BACKGROUND:Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for allergic rhinitis. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the squeeze bottle nasal saline irrigation in persistent allergic rhinitis patients compared with a syringe. METHODOLOGY: We included patients between 18- and 60-years old presenting with persistent allergic rhinitis. All patients were instructed to perform nasal irrigation twice daily for four weeks. The patients were randomly assigned to use either the squeeze bottle nasal irrigation or a syringe for nasal irrigation. Symptoms score, physical examination results, satisfaction scores and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: There were 116 patients enrolled in the study, 58 of whom used the squeeze bottle nasal irrigation system and 58 of whom used a syringe. During a four-week follow-up, improvements in patients' nasal symptom scores for rhinitis symptoms were significantly greater in the group treated with the squeeze bottle. However, the physical examination score was no statistically significant difference. No adverse events were reported. The overall satisfaction scores for both devices were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the regular use of nasal irrigation with a positive-pressure device, particularly a squeeze bottle, as an effective adjunctive treatment for allergic rhinitis. It is effective for reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms and can be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for allergic rhinitis. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the squeeze bottle nasal saline irrigation in persistent allergic rhinitispatients compared with a syringe. METHODOLOGY: We included patients between 18- and 60-years old presenting with persistent allergic rhinitis. All patients were instructed to perform nasal irrigation twice daily for four weeks. The patients were randomly assigned to use either the squeeze bottle nasal irrigation or a syringe for nasal irrigation. Symptoms score, physical examination results, satisfaction scores and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: There were 116 patients enrolled in the study, 58 of whom used the squeeze bottle nasal irrigation system and 58 of whom used a syringe. During a four-week follow-up, improvements in patients' nasal symptom scores for rhinitis symptoms were significantly greater in the group treated with the squeeze bottle. However, the physical examination score was no statistically significant difference. No adverse events were reported. The overall satisfaction scores for both devices were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the regular use of nasal irrigation with a positive-pressure device, particularly a squeeze bottle, as an effective adjunctive treatment for allergic rhinitis. It is effective for reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms and can be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects.