Meta-analyses of the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis in adults and children

Background: Treatment options for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (SAR/PAR) include pharmacotherapies and allergy immunotherapy. These meta-analyses evaluated the efficacy of pharmacotherapies and sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-tablets) versus placebo on nasal symptoms associated with SAR and PAR. Methods: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were identified from systematic PubMED/EMBASE searches through 7/18/2019 (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018105632). The primary outcome was mean numerical difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS; 0-12) between active treatment and placebo at the end of the assessment period. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated the mean difference for each medication group weighted by the inverse of the trial variance. Publication bias assessments and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Rescue symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy was prohibited in most pharmacotherapy trials but was allowed in all SLIT-tablet trials. For adult/adolescent SAR, the mean numerical difference (95% CI) in TNSS versus placebo was: intranasal corticosteroids (INCS)=1.38 (1.18, 1.58; 39 trials); combination intranasal antihistamine/INCS=1.34 (1.15, 1.54; 4 trials); intranasal antihistamines=0.72 (0.56, 0.89; 13 trials); oral antihistamine=0.62 (0.35, 0.90; 18 trials); SLIT-tablets=0.57 (0.41, 0.73; 4 trials); and montelukast=0.48 (0.36, 0.60; 10 trials). For adult/adolescent PAR, mean difference in TNSS versus placebo (95% CI) was: INCS=0.82 (0.66, 0.97; 14 trials); SLIT-tablets=0.65 (0.42, 0.88; 3 trials); and oral antihistamine=0.27 (0.11, 0.42; 3 trials). The number of eligible trials limited meta-analyses for pediatric SAR/PAR. Conclusions: All treatments significantly improved nasal symptoms versus placebo. SLIT-tablets provided improvement in TNSS despite access to rescue symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy. Extensive trial heterogeneity and strong indications of publication bias preclude the comparison of treatment effects among treatment classes.

Inferior Turbinate Reduction during Rhinoplasty: Is There Any Effect on Rhinitis Symptoms?

Introduction Inferior turbinate surgery is often performed concomitantly with rhinoseptoplasty. As inferior turbinates play a major role in allergic rhinitis, it seems reasonable to suggest that inferior turbinate surgery reduces allergy. Objective To assess the impact of nasal turbinate surgery on non-obstructive allergic symptoms (nasal discharge, sneezing, pruritus, and allergic conjunctivitis) and on the use of allergic medication in patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing rhinoseptoplasty. Methods Secondary analysis of aggregated data from two randomized controlled trials. Participants with allergic rhinitis aged ≥ 16 years were recruited. Data from two groups were analyzed: patients with rhinoseptoplasty and concomitant turbinate reduction (intervention group) and patients with rhinoseptoplasty only (control group). The 90-day postoperative frequency of non-obstructive allergic symptoms and of nasal steroid and oral antihistamine use were analyzed. Results A total of 100 patients were studied. The groups were similar in terms of allergic symptom intensity and mean age. The frequency of non-obstructive allergic symptoms decreased 90 days postoperative in both groups (p < 0.01). There was no difference between the groups in the frequency of non-obstructive allergic symptoms at 90 days (p = 0.835). Topical nasal steroid and oral histamine antagonist use decreased in the intervention group at 90 days (p < 0.05). Conclusions Ninety days after the surgery, turbinate reduction performed in association with rhinoseptoplasty did not reduce the frequency of non-obstructive allergic symptoms more than rhinoplasty alone. However, the observed decrease in nasal steroid and oral antihistamine use suggests an impact of turbinate reduction on medication use in patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing rhinoseptoplasty. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT01457638 and NCT02231216).

