Nasal steroid how long

It's important to use your spray regularly, even if you're feeling better. It will only help if it's used every day. If you forget to take a dose, take it as soon as you remember. If it's nearly time for your next dose, skip the one you missed.

Accidentally using too much steroid nasal spray is unlikely to be harmful if it's a one-off. Speak to a pharmacist or doctor if you're worried. Using a steroid nasal spray too much over a long period can increase your risk of getting side effects.

If you've bought a steroid nasal spray from a pharmacy or shop, stop using it when you think you no longer need it. Do not use it continuously for more than a month without speaking to a doctor.

If you're taking a prescription spray, do not stop using it unless the doctor advises you to do so. You may need to reduce your dose gradually. This can help avoid unpleasant side effects withdrawal symptoms , such as severe tiredness, joint pain , being sick and dizziness. Steroid nasal sprays do not usually cause any significant side effects if used correctly and at normal doses. If you're taking a high dose for a long time, there's also a small chance you could get some of the side effects of steroid tablets , such as increased appetite, mood changes and difficulty sleeping.

You can report any suspected side effect to the Yellow Card Scheme. Because the medicine mainly works in your nostrils, it has very little effect anywhere else in your body.

People with hay fever only need to use them for a few months of the year, during the hay fever season, but others may need to use them long-term. These nasal sprays are available in different strengths. Some lower strength steroid nasal sprays can be bought from your local pharmacy, without a prescription but the higher strengths are available on prescription only.

Most people can use a steroid nasal spray, unless they have ever had an allergic reaction to this medicine. However, you should talk to your doctor or pharmacist before using a steroid nasal spray if you have:. People with hay fever only need to use steroid nasal sprays for a few months of the year, for the hay fever season, but people with ongoing rhinitis may need to use them long-term. The long-term use of steroid nasal sprays is thought to be safe.

It takes a few days for a steroid spray to build up to its full effect. When you first start using the spray, you will not have an immediate relief of symptoms. In some people it can take up to 2 weeks or longer to get the maximum benefit.

If you use the spray for hay fever, it is best to start using it at least a week before the hay fever season starts. To get the most benefit, use the correct technique when using a nasal spray. The best spray technique involves:. Up to date, five randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the effect of oral GCS in adults with ARS are available and included in the Cochrane meta-analysis Table 3.

From those, only one focused on systemic GCS as a monotherapy [ 41 ]. In the patients who completed the trial, no clinically relevant benefit of prednisolone over placebo was found regarding facial pain or pressure, other nasal symptoms or quality of life. Gehanno et al. On day four, patients showed significantly less pain in the steroid group whereas nasal discharge did not significantly improve.

The use of additional medication was not reported. In , two similar studies were published; a French study [ 43 ] showed a beneficial effect on pain with oral prednisone as an add-on therapy to cefpodoxime in ARS patients.

Also Ratau et al. However, oral GCS in combination with antibiotics may be modestly beneficial for short-time symptom relief in adults suffering from ARS, compared to antibiotics alone, with a number needed to treat of seven [ 40 ]. Recommendation: Strong recommendation against when only mild to moderate symptoms. CRSsNP is characterized by basement membrane thickening, goblet cell hyperplasia, fibrosis, subepithelial oedema and influx of inflammatory cells that are mainly of the neutrophilic subtype with a cytokine pattern deviated towards the Th1 subtype [ 5 ].

Both retrospective studies investigated the effects of oral prednisone in conjunction with 1 month of oral antibiotics added to intranasal steroids and irrigations. Improved subjective and objective outcomes were seen after multimodality treatment schemes in both studies for CRSsNP. The study of Subramamian et al. Lal et al. Two reviews were performed with respect to short-term oral GCS; one comparing oral GCS alone versus placebo or other treatment [ 55 ], and a second comparing oral GCS used as an adjunct to other treatments, versus control [ 56 ].

For oral GCS alone, 8 trials with a total of participants, all of whom were adult patients CRSwNP, were identified [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. All studies followed up patients to the end of the treatment course, and 3 followed patients for 3 to 6 months after completion. However, there was no difference between groups at 3 to 6 months after the course of treatment.

Treatment doses utilized in included studies included prednisone at 30 mg and reduced over 14 days, prednisolone at 60 mg reducing over 17 days, or at constant dosage of 50 mg or 25 mg for 14 days, or reducing dosages of MP over 20 days.

