-
Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses.International Forum of Allergy &... Dec 2022Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.
METHODS
Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.
CONCLUSION
After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Nasal Decongestants; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Leukotriene Antagonists; Histamine Antagonists; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 35446512
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23015 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Disease control is a primary treatment goal for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aims to summarize the evaluation parameters of disease control and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Disease control is a primary treatment goal for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aims to summarize the evaluation parameters of disease control and then identify predictors of poorly controlled CRS.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify studies relating to disease control in CRS.
RESULTS
The concept of disease control in patients with CRS involved the longitudinal assessment of the disease state and was also an important goal of treatment. As a metric of the disease state, the disease control reflected the ability to keep disease manifestations within certain limits, the efficacy after treatment, and the impact on quality of life. Validated measurements, such as EPOS2012 criteria, EPOS2020 criteria, Sinus Control Test, and patient/physician-reported global level of CRS control, have been utilized in clinical practice. These existing disease control instruments incorporated various disease manifestations and categorized patients into two (well-controlled and poor-controlled), three (uncontrolled, partly controlled, and controlled), or five (not at all, a little, somewhat, very, and completely) control categories. Eosinophilia, high computerized tomography score, bilateral sinonasal disease, asthma, allergic rhinitis, female gender, aspirin intolerance, revision surgery, low serum amyloid A, and specific T cell subtype would predict poorly controlled CRS.
CONCLUSION
The concept of disease control and its application were gradually developed in patients with CRS. The existing disease control instruments demonstrated a lack of uniformity regarding the controlled criteria and included parameters.
Topics: Female; Humans; Chronic Disease; Paranasal Sinuses; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Male
PubMed: 37342244
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1104444 -
Association of atopic diseases with atrial fibrillation risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Atopic diseases and atrial fibrillation (AF) seem to share an underlying inflammatory pathology. To date, some population-based studies have explored the relationship...
BACKGROUND
Atopic diseases and atrial fibrillation (AF) seem to share an underlying inflammatory pathology. To date, some population-based studies have explored the relationship between the two. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to examine the role of atopic condition in AF risk.
METHODS
All relevant observational studies in PubMed and EMBASE databases up to November 2021 were searched. In RevMan 5.3, we used random-effects or fixed-effects models to pool the effect sizes of hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In addition, I and Cochran Q test were used to evaluate the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 2488 records were retrieved. After screening according to the predetermined criteria, 6 cohort studies and 2 case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. Herein, the meta-analysis of 6 cohort studies suggested that atopic diseases potentially increased the AF risk with the pooled HR of 1.26 (95%CI,1.14-1.39), while the pooled effect size (OR, 1.04; 95%CI,0.74-1.46) of 2 case-control studies was not statistically significant. Based on the types of atopic diseases, further subgroup analyses of 6 cohort studies revealed that asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis all potentially increased the risk of subsequent AF with the pooled HR of 1.41 ( = 4; 95%CI, 1.25-1.58), 1.12 ( = 1; 95%CI,1.10-1.14) and 1.06 ( = 3; 95%CI, 1.01-1.12), respectively.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with atopic diseases have a higher risk of developing AF, particularly those with asthma.
PubMed: 36110420
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.877638 -
World Journal of Pediatrics : WJP Feb 2024The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 in children and adolescents remain poorly understood and characterized. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 in children and adolescents remain poorly understood and characterized. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize the risk factors for long COVID in the pediatric population.
METHODS
We searched six databases from January 2020 to May 2023 for observational studies reporting on risk factors for long COVID or persistent symptoms those were present 12 or more weeks post-infection using multivariable regression analyses. Trial registries, reference lists of included studies, and preprint servers were hand-searched for relevant studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool odds ratios for each risk factor. Individual study risk of bias was rated using QUIPS, and the GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each unique factor.
RESULTS
Sixteen observational studies (N = 46,262) were included, and 19 risk factors were amenable to meta-analysis. With moderate certainty in the evidence, age (per 2-year increase), allergic rhinitis, obesity, previous respiratory diseases, hospitalization, severe acute COVID-19, and symptomatic acute COVID-19 are probably associated with an increased risk of long COVID. Female sex, asthma, comorbidity, and heart diseases may be associated with an increased risk of long COVID, and Asian and Black races may be associated with a decreased risk of long COVID. We did not observe any credible subgroup effects for any risk factor.
CONCLUSIONS
The current body of literature presents several compelling risk factors for the development of long COVID in the pediatric population. Further research is necessary to elucidate the pathophysiology of long COVID.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Child; Female; COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Disease Progression; Hospitalization; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38055113
DOI: 10.1007/s12519-023-00765-z -
Journal of the European Academy of... Aug 2021The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) varies across the globe, and the clinical phenotype with racial background and ethnicity. AD in the Arctic region has only been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) varies across the globe, and the clinical phenotype with racial background and ethnicity. AD in the Arctic region has only been scarcely studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence, clinical manifestations and risk factors for AD among children and adolescents in the Arctic. Three medical databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were screened. All studies published between 1990 to 2020 with epidemiologic data on AD in children and adolescents in the Arctic region, were included. Data were extracted and a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled proportions and incidences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We identified 21 studies from 8 different Arctic regions with 31 403 participants. The cumulative incidence of AD was 23% (95% CI 20-26) and 1-year prevalence was 19% (95% CI 15-25). The incidence of AD was higher in the Arctic parts of Scandinavia and lower in Greenland and Russia. Children of indigenous descent had a slightly lower incidence of AD (19%, 95% CI 13-26) compared to the overall population. The dominant phenotype of AD was mild to moderate flexural dermatitis with facial involvement. Asthma and allergic rhinitis were common and observed in 20-30% of children with AD. In conclusion, AD is highly prevalent in the Arctic, but varies between regions and races. Indigenous children living in less urbanized countries appear to have a slightly lower risk of AD. Future studies should confirm this and examine whether this correlation relates to behavioural differences or genetic signature.
