Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.

In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.

This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.

The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.

Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.

The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-2008-update-13eqfzaw4u.pdf

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-20b4c7y0pr.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma

Background: Allergic rhinitis represents a global health problem affecting 10% to 20% of the population. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been widely used to treat the approximately 500 million affected patients globally. Objective: To develop explicit, unambiguous, and transparent clinical recommendations systematically for treatment of allergic rhinitis on the basis of current best evidence. Methods: The authors updated ARIA clinical recommendations in collaboration with Global Allergy and Asthma European Network following the approach suggested by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: This article presents recommendations about the prevention of allergic diseases, the use of oral and topical medications, allergen specific immunotherapy, and complementary treatments in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The guideline panel developed evidence profiles for each recommendation and considered health benefits and harms, burden, patient preferences, and resource use, when appropriate, to formulate recommendations for patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals. Conclusion: These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Patients, clinicians, and policy makers are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-guidelines-3pawic20n9.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 Revision

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis: An Updated Practice Parameter." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

The diagnosis and management of rhinitis: An updated practice parameter

First-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, such as diphenhydramine, triprolidine, hydroxyzine or chlorpheniramine (chlorphenamine), frequently cause somnolence or other CNS adverse effects. Second-generation H1-antagonists, such as terfenadine, astemizole, loratadine and cetirizine, represent a true advance in therapeutics. In manufacturers' recommended doses, they have a more favourable benefit/risk ratio than their predecessors with regard to lack of CNS effects, and do not exacerbate the adverse CNS effects of alcohol or other CNS-active chemicals. Rarely, some of the newer H1-antagonists may cause cardiac dysrhythmias after overdose or under other specific conditions. The concept of a risk-free H1-antagonist is proving to be an oversimplification. An H1-antagonist absolutely free from adverse effects under all circumstances is not yet available for use. The magnitude of the beneficial effects of each H1-antagonist should be related to the magnitude of the unwanted effects, especially in the CNS and cardiovascular system, and a benefit-risk ratio or therapeutic index should be developed for each medication in this class.

H1-receptor antagonists. Comparative tolerability and safety.

Children suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis and matched normals were instructed on the use of a didactic computer simulation in a realistic classroom situation. Groups of atopic children received different treatments before instruction; ie, sedating (diphenylhydramine HCl) or nonsedating (loratadine) antihistamines or placebo. All returned after 2 weeks for an examination measuring factual and conceptual knowledge and the application of a learned strategy. Examination results showed large and consistent impairing effects of the allergic reaction on prior learning. Both the placebo and diphenhydramine groups learned significantly less than normal controls. The loratadine group's learning performance was superior to either of the other atopic groups' but still inferior to the normals'. Our conclusions are that the allergic reaction reduces learning ability in children and that this effect is partially counteracted by treatment with loratadine and aggravated by diphenhydramine.

Seasonal allergic rhinitis and antihistamine effects on children's learning

Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in a randomized, double blind, cross-over trial. They received mirtazapine, mianserin or placebo during separate periods of 15 days. Mirtazapine and mianserin were respectively administered in doses of 15 mg and 30 mg nocte for the first 7 days and doses of 30 mg and 60 mg nocte for the remaining 8 days. Assessments were made at baseline and on days 2, 8, 9 and 16 of each period to compare effects of drugs and placebo on mood, psychomotor (CTT, CRT, CFF and Vigilance) and ‘actual’ driving performance. Sleep quality and duration and side-effects were assessed at baseline and every treatment day. Mirtazapine 15 mg and mianserin 30 mg slightly impaired psychomotor and driving performance on day 2 of treatment. On day 8, the effects were virtually gone, although some driving impairment could still be observed in the mianserin condition. No drug effects on performance were found on day 9 despite the dose escalation. On day 16 of treatment, driving performance and vigilance slightly decreased in, respectively, the mirtazapine and the mianserin conditions. These effects indicate that tolerance to the drugs' adverse effects was not complete. This observation was also supported by subjective data. Similar increments in sleep duration and feelings of lethargy, drowsiness and weakness were observed throughout treatment with both drugs. Alertness and contentedness was always lower during both drug treatments than with placebo. Spontaneously reported adverse events were similar to self-rated side-effects and more of both were recorded during mianserin treatment. It is concluded that the acute and subchronic effects of nocturnal doses of both drugs were similar and equally low in magnitude. Effects on performance were much less than those seen in other studies after administration during the day. Full daily doses of both drugs should be prescribed in nocturnal dosing regimens, and not in divided doses over the day, for avoiding excessive sedation and performance impairment. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effects of nocturnal doses of mirtazapine and mianserin on sleep and on daytime psychomotor and driving performance in young, healthy volunteers

