Search

Key Points: CRSwNP-specific mean total annual spending ranged from $5,837 (EDS-FLU) to $28,058 (dupilumab). Most CRSwNP patients receiving biologics had comorbid asthma and did not undergo sinus surgery. While biologics were covered by most Medicare Part D plans, only 37% of plans covered EDS-FLU., (© 2024 ARS‐AAOA, LLC.)

Key Points: In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%., (© 2024 ARS‐AAOA, LLC.)

Acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) account for most antibiotic prescriptions in pediatrics. Although US guidelines continue to recommend ≥10 days antibiotics for common ARTIs, evidence suggests that 5-day courses can be safe and effective. Academic imprinting seems to play a major role in the continued use of prolonged antibiotic durations. In this report, we discuss the evidence supporting short antibiotic courses for group A streptococcal pharyngitis, acute otitis media, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. We discuss the basis for prolonged antibiotic course recommendations and recent literature investigating shorter courses. Prescribers in the United States should overcome academic imprinting and follow international trends to reduce antibiotic durations for common ARTIs, where 5 days is a safe and efficacious course when antibiotics are prescribed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis is a heterogenous disease with complex underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. Biologics have been proven to be an effective add-on therapeutic option in severe and/or refractory cases. Currently, dupilumab, omalizumab and mepolizumab have phase III data to support their use in these patients and have received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of nasal polyposis. Each of these biologics has shown its ability to reduce nasal polyp size and improve nasal congestion/obstruction and sense of smell, but additional research is needed to directly compare the efficacy and safety of the different biologic agents for different nasal polyposis endotypes.

