Nasal irrigation with Glycyrrhiza glabra extract for treatment of allergic rhinitis - A study of in vitro, in vivo and clinical trial.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Glycyrrhiza glabra, a family of licorice and a traditional Chinese medicine with sweet taste and favorable smell, has anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic and immunomodulatory functions. AIM OF THE STUDY: We developed a licorice extract (LE) by using glycyrrhiza glabra and administered it through nasal irrigation to treat allergic rhinitis (AR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: LE was prepared into extract powder, and the anti-inflammatory effect of the LE was evaluated by calcium ionophore-induced activated mast cell model (in vitro). Then, local passive anaphylaxis assays were applied to investigate the anti-IgE-mediated allergic reaction of the LE in mice (in vivo). A developed LE was administered through nasal irrigation to treat AR in clinic settings. A total of 60 participants diagnosed with AR were included in this clinical trial; they were randomly assigned to three interventions: licorice nasal irrigation (LNI), corticosteroid nasal irrigation (CNI), and saline nasal irrigation (SNI). They performed nasal irrigation once a day for 1 month. Both subjective questionnaires (22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22] and visual analog scale [VAS]) and objective examinations (acoustic rhinometry and nasal endoscopy) were used for effectiveness assessments. RESULTS: All three interventions could improve SNOT-22 scores, but the effects of LNI and CNI were more significant. According to VAS scores for nasal blockage, rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal pruritus, postnasal discharge, and olfactory disturbance, the effect of LNI was superior to those of CNI and SNI. The results of rhinometry revealed that LNI significantly improved nasal resistance. Endoscopic analysis showed that both LNI and CNI, but not SNI, could significantly improve turbinate hypertrophy. Moreover, the best procedural comfort was found for LNI, which had no side effects or complications during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: LNI is a natural, safe, and innovative therapy that can effectively treat AR. Its effect is superior to those of CNI and SNI, and it has greatly improved procedural comfort.

Nasal saline irrigation in pediatric rhinosinusitis: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of nasal saline irrigation (NSI) in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life in pediatric patients with acute (ARS) or chronic (CRS) rhinosinusitis. DATA SOURCES: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases (indexed January, 1950 through April, 2017). REVIEW METHODS: Studies assessing the efficacy of NSI in pediatric patients with ARS or CRS were selected for analysis. Outcome measures, including symptom scores and parental surveys, were analyzed. Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract and article. RESULTS: Of the 272 articles identified using our search strategy, only 1 study, focusing on the use of NSI in pediatric ARS, met all inclusion criteria. No studies investigating NSI in pediatric CRS were included for analysis. In general, studies demonstrated significant improvement of symptom scores with the use of NSI in pediatric rhinosinusitis; but, the use of varied outcome measures, control treatments, and NSI delivery made including studies and drawing conclusions difficult. No quantitative meta-analysis could be performed. CONCLUSION: NSI may provide benefit for ARS in children; however, additional high-quality studies with defined outcome measures are needed to determine the quantitative efficacy of this therapy in the pediatric patients with rhinosinusitis-especially in pediatric CRS.

A Case Study of the Neti Pot's Rise, Americanization, and Rupture as Integrative Medicine in U.S. Media Discourse.

In a period of only one decade in the United States, the neti pot shifted from obscure Ayurvedic health device to mainstream complementary and integrative medicine (CIM), touted by celebrities and sold widely in drug stores. We examine the neti pot as a case study for understanding how a foreign health practice became mainstreamed, and what that process reveals about more general discourses of health in the United States. Using discourse analysis of U.S. popular press and new media news (1999-2012) about the neti pot, we trace the development of discourses from neti's first introduction in mainstream news, through the hype following Dr. Oz's presentation on Oprah, to 2011 when two adults tragically died after using Naegleria fowleri amoeba-infested tap water in their neti pots. Neti pot discourses are an important site for communicative analysis because of the pot's complexity as an intercultural artifact: Neti pots and their use are enfolded into the biomedical practice of nasal irrigation and simultaneously Orientalized as exotic/magical and suspect/dangerous. This dual positioning as normal and exotic creates inequitable access for using the neti pot as a resource for increasing cultural health capital (CHC). This article contributes to work that critically theorizes the transnationalism of CIM, as the neti pot became successfully Americanized. These results have implications for understanding global health practices' incorporation or co-optation in new contexts, and the important role that popularly mediated health communication can play in framing what health care products and practices mean for consumers.

Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and decongestant drugs and sometimes antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for URTI symptoms despite a relative lack of evidence for benefit in this clinical setting. This review is an update of the Cochrane review by Kassel et al, which found that saline was probably effective in reducing the severity of some symptoms associated with acute URTIs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of saline nasal irrigation for treating the symptoms of acute URTIs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July week 5, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), CINAHL (1982 to August 2014), AMED (1985 to August 2014) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (DK, BM) independently assessed trial quality with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and extracted data. We analysed all data using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Due to the large variability of outcome measures only a small number of outcomes could be pooled for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five RCTs that randomised 544 children (three studies) and 205 adults (exclusively from two studies). They all compared saline irrigation to routine care or other nose sprays, rather than placebo. We included two new trials in this update, which did not contribute data of sufficient size or quality to materially change the original findings. Most trials were small and we judged them to be of low quality, contributing to an unclear risk of bias. Most outcome measures differed greatly between included studies and therefore could not be pooled. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, one larger trial, conducted with children, did show a significant reduction in nasal secretion score (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48 to -0.14) and nasal breathing (obstruction) score (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19) in the saline group. However, a MD of -0.33 on a four-point symptom scale may have minimal clinical significance. The trial also showed a significant reduction in the use of decongestant medication by the saline group. Minor nasal discomfort and/or irritation was the only side effect reported by a minority of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nasal saline irrigation possibly has benefits for relieving the symptoms of acute URTIs. However, the included trials were generally too small and had a high risk of bias, reducing confidence in the evidence supporting this. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardised and clinically meaningful outcome measures.

Nasal saline irrigation has no effect on normal olfaction: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Nasal saline irrigation is a safe treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis; however, its effect on olfaction is unclear. Cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is a key second messenger in the mechanism of olfaction and has been shown to be associated with smell function. In animal studies, olfactory cilia may be harvested by simple saline preparations. This study aimed to characterize the effect of nasal saline irrigation on smell function. METHODS: Volunteers with normal olfaction were randomized into a control or irrigation cohort. In the initial appointment, subjects completed a University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and nasal samples were obtained by 2 methods: the nasal curette and cytobrush. The irrigation cohort performed daily nasal saline irrigations. Both cohorts then returned in 1 week. The UPSIT and nasal cell collection were repeated, and each subject completed a subjective olfactory transition scale. Nasal samples were processed for cAMP levels using a commercial assay. RESULTS: Thirty-two subjects were enrolled and randomized into each cohort. Control and postirrigation mean UPSIT scores were 36.8 and 36.7 (p = 0.48). No subjects reported a subjective smell loss. Ten pairs of nasal samples were assayed. Using the curette, control and postirrigation cAMP levels were 509 and 490 fmol/(mg/mL), respectively (p = 0.94). Using the cytobrush, respective cAMP levels were 424 and 449 fmol/(mg/mL), respectively (p = 0.94). CONCLUSION: Nasal saline irrigation has no subjective or objective effect on olfaction. It also does not appear to affect cAMP levels, a potential marker of smell function.