Objective : To determine whether mefloquine, a quinoline antimalarial drug, affects psychomotor and actual driving performance when given in a prophylactic regimen, alone or in combination with alcohol. Methods : Forty male and female volunteers were randomly assigned in equal numbers to two groups, and were treated double-blind for one month with mefloquine and placebo. The medication was taken in a 250 mg dose on the evenings of Days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 and 29. Testing was done on Days 4, 23 and 30, the latter after repeated doses of alcohol sufficient to sustain a blood concentration of about 0.35 mg ml -1 . Two real driving tests were used to measure prolonged (1 h) road tracking and car following performance. Critical Flicker/Fusion Frequency (CFF), critical instability tracking and body sway were also measured in the laboratory. Results : Mefloquine caused no significant impairment in any test at any time relative to placebo. It significantly improved road tracking performance on Day 4. A significant interaction between prior treatment and alcohol was found in the body sway test, as the alcohol-induced change was less after mefloquine than placebo. The sensitivity of the driving test and the CFF test were shown by the significant overall effect of alcohol which did not discriminate between the two prior treatments. Conclusion : Mefloquine did not impair driving performance but rather improved it in the longer test, suggesting that the drug may possess psychostimulating properties.

Effects of mefloquine alone and with alcohol on psychomotor and driving performance.

Results from two separate studies were combined to compare the acute and subchronic effects of two monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A) inhibitors, moclobemide and brofaromine, on actual driving performance and sleep. Both studies were conducted according to a double-blind, crossover design involving 18 patients receiving moclobemide and 16 patients receiving brofaromine. Patients were administered either moclobemide 200 mg b.i.d., mianserin 10 mg. t.i.d., and placebo (study 1), or brofaromine 50 and 75 mg b.i.d., doxepin 25 mg t.i.d., and placebo (study 2) for 8 consecutive days. A standardized driving test was conducted on day 1 and day 8 of treatment. Daily logs of estimated sleep duration and quality were obtained. Neither moclobemide nor brofaromine impaired driving performance. Some indication, although statistically not significant, was found that moclobemide improved driving performance on day 1. Brofaromine 75 mg significantly improved driving performance on day 8 of treatment. No significant difference between the effects of both drugs was found in a cross-study comparison. Moclobemide did not affect any sleep parameter, whereas brofaromine shortened sleep duration and decreased sleep quality. On day 1, mianserin and doxepin impaired driving. Impairment dissipated after 8 days of treatment with doxepine but not during treatment with mianserin. Sleep duration was prolonged during treatment with both drugs, whereas sleep quality remained unaffected. It is concluded that both MAO-A inhibitors are safe drugs with respect to driving.

A cross study comparison of the effects of moclobemide and brofaromine on actual driving performance and estimated sleep

The effects of befloxatone (20 mg o.d. for 10 days) alone and in combination with ethanol on psychomotor performance, memory and mood were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. On treatment days 6, 8 and 10, subjects received 0.5 and 0.8 g/kg ethanol and ethanol placebo in randomly assigned, balanced orders, 2 h post-drug. Critical fusion frequency, choice reaction time, postural instability, critical tracking and mood were measured 1h before ethanol and 1, 3 and 5 h afterwards. Divided attention, sustained attention and memory (immediate and delayed recall) were also measured in single tests, 2.5-5 h post-ethanol.Ethanol's effects were generally significant when blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) after both doses were the highest; i.e. 0.48-0.67 and 0.96-1.10 mg/ml. Those effects were virtually gone after the subjects' mean BACs fell below 0.40 mg/ml. Befloxatone alone had no significant impairing effect in any test. Neither did it significantly interact with ethanol to cause ...

L. M. A. Van Veggel

Papers

Seasonal allergic rhinitis and antihistamine effects on children's learning

Effects of nocturnal doses of mirtazapine and mianserin on sleep and on daytime psychomotor and driving performance in young, healthy volunteers

Effects of mefloquine alone and with alcohol on psychomotor and driving performance.

A cross study comparison of the effects of moclobemide and brofaromine on actual driving performance and estimated sleep

A study of the pharmacodynamic interaction between befloxatone and ethanol on performance and mood in healthy volunteers