4.4 Article

Sleep actigraphy evidence of improved sleep after treatment of allergic rhinitis

Journal

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 4, Pages 290-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60527-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Children with allergic rhinitis (AR) are reported to have disturbed sleep and daytime fatigue due to nasal obstruction. Objective: To evaluate sleep impairment in children with AR using actigraphic evaluation. Methods: Fourteen children aged 7 to 16 years with grass pollen-sensitized seasonal AR were enrolled. They completed the Total 4-Symptom Score (T4SS) scoring system for AR symptom score and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire for sleep quality, and they underwent actigraphy for 3 days in the pretreatment period. After topical corticosteroid and antihistaminic treatment for 8 weeks, actigraphy, the T4SS, and the PSQI were repeated. Fourteen healthy children aged 8 to 16 years underwent actigraphy and completed the PSQI questionnaire as controls. Results: There were no significant age or sex differences between the AR and control groups. Pretreatment PSQI and actigraphy scores were worse in the AR group vs the control group. After treatment, sleep quality improved, and there were no differences in actigraphy and PSQI scores between the 2 groups. Before treatment, the T4SS was significantly correlated with the sleep efficiency, daytime napping episodes, and total nap duration variables of actigraphy (r = -0.53, P = .004; r = 0.43, P = .02; and r = 0.39, P = .04, respectively). The T4SS was correlated with the total PSQI score (r = 0.67, P < .001). Conclusions: Sleep can be compromised in children with AR. There is a significant correlation of clinical symptom score with the actigraphic and PSQI variables. Therefore, actigraphy may be used as an objective tool to evaluate sleep disturbance in children with AR. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009; 103:290-294.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available