-
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2020Oral breathing, nasal obstruction and airway space reduction are usually reported as associated to allergic rhinitis. They have been linked to altered facial patterns... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral breathing, nasal obstruction and airway space reduction are usually reported as associated to allergic rhinitis. They have been linked to altered facial patterns and dento-skeletal changes. However, no firm correlation based on the evidence has been established. This systematic review has been undertaken to evaluate the available evidence between malocclusion and allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients.
METHODS
The research refers to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines, databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar) were screened, the quality was evaluated through Quality Assessment of Diagnosfic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2).
RESULTS
The articles selected (6 out of initial 1782) were divided on the basis of the study design: two observational randomized study, three case-control study, one descriptive cross-sectional study, and one longitudinal study. A total of 2188 patients were considered. Different results were reported as related to allergic rhinitis ranging from a higher incidence of dental malocclusion, to an increase of palatal depth, and in posterior cross-bite about anterior open-bite and to longer faces and shorter maxillas.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the studies selected found a rise in the prevalence of both malocclusion and allergic rhinitis in children. However, the level of bias is high, impaired by a poor design and no conclusive evidence can be drawn.
PubMed: 33261020
DOI: 10.3390/children7120260 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2022Previous studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the association of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with allergic rhinitis (AR). Data on AR prevalence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Previous studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the association of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with allergic rhinitis (AR). Data on AR prevalence in COVID-19 patients are limited. Consequently, whether AR is a harmful or protective factor for COVID-19 patients remains controversial. Therefore, we analyzed the relationship between COVID-19 and AR.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 1, 2020 and January 11, 2022. We included studies reporting the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 and its incidence in patients with AR. We excluded letters, case reports, literature review articles, non-English language article, and non-full-text articles. The raw data from these studies were pooled into a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We analyzed the results of nine studies. The prevalence of AR in patients with COVID-19 was 0.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.25), with an overall of 99.77%, =0.24. COVID-19 patients with AR are less prone to severe disease (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.52-1.18, =0.25) and hospitalization (OR = 0.23, 95%CI, 0.02-2.67, ≤ 0.0001) than patients without AR.
CONCLUSION
Our data suggest that allergic rhinitis is a protective factor in patients with COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Incidence; Prevalence; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 36249911
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6510332 -
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck... Apr 2023ClariFix is a novel intranasal cryotherapy device developed for clinic-based cryosurgical ablation of the posterior nasal nerves region. As a relatively new technology,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
ClariFix is a novel intranasal cryotherapy device developed for clinic-based cryosurgical ablation of the posterior nasal nerves region. As a relatively new technology, there is a paucity of studies within the literature assessing the efficacy and safety profile of ClariFix for chronic rhinitis.
METHODS
A systematic review was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included: Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies investigating the use of ClariFix in chronic rhinitis (i.e., allergic and non-allergic rhinitis) in patients of all ages.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 1110 studies. Final analysis consisted of 8 articles, evaluating a total of 472 patients. The data showed a significant reduction in scores post-treatment across all studies based on validated outcome measures. In all studies, at all time intervals, there was a significant improvement in outcome scores from baseline. Minor adverse effects included post-procedural pain and discomfort, headache and palate numbness. No major adverse events were identified.
CONCLUSION
ClariFix is a novel intranasal cryotherapy device that was introduced in Canada in 2021. This is the first systematic review evaluating its efficacy and safety profile. Across all studies, there was a significant reduction in validated outcome scores at multiple time intervals. Further, the treatment is safe with only minor adverse effects reported by patients. Overall, the consensus from this study highlights an apparent benefit in using this intervention for chronic rhinitis that is refractory to medical management.
