| Literature DB >> 25374672 |
Geoffroy Solelhac1, Denis Charpin1.
Abstract
In this paper, we review the current management of allergic rhinitis and new directions for future treatment. Currently, management includes pharmacotherapy, allergen avoidance and possibly immunotherapy. The simple washing of nasal cavities using isotonic saline provides a significant improvement and is useful, particularly in children. The most effective medication in persistent rhinitis used singly is topical corticosteroid, which decreases all symptoms, including ocular ones. Antihistamines reduce nasal itch, sneeze and rhinorrhea and can be used orally or topically. When intranasal antihistamine is used together with topical corticosteroid, the combination is more effective and acts more rapidly than either drug used alone. Alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, acupuncture and intranasal carbon dioxide, or devices such nasal air filters or intranasal cellulose, have produced some positive results in small trials but are not recommended by Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). In the field of allergic immunotherapy, subcutaneous and sublingual routes are currently used, the former being perhaps more efficient and the latter safer. Sublingual tablets are now available. Their efficacy compared to standard routes needs to be evaluated. Efforts have been made to develop more effective and simpler immunotherapy by modifying allergens and developing alternative routes. Standard allergen avoidance procedures used alone do not provide positive results. A comprehensive, multi-trigger, multi-component approach is needed, including avoidance of pollutants such as cigarette smoke.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25374672 PMCID: PMC4191273 DOI: 10.12703/P6-94
Source DB: PubMed Journal: F1000Prime Rep ISSN: 2051-7599
Figure 1.Effect of MP29-02, FP (FLU), and azelastine (AZE) on overall rTNSSs (morning plus evening) in patients with moderate-to-severe SAR
Data are presented as least squares (LS) mean change from baseline derived by means of ANCOVA minus placebo. The precision of these estimates are indicated by the upper bounds of the respective 95% CIs. Study MP4002: n = 831, *P = .034 versus FP; †P = .001 versus AZE; Study MP4004: n = 776, *P = .038 versus FP; †P = .032 versus AZE; Study MP4006: n = 1791, *P = .029 versus FP; †P = .016 versus AZE; Meta-analysis: n = 3398, *P < .001 verus FP; †P < .001 versus AZE. AZE, azelastine SAR, seasonal allergic rhinitis; TNSS, total nasal symptom score.].
Figure 2.Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores
Changes from baseline to the expected middle of the grass pollen season. Vertical bars are 95% CIs. CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3.Health care utilization, i.e. sum of hospital, emergency department, and unscheduled office visits/year.
Percentage of asthmatic children with acute care visits. The gray box represents interquartile interval or range; CIs were added to graph if reported in the study or could be calculated. IQI: interquartile interval; pct pts: percentage points.