A method for evaluating therapy for hay fever

D'Souza, M.F.; Emanuel, M. B.; Gregg, James A.; Charlton, John; Goldschmidt, Jerome H.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1983.tb02608.x

Cited by 28 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, an objective method is needed to assess symptoms when evaluating the efficacy of medication. In previous studies rhinomanometry has been used to assess nasal airway patency, but has proved disappointing in clinical practice [3,8]. To date, the subjective rating of symptoms M. Yamagiwa Department of Otolaryngology, Matsusaka Chuo Hospital, Kamada-cho 145, Matsusaka-shi, Mie-ken 515, Japan remains the principal method for measuring the severity of nasal obstruction [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic evaluation of the efficacy of medical therapy for allergic nasal obstruction

Yamagiwa¹

1997

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic rhinometry (AR) was used for objective measurements of nasal cavity dimensions in conjunction with a 100-mm horizontal visual analogue scale (VAS) for simultaneous subjective assessments of nasal sensations of airflow. Studies were conducted on 45 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis before, during and after a 2-week period of treatment with oral emedastine difumarate, azelastine hydrochloride, and xiao qing long tang (a homeopathic decongestant), as well as intranasal fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray. During the treatment period, there was a significant increase in the right and left minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA) of the nose and/or nasal cavity volumes (NCV) in all groups. The average increase in MCA ranged from 21-39% after 1 week of treatment and 16-39% after 2 weeks, whereas that in the NCV ranged from 16-24% and 19-24%, respectively. Post-treatment measurements were not significantly different from the corresponding pre-treatment ones. These findings were in close agreement with that obtained with VAS, demonstrating that AR can be used to validate the application of VAS in the evaluation of nasal airflow during medical therapy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic evaluation of the efficacy of medical therapy for allergic nasal obstruction

Yamagiwa¹

1997

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Visual analog scales to rate health status have been shown to be a reliable parameter thanks to their correlation with actual clinical improvement and with other parameters of efficacy (32). We found statistically significant improvements in all phases of the study in the active treatment group, and after 12 months in the placebo group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of Alternaria alternata immunotherapy: Clinical efficacy and safety

Tabar

Lizaso

García

et al. 2008

Pediatric Allergy Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) with fungal extracts has been beset by safety and efficacy problems, which result mainly from qualitative and quantitative variations. Little has been published on the safety and efficacy of these extracts. The objective was to analyze the safety and efficacy of ASIT with an Alternaria alternata extract. A total of 28 patients were selected with rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma because of Alternaria allergy and monosensitization to molds. The patients were randomized to an active ASIT or placebo group, both groups on a conventional immunotherapy schedule (increasing weekly doses until maintenance dose and then monthly doses). Adverse reactions were classified with the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology system. Clinical efficacy was analyzed for a year with symptom/medication diary cards, peak expiratory flow (PEF) measures, clinical severity score, severity of symptoms (visual analog scale), subjective evaluation of treatment by the patient and the physician, and a quality of life questionnaire. Twenty-three patients completed the study; all reached the established maintenance dose with only two mild adverse reactions in the whole sample. Significant improvements were found after 6 months in respiratory symptoms in the active treatment group, and in all symptoms in both groups. PEF increased significantly in the active treatment group but not in the placebo group. The severity of asthma decreased in the active treatment group, and the severity of rhinitis decreased in both groups. Visual analog scale scores for severity of symptoms improved in all phases in the active treatment group, but only after 12 months in the placebo group. Physicians judged the disease course as significantly better in the active treatment group. ASIT with the A. alternata extract was safe, with clinical improvements after one year of treatment.

show abstract

“…The fluorinated corticosteroid, beclomethasone dipropionate has been available in the U.K. as a nasal spray since 1974. Beclomethasone nasal spray has become accepted as an effective treatment for hay fever [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Sipila et ai [10] have shown the nasal application of another Correspondence: S. F. Wood, Depariment of General Praclicc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral antihistamine or nasal steroid in hay fever: a double‐blind double‐dummy comparative study of once daily oral astemizole vs twice daily nasal beclomethasone dipropionate

Wood¹

1986

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Seventy‐four patients with a well documented history of seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomly allocated to receive either astemizole 10 mg orally per day or beclomethasone 100 μg in each nostril twice daily on a double‐blind double‐dummy basis. The patients were studied in a general practice setting and were seen at entry, during the study and at the end of the study by a single observer, the author. Assessment was by diary card incorporating five 10 cm visual analogue scales related to the four symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhoea, blocked nose and itchy eyes and an overall assessment of hay fever symptoms. Patients were asked if the medication had upset them in any way at each observer assessment. Symptom severity, as recorded by the visual analogue scales, was not significantly different for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, blocked nose or overall between the two groups but the symptom scores for itchy eyes were significantly better for the astemizole group. Adverse effects were minimal and of a minor nature only. There was no real difference between the two groups regarding adverse effects. The study suggests that oral astemizole is at least as good as nasal beclomethasone in the maintenance treatment of hay fever and that it offers the additional advantage of improved control of eye symptoms.

show abstract

A method for evaluating therapy for hay fever

Cited by 28 publications

References 1 publication

Acoustic evaluation of the efficacy of medical therapy for allergic nasal obstruction

Acoustic evaluation of the efficacy of medical therapy for allergic nasal obstruction

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of Alternaria alternata immunotherapy: Clinical efficacy and safety

Oral antihistamine or nasal steroid in hay fever: a double‐blind double‐dummy comparative study of once daily oral astemizole vs twice daily nasal beclomethasone dipropionate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About