TOPLINE:

Most patients with pollen‑related allergic rhinitis preferred on‑demand antihistamines over intranasal corticosteroid, whether used on-demand or continuously. Nearly 60% of patients did not change their preferences, and medication preferences varied by age group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data of 139 patients with pollen-related allergic rhinitis (mean age, 11.6 years; 51.4% boys and 70.5% adolescents) including 39 children and 100 adolescents in the Netherlands to determine treatment preferences: intranasal vs oral and on‑demand vs continuous dosing.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive an on-demand levocetirizine dihydrochloride tablet 5 mg/d (n = 45), on-demand fluticasone propionate nasal spray (100 µg/d for those aged < 12 years and 200 µg/d for those aged ≥ 12 years; n = 47), or continuous fluticasone propionate nasal spray at the same dosages (n = 47).
• Patient preferences were assessed through questionnaires at baseline and after 3 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 84.4% of patients preferred on‑demand dosing over continuous use, and 59.4% favored oral tablets over intranasal sprays. However, nearly 60% of patients kept the same preference throughout the study.
• Among children, 54.7% preferred on-demand use of antihistamines, 23.0% chose on-demand use of intranasal corticosteroids, 14.4% opted for continuous use of intranasal corticosteroids, and 51.3% preferred intranasal therapy over oral tablets.
• Among adolescents, 85% preferred on-demand prescription compared with 10% who favored continuous use, with a significant difference in preference between treatment groups (P = .008).
• Overall, treatment group assignment influenced medication preferences (P = .027), with 36.7% of patients preferring their assigned treatment method.

IN PRACTICE:

“When evaluating AR [allergic rhinitis] treatment, clinicians should take into account that preferences of patients might change over time, possibly due to treatment satisfaction,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Ellen Tameeris-Kooiman, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on February 16 in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was limited by its design as a secondary analysis of a randomized trial rather than a crossover study, the use of an unvalidated, endpoint‑only questionnaire, and the inability of participants to select combination therapy as their preferred treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from Lung Foundation Netherlands (Longfonds). The authors declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.