Of the three studies that followed patients beyond the course of treatment, 2 prescribed ongoing intranasal GCS after completion of the systemic dose to both groups while one did not [ 58 , 62 , 63 ]. Included trials were considered to be at low risk of bias, but overall the quality of evidence was rated as low due to the small numbers of participants, heterogeneity of outcome measures and limited follow-up time in most studies. This study recruited 30 participants and was considered at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding and lack of information on randomization.

One trial included in the Cochrane review of oral GCS as an adjunctive treatment recruited children [ 66 ] and is therefore considered later in this document. They can be used in a short course during 2—3 weeks as a last resort of treatment when combinations of other medications are ineffective. Option for a short-term course in patients with severe symptoms and therapy-resistance. A separate indication, for which oral GCS have been prescribed in CRSwNP patients, is the preoperative setting, in order to reduce perioperative bleeding and improve surgical conditions for the surgeon during endoscopic sinus surgery ESS.

Of the five studies that have been performed studying this topic in adults Table 6 , four are RCTs, however, their outcomes are not conclusive The study from Ecevit demonstrated a significant improvement on all perioperative variables studied perioperative bleeding, visibility of the operative field, operative time, hospital stay after a preoperative course of GCS in CRSwNP patients [ 59 ]. However, while some other studies confirm a significant improvement of intraoperative bleeding time [ 67 ] or quality of the operating field [ 68 ] and surgical time [ 69 ], these differences were not found to be significant by their colleagues [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ].

A recent meta-analysis reported on a significant reduction in operating time, perioperative blood loss and improved surgical field quality when patients were given preoperative steroid treatment, however, the result was mainly based on a large RCT reporting on intranasal GCS [ 71 ].

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis AFRS is a form of a non-invasive fungal rhinosinusitis and although it is not characterized by a specific phenotype, it seems to be an immunologically distinct subtype of CRS [ 72 ]. The diagnosis is based on the criteria proposed by Bent and Kuhn: 1 production of eosinophilic mucin without fungal invasion into sinonasal tissue; 2 positive fungal stain of sinus contents; 3 nasal polyposis; 4 characteristic radiographic findings; and 5 allergy to fungi [ 73 ].

In view of the locally aggressive character of the disease, the cornerstone of AFRS treatment is surgery [ 74 ]. However, a lot of uncertainty remains concerning the medical options and postoperative therapy. Woodworth showed a significant reduction in nasal endoscopy scores and inflammatory markers in the AFRS group after 18 days of prednisone [ 76 ]. An older retrospective study from Kupferberg [ 77 ] in 26 AFRS patients, found that patients who received postoperative GCS showed more symptom improvement and less endoscopic disease compared to treatment with oral antifungals or no treatment.

However, disease recurrence was noted after cessation of GCS. Similar findings were seen in a non-controlled retrospective study from Kuhn and Javer [ 78 ] who showed a maintenance of low endoscopic scores in AFRS patients, only after long-term GCS use. It has to be noted that all of these studies have a high risk of bias and the level of evidence for the use of oral GCS in AFRS patients remains at level C.

GCS have been the major therapeutic option for some of these diseases as an immune suppressant for the past decades, probably being most effective where eosinophils, which are exquisitely steroid-sensitive, are involved [ 79 ]. The reasons for this include not only time-hallowed use, but also difficulty in undertaking placebo-controlled trials in severe diseases, differences in the manifestations and their intensity between individual patients, disease complexity and plasticity and probably lack of interest in funding.

This situation is now changing with the advent of newer therapies, particularly monoclonal antibodies, which are being trialled against older therapies including GCS [ 83 ]. Treatment must be tailored according to prognostic factors identified by the French Vasculitis Study Group [ 84 ]. GCS alone are used for mild disease, high-dose GCS and cyclophosphamide is still the gold standard for severe cases [ 85 ], but biological agents such as rituximab or anti-IL-5 biologicals are promising, though costly, alternatives [ 86 ].

GCS alone are insufficiently effective: the induction treatment for severe GPA comprises GCS combined with another immunosuppressant, cyclophosphamide or rituximab.

