Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow
Article first published online: 24 DEC 2001
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 30, Issue 6, pages 833–838, June 2000
How to Cite
Wilson, Dempsey, Sims, Coutie, Paterson and Lipworth (2000), Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak inspiratory flow. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 30: 833–838. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00749.x
- Issue published online: 24 DEC 2001
- Article first published online: 24 DEC 2001
- Cited By
- nasal peak inspiratory flow;
- seasonal allergic rhinitis;
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).
We wished to evaluate the relationship between domiciliary measurement of nasal PIFR and a variety of symptoms associated with rhinitis.
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.
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).
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.