Background: Biologic medications are emerging as options for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Several questions remain regarding patient selection, indications, clinical efficacy, and cost effectiveness., Methods: In November 2019, a group of physicians and scientists gathered to consider strategies for future studies regarding biologics. During the discussion, gaps in knowledge highlighted a need for a consensus on the present day use of biologics in polyp patients., Results: The goal of this guideline is to propose recommendations for the current use of biologics in CRSwNP as new evidence continues to emerge and inform practice., Conclusion: We suggest that physicians evaluate patients on an individual basis and closely monitor for improvement due to the high cost and unknown long-term effects of biologics., (© 2020 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Objectives: To qualitatively explore patient experiences of severe, recurrent, bilateral nasal polyps (NP)., Methods: A targeted literature review of published qualitative studies and online blogs describing patient experiences of NP was conducted. Semistructured concept elicitation interviews were conducted in the United States and Germany with participants ≥18 years with severe, recurrent, bilateral NP to explore their symptom experience and impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQoL; NCT03221192). A subset of 10 participants reported symptoms and impacts using a smartphone or tablet application (app) over a 10-day period., Results: A paucity of qualitative evidence regarding patient experience of NP was identified from the literature or blog review. Twenty-seven participant interviews were conducted. Thirty-six symptoms were identified, including 7 primary symptoms (nasal congestion [n = 27 of 27], breathing difficulties [n = 27 of 27], postnasal drip [n = 25 of 27], runny nose [n = 24 of 27], head/facial pressure [n = 23 of 27], loss of smell [n = 23 of 27], loss of taste [n = 22 of 27]) and 29 secondary symptoms (the most common were mucus/catarrh and nose bleeds [both n = 20 of 27]). Most symptoms were reported to vary both within and between days. Sixty impacts of severe NP were reported, including impacts on sleep (n = 22 of 27), physical functioning (n = 21 of 27), activities of daily living (n = 21 of 27), emotional well-being (n = 27 of 27), treatment (n = 23 of 27), social life (n = 26 of 27), and work (n = 19 of 27). Symptoms/impacts reported using the app were consistent with interview findings, although new symptoms were identified (ear pain, throat pain, nasal scabs, and nasal burning). These results supported the development of a conceptual model outlining concepts related to symptoms, impacts, and treatment of NP., Conclusions: Severe, recurrent, bilateral NP are associated with a range of symptoms that have significant detrimental impact on HRQoL., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The development of biologics targeting various aspects of type 2 inflammation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) will provide clinicians with powerful tools to help treat these patients. However, other therapies are also available, and positioning of biologics in a management algorithm will require comparative trials. In November 2019, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases convened a workshop to consider potential future trial designs. Workshop participants represented a wide spectrum of clinical specialties, including otolaryngology, allergy, and pulmonary medicine, as well as expertise in CRSwNP pathophysiology and in trial methodology and statistics. The workshop discussed the current state of knowledge in CRSwNP and considered the advantages and disadvantages of various clinical trial or observational study designs and various clinical outcomes. The output from this workshop, which is presented in this report, will hopefully provide investigators with adequate information and ideas to design future studies and answer critical clinical questions. It will also help clinicians understand the current state of the management of CRSwNP and its gaps and be more able to interpret the new information to come., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives/hypothesis: Statins have long been used in the management of cardiovascular disease for their lipid-lowering properties. However, recent research suggests that statins may also have anti-inflammatory effects via modulation of lipid-containing enzymes and mediators, and therefore may have therapeutic value in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)., Study Design: Retrospective database review., Methods: The 2006 to 2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data were queried to analyze the relationship between statin use and rates of CRS. CRS was indicated by the presence of an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for CRS in one of the five diagnosis variables. Statin use was indicated by the presence of a statin medication in any of the 30 medication variables using the Multum Lexicon Drug Database, with newly prescribed medications excluded. Relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and comorbid factors were included in a multivariate logistic regression model, which accounted for the complex, stratified, multistage survey design of the NAMCS., Results: There were 390,538 unweighted visit records used in the weighted analysis dataset, corresponding to 9,612,613,668 weighted visits. Statin use was associated with a decreased rate of CRS in both a univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.53, P < .001) and the multivariate logistic regression accounting for comorbid, socioeconomic, and demographic factors (OR = 0.79, P = .030)., Conclusions: Statin use is associated with decreased rates of CRS based on a nationally representative sample of outpatient visits in the United States. This supports research that suggests statin medications may have protective properties against CRS, and further research is warranted into their potential therapeutic value for this indication., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 130:848-851, 2020., (© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Background and Aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder with increasing prevalence. However, epidemiologic data have mostly been acquired from small studies. We sought to describe the epidemiology of EoE in the USA, utilizing a large database., Methods: We queried a commercial database (Explorys Inc, Cleveland, OH, USA), an aggregate of electronic health record data from 26 major integrated US healthcare systems from 1999 to July 2015. We identified an aggregated patient cohort of eligible patients with EoE and a history of proton-pump inhibitor use between July 2010 and July 2015, based on Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms. We calculated the prevalence of EoE among different patient groups., Results: Of the 30,301,440 individuals in the database, we identified 7840 patients with EoE with an overall prevalence of 25.9/100,000 persons. Prevalence was higher in males than females [odds ratio (OR) 2.00; 95 % CI 1.92-2.10, p < 0.0001], Caucasians versus African-Americans and Asians (OR 2.00; 95 % CI 1.86-2.14, p < 0.0001), and adults (18-65 years) versus elderly (>65 years) and children (<18 years) (OR 1.63; 95 % CI 1.54-1.71, p < 0.0001). Compared with controls (individuals in database without EoE), individuals with EoE were more likely to have other gastrointestinal diagnoses such as dysphagia and at least one allergic condition., Conclusions: In this large study, we found that the estimated prevalence of EoE in the USA is 25.9/100,000, which is at the lower end of prevalence rates reported in the USA and other industrial countries. We confirmed that EoE has a strong association with allergic and gastrointestinal diagnoses., Competing Interests: There are no potential conflicts (financial, professional, or personal) to disclose by both the authors (Emad Mansoor and Gregory S. Cooper).

Background: Acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) is the most common reason for antibiotic prescription in adults. Antibiotics are often inappropriately prescribed for patients with ARTI. This article presents best practices for antibiotic use in healthy adults (those without chronic lung disease or immunocompromising conditions) presenting with ARTI., Methods: A narrative literature review of evidence about appropriate antibiotic use for ARTI in adults was conducted. The most recent clinical guidelines from professional societies were complemented by meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized clinical trials. To identify evidence-based articles, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched through September 2015 using the following Medical Subject Headings terms: "acute bronchitis," "respiratory tract infection," "pharyngitis," "rhinosinusitis," and "the common cold.", High-Value Care Advice 1: Clinicians should not perform testing or initiate antibiotic therapy in patients with bronchitis unless pneumonia is suspected., High-Value Care Advice 2: Clinicians should test patients with symptoms suggestive of group A streptococcal pharyngitis (for example, persistent fevers, anterior cervical adenitis, and tonsillopharyngeal exudates or other appropriate combination of symptoms) by rapid antigen detection test and/or culture for group A Streptococcus. Clinicians should treat patients with antibiotics only if they have confirmed streptococcal pharyngitis., High-Value Care Advice 3: Clinicians should reserve antibiotic treatment for acute rhinosinusitis for patients with persistent symptoms for more than 10 days, onset of severe symptoms or signs of high fever (>39 °C) and purulent nasal discharge or facial pain lasting for at least 3 consecutive days, or onset of worsening symptoms following a typical viral illness that lasted 5 days that was initially improving (double sickening)., High-Value Care Advice 4: Clinicians should not prescribe antibiotics for patients with the common cold.

Objective: To identify variations in antibiotic treatment of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) on a national level., Study Design: Cross-sectional study of a national database., Setting: Otolaryngology and primary care ambulatory settings., Subjects and Methods: A nationally representative sample of adult outpatient visits was extracted from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey data for 2006 to 2009. Antibiotic prescriptions associated with ARS were tabulated. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify variations in antibiotic prescribing by patient and physician characteristics., Results: Antibiotics were prescribed in 82.3% ± 2.6% of 18.7 million visits for ARS (mean age, 46.2 years; 65.9% female). The ratio of primary care physician (PCP) to otolaryngologist (ENT) ARS visits was 18.6:1. Antibiotic prescription rates were inversely related to increasing age groups of 18 to 39, 40 to 64, and ≥ 65 years (87.8%, 81.2%, and 71.0%, respectively; P = .02). Physicians in general medicine outpatient departments, internal medicine, and family medicine were more likely to prescribe antibiotics compared with ENTs (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 7.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5-17.8]; 6.9 [2.5-19.2]; and 3.9 [2.0-7.7], respectively). The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were azithromycin, amoxicillin, and amoxicillin/clavulanate acid (27.5%, 15.5%, and 14.6%, respectively). The ENTs selected broad-spectrum antibiotics more often than PCPs (94.3% vs 75.7% of visits with antibiotics were broad-spectrum agents; P = .01)., Conclusion: Antibiotics were prescribed frequently despite recent consensus guidelines that discourage antibiotic use in mild cases. Furthermore, antibiotic prescription was more likely for younger patients and in primary care settings. This highlights the need to promote awareness of practice guidelines.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) affects approximately 1 in 7 adults in the United States, and its effect on quality of life, productivity, and finances is substantial. During the past 10 years, several expert panels from authoritative bodies have published evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of RS and its subtypes, including acute viral RS, acute bacterial RS, chronic RS (CRS) without nasal polyposis, CRS with nasal polyposis, and allergic fungal RS. This review examines and compares the recommendations of the Rhinosinusitis Initiative, the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, the Clinical Practice Guideline: Adult Sinusitis, the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2007, and the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Points of consensus and divergent opinions expressed in these guidelines regarding classification, diagnosis, and management of adults with acute RS (ARS) and CRS and their various subtypes are highlighted for the practicing clinician. Key points of agreement regarding therapy in the guidelines for ARS include the efficacy of symptomatic treatment, such as intranasal corticosteroids, and the importance of reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics in ARS; however, guidelines do not agree precisely regarding when antibiotics should be considered as a reasonable treatment strategy. Although the guidelines diverge markedly on the management of CRS, the diagnostic utility of nasal airway examination is acknowledged by all. Important and relevant data from MEDLINE-indexed articles published since the most recent guidelines were issued are also considered, and needs for future research are discussed.

Objective: To generalize the prescribing trends of a statistically defined sample of patient visits because of acute or chronic rhinosinusitis in the United States, using reported diagnostic codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification., Design: Four-year prospective study., Setting: Public use data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey collected by the National Center for Health Statistics., Results: The most frequently recommended medications for treatment of both acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are antibiotic agents, followed by antihistamines; nasal decongestants; corticosteroids; and antitussive, expectorant, and mucolytic agents, respectively. In addition, corticosteroids are used for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis., Conclusions: The use of prescription antibiotics far outweighs the predicted incidence of bacterial causes of acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. Frequency of antibiotic class used was not congruent with reported antimicrobial efficacy of the respective classes. Despite contradictory efficacies reported in the literature, inhaled corticosteroids were frequently used to treat acute rhinosinusitis. Antibiotics and inhaled nasal corticosteroids are being used more often than their published efficacies would encourage.

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) is a common complication of viral upper respiratory tract infections and is associated with a significant socioeconomic burden. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of ABRS have been produced in association with a number of societies in the United States; these guidelines aim to promote the rational selection of antibiotic therapy to optimize clinical outcomes while minimizing the potential for selection of antibiotic resistance. This article provides an overview of current U.S. guidelines for the treatment of ABRS, focusing on the impact of antibiotic resistance on treatment options.

Background: This study was performed to identify current patterns of diagnostic criteria and medical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) by otolaryngologists in the United States., Methods: A 15-item survey was mailed to a random sample of 200 members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery; statistical analysis was performed., Results: The overall response rate was 40.0%. Of respondents, 73% defined CRS as lasting >12 weeks. Seventy-three percent also believed radiological imaging was necessary for definitive diagnosis, but only 30% believed nasal endoscopy was necessary. Regarding treatment, respondents reported use of oral antibiotics (94%) and nasal corticosteroids (94%) as part of maximum medical management; oral decongestants, oral mucoevacuants, and allergy testing were used only by about one-half of the respondents, and less frequently topical decongestants (38%), oral corticosteroids (36%), and oral antihistamines (27%) were used. Oral corticosteroids were more likely to be used by specialists that self-classified as rhinologists than by other otolaryngologists (p = 0.005), but rhinologists were less likely to use radiological imaging (p = 0.04) as a diagnostic criterion. Pediatric otolaryngologists used allergy testing in medical management more frequently than other otolaryngologists (p < 0.001). Overall, the basis for choice of maximal medical management was personal clinical experience (74%), rather than clinical research results or expert recommendations., Conclusion: We had a fairly small sample of returned surveys; therefore, our findings may not be generalizable to the entire population of U.S. otolaryngologists. Nevertheless, in our survey, U.S. otolaryngologists agree on the use of oral antibiotics and nasal corticosteroids as part of maximal medical management for CRS but do not agree on other adjuvant therapies or on the use of endoscopy as a diagnostic criterion.

Allergic rhinitis and asthma each require costly medical resource utilization, and the impact of both conditions is believed to be even greater. This retrospective cost of illness study evaluated the impact of allergic rhinitis on asthma medical care resource utilization rates and costs for patients with asthma plus allergic rhinitis vs. patients with asthma alone. Patients with one or more claims for asthma (n=27,398) were identified from a medical claims database from a large, northeastern U.S. health insurance plan (1992-1994). A subset of 9226 patients also had at least one visit for allergic rhinitis. Inpatient, professional service, major medical, and pharmaceutical (prescription medications) claims were examined. Patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis had greater medical utilization and costs than individuals with asthma only. The presence of allergic rhinitis was associated with greater frequencies and costs of prescriptions for all asthma-related medications evaluated in the study. Patients with both conditions were also more likely to receive care from medical specialists and less likely to be in managed care. Controlling for these factors, allergic rhinitis was still associated with an increase (P<0.0001) in annual costs of more than dollars 350. Allergic rhinitis in patients with asthma nearly doubles annual medical resource utilization and costs and is associated with increased utilization of asthma-related medications. Based on use of asthma medications, patients with concomitant allergic rhinitis can be regarded as having more severe asthma than do those without allergic rhinitis. Physicians should assess asthma patients for symptoms of allergic rhinitis to improve asthma treatment.

