Objective. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options. Purpose. The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients. Action Statements. The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls.

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-allergic-rhinitis-4540xyfk1k.pdf

Clinical Practice Guideline: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND:
Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).
METHODS:
Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.
RESULTS:
The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.
CONCLUSION:
This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

/pdf/international-consensus-statement-on-allergy-and-rhinology-pnvs6cds27.pdf

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/alr.23090

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Bell's Palsy To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements The 11 recommendations developed encourage accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitate patient follow-up to address the management of long-term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy; some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care In addition, there are numerous diagnostic tests available that are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have an unnecessary delay in diagnosis All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0194599813506835

Clinical practice guideline: Bell's Palsy executive summary

Summary
Background Efficacy testing of drugs in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is often disturbed by seasonal variations of environmental allergens, and assessment of onset and duration of action is hardly possible under natural conditions. Allergen provocation in an environmental challenge chamber (ECC) can be of added value in this respect. However, the specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility of outcome measures under both settings are unclear.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the diagnostic value (specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility) of clinical end-points and biomarkers both following allergen provocation in an ECC and under natural conditions.

Methods Sixty adult patients with SAR to grass and 60 healthy subjects were exposed twice to grass pollen in an ECC and observed twice during the pollen season. Symptoms, nasal flow, as well as exhaled and nasal nitric oxide (NO) were investigated.

Results The total nasal symptom score (TNSS) in the ECC had the best reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC=0.86) and sensitivity/specificity [area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.99] of all measures. Symptoms in season also had good sensitivity/specificity but were far less reproducible. Nasal flow in the ECC had good sensitivity/specificity but reproducibility was limited. NO measurements showed good reproducibility but sensitivity/specificity were limited, except for exhaled NO in season (AUC=0.75).

Conclusion The high reproducibility and sensitivity/specificity in the ECC suggests that TNSS is a valuable outcome measure. While exhaled NO can be considered to monitor airway inflammation, nasal NO appears to be unspecific.

Cite this as: J. M. Hohlfeld, T. Holland-Letz, M. Larbig, M. Lavae-Mokhtari, E. Wierenga, M. Kapsenberg, R. van Ree, N. Krug and A. Bufe, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2010 (40) 998–1006.

Diagnostic value of outcome measures following allergen exposure in an environmental challenge chamber compared with natural conditions.

UNLABELLED Antihistamines and nasal decongestants are well-established therapeutics in allergic rhinitis. However, no data are available which directly compare the effect size of the single substances with their combination in a single study including placebo (PLA) treatment. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a combination of cetirizine (CET) and pseudoephedrine (PSE) and to compare it to treatment with CET or PSE alone and to PLA during grass pollen allergen challenge in an environmental challenge chamber (ECC). MATERIAL AND METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study the effect of a combination of 10 mg CET with 120 mg PSE (CET + PSE) versus CET or PSE alone or PLA on symptoms, nasal flow, and nasal secretions was investigated in 49 patients with intermittent allergic rhinitis. Subjects underwent four 6-h pollen exposures in an ECC with administration of the drugs after 2 h. RESULTS The induction of nasal symptoms, nasal secretion and nasal obstruction (measured as nasal flow) during the first 2 h of pollen exposure was highly reproducible at the 4 consecutive exposures. The symptom of nasal obstruction was significantly reduced after treatment with CET + PSE compared to the treatment with CET or PSE alone or PLA (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the combination treatment significantly reduced the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and visual analogue scale score (VAS) compared to the single treatments or PLA. Nasal flow was significantly increased after treatment with CET + PSE and PSE and nasal secretions were significantly reduced by CET + PSE and CET without significant additional improvement of the combination therapy. CONCLUSION The combination treatment with CET and PSE is more effective than treatment with single substances in subjects with allergic rhinitis.

A combination of cetirizine and pseudoephedrine has therapeutic benefits when compared to single drug treatment in allergic rhinitis.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

A Schauerte

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A combination of cetirizine and pseudoephedrine has therapeutic benefits when compared to single drug treatment in allergic rhinitis.