Topics: Humans; Rhinitis; Cryosurgery; Administration, Intranasal; Quality of Life; Canada
PubMed: 37120607
DOI: 10.1186/s40463-023-00645-6 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... Aug 2023Immunoglobulin A deficiency (IgAD) is a common disease with an unknown genetic defect, characterized by the decreased or absent IgA with other isotypes normal, normal... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Immunoglobulin A deficiency (IgAD) is a common disease with an unknown genetic defect, characterized by the decreased or absent IgA with other isotypes normal, normal subclasses, and specific antibodies. Patients with this disorder represent a spectrum of clinical manifestations including infections, autoimmune disorders, malignancy, and allergic diseases. The current study aimed to evaluate their prevalence and categorized them.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to find eligible studies from the earliest available date to January 2022 with standard keywords. Pooled estimates of clinical manifestations prevalence and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
The most prevalent clinical manifestations belonged to infection (64.8%) followed by allergic diseases (26.16%) and autoimmunity (22.0%), respectively. In selective IgA deficiency patients as the largest group of IgAD in current study, celiac disease (6.57%), Inflammatory bowel disease (4.01%), and rheumatoid arthritis (3.80%) were the most prevalent autoimmunity. Meanwhile, the most frequent infection was respiratory tract infection, fungal infection, and gastrointestinal infection at 50.74%, 18.48%, and 15.79%, respectively. In addition, the pooled prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis were 19.06%, 15.46%, and 11.68%, respectively which were reported as the most widespread allergic diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that apart from undiagnosed IgAD patients, IgAD patients represent a wide range of clinical manifestations. Infection, allergy, and autoimmunity are the most common clinical manifestations. The concurrent presence of IgA and IgG subtypes deficiency could be associated with increased susceptibility to infection. Considering the probability of developing new clinical complications during follow-up, periodic assessments of IgAD patients should be inspected.
PubMed: 37641141
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-023-00826-y -
International Forum of Allergy &... Nov 2021Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is a potential treatment for chronic rhinitis. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of BTX-A in treating patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is a potential treatment for chronic rhinitis. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of BTX-A in treating patients with chronic rhinitis.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of BTX-A in allergic rhinitis and/or nonallergic rhinitis patients, compared with either placebo or active treatment, were included. The outcomes were total nasal symptom (TNSS), disease-specific quality of life (QOL), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (340 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Compared with placebo, the ≤ 12-week effects favored BTX-A injection on TNSS (standardized mean difference [SMD] -2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.27 to -1.17, p < 0.01, four RCTs). Beneficial effects > 12 weeks over placebo (MD -9.69, 95% CI -11.29 to -8.09, p < 0.01, one RCT) were demonstrated up to 24 weeks. However, the benefits were not shown on nasal congestion and individual nasal symptoms. Compared with active comparators (triamcinolone injection, ipratropium bromide, and cetirizine), there was no difference in the < 12-week effect between groups on TNSS. There was no difference between BTX-A and cetirizine on QOL (one RCT). The > 12-week effects on TNSS and individual nasal symptoms favored BTX-A over triamcinolone injection (one RCT). The risk ratio of adverse events favored BTX-A over cetirizine (one RCT).
CONCLUSIONS
BTX-A improved TNSS and QOL in patients with chronic rhinitis. These effects were demonstrated up to 24 weeks post treatment. BTX-A was safe, well tolerated, and may be considered in patients who are refractory to current standard-of-care therapies.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Botulinum Toxins; Cetirizine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33956405
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22813 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2024The relationship between keratoconus and various allergic diseases has been a subject of controversy.
BACKGROUND
The relationship between keratoconus and various allergic diseases has been a subject of controversy.
OBJECTIVE
In the present study, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between allergic rhinitis (AR) and keratoconus.
METHODS
Relevant and eligible studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed to evaluate the association between AR and keratoconus. Observational studies containing the number of patients with and without keratoconus and the number of patients with keratoconus diagnosed with or without AR were included. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and extracted data from the included studies. A bivariate meta-analysis was conducted to compare the odds of keratoconus occurrence in patients with and without AR. The main outcome was the odds ratio of keratoconus occurrence in patients with AR. A sensitivity test was performed using the adjusted odds ratio reported in the included studies to validate the findings.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 775,574 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 29,082 patients had keratoconus. The pooled odds ratio of keratoconus occurrence in patients with AR was 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36-2.15; P < 0.001; I = 96%), and the pooled adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.23-2.40; P = 0.001; I = 97%).
CONCLUSION
Patients with AR showed significantly higher odds of keratoconus occurrence than those without AR. Future studies are warranted to investigate the causal relationship and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early screening using methods such as corneal topography and referral for keratoconus in patients with AR.
PubMed: 38851486
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2024.05.050 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy May 2023Most studies that seek to analyze the prevalence of allergic rhinitis do not include preschool children and the diagnosis in this age group is difficult. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most studies that seek to analyze the prevalence of allergic rhinitis do not include preschool children and the diagnosis in this age group is difficult.
OBJECTIVE
Identify complementary tests to the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in preschool children and verify if there is scientific robustness to propose a diagnostic algorithm for this condition in this age group.
