International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

Wise, Sarah K.; Lin, Sandra Y.; Toskala, Elina; Orlandi, Richard R.; Akdiş, Cezmi A.; Alt, Jeremiah A.; Azar, Antoine; Baroody, Fuad M.; Bachert, Claus; Canonica, Giorgio Walter; Thomas, Andrew J.; Cingi, Cemal; Ciprandi, Giorgio; Corey, Jacquelynne P.; Cox, Linda; Creticos, Peter S.; Čustović, Adnan; Damask, Cecelia; DeConde, Adam S.; DelGaudio, John M.; Ebert, Charles S.; Eloy, Jean Anderson; Flanagan, Carrie E.; Fokkens, Wytske J.; Franzese, Christine B.; Gosepath, Jan; Halderman, Ashleigh A.; Hamilton, Robert G.; Hoffman, Hans Jürgen; Hohlfeld, Jens M.; Houser, Steven M.; Hwang, Peter H.; Incorvaia, Cristoforo; Jarvis, Déborah; Khalid, Ayesha N.; Kilpeläinen, Maritta; Kingdom, Todd T.; Krouse, Helene J.; Larenas‐Linnemann, Désirée; Laury, Adrienne M.; Lee, Stella E.; Levy, Joshua M.; Luong, Amber U.; Marple, Bradley F.; McCoul, Edward D.; McMains, Kevin C.; Melén, Erik; Mims, James W.; Moscato, Gianna; Mullol, Joaquim; Nelson, Harold S.; Patadia, Monica; Pawankar, Ruby; Pfaar, Oliver; Platt, Michael P.; Reisacher, William R.; Rondón, Carmen; Rudmik, Luke; Ryan, Matthew W.; Sastre, Joaquı́n; Schlosser, Rodney J.; Settipane, Russell A.; Sharma, Hemant; Sheikh, Aziz; Smith, Timothy L.; Tantilipikorn, Pongsakorn; Tversky, Jody; Veling, Maria C.; Wang, De Yun; Westman, Marit; Wickman, Magnus; Zacharek, Mark A.

doi:10.1002/alr.22073

Cited by 339 publications

(520 citation statements)

References 1,903 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

453

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, no difference was observed between the two drugs regarding safety and tolerability. Considering that the most common complaint of patients with AR is nasal congestion, rated as “extremely bothersome” [8, 19], a validated efficacy assessment for such drugs is the rTNSS outcome as evaluated in this trial [6]. Both sprays decreased rTNSS values from baseline to the end of study treatment with a mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI –0.89 to 0.54) between the two treatment groups, with the upper CI limit being less than the stated non-inferiority margin of 0.8, confirming that triamcinolone acetonide is non-inferior to fluticasone propionate with respect to symptom control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hallmark of AR is an immunoglobulin E-mediated type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to an inciting inhaled seasonal or perennial allergen, triggering a cascade of immunological and biochemical events leading to clinical expression of the disease [6]. Thus, patients with AR exhibit signs of rhinorrhea, congestion, nasal itching, and obstruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

Karaulov

Vylegzhanina

Овчинников

et al. 2019

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intranasal sprays are recommended as targeted therapy for allergic rhinitis (AR). Triamcinolone acetonide is a nasal corticosteroid preparation indicated for the treatment of seasonal and perennial AR (PAR) in different countries worldwide. Objectives: In order to determine the efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of PAR, the non-inferiority of triamcinolone acetonide to fluticasone propionate was assessed in Russian adults. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, prospective, non-inferiority, phase III clinical trial, a total of 260 patients with persistent PAR were randomized to receive either triamcinolone acetonide or fluticasone propionate nasal sprays for 4 weeks. The efficacy in symptom control was evaluated using the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) from baseline (day 0) to day 28. Safety was assessed through the reporting of adverse events. Results: The rTNSS mean values decreased from baseline to the end of study treatment (day 28) in both groups: –8.2 ± 3.0 in the triamcinolone acetonide arm versus –8.0 ± 2.8 in the fluticasone propionate arm. The mean difference between the groups (triamcinolone acetonide – fluticasone propionate) for rTNSS change from baseline was –0.2 (95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.54), with an upper confidence limit of 0.54, which is lower than the non-inferiority margin of 0.8. Triamcinolone acetonide was well tolerated, with no difference in adverse event occurrence compared with fluticasone propionate. Conclusions: Triamcinolone acetonide proved to be non-inferior to fluticasone propionate in adult patients with PAR; both treatments decreased rTNSS values and showed a good safety profile.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

Karaulov

Vylegzhanina

Овчинников

et al. 2019

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nasal cavity is also home to a diverse group of fungi [4] and viruses [23]. It is noteworthy that both fungi and viruses can affect the nasal bacterial microbiome and trigger the immune system [22].…”

Section: Concerns and Areas Of Unmet Research Needs In The Nasal Micrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While commensal microorganisms and their metabolites maintain the stability of their habitat in a symbiotic system, disturbances in the composition of these commensal resident microbes and pathogens play important roles in the initiation and potentially the progression of inflammation [1]. Current research has shown evidence for dysbiosis of the nasal microbiome in the context of allergic and inflammatory diseases of the airways such as allergic rhinitis (AR) [2][3][4], chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) [1,5,6], and asthma [7]. We also know that the effect of the microbiome is not confined to its immediate location but rather can affect the entire host physiology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The nasal microbiome: opening new clinical research avenues for allergic disease

Mahdavinia

2018

Expert Review of Clinical Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As the allergy practitioner, researcher, or academician evaluates the literature, it is critical to understand the strength and quality of the evidence to allow for appropriate translation to daily clinical care in AR. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) 1 was developed to summarize and critically review the best external evidence in the realm of AR. This includes broad categories of epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, management, and associated conditions/comorbidities related to AR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis—executive summary

Wise

Lin

Toskala

2018

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

Self Cite

172

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature continues to grow. Critical evaluation and understanding of this literature is important to appropriately utilize this knowledge in the care of AR patients. The International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has been produced as a multidisciplinary international effort. This Executive Summary highlights and summarizes the findings of the comprehensive ICAR:AR document.MethodsThe ICAR:AR document was produced 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.ResultsOver 100 individual topics related to AR diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR were addressed in the comprehensive ICAR:AR document. Herein, the Executive Summary provides a synopsis of these findings.ConclusionIn the ICAR:AR critical review of the literature, several strengths were identified. In addition, significant knowledge gaps exist in the AR literature where current practice is not based on the best quality evidence; these should be seen as opportunities for additional research. The ICAR:AR document evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature. This Executive Summary condenses these findings into a short summary. The reader is also encouraged to consult the comprehensive ICAR:AR document for a thorough description of this work.

show abstract

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

Cited by 339 publications

References 1,903 publications

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

Triamcinolone Acetonide versus Fluticasone Propionate in the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial

The nasal microbiome: opening new clinical research avenues for allergic disease

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis—executive summary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About