Once remission is achieved, maintenance strategy following cyclophosphamide-based induction relies on less toxic agents such as azathioprine or methotrexate. GCS decrease the frequency, duration, and severity of flares in relapsing polychondritis, but do not stop disease progression in severe cases [ 88 ]. The presence of sino-nasal disease is associated with more severe sarcoidosis and the need for systemic GCS therapy [ 89 ].

Treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus SLE by various organ systems is not evidence-based beyond the usual first- or second-line treatment, however a recent meeting achieved consensus in several scenarios, including anti-phospholipid syndrome [ 90 ].

Table 8 shows the evidence available for auto-immune disorders for which GCS are frequently used. Recommendation: Following the recommendation for the management of the specific auto-immune disease. AR and asthma often coexist and AR is regarded as a risk factor for the development of asthma.

Uncontrolled rhinitis impacts asthma control. Asthmatic patients have a higher CRS severity score than non-asthmatic patients, and more nasal polyps, indicative of a strong relationship between CRS severity and asthma [ 93 ]. The first use of GCS to treat acute asthma exacerbation was in [ 96 ]. Development of GCS that have less mineralocorticoid activity, like prednisone, and later those that have no mineralocorticoid activity, like dexamethasone, made steroid use more attractive therapies to use in asthma.

Prescribing a short course of oral GCS following the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations was found to reduce the rate of relapse [ 97 ]. However, courses longer than 5 days were not found to provide any additional benefit [ 98 ].

We could not identify any systematic review, randomized trial, or controlled study that evaluated the use of systemic GCS in patients with AR with concomitant asthma not responding to other therapy. When analysing the evidence of oral GCS for patients with CRS and coexisting asthma there are a few randomized controlled trials and uncontrolled prospective interventional studies that evaluated the efficacy of different treatments Table 9 of which only one looked at systemic GCS use.

This study was carried out in adults by Ikeda et al. Fifteen patients underwent ESS, and 6 other patients remained on medical therapy. Seven patients of the ESS group showed a reduction in the need for GCS during the 6 months following surgery, whereas two patients were unchanged and two patients required larger dosages. With regards to the morbidity and potential mortality that is associated with asthma, the use of GCS in asthmatic CRS patients should be directed in the first place by the severity of the lower airway symptoms.

Recommendation: Recommendation against. Option in patients with severe symptoms and therapy-resistance. However, few studies have actually addressed the risk of common GCS-induced AE in upper airway disease. Also, most of the studies available on GCS focus on high dose or long-term usage for at least 6 months or even 1 year consecutively, which is mostly less relevant in the upper airway disease patient group. Due to the heterogeneity in studies, treatment regimens and patient populations, we classified the side-effects according to the organ-system involved, but no further subdivision was made.

Studies investigating side-effects in children will be discussed separately in the next chapter. Reductions in the level of plasma cortisol are reported after one injection of GCS. They usually decrease in the first 2 weeks after steroid administration, but slowly return to normal after 3 weeks, as has been demonstrated in patients with AR [ ].

Hedner et al. In a double-blind study by Laursen et al. Only the prednisolone treated patients showed reduction in plasma cortisol levels at 3 weeks. Bonfils et al. A retrospective study based on Danish National Registries, including 47, AR patients, demonstrated that treatment with at least one consecutive injection of depot corticosteroid for 3 years on a row was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes later in life RR 1.

The degree of new-onset diabetes associated with intermittent short-term oral GCS has not been clearly established. In the same Danish epidemiological study, Aasbjerg et al. Osteopenia of the proximal femur was present in Rajeskaran et al. Overall, low bone mineral densities BMD; osteopenia or osteoporosis was These studies were recently evaluated in a systematic review which was unfortunately not able to quantify the overall risk of osteoporosis induced by oral GCS for CRSwNP, due to the low number of studies [ ].

The effects of short-course oral GCS on bone mineral density BMD have also been investigated in a 4-year longitudinal small study in asthmatic patients. Asthmatic patients receiving frequent short courses of oral GCS i.

Also, a lower Z-score of With regards to avascular necrosis of the femoral head in patients treated with systemic GCS for upper airway disease, we found 1 case report of Nasser et al. More individual case reports highlight the relationship between the use of systemic GCS and avascular necrosis. The risk to develop osteonecrosis seems to be dependent on the prescribed dose, the cumulative dose and route of administration, as well as underlying disease states SLE patients seem to be particularly at risk [ , , ].

