The prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis phenotypes in the general population: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) can be subdivided into several phenotypes: rhinorrhea of the elderly, rhinitis medicamentosa, smokers', occupational, hormonal, drug-induced, gustatory, and idiopathic rhinitis. There are two pathophysiological endotypes of NAR: inflammatory and neurogenic. Phenotypes may serve as an indicator of an underlying endotype and, therefore, help to guide the treatment. The prevalence of each phenotype in the general population is currently unknown. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study in the general population of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic rhinitis in the general population was 40% (N = 558, of those, 65% had NAR and 28% AR, in 7% allergy status is unknown). Individuals with NAR (N = 363) had significantly more complaints in October-February. Those with AR (N = 159) had significantly more complaints in April-August. The most common NAR phenotypes were idiopathic (39%) and rhinitis medicamentosa (14%), followed by occupational (8%), smokers' (6%), hormonal (4%), gustatory (4%), and rhinorrhea of the elderly (4%). The least prevalent phenotype was drug induced (1%). Nineteen percent of the NAR group could not be classified into any of the phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the prevalences of NAR phenotypes in the general population. AR and NAR have a distinct seasonality pattern with NAR being more prevalent in autumn/winter and AR in spring/summer. Our data on the prevalence of phenotypes may help clinicians to anticipate the type of patients at their clinic and help guide a tailored treatment approach. The high prevalence of rhinitis medicamentosa is alarming, since this is a potentially preventable phenotype.

Real-life assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis patients using mobile technology: The mySinusitisCoach project by EUFOREA.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with a substantial personal and socioeconomic burden. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes by mobile technology offers the possibility to better understand real-life burden of CRS. METHODS: This study reports on the cross-sectional evaluation of data of 626 users of mySinusitisCoach (mSC), a mobile application for CRS patients. Patient characteristics of mSC users were analysed as well as the level of disease control based on VAS global rhinosinusitis symptom score and adapted EPOS criteria. RESULTS: The mSC cohort represents a heterogeneous group of CRS patients with a diverse pattern of major symptoms. Approximately half of patients reported nasal polyps. 47.3% of all CRS patients were uncontrolled based on evaluation of VAS global rhinosinusitis symptom score compared to 40.9% based on adapted EPOS criteria. The impact of CRS on sleep quality and daily life activities was significantly higher in uncontrolled versus well-controlled patients. Half of patients had a history of FESS (functional endoscopic sinus surgery) and reported lower symptom severity compared to patients without a history of FESS, except for patients with a history of more than 3 procedures. Patients with a history of FESS reported higher VAS levels for impaired smell. CONCLUSION: Real-life data confirm the high disease burden in uncontrolled CRS patients, clearly impacting quality of life. Sinus surgery improves patient-reported outcomes, but not in patients with a history of more than 3 procedures. Mobile technology opens a new era of real-life monitoring, supporting the evolution of care towards precision medicine.

