfactory score at 2 (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.7272, 95% confidence interval = [0.3851, 1.0692], p < .0001, I² = 62.1%) and 4 weeks post‐treatment (SMD = 1.0440 [0.6777, 1.4102], p < .0001, I² = 61.2%) was statistically greater in the treatment than control group. However, there was no significant difference (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4345 [0.9525, 2.1604], p = .0842, I² = 45.4%) in the incidence of fully recovery from anosmia/hyposmia between the treatment and control groups. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in the improvement of olfactory score at 4 weeks post‐treatment (OR = 0.6177 [0.1309, 1.1045] vs. 0.1720 [0.8002, 1.5438], p = .0761) or the incidence of full recovery from anosmia/hyposmia (OR = 1.8478 [0.6092, 5.6053] vs. 1.3784 [0.8872, 2.1414], p = .8038) between randomised and non‐randomised controlled trials.

Conclusions

Although this meta‐analysis found that topical steroids improved the acute‐onset olfactory dysfunction caused by COVID‐19, there was no difference in the rate of full olfactory recovery between treated and control patients.