The hidden burden of adult allergic rhinitis : UK healthcare resource utilisation survey

Funding Funding for this survey was provided by Meda Pharma.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Non-allergic rhinitis: a case report and review

Rhinitis is characterized by rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion, nasal itch and/or postnasal drip. Often the first step in arriving at a diagnosis is to exclude or diagnose sensitivity to inhalant allergens. Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) comprises multiple distinct conditions that may even co-exist with allergic rhinitis (AR). They may differ in their presentation and treatment. As well, the pathogenesis of NAR is not clearly elucidated and likely varied. There are many conditions that can have similar presentations to NAR or AR, including nasal polyps, anatomical/mechanical factors, autoimmune diseases, metabolic conditions, genetic conditions and immunodeficiency. Here we present a case of a rare condition initially diagnosed and treated as typical allergic rhinitis vs. vasomotor rhinitis, but found to be something much more serious. This case illustrates the importance of maintaining an appropriate differential diagnosis for a complaint routinely seen as mundane. The case presentation is followed by a review of the potential causes and pathogenesis of NAR

Molecular mechanisms of glucocorticoids action: implications for treatment of rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis

Intra-nasal glucocorticoids are the most effective drugs available for rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis treatment. Their effectiveness depends on many factors and not all of them have been well recognized so far. The authors present the basic information on molecular mechanisms of glucocorticoid action, direct and indirect effects of glucocorticoids on transcription of genes encoding inflammatory mediators. They focus on recently proved nongenomic mechanisms which appear quickly, from several seconds to minutes after glucocorticoid administration and discuss clinical implications resulting from this knowledge. Discovery of nongenomic glucocorticoid actions allows for better use of these drugs in clinical practice

Allergic rhinitis: evidence for impact on asthma

BACKGROUND: This paper reviews the current evidence indicating that comorbid allergic rhinitis may have clinically relevant effects on asthma. DISCUSSION: Allergic rhinitis is very common in patients with asthma, with a reported prevalence of up to 100% in those with allergic asthma. While the temporal relation of allergic rhinitis and asthma diagnoses can be variable, the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis often precedes that of asthma. Rhinitis is an independent risk factor for the subsequent development of asthma in both atopic and nonatopic individuals. Controlled studies have provided conflicting results regarding the benefits for asthma symptoms of treating comorbid allergic rhinitis with intranasal corticosteroids. Effects of other treatments for comorbid allergic rhinitis, including antihistamines, allergen immunotherapy, systemic anti-IgE therapy, and antileukotriene agents, have been examined in a limited number of studies; anti-IgE therapy and antileukotriene agents such as the leukotriene receptor antagonists have benefits for treating both allergic rhinitis and asthma. Results of observational studies indicate that treating comorbid allergic rhinitis results in a lowered risk of asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency visits. Results of several retrospective database studies in the United States and in Europe indicate that, for patients with asthma, the presence of comorbid allergic rhinitis is associated with higher total annual medical costs, greater prescribing frequency of asthma-related medications, as well as increased likelihood of asthma-related hospital admissions and emergency visits. There is therefore evidence suggesting that comorbid allergic rhinitis is a marker for more difficult to control asthma and worsened asthma outcomes. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the potential for improving asthma outcomes by following a combined therapeutic approach to comorbid allergic rhinitis and asthma rather than targeting each condition separately

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding

UK prescribing practices as proxy markers of unmet need in allergic rhinitis:A retrospective observational study

Little data on UK prescribing patterns and treatment effectiveness for allergic rhinitis (AR) are available. We quantified unmet pharmacologic needs in AR by assessing AR treatment effectiveness based on the prescribing behaviour of UK general practitioners (GP) during two consecutive pollen seasons (2009 and 2010). We conducted a retrospective observational study with the data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. We assessed diagnoses and prescription data for patients with a recorded diagnosis of rhinitis who took rhinitis medication during the study period. We assessed the data from 25,069 patients in 2009 and 22,381 patients in 2010. Monotherapy was the initial prescription of the season for 67% of patients with seasonal AR (SAR) and 77% of patients with nonseasonal upper airways disease (NSUAD), for both years. Initial oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INS) monotherapy proved insufficient for 420% of SAR and 437% of NSUAD patients. Multiple therapy was the initial prescription for 33% of SAR and 23% of NSUAD in both years, rising to 45% and 450% by season end, respectively. For NSUAD, dual-therapy prescriptions doubled and triple-therapy prescriptions almost tripled during both seasons. Many patients revisited their GP regardless of initial prescription. Initial OAH or INS monotherapy provides insufficient symptom control for many AR patients. GPs often prescribe multiple therapies at the start of the season, with co-prescription becoming more common as the season progresses. However, patients prescribed multiple therapies frequently revisit their GP, presumably to adjust treatment. These data suggest the need for more effective AR treatment and management strategies

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

Background: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).Methods: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.Results: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.Conclusion: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding. </p

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