In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study by Kirtsreesakul et al. In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial by Venekamp et al. The incidence of gastrointestinal complaints did not differ between treatment groups. In a large nested case—control analysis based on the UK General Practice Research Database, cases of upper gastro-intestinal complications were compared to 11, controls and then evaluated for exposure to certain drugs e.

No statistically significant difference could be objectified for lower versus higher dosage of GCS. To our knowledge no studies in upper airway disease patients report on systemic steroid treatment and peptic ulceration. GCS have been described to induce the formation of posterior subcapsular cataract or glaucoma. The risk for patients using repeated short courses of systemic GCS for upper airway disease is currently unknown. There is evidence in rheumatoid arthritis patients that this risk is enhanced after therapy lasting more than 1 year [ ].

Another study by Huscher et al. These symptom patterns were compared to non-users no systemic GCS for at least 12 months. This meta-analysis included a wide variety of diseases warranting systemic GCS. The true risk of developing infection in patients using short courses for upper airway disease remains uncertain. We found one case report on gluteal subcutaneous atrophy that was seen after a depot steroid injection of triamcinolone for AR [ ].

A study of Laursen et al. The study demonstrated that one out of 11, injections came with any local AE.

Cardiovascular disease is mainly associated with high dose and long-term use, primarily hypertension and acute myocardial infarction are described [ , ]. Current use in the 3 months before the registration of an event and highest average daily dose give a much stronger association. Current use is also associated with a significantly increased risk of heart failure adjusted OR of 2.

Cardiovascular risk showed a clear dose—response relationship [ ]. A study from Hissaria et al. In the above-mentioned controlled trial by Venekamp et al. Two studies in asthmatic and ophthalmologic patients receiving short-courses of GCS, showed a development of hypo mania [ , ] as well as depression symptoms [ ].

Naber et al. The onset of symptoms was within 3 days of use and there was no correlation between daily dose and daily ratings of mood. Brown et al. Mood changes returned back to normal after discontinuation of therapy. A randomised controlled trial by Campieri et al. Mean body weight increased with 2. Bar-Meir et al. Inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses in children include upper respiratory tract infections, chronic rhinitis, ARS and CRS.

Bacterial infection is expected when at least 3 symptoms are present among which discoloured discharge, purulent secretion in nasal cavity, severe local pain with a unilateral predominance, fever, elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and double sickening i. The diagnosis is confirmed by either nasal endoscopy showing edema, purulent drainage or nasal polyps in the middle meatus or CT scan showing ostiomeatal complex or sinus opacification.

Of note, the presence of nasal polyps is much less common in pediatric patients than in adult patients with CRS [ ]. Three clinical trials can be found in literature that investigated the use of oral GCS in the pediatric rhinosinusitis population, of which only one is controlled Table There was also a significant beneficial effect of oral GCS in cough, nasal obstruction and post-nasal drainage symptom scores. Recurrence of symptoms 6 months after the end of treatment was not statistically significant between the groups.

Additionally, a retrospective study involving 35 young CRS patients 1—21 years undergoing serial sinus CT scans due to medical reasons, evaluated Lund Mackay ostiomeatal complex score in relation to three different treatment schemes [ ] antibiotics, intranasal topical GCS and oral systemic GCS. The data suggested that the use of systemic GCS was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of radiologic improvement.

The retrospective study design, the small and heterogeneous population, heterogeneous treatment modalities, and the lack of adjustments, limit the possibilities to assess clinical significance of the findings. A second uncontrolled study [ 5 ] evaluated cytokine pattern of 30 asthmatic CRS patients 4—12 years before and after the treatment of amoxicillin—clavulanate, fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray and a short course of oral deflazacort.

The uncontrolled study design and uncertainty whether the patients used prescribed drugs, limits the possibilities to assess effect of systemic GCS. As an example, the Childhood Asthma Management Program trial followed the annual bone mineral accretion of children 5—12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma [ , ].

Oral GCS bursts produced a dosage-dependent reduction in bone mineral accretion 0. The authors conclude that multiple oral GCS bursts over a period of years can produce a dosage-dependent reduction in bone mineral accretion and increased risk for osteopenia in children with asthma. At the end of the treatment, the mean weight change did not differ statistically significantly between the groups. A systematic review has been performed to determine the most common and serious drug-related AE of long courses of oral GCS in children [ ].