Intranasal corticosteroids for non-allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis is defined as dysfunction and non-infectious inflammation of the nasal mucosa that is caused by provoking agents other than allergens or microbes. It is common, with an estimated prevalence of around 10% to 20%. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, anterior rhinorrhoea/post-nasal drip and sneezing. Several subgroups of non-allergic rhinitis can be distinguished, depending on the trigger responsible for symptoms; these include occupation, cigarette smoke, hormones, medication, food and age. On a cellular molecular level different disease mechanisms can also be identified. People with non-allergic rhinitis often lack an effective treatment as a result of poor understanding and lack of recognition of the underlying disease mechanism. Intranasal corticosteroids are one of the most common types of medication prescribed in patients with rhinitis or rhinosinusitis symptoms, including those with non-allergic rhinitis. However, it is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids are truly effective in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intranasal corticosteroids in the management of non-allergic rhinitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 7); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intranasal corticosteroids, delivered by any means and in any volume, with (a) placebo/no intervention or (b) other active treatments in adults and children (aged ≥ 12 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a significant adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were (disease-specific) health-related quality of life, objective measurements of airflow and other adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (4452 participants); however, only 13 studies provided data for our main comparison, intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo. The participants were mainly defined as patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms and negative allergy tests. No distinction between different pheno- and endotypes could be made, although a few studies only included a specific phenotype such as pregnancy rhinitis, vasomotor rhinitis, rhinitis medicamentosa or senile rhinitis. Most studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary healthcare setting. No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Intranasal corticosteroid dosage in the review ranged from 50 µg to 2000 µg daily. Intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo Thirteen studies (2045 participants) provided data for this comparison. These studies used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data in each analysis using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.15 to -0.33; 4 studies; 131 participants; I2 = 22%) (low-certainty evidence). However, between four weeks and three months the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.20; 3 studies; 85 participants; I2 = 0%) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroid treatment may slightly improve patient-reported disease severity as measured by total nasal symptom score change from baseline when compared with placebo at up to four weeks (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 4 studies; 1465 participants; I2 = 35%) (low-certainty evidence). All four studies evaluating the risk of epistaxis showed that there is probably a higher risk in the intranasal corticosteroids group (65 per 1000) compared to placebo (31 per 1000) (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.57; 4 studies; 1174 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute risk difference (RD) was 0.04 with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 25 (95% CI 16.7 to 100). Only one study reported numerical data for quality of life. It did report a higher quality of life score in the intranasal corticosteroids group (152.3 versus 145.6; SF-12v2 range 0 to 800); however, this disappeared at longer-term follow-up (148.4 versus 145.6) (low-certainty evidence). Only two studies provided data for the outcome objective measurements of airflow. These data could not be pooled because they used different methods of outcome measurement. Neither found a significant difference between the intranasal corticosteroids and placebo group (rhinomanometry SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.14; 44 participants; peak expiratory flow rate SMD 0.78, 95% CI -0.47 to 2.03; 11 participants) (very low-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids probably resulted in little or no difference in the risk of other adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3 studies; 1130 participants; I2 = 0%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Intranasal corticosteroids versus other treatments Only one or a few studies assessed each of the other comparisons (intranasal corticosteroids versus saline irrigation, intranasal antihistamine, capsaicin, cromoglycate sodium, ipratropium bromide, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine, intranasal corticosteroids combined with intranasal antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroids with saline compared to saline alone). It is therefore uncertain whether there are differences between intranasal corticosteroids and other active treatments for any of the outcomes reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes in this review was low or very low. It is unclear whether intranasal corticosteroids reduce patient-reported disease severity in non-allergic rhinitis patients compared with placebo when measured at up to three months. However, intranasal corticosteroids probably have a higher risk of the adverse effect epistaxis. There are very few studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids to other treatment modalities making it difficult to draw conclusions.

Endotyping of non-allergic, allergic and mixed rhinitis patients using a broad panel of biomarkers in nasal secretions.

BACKGROUND: Endotyping chronic rhinitis has proven hardest for the subgroup of non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) patients. While IgE-related inflammation is typical for allergic rhinitis (AR), no markers have been found that can be seen to positively identify NAR. A further complication is that AR and NAR might co-exist in patients with mixed rhinitis. As previous studies have considered only a limited number of inflammatory mediators, we wanted to explore whether a wider panel of mediators could help us refine the endotyping in chronic rhinitis patients. OBJECTIVE: To endotype chronic rhinitis, and non-allergic rhinitis in particular, with help of molecular or cellular markers. METHOD: In this study we included 23 NAR patients without allergen sensitizations and with persistent rhinitis symptoms, 22 pollen sensitized rhinitis patients with seasonal symptoms, 21 mixed rhinitis patients with pollen-related symptoms and persistent symptoms outside of the pollen season, and 23 healthy controls without any symptoms. Nasal secretions were collected outside of pollen season and differences between the endotypes were assessed for a broad range of inflammatory mediators and growths factors using a multiplex ELISA. RESULTS: Although we were able to identify two new nasal secretion makers (IL-12 and HGF) that were low in mixed and AR patients versus NAR and healthy controls, the most intriguing outcome is that despite investigating 29 general inflammatory mediators and growth factors no clear profile of non-allergic or mixed rhinitis could be found. CONCLUSION: Classical inflammatory markers are not able to differentiate between non-allergic or mixed rhinitis patients and healthy controls.

