Endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy for intractable rhinitis: a systematic review of the literature Running Title: Endoscopic PNN: a systematic review

Objectives: Rhinitis affects up to 40% of the population worldwide and can significantly reduce quality of life. Some patients remain symptomatic despite maximal medical therapy. In refractory cases, posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN - the division of the intranasal nerve branches containing postganglionic parasympathetic fibres) is postulated to reduce symptom burden. The objectives of this paper were to review the literature to establish whether the procedure is effective and safe in the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis. Design: A systematic review of Pubmed, EMBASE and MEDLINE was undertaken. Studies were excluded if not available in English or undertaken in non-human subjects. Participants: Seventeen articles satisfied the inclusion criteria studying in total 2029 patients. Sample size ranged from 8-1056. Main Outcome Measures: Patient-reported objective and subjective outcomes and post-operative complications were reviewed Results: There were two randomised controlled trials, two case control studies, and the remaining thirteen were case series using both objective and subjective outcome measures. All but one study found improved patient reported outcomes following PNN. Complications were reported in 10 studies - haemorrhage was the most common complication and was observed in 28 patients (1.6% of subjects). Conclusions: Endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy is safe and appears to be effective in the treatment of intractable rhinitis but the level of the available evidence was generally poor. Larger, well designed studies are needed to clarify its role in the management of difficult-to-treat rhinitis.

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of oral desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in seasonal allergic rhinitis

Rhinitis is inflammation of nasal mucosa which characteristically presents as running nose, blocked nose, itching on nose or sneezing. Allergic rhinitis is more common than non-allergic rhinitis. Anti-histamines are the mainstay of SAR treatment. Desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen are the commonly prescribed anti histamines in our region. In this study, we have compared efficacy and tolerability of desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in SAR. This was a prospective, randomized, three arm, open label comparative study of desloratadine, rupatadine and ketotifen in SAR, conducted at Department of ENT, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore; between January 2014 and December 2014. Patients’ severity of SAR symptoms were assessed by TNSS, QoL was measured using Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire (SF-12). SF-12 was administered at the start of study and then at the end of study. Adverse effects were monitored during clinical examination at each visit. Study subjects were systemically randomized into three groups – desloratadine (DES), rupatadine (RUP) and ketotifen (KET). Based on the assigned group; desloratadine was given orally in dose of 10mg OD, rupatadine orally 10 mg OD and ketotifen orally 1mg BD. All medications were given for 4 weeks. Follow up was done for all patients every week during treatment period of 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in mean TNSS from baseline; secondary outcome measures were changes in the individual nasal symptom scores, change in the quality of life and tolerability to the study medications. Total 150 patients were recruited for this study, divided into 3 groups. DES and RUP were equally effective but significantly better than KET in improving rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, TNSS and AEC. (p=0.05). All the drugs were equally effective with no statistically significant intergroup difference in improving sneezing, nasal itching and QoL. RUP appeared to have better tolerability as the total number of adverse events were marginally less. DES and RUP are comparatively more effective and faster acting than KET. All the study medications were well tolerated with few mild, self-limiting, transient adverse events requiring no intervention.

Can nasal nitric oxide be a biomarker to differentiate allergic and non-allergic rhinitis?

Background Nasal nitric oxide (nNO), a noninvasive indicator for eosinophilic airway inflammation, has not been adequately studied in different types of rhinitis. The aim of this study was to compare nNO levels between allergic (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). Patients were included based on their chronic nasal symptoms. Total nasal symptoms score (TNSS) were evaluated. nNO was measured transnasally with a flow of 5 ml/s from the nostril with an NO analyzer (NIOX MINO; Aerocrine, Sweden). Results were evaluated as parts per billion (ppb). Results Four hundred forty-three patients (277 F/166 M)—337 with AR (76%) and 106 with NAR (24%)—were assessed. Patients with AR had significantly higher TNSS, more severe disease, and longer duration of disease compared to NAR group. Allergic rhinitis had significantly higher nNO levels than NAR (370 ppb vs 290 ppb) (p = 0.001). Likewise, significant differences were observed in female gender, in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and those without sinusitis between the two groups. When nNO were further evaluated in comorbid asthma, patients with AR w/o asthma had the highest TNSS and had significantly higher nNO level (p < 0.001). NAR+A group, with the longest duration of rhinitis, was significantly older and had the lowest nNO level (p < 0.001). Conclusions This study showed that nNO levels were significantly higher in AR patients than NAR. Although there is no recommended standard threshold for nNO, this study confirmed the utility of nNO in differentiating AR and NAR in addition to its known fast and non-invasive advantages.