Background: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee deemed the second-generation antihistamines (SGA) safe for over-the-counter use against the preliminary opposition of the manufacturers. As a result, loratadine is now available over-the-counter. First-generation antihistamines (FGA) are associated with an increased risk of unintentional injuries, fatalities, and reduced productivity. Access to SGA over-the-counter could result in decreased use of FGA, thereby reducing deleterious outcomes. The societal impact of transitioning this class of medications from prescription to over-the-counter status has important policy implications., Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of transitioning SGA to over-the-counter status from a societal perspective., Research Design: A simulation model of the decision to transition SGA to over-the-counter status was compared with retaining prescription-only status for a hypothetical cohort of individuals with allergic rhinitis in the United States. Estimates of costs and effectiveness were obtained from the medical literature and national surveys. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a second-order Monte Carlo simulation., Main Outcome Measures: Discounted, quality-adjusted life-years saved as a result of amelioration of allergic rhinitis symptoms and avoidance of motor vehicle, occupational, public and home injuries and fatalities; discounted direct and indirect costs., Results: Availability of SGA over-the-counter was associated with annual savings of 4 billion dollars (2.4-5.3 billion dollars) or 100 dollars (64-137 dollars) per allergic rhinitis sufferer and 135,061 time-discounted quality-adjusted life years (84,913-191,802). The sensitivity analysis provides evidence in support of these results., Conclusion: Making SGA available over-the-counter is both cost-saving and more effective for society, largely as a result of reduced adverse outcomes associated with FGA-induced sedation. Further study is needed to determine the differential impact on specific vulnerable populations.

Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common health care complaints in this country. The burden on affected individuals in terms of decreased productivity, absenteeism from the workplace, and diminished quality of life, when added to the cost of care and the growing public health menace of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, makes rhinosinusitis a serious disease that warrants precise diagnosis and effective therapy. Technologic innovations in endoscopy and imaging have improved understanding of sinus pathophysiology, but diagnosis remains clinical and treatment empiric. Recognized pitfalls in acute rhinosinusitis management are injudicious use of antibiotics and antihistamines. Chronic rhinosinusitis is a complex, multifactorial disorder, not simply an infectious disease. In many patients, noninfectious inflammation and structural problems play an important role. Medical management should include an intranasal corticosteroid in addition to an appropriate antibiotic. Otolaryngology referral is indicated for complications of acute infection, immunocompromised patients, nasal polyps, and chronic rhinosinusitis having substantial effect on quality of life. Modern surgical principles that focus on obstructive pathology in the OMC region are efficacious but rarely curative. Developments in the fields of immunology, molecular biology, and genetics will lead to more effective treatment options.

Azelastine hydrochloride is a pharmacologically distinct H1-receptor antagonist with a broad spectrum of antiallergic and anti-inflammatory activity. Azelastine has established antiallergic and anti-inflammatory effects that are unrelated to H1-receptor antagonism, including inhibitory effects on the synthesis of leukotrienes, kinins, and cytokines; the generation of superoxide free radicals; and the expression of the intercellular adhesion molecule 1. Azelastine is available in the United States as a nasal spray formulation (Astelin) and is approved for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. In U.S. clinical trials, azelastine nasal spray was effective in treating all of the symptoms of the allergic rhinitis symptom complex including ocular symptoms, and in double-blind clinical trials in nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis, azelastine nasal spray was effective in treating the total vasomotor rhinitis symptom complex including individual symptoms of nasal congestion and postnasal drip. This article reviews the pharmacologic profile and clinical efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray.

Current medical guidelines for allergic rhinitis, a highly prevalent disorder, recommend an intranasal corticosteroid as a safe and effective pharmacotherapeutic option. The 6 intranasal corticosteroids available in the United States have approximately equivalent efficacy, although their formulations differ and patients express preferences for specific products. While they are all generally safe at recommended doses, patient preference may increase willingness to adhere to a treatment regimen, a major goal when long-term therapy is required. Another important factor involves the direct costs of treatment associated with each intranasal corticosteroid. This review presents comparative economic data from a retrospective study using a large managed care database as well as data from controlled clinical studies comparing patient preferences for specific attributes of 4 intranasal corticosteroids. When possible, comparative data from clinical trials that assess patient preference, potential treatment adherence, and costs, as well as their interrelationships, should be considered when evaluating intranasal corticosteroid use in the managed care setting.

Multiple medications are available to treat asthma and other allergic diseases, making it difficult to determine which medications to use. The decision should be based on efficacy, cost, and other advantages and disadvantages. Comparative tables can help for rapid selection and can be used as a tool for enhancing prescribing practices. This article organizes this information into a tabular format, allowing for rapid review.

Background: Authors have unanimously reported that 10 mg of loratadine does not produce sedation. A small risk of sedation may exist and may not have been discovered by those studies due to their small sample size., Hypothesis: Using combined data, there is no increased risk of sedation over placebo for patients using 10 mg of loratadine daily., Methods: Literature search and meta-analysis of published data was performed., Results: Pooled data showed sedation in 25 of 517 patients given 10 mg of loratadine, and 24 of 510 patients given placebo. The relative risk was 1.03, with a confidence interval from 0.59 to 1.77. Sleepiness was objectively studied using the multiple sleep latency test. Patients treated with 10 mg of loratadine did not have excess sleepiness induced; patients treated with 40 mg of loratadine did. Using 10 different methods, 20 studies did not find performance impairment in subjects given 10 mg of loratadine. Two performance studies, digit substitution and driving, showed impairment with 20 mg and 40 mg of loratadine, respectively. Physiologic studies using resting EEG had conflicting reports. There was no impairment detected in altitude studies or vestibular studies. No centrifuge or color vision data were found., Conclusion: Ingesting 10 mg of loratadine daily does not have sedative effects or impair cognitive-motor performance. Higher doses have demonstrated impairment. Aviation concerns that have not been addressed include centrifuge studies and color vision studies. It would be reasonable to employ loratadine in the high performance aerospace environment if these latter tests prove to be negative.

Background: Upper respiratory infections (URIs) account for many of the visits in primary care and are commonly treated with ineffective antibiotic therapy. The purpose of this study was to examine patient beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotics and the likelihood of seeking care for normal presentations of URIs., Methods: We conducted a survey of 961 adults (> or = 18 years of age) from an undifferentiated patient population in a university-based family practice residency clinic in metropolitan Kentucky, a private internal medicine practice in nonmetropolitan Kentucky, and, in metropolitan Louisiana, an emergency department and a convenience sample from the community., Results: Seventy-two percent of the sample reported that they would seek care with a condition of 5 days' duration with cough, sore throat, and discolored nasal discharge. Sixty-one percent of the sample expressed their belief that antibiotics are effective for a condition of 5 days' duration with cough, sore throat, and clear nasal discharge; 79% said that they believed antibiotics are effective when there is discolored discharge (P = .0001). Medicaid recipients were most likely to seek care across the symptom complexes. Higher education was related to a decreased belief in the effectiveness of antibiotics for the scenario with clear discharge (P .001), but to an increased belief in the effectiveness of antibiotics in the scenario with discolored discharge (P = .003). The strongest predictor of both likelihood of utilization and belief in effectiveness of antibiotics was usual use of antibiotics for the URI symptom complexes., Conclusions: Patients lack understanding of the normal presentation of a URI and the effectiveness of antibiotics as a treatment. A confusion about the meaning of discolored nasal discharge is particularly evident, and past antibiotic use may contribute to inappropriate utilization and expectations for antibiotics.

Allergic rhinitis afflicts close to 40% of the nation's population and costs more than $1.8 billion a year. The toll exacted by this disorder has been greatly alleviated by nonsedating second-generation antihistamines loratadine, terfenadine, and astemizole. The three agents effectively reduce symptoms without the sometimes intolerable adverse effects of older drugs, but they are not completely equivalent. For example, terfenadine requires twice/day dosing, whereas the others can be given once/day. Astemizole has a slow onset and extremely prolonged duration of action. Both terfenadine and astemizole may have cardiotoxic effects (e.g., torsades de pointes) when serum concentrations rise due to overdosing or drug interactions. Cetirizine, a recently approved second-generation antihistamine, has sedative and anticholinergic effects, although to a lesser degree than the first-generation antihistamines.