Capsaicin for Rhinitis.

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. Non-allergic rhinitis is characterized by rhinitis symptoms without systemic sensitization of infectious etiology. Based on endotypes, we can categorize non-allergic rhinitis into an inflammatory endotype with usually eosinophilic inflammation encompassing at least NARES and LAR and part of the drug induced rhinitis (e.g., aspirin intolerance) and a neurogenic endotype encompassing idiopathic rhinitis, gustatory rhinitis, and rhinitis of the elderly. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis have a higher baseline TRPV1 expression in the nasal mucosa than healthy controls. Capsaicin (8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide) is the active component of chili peppers, plants of the genus Capsicum. Capsaicin is unique among naturally occurring irritant compounds because the initial neuronal excitation evoked by it is followed by a long-lasting refractory period, during which the previously excited neurons are no longer responsive to a broad range of stimuli. Patients with idiopathic rhinitis benefit from intranasal treatment with capsaicin. Expression of TRPV1 is reduced in patients with idiopathic rhinitis after capsaicin treatment. Recently, in a Cochrane review, the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of idiopathic rhinitis was evaluated and the authors concluded that given that many other options do not work well in non-allergic rhinitis, capsaicin is a reasonable option to try under physician supervision. Capsaicin has not been shown to be effective in allergic rhinitis nor in other forms of non-allergic rhinitis like the inflammatory endotypes or other neurogenic endotypes like rhinitis of the elderly or smoking induced rhinitis.

Capsaicin for non-allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: There are many forms of rhinitis. Patients are diagnosed with non-allergic rhinitis when anatomic, infectious and allergic aetiologies have been excluded. The symptoms, including nasal congestion, blockage or obstruction, clear rhinorrhoea, sneezing and, less frequently, nasal itching, can range from mild to debilitating. It affects between 25% and 50% of patients with rhinitis. Several medications are widely used in the treatment of non-allergic rhinitis, including oral and topical nasal antihistamines, intranasal and (rarely) systemic corticosteroids, and anticholinergics. Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, delivered intranasally, is considered a treatment option for non-allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of capsaicin in the management of non-allergic rhinitis compared with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or two or more of the above therapies in combination, or different capsaicin regimens. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 24 June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adult patients with non-allergic rhinitis comparing intranasal capsaicin with no therapy, placebo or other topical or systemic medications, or their combinations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (five publications) involving 302 participants with idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. All the included studies described patients with moderately severe, idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis who were between the ages of 16 and 65. Studies had follow-up periods ranging from four to 38 weeks. The overall risk of bias in the studies was either high or unclear (two studies had overall high risk of bias, while two others had low to unclear risk of bias). Using the GRADE system we assessed the evidence as being of low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis was not possible, given lack of similarity of the reported outcomes.Two studies compared capsaicin with placebo. One study reported that capsaicin resulted in an improvement of overall nasal symptoms (a primary outcome) measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0 to 10. There was a mean difference (MD) of -3.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.24 to -1.44), MD -3.73 (95% CI -5.45 to -2.01) and MD -3.52 (95% CI -5.55 to -1.48) at two, 12 and 36 weeks post-treatment, respectively. Another study reported that, compared to placebo, capsaicin (at 4 µg/puff) was more likely to produce overall symptom resolution (reduction in nasal blockage, sneezing/itching/coughing and nasal secretion measured with a daily record chart) at four weeks post-treatment (a primary outcome). The risk ratio (RR) was 3.17 (95% CI 1.38 to 7.29).One study compared capsaicin to budesonide (an intranasal corticosteroid). This study found that patients treated with capsaicin had a better overall symptom score compared to those treated with budesonide (MD 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.94, VAS of 0 to 10). However, there were no differences in the individual symptom scores for headache, postnasal drip, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, sneezing and sore throat assessed during the last three days of a four-week treatment.One study compared two different regimens of capsaicin administration: five treatments in one day versus five treatments given every two to three days during two weeks. Using daily record charts, the study reported significant improvement of individual symptom scores for rhinorrhoea in patients treated five times per day, however numerical data were not presented. There were no improvements in the other outcomes: rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, sneezing and overall nasal symptoms, measured on a VAS.Finally, one of these studies also compared three doses of capsaicin (to placebo). Patients treated with a 1 µg versus 4 µg per puff dose of capsaicin had a worse daily record chart overall symptom score resolution (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16).Only one study attempted to measure adverse effects (a primary outcome), however due to methodological issues with the assessment we are unable to draw any conclusions.We sought to include other secondary outcomes (e.g. quality of life measures, treatment dropouts, endoscopic scores, turbinate or mucosal size, cost of therapy), but none of these were measured or reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Capsaicin may be an option in the treatment of idiopathic non-allergic rhinitis. It is given in the form of brief treatments, usually during the same day. It appears to have beneficial effects on overall nasal symptoms up to 36 weeks after treatment, based on a few, small studies (low-quality evidence). Well-conducted randomised controlled trials are required to further advance our understanding of the effectiveness of capsaicin in non-allergic rhinitis, especially in patients with non-allergic rhinitis of different types and severity, and using different methods of capsaicin application.