Otolaryngologists Practice Pattern on Oral Allergy Syndrome

Background Oral allergy syndrome is a unique type of food allergy caused by cross-sensitivity between inhalant allergens and food allergens. Despite its significant prevalence and potentially serious outcome, the knowledge base and practice patterns on OAS are not well known among otolaryngologists. Our study is designed to understand the practice patterns of otolaryngologists in screening, testing, and treating OAS through a web-based survey. Methods Three thousand otolaryngologists were randomly selected from a membership list of the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. A survey was designed to include demographic questions and questions about OAS understanding, screening, and management. Surveys were sent to selected otolaryngologists via mail. Responses were de-identified and analyzed using SPSS. Results Out of the 50 survey responses, 46 reported treating environmental allergy in their practices. Twenty eight out of 46 reported knowing about OAS (60.9%). Fifteen out of the 28 physicians screened for OAS (53.6%). Out of the responders who knew about OAS, 12 (42.9%) reported diagnosing under 5 cases in the past year, 7 (25%) diagnosed 5 to 10 cases, and 7 (25%) reported diagnosed more than 10 cases in the past year. Eleven (39.3%) reported ordering component allergy testing for food allergies. Twenty six (92.9%) reported using avoidance, 18 (64.3%) prescribed oral antihistamine medications, 14 (50%) prescribed epi-pen, and 19 (67.9%) desensitized patients to environmental allergies as a treatment for OAS. 26 (93%) reported using more than one of the listed treatments. 10 (36%) reported using all four methods. Conclusion Only 60.9% of the responders had a knowledge of OAS. Only 53.6% of those screened for OAS. Current treatment for OAS includes avoidance of allergens, desensitization of environmental allergens, prescription of oral antihistamine and epi-pen. Nearly everyone (93%) reported using more than one treatment method.

Efficacy of epinephrine and diphenhydramine rinses in decreasing local reactions to subcutaneous aeroallergen immunotherapy

Background: Although local reactions (LR) to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) occur in 26‐86% of patients, there are no well-studied strategies to manage LRs. Objective: To complete a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial that compared pre-rinsing SCIT syringes with diphenhydramine, epinephrine, or placebo in patients who were receiving aeroallergen SCIT and experiencing LRs despite pretreatment with an antihistamine. Methods: Patients ages ≥5 years who were receiving aeroallergen SCIT per a conventional dosing schedule and who were experiencing LRs despite premedicating with an oral antihistamine were randomized to diphenhydramine, epinephrine, or placebo rinse, and were followed up for three subsequent visits. At each visit, the patients were asked (yes or no) if LRs improved. Results: A total of 490 patients were enrolled in the study. Seventy-four of the 490 patients (15.1%) experienced an LR despite pretreatment with an oral antihistamine and were randomized into an intervention group. At visit 1, an epinephrine rinse was strongly associated with decreasing LR compared with both diphenhydramine rinse and placebo (p < 0.001). There was no difference among the intervention groups at visits 2 and 3. In patients who reported a consistent outcome at all three visits, the epinephrine rinse was significantly associated with a decrease in LR compared with both diphenhydramine rinse and placebo rinse (p = 0.05). Conclusion: In patients who received aeroallergen SCIT per a conventional dosing schedule, an epinephrine rinse significantly decreased LR at the first visit, and also within a population that reported a consistent outcome at all three study visits. In patients already premedicating with an oral antihistamine, adding an epinephrine rinse is a safe and effective strategy to decrease LRs to aeroallergen SCIT.

Periocular contact dermatitis with use of topical voriconazole 1% in mycotic keratitis

We present two cases of culture-proven fungal keratitis on natamycin treatment which developed periocular erythema, oedema, burning sensation and pruritus within 48 hours of the addition of topical voriconazole. On clinical examination, periocular erythema with induration was noted. A diagnosis of orbital cellulitis was suspected, but the absence of pain and tenderness refuted the diagnosis on clinical grounds. A dermatology consultation was sought, and a diagnosis of periocular contact dermatitis with voriconazole was made. A skin patch test was performed with the same medication; however, it was negative. Topical voriconazole therapy was withdrawn, and the patient was prescribed cold compresses and oral antihistamine medication, to which they responded well.

Pure Cold-Induced Cholinergic Urticaria in a Pediatric Patient

Cold urticaria and cholinergic urticaria are two distinct entities. The presentation of exclusive cold-induced cholinergic urticaria is very rare. The patient described herein had experienced urticaria in the exclusive setting of exercising in a cold environment. Urticarial testing including laboratory and in-office testing was all negative. The patient has prevented urticaria symptoms with oral antihistamine therapy. Pure cold-induced cholinergic urticaria is rarely described in literature. This form of urticaria has yet to be described in a pediatric patient.