Review of Rhinitis: Classification, Types, Pathophysiology

Rhinitis describes a pattern of symptoms as a result of nasal inflammation and/or dysfunction of the nasal mucosa. It is an umbrella entity that includes many different subtypes, several of which escape of complete characterization. Rhinitis is considered as a pathologic condition with considerable morbidity and financial burden on health care systems worldwide. Its economic impact is further emphasized by the fact that it represents a risk factor for other conditions such as sinusitis, asthma, learning disabilities, behavioral changes, and psychological impairment. Rhinitis may be associated with many etiologic triggers such as infections, immediate-type allergic responses, inhaled irritants, medications, hormonal disturbances, and neural system dysfunction. It is basically classified into three major clinical phenotypes: allergic rhinitis (AR), infectious rhinitis, and non-allergic, non-infectious rhinitis (NAR). However, this subdivision may be considered as an oversimplification because a combined (mixed) phenotype exists in many individuals and different endotypes of rhinitis subgroups are overlapping. Due to the variety of pathophysiologic mechanisms (endotypes) and clinical symptoms (phenotypes), it is difficult to develop clear guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to review the types of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, providing a thorough analysis of the pathophysiological background, diagnostic approach, and main treatment options.

Reliability and Validity of the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (Thai Version) in Patients with Rhinitis

Objective: To assess the reliability and validity of the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT) (Thai version) in patients with rhinitis. Materials and Methods: This is a questionnaire-based research, cross-sectional study. The researchers had asked permission from the developer to translate the RCAT into Thai language based on the international standard of translation method. Validity test was evaluated by the expert looking at the items in the questionnaire and agreeing that the test is a valid measure of the concept. Fifty patients with allergic and non-allergic rhinitis were recruited into the present study and completed the RCAT, total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) and skin tests were measured at the same time. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and Pearson correlation were evaluated for its reliability. Results: The RCAT (Thai version) have a good reliability and validity with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha 0.73 and Pearson correlation 0.74 in correlation analysis with TNSS (p<0.01). The aspect of content validity was evaluated by three specialists, and they agreed to all six questions of RCAT (Thai version). Conclusion: The researchers have demonstrated that the RCAT (Thai version) have a good reliability and validity and is suitable for clinical application to evaluate the rhinitis symptoms. Keywords: Rhinitis; Allergic rhinitis; Non-allergic rhinitis; RCAT

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases

Background In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine. Methods Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published. Results The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm. Conclusions We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

Towards a new epidemiological definition of chronic rhinitis: prevalence of nasal complaints in the general population

Background: Chronic rhinitis (CR) is currently defined as the presence of at least two nasal symptoms for at least 1 hour per day for more than 12 weeks per year. Such definition lacks evidence-based foundation. CR patients are often divided into ‘runners’ and ‘blockers’, although the evidence supporting such subdivision is limited. The aim of the study was to define CR, to estimate its prevalence and the proportion of ‘runners’ and ‘blockers’. Methods: Cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study in a random sample of participants representing the general population of the Netherlands. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 5000 residents of the Netherlands; the response rate was 27%. CR was defined as at least 1 nasal complaint present for more than 3 weeks per year. The prevalence of CR in the general population was 40%. Participants who would have been excluded by the former CR definition were shown to have a significantly higher VAS compared to the controls. The larger part of CR group was represented by non-allergic rhinitis (NAR): 70% vs 30%. There were 25% ‘Blockers’ and 22% ‘Runners’ in the CR group, whereas more than a half of the CR group could be classified in neither of these subgroups. Conclusion: Based on our data, we suggest that the current definition of CR should be revised and propose a new definition: at least one nasal complaint present for at least 3 weeks per year; although future studies are needed to further validate the proposed definition.

Translation, adaption and validation of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) for Lithuanian population

Background Allergic rhinitis is one of the most prevalent allergic diseases worldwide which diagnosis is based on typical clinical signs and positive results of allergic tests. Selection and evaluation of treatment is based mainly on subjective symptoms. Objective measurement of patients’ complaints is necessary for proper documentation and follow-up. There are no short simple validated questionnaire assessing nasal symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis in Lithuania. Total nasal symptoms score (TNSS) is a brief questionnaire which evaluate the severity of main symptoms of allergic rhinitis widely used in different countries. Our aim was to translate the TNSS in the Lithuanian language and to validate it. Methods Prospective cross-cultural adaption and validation study was performed. Linguistic validation of TNSS was performed and validity and reliability were assessed. Patients with chronic allergic and non-allergic rhinitis and healthy individuals were included in this study. Patients had to complete translated version of TNSS. Patients with allergic rhinitis additionally were asked to fill Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Results Seventy-six individuals were involved into the study: 16 with non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) (21.1%), 49 with allergic rhinitis (AR) (64.5%) and 11 healthy individuals (14.5%). Cronbach’s α was 0.87. TNSS score was significantly higher in patients with NAR and AR compared with healthy individuals (3.56 ± 2.28 vs. 4.28 ± 2.46 vs. 0.27 ± 0.91). Positive significant correlation was found between TNSS score and RQLQ score (rs = 0.77, p < 0.01). Conclusions The Lithuanian version of the TNSS proved to be a valid instrument for assessing nasal symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis.