Optimal management of nasal congestion caused by allergic rhinitis in children: safety and efficacy of medical treatments

Midnasal stenosis in adults with normative values

Background

Congenital midnasal stenosis has previously been described as a cause of nasal obstruction in infants, and conservative and interventional treatments have been suggested. However, midnasal stenosis in adults has not been reported and related normative measurements have not been studied.

Methods

Three adult patients presented with nasal obstruction and, based on examination and radiological findings, were diagnosed with midnasal stenosis. Anatomical measurements were studied in axial and coronal computed tomography scans, and compared with findings for 161 healthy individuals.

Results

Anatomical measurements showed that the endonasal cavity was larger in males than females. The midnasal region was found to be constricted in patients compared to healthy controls.

Conclusion

This is the first study to report on midnasal stenosis in adults and to define normative anatomical measurements in adults. In patients presenting with nasal obstruction, midnasal stenosis should be suspected during endoscopic visualisation of medially located middle turbinates and uncinate processes in nasal cavities. A definitive diagnosis of midnasal stenosis can be made by examining paranasal sinus computed tomography scans. Endoscopic middle turbinectomy, complete uncinectomy, mega maxillary antrostomy and partial anterior ethmoidectomy have been suggested to relieve midnasal stenosis.

[Effective intranasal GCS application strategy of mono and combines forms in treating patients, suffering from allergic rhinitis. Evidence-based medicine to help a practitioner]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize effective intranasal glucocorticosteroids (GCS) application strategies in treatment of patients, suffering from allergic rhinitis (depending on disease type), based on actual research results. Current study determines the place of fixed intranasal GCS and topic antihistamine medication combination, specifically azelastine and mometasone furoate, as a first line of choice therapy in treatment of patients, suffering from allergic rhinitis. Effective application of stage therapy allows us establish control over allergic inflammation and significantly decrease pharmaceutical load in cases of patients, suffering from allergic rhinitis.

[Allergic rhinitis in children: from diagnosis to therapy]

Allergic rhinitis, according to modern data, affects up to a quarter of the population of developed countries. The disease affects not only the nasal mucosa, but also affects the receptors and mediators of inflammation in the bone marrow. A significant decrease in the quality of life of patients against the background of exacerbation of allergic rhinitis makes us look for new approaches to both the treatment of attacks and their prevention. Correction, including surgical, of concomitant pathology of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses significantly improves the quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis. For a long time, surgical treatment of concomitant pathology of the nasal cavity in children was extremely limited due to the risk of damage to the growth zones and, as a consequence, a high probability of recurrence of deformation of the structures of the nose and paranasal sinuses. With the development of endoscopic methods of surgical treatment of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, operations with minimal invasiveness and, as a consequence, safe at any age were introduced into practice. Surgical intervention on the structures of the lymphoid pharyngeal ring in children with allergic rhinitis is causing heated debate in the pediatric community to date. The article considers modern approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis in children. Topical problems of conservative and surgical treatment are discussed. Special attention is paid to the safety of various treatment regimens. The discussed practical issues of tactics of treatment of allergic rhinitis are relevant for both pediatric allergists and ENT pediatricians.

Clinical and imaging evaluation of Congenital Midnasal Stenosis

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the clinical and radiological presentation of a rare etiology of nasal obstruction in neonates, midnasal stenosis (MNS), including a comparison of nasal dimensions with those of normal infants.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical charts and computerized tomography (CT) imaging of neonates with nasal obstruction diagnosed as stenosis in the midnasal area in a tertiary pediatric medical center. MNS was defined clinically by inability to visualize the middle turbinate with an endoscope despite the absence of stenosis of the anterior aperture or any gross septal deviation. CT measurements of the midnasal width were taken by an experienced neuroradiologist. We compared widths between the bony inferior turbinate to the bony septum in the narrowest area of symptomatic patients, to widths in a control group of asymptomatic children.

RESULTS

Nine neonates from birth to three months old presenting with nasal obstruction, severe stertor, and blocked nasal passage at the midnasal level in endoscopic examination, were diagnosed with MNS. 6/9 had CT scans. Four had isolated unilateral stenosis, two unilateral MNS and contralateral choanal atresia, and three bilateral MNS. All patients were managed conservatively, initially with nasal saline irrigation and local steroids and topical antibiotics; Median time to resolution of symptoms was 14 days. When comparing the dimensions at the midnasal narrowest area of the stenotic group with a control group of 139 healthy children, the median bony width was 1.7 mm vs. 3.2 mm, respectively (p < 0.00001). Average dimensions according to age groups until the age of 12 months are given.