Comparison of buffered and nonbuffered nasal saline irrigations in treating allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to study the effect of alkalinity of isotonic nasal saline irrigation on nasal symptoms, mucociliary clearance, nasal patency, and patient's preference in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, three-arm crossover study. METHODS: Patients with AR were enrolled. Three kinds of isotonic nasal saline irrigations: nonbuffered (pH 6.2-6.4), buffered with mild alkalinity (pH 7.2-7.4), and buffered with alkalinity (pH 8.2-8.4) were given one at a time, in different orders. Patients rinsed their nose with 240 ml of one solution twice daily for 10 days and then swapped to the others. The washout period was at least 5 days. Primary outcomes were nasal symptoms, mucociliary clearance time, and nasal patency. Outcomes were compared between baseline and posttreatment and also between various kinds of solution. Secondary outcomes were patients' preference and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects entered the study, and there were no dropouts. Overall nasal symptom was significantly improved from baseline (P = 0.03) only by buffered solution with mild alkalinity. Sneezing was significantly improved from baseline (P = 0.04) only by buffered solution with alkalinity. No other significant improvements were achieved by any solution. When comparing between the three nasal irrigations, there were no differences in all parameters. The patients significantly preferred the buffered solution with mild alkalinity (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Buffered isotonic saline with some degree of alkalinity may improve nasal symptoms. Isotonic saline irrigations, regardless of alkalinity, may not improve mucociliary function and nasal patency. Buffered isotonic saline with mild alkalinity is the most preferred.

Hypertonic saline is more effective than normal saline in seasonal allergic rhinitis in children.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a very common childhood disease that is associated with a significant reduction in the patients' quality of life. Its treatment combines educating the patients and their parents, immunotherapy and drug administration. However, even the best approach does not relieve the symptoms of a number of patients. Alternative therapies are particularly needed for children because the fear of adverse events frequently reduces parental compliance to the prescribed drugs, and immunotherapy is less easy to administer than in adults. In this prospective investigator-blinded study we evaluated whether children, with a documented history of seasonal grass pollen-related AR, benefit from nasal irrigation by assessing the effects on nasal signs and symptoms, on middle ear effusion and on adenoidal hypertrophy. We randomized children aged 5 to 9 years (median age 82 months) to normal saline or hypertonic saline (a 2.7% sodium chloride solution), administered twice-daily using a disposable 20 ml syringe, or no treatment. Nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, nasal obstruction), swelling of turbinates, adenoid hypertrophy or middle ear effusion were assessed at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. Two hundred and twenty children (normal saline: 80; hypertonic saline: 80; no treatment: 60) completed the study. After four weeks, all the considered items were significantly reduced in the group receiving hypertonic saline (P < 0.0001), whereas in the group receiving normal saline only rhinorrhea (P = 0.0002) and sneezing (P = 0.002) were significantly reduced. There was no significant change in any of the items in the control group. The duration of oral antihistamines was significantly lower in the children receiving hypertonic saline than in those treated with normal saline or in controls. No adverse events were reported and parental satisfaction and compliance with the procedure were globally very good, regardless of the solution used. Using our procedure, hypertonic saline is effective, inexpensive, safe, well tolerated and easily accepted by children with seasonal grass pollen-related AR and their parents. Our data suggest that nasal irrigation with hypertonic saline might be included in the wide spectrum of therapies recommended for grass-pollen AR.

Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation, and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and mucolytic drugs, and often antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for chronic or allergic sinusitis, but little is known about its effect on acute URTIs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of saline nasal irrigation in treating the symptoms of acute URTIs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009), EMBASE (1974 to May 2009), CINAHL (1982 to May 2009), AMED (1985 to 2009) and LILACS (May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (DK, GS) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. All data were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs (618 participants) were included. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, there was limited evidence of benefit with nasal saline irrigation in adults. One study showed a mean difference of 0.3 day (out of eight days) for symptom resolution, but this was not significant. Nasal saline irrigation was associated with less time off work in one study. Minor discomfort was not uncommon and 40% of babies did not tolerate nasal saline drops. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Included trials were too small and had too high a risk of bias to be confident about the possible benefits of nasal saline irrigation in acute URTIs. Future trials should involve much larger numbers of participants and be rigorously designed and controlled.