Premium
Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow
Author(s) -
Andrew M. Wilson,
Owen Dempsey,
Erika Sims,
Wendy J. Coutie,
M. C. Paterson,
Brian J. Lipworth
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
clinical and experimental allergy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.462
H-Index - 154
eISSN - 1365-2222
pISSN - 0954-7894
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00749.x
Subject(s) - medicine , mometasone furoate , placebo , morning , asthma , montelukast , evening , anesthesia , nasal congestion , nose , surgery , corticosteroid , physics , alternative medicine , pathology , astronomy
Background Measurement of domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) may have a role in the objective assessment of treatment response in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Objective We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measurement 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 cetirizine 10 mg once daily and were randomized to receive, in addition, either: (i) intranasal mometasone furoate 200 μg ( n = 14); (ii) oral montelukast 10 mg ( n = 11); or (iii) placebo ( n = 13). All treatments were given once daily 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 nasal PIFR and symptom (nasal, eye, throat) scores and impact on daily activity. 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 were not significantly different when comparing the three groups. After 4 weeks of active treatment, there were significant ( P < 0.05) improvements in nasal symptoms, total daily symptoms and PIFR with all treatments, with there being no significant confounding effect of pollen count, when analysed as a covariate. There were significant ( P < 0.01) correlations for nasal symptom scores vs PIFRam ( r = − 0.51) and PIFRpm ( r = − 0.56), and similarly for daily activity vs PIFRam ( r = − 0.42) and PIFRpm ( r = − 0.48). Conclusions These results suggest that domiciliary measurements of nasal peak flow correlate significantly with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and may therefore be a potentially useful objective short‐term marker of treatment response.