General practitioner and patient perspectives on intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis: Treatment duration and obstacles to adherence, findings from a recent survey.

Background and objective: Currently, there are no guideline recommendations for the duration of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to catalogue real-world AR-INCS prescription patterns. Materials and methods: This multicenter, non-interventional, cross-sectional study used online general practitioner (GP) and patient surveys from 4 countries. Eligible GPs had 3-35 years of practical experience, regularly prescribed INCSs for AR treatment, and had managed ≥5 patients with AR per month according to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in the previous year. Eligible patients with AR were non-pregnant females or males, aged 18-65 years, previous AR-INCS users (≥12 months), and receiving GP-prescribed AR therapy. Survey participants were from countries with 15-50% AR prevalence and mostly prescription-only INCS use of ≥100 million units annually (Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Thailand). GP surveys and GP-completed patient record forms (PRFs) gathered AR-care and INCS-use data over 10 months; each GP completed patient record forms (PRFs) for 3 patients with AR under their care. The patient survey reflected actual AR-INCS experience, treatment duration, and adherence factors from patient perspectives. The target sample size was 75 GPs, 75 patients, and ≥30 respondents per country. Results: From 900 GP-PRFs, the mean GP-recommended AR-INCS durations reported were 8.4 (Brazil), 8.3 (Mexico), 5.4 (Spain), and 6.4 (Thailand) weeks. From 300 patient surveys, mean reported INCS recommended durations were 6.4 (Brazil), 5.1 (Mexico), 4.0 (Spain), and 4.9 (Thailand) weeks; reported actual use durations were 6.2, 4.8, 3.6, and 6.4 weeks, respectively. The most frequent GP-PRF-reported factors influencing AR-INCS treatment duration were symptom severity (76-85%), symptom recurrence (49-73%), and existing comorbidities (33-57%). The most frequent GP-PRF-reported obstacles to adherence included forgetting to take medication regularly (54-100%), subsiding symptoms (42-91%), and being unable to continue activities (33-51%). Subsiding symptoms (36-53%) and reaching the prescription duration end (20-51%) were most frequent obstacles reported by the patient survey. Patients from all surveyed countries indicated that they visited the GP, a different physician, or a pharmacy for assistance with symptom recurrence; some patients also self-medicated. Conclusions: Real-world AR-INCS prescription durations vary between countries and actual use tends to be shorter than prescribed. Understanding underlying factors may support appropriate AR-INCS use. The study was not powered to statistically compare intercountry differences; hence, comparisons have not been drawn, and the small sample may not reflect a complete picture of clinical practice and patients with AR in each country.

The impact of intranasal fluticasone on patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnea is the most common type of sleep apnea, which is caused by complete or partial obstructions of the upper airway. Nasal obstruction is also considered as one of the independent risk factors of obstructive sleep apnea. OBJECTIVE: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: We enrolled patients with obstructive sleep apnea from June to December 2015 and treated them with intranasal corticosteroid spray for four weeks. Several parameters were obtained before and after the treatment, including Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scores, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and Epworth Sleepiness Scale questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed questionnaires prior to and following the intranasal fluticasone treatments. The average age was 39.7 ±â€¯15.6 y, with a male to female ratio of 3:2. The post-treatment Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scores all indicated a decrease compared to pre-treatment scores, from 10.4 to 8.74, 7.86 to 6.66 and 9.08 to 6.48, respectively. A significant decrease was observed in the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation ≥10 group in all three categories, but not in the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation <10 group. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal fluticasone treatment may be useful for patients with nasal obstruction-related obstructive sleep apnea to improve sleep quality and limit daytime dysfunction.