METHODS
Systematic review of the literature in four databases: SCIELO, PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS and SCOPUS. Each article was initially chosen by title, abstract and by the keywords "allergic rhinitis," "diagnosis" and "preschool." Those articles selected entered the complete reading and data extraction phase. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under number CRD42020207053.
RESULTS
Fourteen articles were suitable for analysis. In the assessment using - 2, all studies had at least one domain considered "high risk" or "undetermined risk." Seven reports of nasal cytology, seven of specific IgE, four of immediate hypersensitivity skin test, one of nasal nitric oxide, three of total IgE and one of urinary leukotriene E4 were found. Eight articles evaluated more than one diagnostic test.
CONCLUSION
There are no defined criteria for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in preschool children. Nasal cytology, serum specific IgE and immediate hypersensitivity skin test were the most used tests. A reliable diagnostic criterion in this age group is necessary so that in the future it is possible to propose a diagnostic algorithm for allergic rhinitis in preschool children.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Nose; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 36740859
DOI: 10.1177/19458924221149267 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2, 2023. Outcomes included symptom scores (SSs), medication scores (MSs), symptom and medication scores (SMSs), new sensitizations, development of asthma, improvement, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-regression was carried out to explore the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was further conducted in terms of study design [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies], allergen [house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen], treatment duration (≥ 24, 12-23 or < 12 months), allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modality (drops or tablets), and AIT protocol [continuous, pre-seasonal, co-seasonal, or after the grass pollen season (GPS)]. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes. A Bayesian framework and a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model were developed for indirect comparison.
RESULTS
Totally 50 studies with 10813 AR children were included, with 4122 treated with SLIT, 1852 treated with SCIT, and 4839 treated with non-SLIT or non-SCIT therapy. For direct comparison, the SLIT group had a similar SS to the SCIT group [pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.46, 1.28, = 0.353]. Comparable MSs were observed in the SLIT and SCIT groups (pooled SMD: 0.82, 95%CI: -0.88, 2.53, = 0.344). For indirect comparison, no significant differences were found in SSs (pooled SMD: 1.20, 95% credibility interval (CrI): -1.70, 4.10), MSs (pooled SMD: 0.57, 95%CrI: -1.20, 2.30), SMSs (pooled SMD: 1.80, 95%CrI: -0.005, 3.60), new sensitizations [pooled relative risk (RR): 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.03, 3.58], and development of asthma (pooled RR: 0.68, 95%CrI: 0.01, 26.33) between the SLIT and SCIT groups; the SLIT group illustrated a significantly lower incidence of TRAEs than the SCIT group (pooled RR: 0.17, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.26).
CONCLUSION
Considering both efficacy and safety, SLIT might be a more favorable AIT than SCIT in the treatment of pediatric AR, which may serve as a decision-making reference for clinicians.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023460693).
Topics: Child; Humans; Allergens; Asthma; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pollen; Rhinitis, Allergic; Immunotherapy; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 38162647
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1274241 -
Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex... Dec 2022An increasing body of evidence has linked greenspace and various health outcomes in children and adolescents, but the conclusions were inconsistent. For this review, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
An increasing body of evidence has linked greenspace and various health outcomes in children and adolescents, but the conclusions were inconsistent. For this review, we comprehensively summarized the measurement methods of greenspace, resultant health outcomes, and potential mechanisms from epidemiological studies in children and adolescents (aged ≤19 years). We searched for studies published and indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (via Ovid) up to April 11, 2022. There were a total of 9,291 studies identified with 140 articles from 28 countries finally assessed and included in this systematic review. Over 70% of the studies were conducted in highly urbanised countries/regions, but very limited research has been done in low-and middle-income countries and none in Africa. Measures of greenspace varied. Various health outcomes were reported, including protective effects of greenspace exposure on aspects of obesity/overweight, myopia, lung health, circulatory health, cognitive function, and general health in children and adolescents. The associations between greenspace exposure and other health outcomes were inconsistent, especially for respiratory health studies. We pooled odds ratios (OR) using random-effects meta-analysis for health outcomes of asthma (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.84 to 1.06), allergic rhinitis (OR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.25), and obesity/overweight (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.84 to 0.98) with per 0.1 unit increase in normalized difference in vegetation index (NDVI). These associations have important implications for the assessment and management of urban environment and health in children and adolescents.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Overweight; Parks, Recreational; Obesity; Asthma; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 36122655
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120193 -
OTO Open 2022This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.
RESULTS
Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.
CONCLUSION
Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.
PubMed: 35720767
DOI: 10.1177/2473974X221105277