-
Scientific Reports Oct 2023Multiple evidence indicates that perinatal factors make impact on immune development and affect offspring allergic rhinitis (AR) risk. In this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Multiple evidence indicates that perinatal factors make impact on immune development and affect offspring allergic rhinitis (AR) risk. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined available published studies to clarify the relationship between cesarean section (C-section) and offspring AR in children. To explore the relationship between C-section, especially the special attention was paid to different cesarean delivery mode, and the risk of AR in children. Articles were searched using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China knowledge Network, Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal databases. A meta-analysis of 22 studies published before August 1, 2022, which included 1,464,868 participants, was conducted for statistical analysis with RevMan5.4. The correlation strength between C-section and offspring AR was determined by combining odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was detected using the funnel chart and Egger tests. Meta-analysis revealed that there was a significant correlation between C-section and children AR (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12-1.27, P < 0.001), especially C-section with a family history of allergy (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.36-2.43, P < 0.001). Moreover, elective C-section (without genital tract microbe exposure) had the higher risk of offspring AR (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.46, P = 0.010) compared with the whole study. Meta-regression demonstrated that sample size explained 38.0% of the variability between studies, and year of publication explained 18.8%. Delivery by C-section, particularly elective C-section and C-section with a family history of allergy can increase the risk of AR in children.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Odds Ratio; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 37884557
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44932-8 -
Frontiers in Genetics 2022Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an especially common disorder associated with both environmental and genetic factors, and a lot of researchers have attempted to find...
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an especially common disorder associated with both environmental and genetic factors, and a lot of researchers have attempted to find polymorphisms which predisposed to the disease. We conducted a meta-analysis of the most frequently researched polymorphisms to find those genes which may be susceptible to AR and then may be of value in diagnosis. Pubmed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched to screen out eligible studies focusing on the correlation between polymorphisms and AR susceptibility, and then polymorphisms cited in at least 3 studies were selected. The 142 papers originally selected cited 78 genes. Twelve genes (coinciding with 23 polymorphisms) were reported in more than three papers. Twenty-three polymorphisms were involved in the meta-analysis. Among the 23 polymorphisms, only 4 were found to be related to the risk of AR: IL-13 rs20541, CTLA-4 rs11571302, IL-4R RS1801275 and ACE (I/D). The remaining 19 of the 23 polymorphisms were not associated with AR. We found polymorphisms that could be used for AR diagnosing and those that were unrelated to AR. This may be the first step in detecting polymorphic combinations susceptible to AR (IL-13 RS20541, CTLA-4 RS11571302, IL-4R RS1801275 and ACE (I/D). In addition, our results may improve AR diagnosis and contribute to the intensive study of AR.
PubMed: 35846137
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.899923 -
Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of... Jun 2023Several studies have demonstrated an association between the risk asthma/allergic rhinitis and the environment. However, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several studies have demonstrated an association between the risk asthma/allergic rhinitis and the environment. However, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis has investigated these factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urban/rural living and the risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis. We searched the Embase and Medline databases for relevant articles and included only cohort studies to observe the effects of time-lapse geographical differences. Papers containing information on rural/urban residence and respiratory allergic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a 2 × 2 contingency table and used random effects to pool data. Our database search yielded 8388 records, of which 14 studies involving 50,100,913 participants were finally included. The risk of asthma was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44, p < 0.001), but not for the risk of allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.87-1.59, p = 0.30). The risk of asthma in urban areas compared to rural areas was higher in the 0-6 years and 0-18 years age groups, with RRs of 1.21 (95% CI, 1.01-1.46, p = 0.04) and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12-1.63, p = 0.002), respectively. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of asthma between urban and rural areas for children aged 0-2 years, with a RR of 3.10 (95% CI, 0.44-21.56, p = 0.25). Our study provides epidemiological evidence for an association between allergic respiratory diseases, especially asthma, and urban/rural living. Future research should focus on identifying the factors associated with asthma in children living in urban areas. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249578).
Topics: Child; Humans; Asthma; Rhinitis, Allergic; Cohort Studies; Rural Population; Urban Population
PubMed: 37191813
DOI: 10.1007/s11524-023-00735-w -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment.
METHODS
A literature search was performed on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sublingual immunotherapy for AR were screened and extracted from the establishment of those databases to November 2022. Subsequently, a network meta-analysis was performed using a statistical software R 4.2.
RESULTS
Totally 22 RCTs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and screened from 1,164 literature were included. A total of 4,941 AR patients were involved in the 22 trials, as well as five interventions including placebo, pharmacotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, and sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, based on symptom scores after different interventions for AR, the most effective treatments for AR were in order as follows: sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract, placebo, and pharmacotherapy. Importantly, sublingual immunotherapy had fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.