CONCLUSION

In neonates with nasal obstruction, when choanal atresia and pyriform aperture stenosis are excluded, stenosis of the midnasal area should be considered. Most of these neonates can be managed conservatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Pattern of allergic rhinitis among children in Ekiti, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic and recurrent nasal condition. It is often neglected in children with late presentation. This study aimed at determining the prevalence, sociodemographic features, comorbid illnesses, complications and quality of life in children with allergic rhinitis in the study institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective hospital based study of children with allergic rhinitis in Ekiti state university teaching hospital, Ado Ekiti. The study was carried out in ENT department over a period of two years (between June 2015 to May 2017). Informed consent was obtained from the parents/guardian/patients and consented patients were enrolled into the study. Data were obtained by pretested interviewers assisted questionnaire. Details of their history, physical examination and investigations were carried out and findings were documented. All data obtained were descriptively analysed using SPSS version 18.0 and presented in simple tables and charts. Ethical clearance was sought for and obtained from the ethical committee of the hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 4341 patients were seen out of which 265 were children with allergic rhinitis. Prevalence of allergic rhinitis in children in this study was 6.1%. There were 63.0% males with male to female ratio of 2:1. Allergic rhinitis was peaked at preschool age group (1-5 years) accounted for 47.9%. A total of 42.3% participants were living in urban setting while 57.7% were from rural setting. Majorities (40.4%) of the patients were in nursery and parent's major occupation was mainly farming in 27.2%. There was positive family history of allergy in 54.7% patients. Perennial allergic rhinitis were noted in 63.8% patients while seasonal allergic rhinitis were noted in 36.2% patients. Major form of allergens was inhalant 81.8% and the least form of allergen was ingestant 5.7%. The commonest identified trigger factors among the study population were as follows: dust, cold weather and smoke which were accounted for 59.6%, 37.4% and 18.9% of the study patients respectively. Other noted triggering factors were soap and perfume which accounted for 4.2% and 1.1% respectively. Major associated comorbid illnesses among the patients were tonsils hypertrophy, adenoid hypertrophy and inferior turbinate hypertrophy which accounted for 55.5%, 46.4% and 40.4% respectively. Clinical presentations of allergic rhinitis in this study were mainly 75.8% nasal blockage, 65.3% runny nose and 8.5% recurrent sneezing. Commonest complications of allergic rhinitis were 35.1% pharyngitis, 32.1% otitis media and 28.3% headache. Treatment of allergic rhinitis leads to improvement on the clinical features in 90.1% patients. No significant improvement in clinical features were noticed in 9.8% patients. None of the studied patients reported worse clinical condition after treatment of allergic rhinitis. No mortality was recorded from allergic rhinitis in this study.

CONCLUSION

Allergic rhinitis affect all paediatric age group and there were delayed presentation in the participants. There were associated comorbid illnesses, complications and affectation of quality of life at presentation in majority of the patients.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets as a disease-modifying add-on treatment option to pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is associated with a significant health and economic burden, and is often accompanied by asthma. Pharmacotherapies are the mainstay treatment options for AR and asthma, but guidelines also recommend allergy immunotherapy (AIT). Unlike pharmacotherapies, AIT has the ability to modify the underlying immunologic mechanisms of AR and asthma with the potential for long-term benefits after treatment is discontinued. Immunotherapy may also prevent progression of AR/C to asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a self-administered alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy that provide the benefits of AIT without the cost and inconvenience of frequent office visits or the discomfort of injections. SLIT-tablets are also an option that can be utilized by primary care clinicians. Pharmacotherapies are generally effective in mild disease although a number of patients remain uncontrolled. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for AR in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Indirect comparisons indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or comparable efficacy compared with traditional pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR, and superior efficacy for perennial AR. House dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant benefits for asthma, with significant observed reductions in daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are well tolerated, with minimal risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are oral site reactions such as oral pruritus and throat irritation. Based on the favorable efficacy and safety profile, as well as the convenience of at-home oral administration and disease-modifying effects, SLIT-tablets should be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C, and as an add-on treatment for HDM allergic asthma.

Decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation for acute sinusitis in children

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines or nasal irrigation in improving symptoms of acute sinusitis in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (1950 to June 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, which evaluated children younger than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 662 studies identified through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.

Allergic Rhinitis in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial Targeted at Symptoms

Allergic rhinitis (AR) underlies many symptoms and complications which severely affect children's quality of life. This two-arm study aimed at evaluate the efficacy and safety of the medical device Narivent(®) versus topical corticosteroids in the symptomatic management of allergic rhinitis in paediatric patients. A randomized study was conducted. Forty subjects with a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis were randomized to receive one puff of Narivent(®) into each nostril twice daily for 30 days (n = 20) or to receive one puff of topical intranasal corticosteroid into each nostril twice daily for 30 days (n = 20). In both treatment arms, severity of major symptoms related to AR, including nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, was assessed subjectively on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. Nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing improved significantly after 30 days of treatment with Narivent(®). Similarly, in topical steroids group severity of all subjective symptoms decreased significantly. Narivent(®) appears to be efficacious in treating nasal congestion and other major symptoms in children with AR over a 30-day period, showing comparable results to intranasal corticosteroids therapy but with a better safety profile.