Topics: Adolescent; Arctic Regions; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Humans; Prevalence; Russia; Scandinavian and Nordic Countries
PubMed: 33829579
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17276 -
PloS One 2024Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single medicinal plants in the management of allergic rhinitis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials which evaluated the use of single medicinal plant for allergic rhinitis among adults and children. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (n = 1879) were eligible while 27 (n = 1769) contributed data for meta-analyses. Most studies (studies = 20) compared medicinal plants against placebo and Petasites hybridus was most frequently investigated (studies = 5). Very-low-to-low-certainty evidence suggests that compared to placebo, single medicinal plants may improve overall total nasal symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02; participants = 249; studies = 5; I2 = 21%) especially nasal congestion and sneezing; and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ) scores (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.07; participants = 148; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Moderate-certainty evidence show no clear differences between single medicinal plants and antihistamine in overall symptoms (Total nasal symptoms: SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.18; participants = 149; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). As adjunctive therapy, moderate-certainty evidence shows that medicinal plants improved SNOT-22 scores when given as intranasal treatment (MD -7.47, 95% CI -10.75 to -4.18; participants = 124; studies = 2; I2 = 21%). Risk of bias domains were low or not clearly reported in most studies while heterogeneity was substantial in most pooled outcomes. Route of administration and age were identified to be plausible source of heterogeneity for certain outcomes. Medicinal plants appear to be well tolerated up to 8 weeks of use. Clear beneficial evidence of medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis is still lacking. There is a need for improved reporting of herbal trials to allow for critical assessment of the effects of each individual medicinal plant preparation in well-designed future clinical studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Plants, Medicinal; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Administration, Intranasal; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 38603736
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297839 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Animals; Asthma; Child; Disease Progression; Hospitalization; Humans; Placebos; Pollen; Pyroglyphidae; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 32926419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011293.pub3 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy Aug 2021Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a potential treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to determine the efficacy (primary outcomes) and safety... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a potential treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to determine the efficacy (primary outcomes) and safety (secondary outcomes) of ILIT in treating patients with AR.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
RESULTS
We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
PubMed: 34429875
DOI: 10.1002/clt2.12055 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2022There is considerable research interest in the role of helminth infections in the development of allergic diseases. However, findings from previous studies are mixed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is considerable research interest in the role of helminth infections in the development of allergic diseases. However, findings from previous studies are mixed. Existing systematic reviews of these studies are outdated. We performed a systematic review of the global literature on the association between helminth infections and development and clinical outcomes of allergic diseases.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, Scielo, KoreaMed, Google Scholar, and Lilacs for studies published up to January 2020. We included observational epidemiological studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) of children and adults reporting associations between helminth infections and asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and atopy. We performed random-effects meta-analysis to summarize the effect estimates.
RESULTS
We included 80 studies with 99,967 participants. In the meta-analyses, we did not observe an overall association between helminth infections and allergic diseases. There was, however, evidence that Ascaris lumbricoides infections were associated with an increased risk of bronchial hyperreactivity in children (risk ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70; I = 50; P for I = .09), and were associated with an increased risk of atopy among helminth-infected adults (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61; I = 52; P for I = .02). We found no study that addressed the association between helminth infection and clinical outcomes of allergic diseases. The overall strength of the underlying evidence was low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Helminth infections may increase the risk of bronchial hyperreactivity in children and atopy in adults. Well-designed longitudinal cohorts may help clarify potential causal associations between chronic helminth infections and allergic diseases.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Bronchial Hyperreactivity; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Helminthiasis; Helminths; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 34968529
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.12.777 -
The Laryngoscope Dec 2023This study aims to compare the effectiveness of intranasal ipratropium bromide (INIB) to a placebo in reducing nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, and enhancing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the effectiveness of intranasal ipratropium bromide (INIB) to a placebo in reducing nasal symptoms, particularly rhinorrhea, and enhancing quality of life in non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) patients.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted on Medline, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative parallel group trials comparing IB nasal spray to placebo were included.
RESULTS
Five RCTs assessed a total of 472 participants with a diagnosis of NAR. IB nasal spray 0.03% were used across all studies. IB has a better impact on decreasing rhinorrhea than the placebo, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.06-1.8). The mean change in rhinorrhea severity was 85% (95% CI 77-92%) and I^2 26% (p = 0.24). IB outperformed the placebo in terms of shortening the symptom's duration/day, as shown by an SMD of 0.35 (95% CI 0.15-0.55). The difference between treatments was noticeable within the first week and remained consistent throughout the treatment. Patients who were administered IB experienced a substantially greater improvement in physical and mental outcomes. Nasal adverse events with IB were generally intermittent and brief.
CONCLUSION
Compared with a placebo, IB nasal spray is both safe and effective in treating the rhinorrhea associated with NAR. IB significantly reduces the severity and duration of rhinorrhea. The treatment was determined to be beneficial by both patients and physicians and resulted in a better quality of life.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 Laryngoscope, 133:3247-3255, 2023.
Topics: Humans; Ipratropium; Rhinitis; Nasal Sprays; Administration, Intranasal; Nasal Mucosa; Rhinorrhea
PubMed: 37067019
DOI: 10.1002/lary.30706