CONCLUSION
Sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite for AR has the best efficacy, whereas traditional medicine has the worst. More high-quality studies with a large sample and multiple centers are needed to verify this conclusion in the future, so as to further provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for the clinical treatment options of AR patients.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Pyroglyphidae; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 37063866
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1144816 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021The treatment effects and safety of ear acupressure (EAP) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have yet to be clarified. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment effects and safety of ear acupressure (EAP) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have yet to be clarified.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects and safety of EAP in AR patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review of published studies.
METHODS
A total of 24 English and Chinese databases (PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Informit, ScienceDirect, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences), ProQuest, AMED, Blackwell Synergy, PsycINFO, Panteleimon, AcuBriefs, KoreaMed, IndMed, Ingenta, mRCT, ISI Web of Knowledge, ERIC, VIP Information (http://www.cqvip.com), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (http://www.cnki.net), Cochrane Library, Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register Platform, and Wanfang Chinese Digital Periodical and Conference Database) were searched from their respective inceptions to August 2020 to collect randomized controlled trials of ear acupressure for allergic rhinitis. We performed literature inclusion, data extraction, and trial quality evaluations. Methodological quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Revman5.3 was used for all analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 203 trials were identified and eleven studies involved 1094 participants aged 3-70 years. EAP was better than control group interventions in terms of effectiveness (risk ratio (RR): 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.70; < 0.0001). EAP was superior to sham EAP in terms of improvement of the total nasal symptom score (RR: -0.50; 95% CI: -0.96-0.05; = 0.03), sneezing score (RR: -0.36; 95% CI: -0.59-0.12; = 0.003), global QoL score (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.04-0.08; = 0.03), and eye symptom score (RR: -0.36; 95% CI: -0.67-0.05; = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the positive results, it is premature to confirm the efficacy of EAP for treating AR. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm safety and efficacy.
PubMed: 34007299
DOI: 10.1155/2021/6699749 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Aug 2021The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the most frequent pollutants and their effect on allergic rhinitis in Latin American countries. Observational... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the most frequent pollutants and their effect on allergic rhinitis in Latin American countries. Observational studies up to December 2020 and comparing different indoor and outdoor pollutants that had allergic rhinitis (AR) as an outcome were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted for the presence of allergic rhinitis. Estimates were presented as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Twenty-two publications comprised this review according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 12 had data that could be analyzed statistically. The most frequent pollutant was PM10, followed by NO2 /O3 and PM2.5 in studies conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru. The OR of an exposed subject experiencing allergic rhinitis was 1.43 (95% CI 1.026; 1.980). The OR of children and adolescents experiencing of allergic rhinitis was 1.359 (95% CI 1.051; 1.759). Asymmetry and great variability in the effect estimated from the selected studies were observed. The publication bias was quantified by Kendall's correlation and Egger's test resulted in 0.152 (p-value = 0.493). Egger's test provided an intercept equal to 2.511 and a p-value = 0.398. The I2 statistic was 89.3% and reinforces the hypothesis of heterogeneity. This first systematic review conducted in Latin America confirmed the chance of a person exposed to pollutants and experiencing allergic rhinitis is 43% greater than that of a non-exposed person, reinforcing the importance of policies to reduce pollutant exposure and the use of protection systems for workforces exposed to occupational pollutants in work environments.
PubMed: 34471459
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100574 -
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck... Sep 2021Cannabis has been rapidly legalized in North America; however, limited evidence exists around its side effects. Health Canada defines side effect as a harmful and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis has been rapidly legalized in North America; however, limited evidence exists around its side effects. Health Canada defines side effect as a harmful and unintended response to a health product. Given drug safety concerns, this study's purpose was to review the unintended side effects of cannabis in otolaryngology.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153022). English studies in adults were included from inception to the end of 2019. In-vitro, animal, and studies with n < 5 were excluded. Primary outcome was defined as unintended side effects (defined as any Otolaryngology symptom or diagnosis) following cannabis use. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence and risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in randomized trials (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools were assessed.. Two authors independently reviewed all studies; the senior author settled any discrepancies.
RESULTS
Five hundred and twenty-one studies were screened; 48 studies were analysed. Subspecialties comprised: Head and Neck (32), Otology (8), Rhinology (5), Airway (5), Laryngology (1). Cannabis use was associated with unintended tinnitus, vertigo, hearing loss, infection, malignancy, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, thyroid dysfunction, and dyspnea. About half (54.1%) of studies showed increased side effects, or no change in symptoms following cannabis use. Oxford Levels of Evidence was 2-4 with substantial heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment with RoB2 was low to high and ROBINS-1 was moderate to critical.
CONCLUSION
This was the first comprehensive scoping review of unintended side effects of cannabis in Otolaryngology. The current literature is limited and lacks high-quality research Future randomized studies are needed to focus on therapeutic effects of cannabis in otolaryngology. Substantial work remains to guide clinicians to suggest safe, evidence-based choices for cannabis use.