Inhibition of capsaicin-driven nasal hyper-reactivity by SB-705498, a TRPV1 antagonist.

AIMS: To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of intranasal SB-705498, a selective TRPV1 antagonist. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical studies were performed: (i) an intranasal SB-705498 first time in human study to examine the safety and PK of five single escalating doses from 0.5 to 12 mg and of repeat dosing with 6 mg and 12 mg twice daily for 14 days and (ii) a PD efficacy study in subjects with non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) to evaluate the effect of 12 mg intranasal SB-705498 against nasal capsaicin challenge. RESULTS: Single and repeat dosing with intranasal SB-705498 was safe and well tolerated. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar for SB-705498 and placebo and no dose-dependent increase was observed. Administration of SB-705498 resulted in less than dose proportional AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax , while repeat dosing from day 1 to day 14 led to its accumulation. SB-705498 receptor occupancy in nasal tissue was estimated to be high (>80%). Administration of 12 mg SB-705498 to patients with NAR induced a marked reduction in total symptom scores triggered by nasal capsaicin challenge. Inhibition of rhinorrhoea, nasal congestion and burning sensation was associated with 2- to 4-fold shift in capsaicin potency. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal SB-705498 has an appropriate safety and PK profile for development in humans and achieves clinically relevant attenuation of capsaicin-provoked rhinitis symptoms in patients with NAR. The potential impact intranasal SB-705498 may have in rhinitis treatment deserves further evaluation.

Disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaires in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis: review and evaluation.

Quality of life (QoL) measurements are the best approximation of the burden of disease for the patient. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PROMs can be generic or disease-specific. Generic PROMs allow comparisons between different diseases but can be relatively insensitive for measuring changes within a disease. Recommended QoL questionnaires in allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis are the RQLQ (or adapted versions), in chronic rhinosinusitis, the SNOT-22 or RSOM-31, and in acute rhinosinusitis, the modified SNOT-16. PROMs can be used both for daily clinical work and for research. In daily practice, a quick evaluation of the questionnaire directly indicates how the patient is doing. It makes sure that symptoms important for the patient are not overlooked and, during the consultation, the physician can elaborate on specific aspects of the symptomatology. It is important, especially in research, to realize that disease-specific questionnaires are only validated for specific diseases and are not automatically valid for other diseases.

Role of innate immunity in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis: progress and new avenues.

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a heterogeneous and multifactorial disease with unknown etiology. Aberrant responses to microorganisms have been suggested to play a role in the pathophysiology of the disease. Research has focused on the presence, detection, response to, and eradication of these potential threats. Main topics seem to center on the contribution of structural cells such as epithelium and fibroblasts, on the consequences of activation of pattern-recognition receptors, and on the role of antimicrobial agents. This research should be viewed not only in the light of a comparison between healthy and diseased individuals, but also in a comparison between patients who do or do not respond to treatment. New players that could play a role in the pathophysiology seem to surface at regular intervals, adding to our understanding (and the complexity) of the disease and opening new avenues that may help fight this incapacitating disease.