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Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials.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.

Females have stronger neurogenic response than males after non-specific nasal challenge in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Epidemiological studies show female predominance in the prevalence of non- allergic rhinitis (NAR) and local allergic rhinitis (LAR). Experimental studies show female patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) demonstrate higher levels of sensitivity to irritants and airway hyperresponsiveness than males. Bronchial asthma shows female predominance in post-puberty patients, and gender interaction with severe asthma endotypes. Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine and chronic cough, syndromes, which are commonly related to neurokinin substance P (SP) in the literature, also show strong female predominance. Studies have demonstrated that sex hormones, primarily oestrogens, affect mast cell activation. Mast cell proteases can amplify neurogenic inflammatory responses including the release of SP. Based on human epidemiological data and animal experimental data we hypothesized that female patients have different interaction between mast cell activation and neurogenic inflammation, i.e. substance P release, resulting in a different nasal symptom profile. To test the hypothesis we performed allergen and non-specific nasal challenges in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) out of season and looked for gender differences in subjective and objective responses. The interaction between subjective and objective reactivity was evaluated through the comparison of subjective symptom scores, concentrations of neurokinin substance P (SP) and cellular markers in nasal lavages after low doses of nasal allergen challenges. Female allergic subjects tended to have higher substance P (SP) concentrations both before and after non-specific challenges. The difference between post-allergen and post - hypertonic saline (HTS) challenge was highly significant in female patients (p = 0.001), while insignificant in male subjects (p = 0.14). Female patients had significantly stronger burning sensation after HTS challenge than male. These data indicate difference in the interaction between inflammatory cells and the neurogenic response, which is gender- related, and which may affect symptom profiles after challenges. Different regulation of neurogenic inflammation in females may have impact on symptoms and endotyping in respiratory disorders, not only in allergic rhinitis, but also asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis and irritant -induced cough.

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual care One trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroids One trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.

Nasal corticosteroid treatment reduces substance P levels in tear fluid in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying conjunctival symptom reduction by nasal corticosteroids in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis are unknown. A naso-ocular reflex may be present. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of nasal fluticasone furoate (FF) on conjunctival symptoms and substance P and histamine levels in tear fluid after nasal grass pollen provocation (GPP). METHODS: A double-blind placebo-controlled study was performed in 26 grass pollen-allergic patients. A selective GPP was performed during the grass pollen season after 2 weeks of FF or placebo treatment. Nasal and conjunctival symptoms were scored using a visual analog scale (VAS), and tear fluid was collected for measuring substance P and histamine using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, FF reduced conjunctival symptom scores during the pollen season (-1.75 [-2.75, 0.20] vs 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]; P = .01) and after GPP at 15 minutes (0.05 [-0.42, 1.52] vs 2.05 [0.62, 3.62]; P < .001) and 1 hour (-0.45 [-1.75, 0.1] vs 0.05 [-0.97, 1.85]; P < .01). Treatment with FF decreased substance P levels in tear fluid (44.11 [32.81, 61.02] vs 65.26 [48.62, 79.73] pg/mg protein; P = .0098). Histamine levels in tear fluid showed a GPP-induced increase in the placebo group (7.26 [3.12, 9.69] vs 5.71 [2.05, 7.00] ng/mg protein; P = .02), but not in the FF group (6.77 [3.43, 13.00] vs 5.24 [3.18, 7.06] ng/mg protein; P = .08). CONCLUSION: FF nasal spray reduced conjunctival symptoms in grass pollen-allergic patients in parallel with lower substance P levels in tear fluid. These data help in understanding the reduction of conjunctival symptoms by intranasal anti-inflammatory therapy.

SQ-standardized sublingual grass immunotherapy: confirmation of disease modification 2 years after 3 years of treatment in a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The main aim of specific immunotherapy is sustained effect due to changes in the immune system that can be demonstrated only in long-term trials. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sustained efficacy and disease modification in a 5-year double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, including 2 years of blinded follow-up after completion of a 3-year period of treatment, with the SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet, Grazax (Phleum pratense 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU,(∗) ALK, Denmark) or placebo. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational, phase III trial included adults with a history of moderate-to-severe grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without asthma, inadequately controlled by symptomatic medications. Two hundred thirty-eight participants completed the trial. End points included rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores, combined scores, asthma symptom and medication scores, quality of life, days with severe symptoms, immunologic end points, and safety parameters. RESULTS: The mean rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score was reduced by 25% to 36% (P ≤ .004) in the grass allergy immunotherapy tablet group compared with the placebo group over the 5 grass pollen seasons covered by the trial. The rhinoconjunctivitis DMS was reduced by 20% to 45% (P ≤ .022 for seasons 1-4; P = .114 for season 5), and the weighted rhinoconjunctivitis combined score was reduced by 27% to 41% (P ≤ .003) in favor of active treatment. The percentage of days with severe symptoms during the peak grass pollen exposure was in all seasons lower in the active group than in the placebo group, with relative differences of 49% to 63% (P ≤ .0001). Efficacy was supported by long-lasting significant effects on the allergen-specific antibody response. No safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: The results confirm disease modification by SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in addition to effective symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

The 'unified airway': the RCPCH care pathway for children with asthma and/or rhinitis.

AIMS: The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) Science and Research Department was commissioned by the Department of Health to develop national care pathways for children with allergies: the asthma/rhinitis care pathway is the third such pathway. Asthma and rhinitis have been considered together. These conditions co-exist commonly, have remarkably similar immuno-pathology and an integrated management approach benefits symptom control. METHOD: The asthma/rhinitis pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary working group and was based on a comprehensive review of evidence. The pathway was reviewed by a broad group of stakeholders including the public and was approved by the Allergy Care Pathways Project Board and the RCPCH Clinical Standards Committee. RESULTS: The pathway entry points are defined by symptom type and severity at presentation. Acute severe rhinitis and life-threatening asthma are presented as distinct entry routes to the pathway, recognising that initial care of these conditions requires presentation-specific treatments. However, the pathway emphasises that ideal long term care should take account of both conditions in order to achieve maximal improvements in disease control and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The pathway recommends that acute presentations of asthma and/or rhinitis should be treated separately. Where both conditions exist, ongoing management should address the upper and lower airways. The authors recommend that this pathway is implemented locally by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with a focus on creating networks. The MDT within these networks should work with patients to develop and agree on care plans that are age and culturally appropriate.

Long-term clinical efficacy in grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis after treatment with SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet.

BACKGROUND: Sustained and disease-modifying effects of sublingual immunotherapy have never before been confirmed in a large-scale randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate sustained efficacy 1 year after a 3-year period of daily treatment with the SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet Grazax (Phleum pratense 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial including adults with a history of moderate-to-severe grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis inadequately controlled by symptomatic medications. The analysis set comprised 257 subjects at the follow-up. Efficacy end points were rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores, quality of life, and percentages of symptom and medication free days. Immunologic end points included grass pollen-specific serum IgG4 and IgE-blocking factor. Safety was assessed based on adverse events. RESULTS: Significant improvements in efficacy were consistently shown during 3 years' treatment. One year after treatment, the active group showed sustained reductions in mean rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores (26%, P < .001) and medication scores (29%, P = .022) when compared with placebo. This level was similar to the efficacy observed during the 3-year treatment period. The differences in percentages of symptom- and medication-free days were significant during and 1 year after treatment. The active group also reported sustained and significant improvements in quality of life. Sustained clinical benefit was accompanied by immunologic changes. No safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: Three years of treatment with the SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet resulted in consistent clinical improvement and accompanying immunologic changes that were sustained 1 year after treatment, which is indicative of disease modification and associated long-term benefits.