-
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Jul 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) and rhinitis are common atopic diseases that may co-occur owing to an overlap in pathophysiology. Although most cases of both diseases are mild... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) and rhinitis are common atopic diseases that may co-occur owing to an overlap in pathophysiology. Although most cases of both diseases are mild and managed with topical anti-inflammatory medicaments, the advent of new systemic and biologic treatments targeting type 2 inflammation in both diseases warrants further insight in the exact overlap of AD and rhinitis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the association between AD and rhinitis.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the databases PubMed, Embase, and CNKI were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled prevalence and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 10,422 citations, and 341 and 302 articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. The pooled prevalence of rhinitis was 40.5% (95% CI 39.0-42.0) in patients with AD and 18.0% (95% CI 16.7-19.2) in the reference individuals without AD. The pooled prevalence of having both rhinitis and asthma was 14.2% (95% CI 13.0-15.5) in patients with AD. There was an association between AD and rhinitis (OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.83-3.18), allergic rhinitis (OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.26-4.66), and nonallergic rhinitis (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.39-2.86), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Rhinitis, both allergic and nonallergic forms, is very common in patients with AD. Future investigations should clarify how medications targeting both diseases should be indicated in these patients.
Topics: Asthma; Comorbidity; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33684526
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2021.02.026 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2020Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked to offspring allergy risk. In turn, maternal diet is a potentially modifiable factor, which could be targeted as an allergy prevention strategy. In this systematic review, we focused on non-allergen-specific modifying factors of the maternal diet in pregnancy on allergy outcomes in their offspring.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of studies investigating the association between maternal diet during pregnancy and allergic outcomes (asthma/wheeze, hay fever/allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis (AD), food allergies, and allergic sensitization) in offspring. Studies evaluating the effect of food allergen intake were excluded. We searched three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) through February 26, 2019. Evidence was critically appraised using modified versions of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for intervention trials and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodological checklist for cohort and case-control studies and meta-analysis performed from RCTs.
RESULTS
We identified 95 papers: 17 RCTs and 78 observational (case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort) studies. Observational studies varied in design and dietary intakes and often had contradictory findings. Based on our meta-analysis, RCTs showed that vitamin D supplementation (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) is associated with a reduced risk of wheeze/asthma. A positive trend for omega-3 fatty acids was observed for asthma/wheeze, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.08). Omega-3 supplementation was also associated with a non-significant decreased risk of allergic rhinitis (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04). Neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids were associated with an altered risk of AD or food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal supplementation with vitamin D may have beneficial effects for prevention of asthma. Additional nutritional factors seem to be required for modulating the risk of skin and gastrointestinal outcomes. We found no consistent evidence regarding other dietary factors, perhaps due to differences in study design and host features that were not considered. While confirmatory studies are required, there is also a need for performing RCTs beyond single nutrients/foods.
Topics: Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Female; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32524677
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13303 -
Nutrients Sep 2022We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of vitamin D (VitD) supplementation on children with allergic diseases. MEDLINE, Embase,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of vitamin D (VitD) supplementation on children with allergic diseases. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, and three Chinese databases were searched up to 15 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a VitD supplementation versus a placebo for children with allergic diseases were included. Thirty-two RCTs with 2347 participants were included. VitD supplementation did not reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations in children compared with placebo overall (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65 to 1.08, p = 0.18), but reduced the risk of asthma exacerbation in children with baseline serum 25(OH)D of <10 ng/mL compared with placebo (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation significantly reduced Scoring Atopic Dermatitis or the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores in children with atopic dermatitis compared with placebo (standard mean difference = −0.5, 95% CI: −0.87 to −0.12, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation also reduced the symptom-medication score in children with allergic rhinitis compared with placebo (mean (standard deviation): 43.7 (3.3) vs. 57.8 (4.4), p = 0.001). In conclusion, VitD supplementation did not reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children overall but may reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children with serum 25(OH)D concentration < 10 ng/mL. VitD supplementation reduces the severity of atopic dermatitis and symptoms of allergic rhinitis in children.
Topics: Asthma; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Rhinitis, Allergic; Vitamin D
PubMed: 36235600
DOI: 10.3390/nu14193947 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Jul 2023Following the "hygiene hypothesis" and the increase in the prevalence of atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, a plethora of studies have investigated the role of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Following the "hygiene hypothesis" and the increase in the prevalence of atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, a plethora of studies have investigated the role of sibship composition as a protective factor, but findings are conflicting. The aim of this study was to synthesize the global literature linking birth order and sibship size (number of siblings) to the risk of allergic rhinitis. Fifteen databases were systematically searched, with no restrictions on publication date or language. Observational studies with defined sibship composition (birth order or sibship size) as exposure and allergic rhinitis or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (self-reported or clinically diagnosed) as outcome were eligible. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently in pairs. Relevant data were summarized in tables. Comparable numerical data were analyzed using meta-analysis with robust variance estimation (RVE). Seventy-six reports with >2 million subjects were identified. Being second- or later-born child was associated with protection against both current (pooled risk ratio [RR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.86) and ever (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88) allergic rhinitis. Having siblings, regardless of birth order, was associated with a decreased risk of current allergic rhinitis (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.95) and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98). These effects were unchanged across age, time period, and geographical regions. Our findings thus indicate that primarily, a higher birth order, and to a lesser extent the number of siblings, is associated with a lower risk of developing allergic rhinitis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Siblings; Rhinitis, Allergic; Conjunctivitis
PubMed: 37492922
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13991 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Sprays; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 29932206
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012597.pub2 -
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health... Jun 2016To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice.
