-
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 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2024There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).
BACKGROUND
There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR).
OBJECTIVES
We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR.
METHODS
The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS
This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.
PubMed: 38685482
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2024.04.016 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.
PubMed: 37288109
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy Sep 2022The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) assessing the control of asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) at a... (Review)
Review
The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) assessing the control of asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) at a 4 week interval. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of CARAT. Following PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, we searched five bibliographic databases and retrieved studies concerning the development, assessment of properties, validation, and/or cultural adaption of CARAT. The studies' methodological quality, the quality of measurement properties, and the overall quality of evidence were assessed. We performed meta-analysis of CARAT measurement properties. We included 16 studies. Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test displayed sufficient content validity and very good consistency (meta-analytical Cronbach alpha = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.80-0.86;I = 62.6%). Control of allergic rhinitis and Asthma Test meta-analytical intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.64-0.98;I = 93.7%). It presented good construct validity, especially for correlations with Patient-reported outcome measures assessing asthma (absolute Spearman correlation coefficients range = 0.67-0.73; moderate quality of evidence), and good responsiveness. Its minimal important difference is 3.5. Overall, CARAT has good internal consistency, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, despite the heterogeneous quality of evidence. Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test can be used to assess the control of asthma and AR. As first of its kind, this meta-analysis of CARAT measurement properties sets a stronger level of evidence for asthma and/or AR control questionnaires.
PubMed: 36178185
DOI: 10.1002/clt2.12194 -
The Journal of Investigative Dermatology May 2024Prior studies have found associations between atopic dermatitis (AD) and comorbidities, including depression, obesity, asthma, and allergic rhinitis. Although...
Prior studies have found associations between atopic dermatitis (AD) and comorbidities, including depression, obesity, asthma, and allergic rhinitis. Although observational studies often cannot establish robust causality between potential risk factors and AD, Mendelian randomization minimizes confounding when exploring causality by relying on random allelic assortment at birth. In this study, we systematically reviewed 30 Mendelian randomization studies in AD. Body mass index, gut microbial flora, the IL-18 signaling pathway, and gastroesophageal reflux disease were among the causal factors for AD, whereas AD was causal for several medical conditions, including heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, and conjunctivitis. These insights may improve preventive counseling in AD.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Mendelian Randomization Analysis; Risk Factors; Comorbidity; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Body Mass Index; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Interleukin-18; Genetic Predisposition to Disease
PubMed: 37977498
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2023.10.016