Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Shared decision making in allergic rhinitis: An approach to the patient.

OBJECTIVE: To review what is known about the importance of shared decision making (SDM) in allergic rhinitis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PubMed database searches for SDM, patient preferences, patient motivation with mobile apps, over-the-counter medications, adherence, complementary and alternative therapies, nasal steroids, and immunotherapy. STUDY SELECTIONS: No articles directly dealt with the effects of SDM on outcomes in allergic rhinitis. Thus, of the 77 articles produced by these searches, 41 were selected based on the information relevant to evaluating the need for SDM in these patients. RESULTS: Poorly controlled allergic rhinitis continues to be associated with substantial morbidity. Complicating the effective control of the disease is the tendency of patients to self-manage using information from a variety of sources other than health care providers. Although direct evidence in allergic rhinitis is lacking, controlled trials have found the benefits of SDM in improving adherence and outcomes in at least 50 other disease states. Thus, this review explores the aspects of the disease that are complicated by poor adherence, establishing the case for the need for widespread use of SDM techniques. CONCLUSION: Patients are confronted with a complex array of treatment options for allergic rhinitis, and a consistent SDM approach can better equip them to make the requisite care decisions needed to achieve optimal control. Furthermore, improving patient education through SDM provides a framework that enables long-term adherence for maximal outcomes.

Shared decision making for the allergist.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and online patient decision aid resources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion. RESULTS: There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.