Literature search of several databases was performed to identify all studies in which systemic GCS had been administered to pediatric patients ranging from 28 days to 18 years of age for at least 15 days of treatment.

The group found 91 studies that represented a total of children and contained reports of adverse drug reactions, the majority in patients with leukaemia, haemangioma and asthma. The three most frequent adverse drug reactions were weight gain Increased susceptibility to infection was the most serious adverse drug reaction. However, based on studies on pediatric asthma, a single short-term systemic GCS course could be considered in pediatric patients suffering from CRS that is not responding to other therapies such as intranasal GCS, antibiotics, supporting therapy saline douchings, decongestants and adenoidectomy.

Option in patients suffering from very severe and therapy-resistant disease, in combination with antibiotics. Besides clinical consequences, systemic GCS use may also have some health economic implications that should be considered in its benefit-harm trade-off.

Generally, the direct costs for systemic GCS are among the lowest quartile of prices of medications available worldwide. However, the indirect costs due to adverse events of especially long-term, high-dose systemic GCS use could be more substantial. Two industry-funded studies have assessed the cumulative economic burden of GCS associated adverse events regardless of dose, duration or indication [ , ].

Manson et al. A second review [ ] included 47 studies reporting on adverse events of systemic GCS. Subsequently, a cost analysis was undertaken from the US perspective. It was unclear whether any patients with allergic rhinitis or rhinosinusitis were included. Most frequently reported adverse events were psychiatric and gastric conditions, infections and fractures. The authors estimated the potential cost reductions if the daily GCS dose would be reduced.

The findings from both reviews should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneous and often low-quality and retrospective nature of the studies included and the difficulty in excluding confounding due to underlying disease activity. Besides these two reviews with no particular disease focus, some studies focused on the costs of systemic GCS related adverse events within a specific population such as asthma [ , ] or rheumatologic diseases [ , ] and found increased costs in the GCS exposed populations.

None were specifically focusing on rhinitis or rhinosinusitis. We conclude that given the limited amount of current evidence, more studies on the economic burden and cost-effectiveness of systemic GCS use in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis treatment are required. However, in AR, allergen immunotherapy AIT is an alternative option for patients suffering from uncontrolled symptoms.

AIT modifies the natural disease course and recent well-performed trials have demonstrated reductions in both symptoms and use of rescue medication in patients with AR for both the subcutaneous as well as sublingual administration route [ ]. One study from compared the efficacy of one depot MP injection with a pre-seasonal administration of an alum-precipitated pyridine extracted grass pollen immunotherapy and found similar results between the two groups in terms of symptom improvement [ ].

For CRS patients, current alternatives for oral GCS during exacerbations consist of antibiotics and when patients remain uncontrolled, sinus surgery is the next step in line [ 4 ]. Gevaert et al. They found a beneficial effect on NP score of doxycycline that was comparable to MP after 8 weeks. Also, omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment had better results on NP score than the oral GCS treatment.

Omalizumab and mepolizumab additionally showed better symptom control compared to MP. Currently only data on the oral steroid-sparing effects of mepolizumab and benralizumab in asthma are available [ ], but with the increased implementation of these therapies in CRSwNP, studies evaluating the steroid-sparing effect for upper airway exacerbations will be necessary.

This manuscript provided an overview of the current evidence for the beneficial effects of systemic GCS in the different subtypes of upper airway diseases, as well as in the pediatric age group and aimed at providing recommendations for the specific disease entities.

However, multiple AEs have been widely described and therefore physicians should be aware of the risks associated with oral GCS and make a good risk—benefit assessment prior to prescribing them. In this paper, we summarize these potential AEs; given the current evidence in literature, a clear assessment of the risks associated with oral steroid use in upper airway disease cannot be made.

Currently available data show a wide variability in diseases, patients, duration of treatment and follow-up and therefore this topic needs to be addressed in a systematic way in order to provide a substantiated recommendation for the use and dosing of oral GCS in the upper airway disease population.

We can conclude that, although some beneficial effects of systemic GCS have been demonstrated in chronic upper airway diseases such as AR and CRSwNP, systemic GCS should not be considered as a first line of treatment for these disease types.

PubMed Google Scholar. Toxicology of the nose and upper airways. London: Informa Healthcare; Google Scholar. Idiopathic rhinitis, the ongoing quest. EPOS European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps A summary for otorhinolaryngologists.