Topics: Analgesics; Cannabis; Evidence-Based Medicine; North America; Otolaryngology
PubMed: 34579787
DOI: 10.1186/s40463-021-00538-6 -
Allergy Jan 2023Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have been reported, but have not yet been systematically reviewed. Seven... (Review)
Review
Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have been reported, but have not yet been systematically reviewed. Seven electronic databases were searched, from database inception to September 2021. English language randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort, and case-control studies that investigated the association between a biomarker and the development of comorbidities in AD patients were included. Two authors independently screened the records for eligibility, one extracted all data, and critically appraised the quality of studies and risk of bias. Fifty six articles met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 146 candidate biomarkers. The most frequently reported biomarkers were filaggrin mutations and allergen specific-IgE. Promising biomarkers include specific-IgE and/or skin prick tests predicting the development of asthma, and genetic polymorphisms predicting the occurrence of eczema herpeticum. The identified studies and biomarkers were highly heterogeneous, and associated with predominately moderate-to-high risk of bias across multiple domains. Overall, findings were inconsistent. High-quality studies assessing biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in people with AD are lacking. Harmonized datasets and independent validation studies are urgently needed.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Biomarkers; Immunoglobulin E; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36366871
DOI: 10.1111/all.15578 -
International Archives of... Oct 2022Allergic rhinitis (AR) is estimated to affect up to 30% of the world population. With the rise in cases, newer treatment modalities have been explored. Probiotics... (Review)
Review
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is estimated to affect up to 30% of the world population. With the rise in cases, newer treatment modalities have been explored. Probiotics have shown to reduce symptoms of AR and improve quality of life. A few systematic reviews have been published aiming to assess the role of probiotics in AR. To consolidate the recent evidence with an overview of systematic reviews by extracting data regarding subjective outcomes (from quality of life questionnaires, the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, the Daily Total Symptom Score, the incidence of AR, and the Rhinitis Total Symptom Score) and objective outcomes (levels of antigen-specific immunoglobulin E [IgE], total IgE, interleukin 10 [IL-10], interferon gamma [IFNG], eosinophil, and the T helper 1/T helper 2 [Th1/Th2] ratio). We conducted a literature search on the PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, and Cochrane Library up to April 14, 2020. The qualitative assessment was performed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. A total of 419 titles were screened, and 3 systematic reviews met our eligibility criteria. Probiotics in the treatment of AR have been shown to improve quality of life, the total nasal and ocular symptom scores, the daily total symptom scores and Th1/Th2 ratio. No difference was ascertained for rhinitis total symptom score, and the rates of antigen-specific IgE, total IgE, IL-10, INFG and eosinophil. The present review showed that there is considerable evidence that probiotics are useful in the treatment of AR. Further randomized trials targeting the limitations of the currently-available evidence can help ascertain the usefulness of probiotics in cases of AR.
PubMed: 36405454
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749370 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2022The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has increased tremendously in the recent year in China. Evidence-based medicine to objectively evaluate the prevalence and risk... (Review)
Review
The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) has increased tremendously in the recent year in China. Evidence-based medicine to objectively evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for AR in China is urgently required. Toward this, we systematically searched four English and four Chinese databases to identify the literature on the same, from the year of website establishment until November 2021. A total of 51 studies were evaluated, and data were obtained through Stata 16 analysis. Overall pooled risk factors for adult AR were smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 2.87), asthma (OR = 3.30, 95% CI: 1.48, 7.39), a family history of AR (OR = 3.17, 95% CI: 2.31, 4.34), a family history of asthma (OR = 3.99, 95% CI: 2.58, 6.16), drug allergy (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.38, 1.89), food allergy (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.39, 3.78), pollen allergy history (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.67, 3.46), antibiotic use (OR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.28, 3.36), occupational dust exposure (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.70, 2.47), home renovation (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.99, 3.02), and middle school education (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.29, 3.06). Overall pooled risk factors for AR in children were passive smoking (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.82), asthma (OR = 3.26, 95% CI: 2.42, 4.39), a family history of AR (OR = 2.59, 95% CI: 2.07, 3.24), a family history of allergy (OR = 4.84, 95% CI: 3.22, 7.26), a history of allergic diseases (OR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.52, 2.94), eczema(OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.36, 3.85), owning pets (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.37, 1.77), eating seafood (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.55), boys (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.43, 1.74), and breastfeeding (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.22). The results of our meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of allergy rhinitis was 19% (95% CI 14-25) among adults and 22% (95% CI 17-27) among children, with boys showing a higher prevalence than girls. The development of AR in China is associated with several factors, including allergic diseases (eczema, asthma, pollen allergy, and food allergy), a family history of allergy (AR, asthma, and other allergies), and dwelling and working environment (smoking or passive smoking, occupational dust exposure, and owning pets); conversely, breastfeeding can reduce the risk.
PubMed: 36193147
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7165627