Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow

Citation
A. Wilson et al., Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow, CLIN EXP AL, 30(6), 2000, pp. 833-838
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Clinical Immunolgy & Infectious Disease",Immunology
Journal title
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
ISSN journal
09547894 → ACNP
Volume
30
Issue
6
Year of publication
2000
Pages
833 - 838
Database
ISI
SICI code
0954-7894(200006)30:6<833:EOTRIP>2.0.ZU;2-O
Abstract
Background Measurement of domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF R) may have a role in the objective assessment of treatment response in sea sonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Objective We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measur ement of nasal PIFR and a variety of symptoms associated with rhinitis. Methods Thirty-eight nonasthmatic patients, mean age (SEM) 30 years (1.4), with symptomatic SAR were evaluated in a placebo-controlled, single-blind, double-dummy, three way parallel group study. Patients received oral cetiri zine 10 mg once daily and were randomized to receive, in addition, either: (i) intranasal mometasone furoate 200 mu g (n = 14); (ii) oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 11); or (iii) placebo (n = 13). All treatments were given once d aily for 4 weeks and were preceded by a 1 week placebo period. Domiciliary diary cards were used to record morning (am) and evening (pm) domiciliary n asal PIFR and symptom (nasal, eye, throat) scores and impact on daily activ ity. A total daily symptom score was then calculated from the sum of these separate symptom scores. Results Baseline values for symptom scores and PIFR after placebo run-in we re not significantly different when comparing the three groups. After 4 wee ks of active treatment, there were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in n asal symptoms, total daily symptoms and PIFR with all treatments, with ther e being no significant confounding effect of pollen count, when analysed as a covariate. There were significant (P < 0.01) correlations for nasal symp tom scores vs PIFRam (r = - 0.51) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.56), and similarly fo r daily activity vs PIFRam (r = - 0.42) and PIFRpm (r = - 0.48). Conclusions These results suggest that domiciliary measurements of nasal pe ak flow correlate significantly with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and may therefore be a potentially useful objective short-term marker of t reatment response.