BACKGROUND: Measurement of domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) may have a role in the objective assessment of treatment response in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measurement of nasal PIFR and a variety of symptoms associated with rhinitis. METHODS:Thirty-eight nonasthmatic patients, mean age (SEM) 30 years (1.4), with symptomatic SAR were evaluated in a placebo-controlled, single-blind, double-dummy, three way parallel group study. Patients received oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily and were randomized to receive, in addition, either: (i) intranasal mometasone furoate 200 microgram (n = 14); (ii) oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 11); or (iii) placebo (n = 13). All treatments were given once daily for 4 weeks and were preceded by a 1 week placebo period. Domiciliary diary cards were used to record morning (am) and evening (pm) domiciliary nasal PIFR and symptom (nasal, eye, throat) scores and impact on daily activity. A total daily symptom score was then calculated from the sum of these separate symptom scores. RESULTS: Baseline values for symptom scores and PIFR after placebo run-in were not significantly different when comparing the three groups. After 4 weeks of active treatment, there were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in nasal symptoms, total daily symptoms and PIFR with all treatments, with there being no significant confounding effect of pollen count, when analysed as a covariate. There were significant (P < 0.01) correlations for nasal symptom scores vs PIFRam (r = - 0.51) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.56), and similarly for daily activity vs PIFRam (r = - 0.42) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that domiciliary measurements of nasal peak flow correlate significantly with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and may therefore be a potentially useful objective short-term marker of treatment response.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Measurement of domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) may have a role in the objective assessment of treatment response in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). OBJECTIVE: We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measurement of nasal PIFR and a variety of symptoms associated with rhinitis. METHODS: Thirty-eight nonasthmatic patients, mean age (SEM) 30 years (1.4), with symptomatic SAR were evaluated in a placebo-controlled, single-blind, double-dummy, three way parallel group study. Patients received oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily and were randomized to receive, in addition, either: (i) intranasal mometasone furoate 200 microgram (n = 14); (ii) oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 11); or (iii) placebo (n = 13). All treatments were given once daily for 4 weeks and were preceded by a 1 week placebo period. Domiciliary diary cards were used to record morning (am) and evening (pm) domiciliary nasal PIFR and symptom (nasal, eye, throat) scores and impact on daily activity. A total daily symptom score was then calculated from the sum of these separate symptom scores. RESULTS: Baseline values for symptom scores and PIFR after placebo run-in were not significantly different when comparing the three groups. After 4 weeks of active treatment, there were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in nasal symptoms, total daily symptoms and PIFR with all treatments, with there being no significant confounding effect of pollen count, when analysed as a covariate. There were significant (P < 0.01) correlations for nasal symptom scores vs PIFRam (r = - 0.51) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.56), and similarly for daily activity vs PIFRam (r = - 0.42) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that domiciliary measurements of nasal peak flow correlate significantly with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and may therefore be a potentially useful objective short-term marker of treatment response.
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: A Papachristou; E Bourli; D Aivazi; E Futzila; Th Papastavrou; Th Konstandinidis; E Maratou; G Ilonidis; V Aivazis Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 0.471
Authors: Daphne Koinis-Mitchell; Cynthia Esteban; Sheryl J Kopel; Barbara Jandasek; Katie Dansereau; Gregory K Fritz; Robert B Klein Journal: Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Date: 2013