An overview of the pediatric medications for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis, cough, and cold

Upper respiratory infections and allergic rhinitis are common diseases in children. In recent years, U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been promoting pediatric drug development with marketing exclusivity incentives and requirements. The assessment of clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety data has facilitated pediatric drug development and provided appropriate labeling for pediatric use. Regulatory decision making involves multiple evaluation processes, including drug exposure comparison between adult and pediatric population, formulation bridging, dose selection, and evaluation of efficacy and safety in pediatric patients. This article reviews the pediatric drugs indicated for cough, cold, and allergic rhinitis, focusing on the utility of clinical pharmacology, safety, and efficacy data in determining the pediatric dosing regimen and the approaches taken for regulatory decision making.

Decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation for acute sinusitis in children

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. We considered the following four interventions: 1) decongestants versus placebo or no medication, 2) antihistamines versus placebo or no medication, 3) decongestant and antihistamine combination versus placebo or no medication, 4) nasal irrigation versus no irrigation. The primary outcomes of the review were symptom resolution (improvement in symptom score from enrolment to day five and overall symptom burden (as measured by average symptom scores while on therapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2012, Issue 1), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to January week 3, 2012) and EMBASE (1950 to January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which evaluated children less than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 526 studies found through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.

Allergic rhinitis in children

Allergic rhinitis affects up to 40% of children but is commonly undiagnosed. Careful assessment of nasal symptoms allows for the most appropriate therapeutic options to be chosen. Allergen avoidance is often difficult in practice. Antihistamines are of limited benefit in allergic rhinitis caused by house dust mite and other perennial allergens, where symptoms, predominantly nasal obstruction, are not histamine mediated. In contrast, symptoms triggered by pollen, such as nasal itch, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, are relieved by antihistamines. Intranasal steroids are the treatment of choice for persistent moderate-severe allergic rhinitis and are more effective than antihistamines for relief of nasal obstruction. Failure to respond to intranasal medications is often caused by poor compliance or inefficient use of nasal sprays. Immunotherapy may be a useful, if expensive, option, particularly where symptoms are because of a specific pollen. The benefits of immunotherapy in house dust mite-induced rhinitis and asthma remain controversial.

Safety considerations in the management of allergic diseases: focus on antihistamines

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.

RESULTS

Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.

Decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation for acute sinusitis in children

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. We considered the following four interventions: 1) decongestants versus placebo or no medication, 2) antihistamines versus placebo or no medication, 3) decongestant and antihistamine combination versus placebo or no medication, 4) nasal irrigation versus no irrigation. The primary outcomes of the review were symptom resolution (improvement in symptom score from enrolment to day 5) and overall symptom burden (as measured by average symptom scores while on therapy).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to May Week 1, 2010) and EMBASE (1950 to January 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs which evaluated children less than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 402 studies found through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.

Risk of first-generation H(1)-antihistamines: a GA(2)LEN position paper

BACKGROUND

First-generation H(1)-antihistamines obtained without prescription are the most frequent form of self-medication for allergic diseases, coughs and colds and insomnia even though they have potentially dangerous unwanted effects which are not recognized by the general public.

AIMS

To increase consumer protection by bringing to the attention of regulatory authorities, physicians and the general public the potential dangers of the indiscriminate use first-generation H(1)-antihistamines purchased over-the counter in the absence of appropriate medical supervision.

METHODS

A GA(2)LEN (Global Allergy and Asthma European Network) task force assessed the unwanted side-effects and potential dangers of first-generation H1-antihistamines by reviewing the literature (Medline and Embase) and performing a media audit of US coverage from 1996 to 2008 of accidents and fatal adverse events in which these drugs were implicated.

RESULTS

First-generation H(1)-antihistamines, all of which are sedating, are generally regarded as safe by laypersons and healthcare professionals because of their long-standing use. However, they reduce rapid eye movement (REM)-sleep, impair learning and reduce work efficiency. They are implicated in civil aviation, motor vehicle and boating accidents, deaths as a result of accidental or intentional overdosing in infants and young children and suicide in teenagers and adults. Some exhibit cardiotoxicity in overdose.

CONCLUSIONS

This review raises the issue of better consumer protection by recommending that older first-generation H(1)-antihistamines should no longer be available over-the-counter as prescription- free drugs for self-medication of allergic and other diseases now that newer second- generation nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines with superior risk/benefit ratios are widely available at competitive prices.

Allergic rhinitis

Childhood rhinitis may be classified into non-allergic and allergic. Allergic rhinitis is further divided into seasonal and perennial. Seasonal rhinitis is a disease particularly of teenagers and young adults and appears to be less common in primary and pre school age children. In seasonal rhinitis, with relevant grass pollen sensitization, the link between the allergen exposure and rhinitis is clear cut. However, in other situations such as perennial rhinitis and house dust mite allergen sensitization, the link between symptoms and allergen exposure is less certain. Avoidance of allergens often proves to be difficult in practice. Intranasal steroids are the treatment of choice for persistent moderate-severe allergic rhinitis and are more effective than antihistamines for relief of nasal obstruction. Antihistamines are effective for control of histamine related symptoms such as itching, rhinorrhoea and sneezing. The use and benefits of sublingual or injectable immunotherapy in children are controversial.