Twenty cases of perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis treated with LumiMed® Nasal Device.
Allergic rhinitis
Antihistamines
Corticosteroids
Inflammation
Infrared
Photobiomodulation
Phototherapy
Journal
Journal of medical case reports
ISSN: 1752-1947
Titre abrégé: J Med Case Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101293382
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2023
14 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
31
05
2022
accepted:
09
05
2023
medline:
15
6
2023
pubmed:
14
6
2023
entrez:
13
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Allergic rhinitis is the most common allergic disease, with a prevalence up to 40% in the general population. Allergic rhinitis requires daily treatment to block inflammatory mediators and suppress the inflammatory response. However, these medications may have harmful side effects. Photobiomodulation as a treatment modality to reduce inflammation has been beneficial in many chronic disorders, yet therapy has not been US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The LumiMed Nasal Device was designed to address the limitations associated with the treatment of allergic rhinitis with photobiomodulation. This in-office study hopes to show efficacy, usability, and comfortability of the LumiMed Nasal Device. Twenty patients with allergic rhinitis were treated during high allergy season with LumiMed Nasal Device. The average age of patients was 35 years (10-75); 11 were female and 9 were male. The population's ethnicities were white (n = 11), Black (n = 6), Oriental (n = 2), and Iranian (n = 1). Patients were treated with twice-daily dosing, 10 seconds in each nostril, for 10 consecutive days. After 10 days, patients were evaluated for symptom relief, device comfort and device ease of use. The Total Nasal Symptom Score was used to assess severity of main symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The sum of Total Nasal Symptom Scores for each symptom category was calculated (total possible scores per patient were 0-9). Rhinorrhea/nasal secretions, nasal congestion, and nasal itching/sneezing were evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 no symptoms, 1 mild symptoms, 2 moderate symptoms, 3 severe symptoms). Device comfort was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 no discomfort, 1 mild discomfort, 2 moderate discomfort, 3 severe discomfort). Device ease of use was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 very easy, 1 somewhat difficult, 2 difficult, 3 very difficult). The results from these case studies indicated that of the 20 patients in this case study, 100% of patients experienced improvement in overall Total Nasal Symptom Score after using LumiMed Nasal Device. Of those patients, 40% brought their Total Nasal Symptom Score down to 0. Furthermore, 95% felt the LumiMed Nasal Device was comfortable to use, while 85% of patients felt the LumiMed Nasal Device was easy to use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis is the most common allergic disease, with a prevalence up to 40% in the general population. Allergic rhinitis requires daily treatment to block inflammatory mediators and suppress the inflammatory response. However, these medications may have harmful side effects. Photobiomodulation as a treatment modality to reduce inflammation has been beneficial in many chronic disorders, yet therapy has not been US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The LumiMed Nasal Device was designed to address the limitations associated with the treatment of allergic rhinitis with photobiomodulation. This in-office study hopes to show efficacy, usability, and comfortability of the LumiMed Nasal Device.
CASE PRESENTATION
METHODS
Twenty patients with allergic rhinitis were treated during high allergy season with LumiMed Nasal Device. The average age of patients was 35 years (10-75); 11 were female and 9 were male. The population's ethnicities were white (n = 11), Black (n = 6), Oriental (n = 2), and Iranian (n = 1). Patients were treated with twice-daily dosing, 10 seconds in each nostril, for 10 consecutive days. After 10 days, patients were evaluated for symptom relief, device comfort and device ease of use. The Total Nasal Symptom Score was used to assess severity of main symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The sum of Total Nasal Symptom Scores for each symptom category was calculated (total possible scores per patient were 0-9). Rhinorrhea/nasal secretions, nasal congestion, and nasal itching/sneezing were evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 no symptoms, 1 mild symptoms, 2 moderate symptoms, 3 severe symptoms). Device comfort was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 no discomfort, 1 mild discomfort, 2 moderate discomfort, 3 severe discomfort). Device ease of use was evaluated on a scale of 0-3 (0 very easy, 1 somewhat difficult, 2 difficult, 3 very difficult).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results from these case studies indicated that of the 20 patients in this case study, 100% of patients experienced improvement in overall Total Nasal Symptom Score after using LumiMed Nasal Device. Of those patients, 40% brought their Total Nasal Symptom Score down to 0. Furthermore, 95% felt the LumiMed Nasal Device was comfortable to use, while 85% of patients felt the LumiMed Nasal Device was easy to use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37312188
doi: 10.1186/s13256-023-03980-4
pii: 10.1186/s13256-023-03980-4
pmc: PMC10265857
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
263Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Rhinology. 2011 Dec;49(5):499-506
pubmed: 22125778
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 28;8(6):e67358
pubmed: 23840675
Allergy. 2020 May;75(5):1017-1018
pubmed: 31758812
J Photochem Photobiol B. 2019 Jul;196:111513
pubmed: 31136885
Lasers Surg Med. 2007 Jul;39(6):543-50
pubmed: 17659584
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Jun;137(6):1662-1670
pubmed: 27264001
Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(6):345-61
pubmed: 15099121
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2005 May;137(1):82-92
pubmed: 15832054
Lasers Med Sci. 2018 Dec;33(9):1933-1940
pubmed: 29909435
Photochem Photobiol. 2005 Nov-Dec;81(6):1351-5
pubmed: 16076245
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Feb;101(2 Pt 2):S379-82
pubmed: 9500733
Lasers Med Sci. 2012 Jan;27(1):71-8
pubmed: 21484455
Ann Biomed Eng. 2012 Feb;40(2):516-33
pubmed: 22045511
Chem Immunol Allergy. 2010;95:22-44
pubmed: 20519880
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Oct;138(4):984-1010
pubmed: 27577879
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Mar;15(3):348-356
pubmed: 29323930
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002 Mar;109(3):419-25
pubmed: 11897985
J Neurotrauma. 2012 Jan 20;29(2):408-17
pubmed: 21851183
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997 Apr;78(4):399-406
pubmed: 9109708
J Biophotonics. 2015 Jun;8(6):489-501
pubmed: 25207838
J Neurosci Res. 2018 Apr;96(4):731-743
pubmed: 29131369
Photonics Lasers Med. 2012 Nov 1;1(4):267-286
pubmed: 23626925
BBA Clin. 2016 Oct 01;6:113-124
pubmed: 27752476
Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2014 Apr 1;194:37-48
pubmed: 24486607
Allergy. 2007;62 Suppl 84:1-41
pubmed: 17924930
Lancet. 2008 Sep 20;372(9643):1049-57
pubmed: 18805333
J Biophotonics. 2016 Dec;9(11-12):1273-1299
pubmed: 27874264
Lasers Med Sci. 2017 Feb;32(2):343-349
pubmed: 27909916
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Mar;274(3):1543-1550
pubmed: 27864672
AIMS Biophys. 2017;4(3):337-361
pubmed: 28748217