METHODS
Medline (OvidSP), PubMed Publisher, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were systematically reviewed for articles providing data on the prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis and eczema in a GP setting. Studies were only included when they had a cross-sectional or cohort design and included more than 100 children (aged 0-18 years) in a general practice setting. All ISAAC studies (i.e. the open population) that geographically matched a study selected from the first search, were also included. A quality assessment was conducted. The primary outcome measures were prevalence of eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis in children aged 0-18 years.
RESULTS
The overall quality of the included studies was good. The annual and lifetime prevalences of the atopic disorders varied greatly in both general practice and the open population. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders was higher in the open population.
CONCLUSION
There are significant differences between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice. Data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting. This should be taken into account when considering a research topic or requirements for policy development. GPs should be aware of the possible misclassification of allergic disorders in their practice. Key Points Epidemiological data on atopic disorders in children can be obtained from various sources, each having its own advantages and limitations. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders is higher in the open population. GPs should take into account the possible misclassification of atopic disorders in their practice population. Policymakers should be aware that data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Diagnostic Errors; Female; General Practice; Humans; Male; Netherlands; Prevalence; Rhinitis, Allergic; Self Report; United Kingdom
PubMed: 27010253
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2016.1160629 -
Allergologia Et Immunopathologia 2023Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases affecting millions of people globally. Some studies revealed the presence of bidirectional relationship between... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases affecting millions of people globally. Some studies revealed the presence of bidirectional relationship between allergic rhinitis (AR) and oral diseases, with each disease having a potential impact on the other. In this study we aimed to systematically review the literature and analyze the available evidence regarding whether AR contributes to the development of dental caries.
METHODS
Three authors, members of the YO-IFOS rhinology study group, independently analyzed the data sources (Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SciELO) for papers assessing the relationship between rhinitis and caries, in adult and pediatric patients.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (87612 participants). Six studies were performed in children. A total of three studies found an association between AR and dental caries. Only two studies had adjusted the measure of effect for potentially confounding variables. Regarding the quality of the selected studies according to the NICE classification, the most observed methodological limitations detected were: (1) the cross-sectional design of the included studies which could have introduced a simultaneity bias, and (2) not clearly reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review can neither confirm nor deny the presence of an association between AR and caries. Despite the evidence is very scarce to conclude a relationship between AR and caries, the option for examining patients with repetitive caries by an otolaryngologist and those with AR by odontologist should be considered, as these examinations do not possess any risk for the patient.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Caries; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 36916103
DOI: 10.15586/aei.v51i2.752 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... May 2017Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has repeatedly been associated with atopic manifestations, which are reported more frequently in these patients than in the general... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has repeatedly been associated with atopic manifestations, which are reported more frequently in these patients than in the general population.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess the evidence and strength of the associations between EoE and atopy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases for case-control studies comparing the frequency of atopic diatheses among patients with EoE and control subjects representing the general population without EoE. Using random-effects meta-analyses, we calculated summary estimates, including 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for bronchial asthma, atopic rhinitis, and eczema. Publication bias risks were assessed by means of funnel plot analysis and specific statistical tests.
RESULTS
Of the 2,954 references identified, data were collected from 21 studies, including a total of 53,542 patients with EoE and 54,759 controls. The criteria for defining a diagnosis of atopy in patients with EoE or controls was not structurally considered in most of the studies. Overall, allergic rhinitis was significantly more common among patients with EoE compared with control subjects (odds ratio [OR], 5.09; 95% CI, 2.91-8.90; I = 86.7%) as were bronchial asthma (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.96-4.62; I = 84.5%) and eczema (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.87-4.34; I = 57.1%). Food allergies and other atopic conditions were also assessed. No significant publication bias was found for studies dealing with allergic rhinitis and eczema in EoE.
CONCLUSION
Despite pointing to a significant association between atopy and EoE, most of the studies provided no normalized diagnostic criteria for atopy. Further research should provide clear and standardized definitions of such conditions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO Trial Identifier: CRD42016036161.
Topics: Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Odds Ratio; Phenotype; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28366582
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2017.02.006 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2022The etiology of Kawasaki disease (KD), an inflammatory and cardiovascular disorder, remains largely unexplained after more than 50 years of intensive research. In recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The etiology of Kawasaki disease (KD), an inflammatory and cardiovascular disorder, remains largely unexplained after more than 50 years of intensive research. In recent years, the association between KD and atopic diseases had been explored by some observational studies. We systematically reviewed and summarized the literature on the relationship between KD and atopic diseases.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify observational studies on the association between KD and atopic diseases from inception to May 2021. Odds ratio (OR) was pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and Cochran Q statistics. Primary outcomes were to compare the prevalence of KD among individuals with atopic diseases to nonatopic disease controls and the prevalence of atopic diseases among individuals with KD to non-KD controls.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies, including 12,651 cases and 170,708 controls, were included in this meta-analysis. In cross-sectional studies, KD was associated with allergic rhinitis (n = 6; OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.52-1.87), asthma (n = 3; OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38-2.14), allergic conjunctivitis (n = 2; OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.68-2.27), and atopic dermatitis (n = 3; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.22-1.49). In case-control and cohort studies, KD was associated with allergic rhinitis (n = 3; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.28-1.43), asthma (n = 8; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19-1.65), allergic conjunctivitis (n = 1; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.09), and atopic dermatitis (n = 3; OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.53).
CONCLUSION
KD diagnosed was associated with four common atopic diseases. Among the four allergic diseases, allergic conjunctivitis and asthma have the highest correlation with KD, which may provide a direction for exploring the etiology of KD.
Topics: Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Mucocutaneous Lymph Node Syndrome; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 34814144
DOI: 10.1159/000520045