Search

Medical treatment options for patients with rhinitis during pregnancy need careful considerations. It is important to distinguish between the causes of rhinitis, as this can influence treatment. Conservative options are important for patients with pregnancy-induced rhinitis (PIR) and pre-existing allergic or non-allergic rhinitis. Education and knowledge that PIR symptoms will resolve after pregnancy can offer some relief. Other strategies such as exercise, positioning, saline nasal douching/lavage, and nasal valve dilators are safe in pregnancy and can have a benefit in these patients with rhinitis of any aetiology. The main medical therapies usually used in rhinitis cannot always be directly translated to pregnant patients due to potential teratogenic effects. Topical corticosteroids have generally shown to be safe with budesonide having the strongest recommendations. Oral corticosteroids are mostly used in moderate-severe disease and should be avoided in the first trimester. Oral decongestants have associations with cardiac, ear, gut and limb abnormalities and are not recommended in the first trimester. Loratadine and cetirizine have been the most well-studied second-generation antihistamines and are generally considered safe. There has been no reported increased risk of teratogenicity with anticholinergics or cromones, with the latter being one of the first line options in pregnant women with allergic rhinitis. The role of allergen immunotherapy needs further research, but current guidance states it can be continued if already initiated prior to pregnancy. The management of rhinitis in pregnancy can therefore be complex. This review aims to evaluate the current medical management options for rhinitis in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disorder associated with other respiratory tract diseases such as asthma and inhalant allergy. However, the prevalence of these co-morbidities varies considerably in the existing medical literature and by phenotype of CRS studied. The study objective was to identify the prevalence of asthma, inhalant allergy and aspirin sensitivity in CRS patients referred to secondary care and establish any differences between CRS phenotypes.Methods: All participants were diagnosed in secondary care according to international guidelines and invited to complete a questionnaire including details of co-morbidities and allergies. Data were analysed for differences between controls and CRS participants and between phenotypes using chi-squared tests.Results: The final analysis included 1470 study participants: 221 controls, 553 CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNPs), 651 CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNPs) and 45 allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). The prevalence of asthma was 9.95, 21.16, 46.9 and 73.3% respectively. The prevalence of self-reported confirmed inhalant allergy was 13.1, 20.3, 31.0 and 33.3% respectively; house dust mite allergy was significantly higher in CRSwNPs (16%) compared to CRSsNPs (9%, p < 0.001). The prevalence of self- reported aspirin sensitivity was 2.26, 3.25, 9.61 and 40% respectively. The odds ratio for aspirin sensitivity amongst those with AFRS was 28.8 (CIs 9.9, 83.8) p < 0.001.Conclusions: The prevalence of asthma and allergy in CRS varies by phenoytype, with CRSwNPs and AFRS having a stronger association with both. Aspirin sensitivity has a highly significant association with AFRS. All of these comorbidities are significantly more prevalent than in non-CRS controls and strengthen the need for a more individualised approach to the combined airway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]