Allergic diseases in the elderly

Demographic distribution of the population is progressively changing with the proportion of elderly persons increasing in most societies. This entails that there is a need to evaluate the impact of common diseases, such as asthma and other allergic conditions, in this age segment. Frailty, comorbidities and polymedication are some of the factors that condition management in geriatric patients. The objective of this review is to highlight the characteristics of allergic diseases in older age groups, from the influence of immunosenescence, to particular clinical implications and management issues, such as drug interactions or age-related side effects

Rhinitis in the geriatric population

The current geriatric population in the United States accounts for approximately 12% of the total population and is projected to reach nearly 20% (71.5 million people) by 2030[1]. With this expansion of the number of older adults, physicians will face the common complaint of rhinitis with increasing frequency. Nasal symptoms pose a significant burden on the health of older people and require attention to improve quality of life. Several mechanisms likely underlie the pathogenesis of rhinitis in these patients, including inflammatory conditions and the influence of aging on nasal physiology, with the potential for interaction between the two. Various treatments have been proposed to manage this condition; however, more work is needed to enhance our understanding of the pathophysiology of the various forms of geriatric rhinitis and to develop more effective therapies for this important patient population

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

A multicenter survey on the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices in rhinosinusitis patients

Background: Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for rhinosinusitis. However, there is little information available regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was thus to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients with rhinosinusitis. Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey study between November 2017 and December 2019. The questionnaire was developed based on the available literature and expert opinion and submitted to the otolaryngology residents and staff of each center as well as those in their networks. Results: Four hundred eighteen patients were enrolled in this study: 76 with acute viral rhinosinusitis (18%), 53 with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (13%), 156 with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (37%), and 133 with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (32%). We found that high-volume devices were most effective in helping to clear secretion in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .017, .009, .002, respectively) and in reducing post-nasal drip in those with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .040). There were no statistically significant differences among devices in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Conclusions: Nasal irrigation with high-volume devices was an effective treatment for rhinosinusitis and was more effective at clearing nasal secretion and reducing post-nasal drip than that with other types of devices. Level of Evidence: 2C