-
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 -
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 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Mar 2017Over the last decades, the hypothesis has been raised that an atopic response could lead to the development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Over the last decades, the hypothesis has been raised that an atopic response could lead to the development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study systematically reviews the observational cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that assessed the association between atopic disorders including asthma, atopic eczema, allergic rhinitis, and ADHD in children and adolescents. For longitudinal studies, a weighted Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio of these associations was estimated. The majority of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies reported a statistically significant positive association. The meta-analysis of longitudinal studies revealed an overall weighted odds ratio for asthma of 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.44), 1.32 (95% CI 1.20-1.45) for atopic eczema, and 1.52 (95% CI 1.43-1.63) for allergic rhinitis. Heterogeneity of study data was low (I: 0%, p=0.46 and p=0.64, respectively) for both studies examining asthma and eczema but substantial for rhinitis studies (I: 82%, p=0.004). This current systematic review provides strong evidence that ADHD is associated with atopic diseases and that individuals have a 30% to 50% greater chance of developing ADHD compared to controls.
Topics: Attention; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28111269
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.011 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Jun 2015Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in allergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established. The current systematic review seeks to synthesize the results of available randomized trials.
METHODS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were extracted based on defined inclusion criteria. The effect of probiotics on Rhinitis Quality of Life (RQLQ) scores, Rhinitis Total Symptom Scores (RTSS), as well as total and antigen-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were evaluated by meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies with 1919 patients were identified, including 21 double-blind RCTs and 2 randomized crossover studies. Multiple probiotic strains, study populations, and outcome measures were used in individual trials. Seventeen studies showed a significant clinical benefit from the use of probiotics in at least 1 outcome measure when compared to placebo, whereas 6 trials showed no benefit. Among the trials eligible for meta-analysis, the use of probiotics resulted in a significant improvement in RQLQ scores compared to placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] -2.23; p = 0.02). Probiotics had no effect on RTSS (SMD -0.36; p = 0.13) or total IgE levels (SMD 0.01; p = 0.94), although there was a trend toward a reduction in antigen-specific IgE (SMD 0.20; p = 0.06) in the placebo group compared to probiotic.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics may be beneficial in improving symptoms and quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis; however, current evidence remains limited due to study heterogeneity and variable outcome measures. Additional high-quality studies are needed to establish appropriate recommendations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25899251
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21492 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Nov 2021Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is a potential treatment for chronic rhinitis. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of BTX-A in treating patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) is a potential treatment for chronic rhinitis. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of BTX-A in treating patients with chronic rhinitis.
METHODS
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of BTX-A in allergic rhinitis and/or nonallergic rhinitis patients, compared with either placebo or active treatment, were included. The outcomes were total nasal symptom (TNSS), disease-specific quality of life (QOL), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (340 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Compared with placebo, the ≤ 12-week effects favored BTX-A injection on TNSS (standardized mean difference [SMD] -2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.27 to -1.17, p < 0.01, four RCTs). Beneficial effects > 12 weeks over placebo (MD -9.69, 95% CI -11.29 to -8.09, p < 0.01, one RCT) were demonstrated up to 24 weeks. However, the benefits were not shown on nasal congestion and individual nasal symptoms. Compared with active comparators (triamcinolone injection, ipratropium bromide, and cetirizine), there was no difference in the < 12-week effect between groups on TNSS. There was no difference between BTX-A and cetirizine on QOL (one RCT). The > 12-week effects on TNSS and individual nasal symptoms favored BTX-A over triamcinolone injection (one RCT). The risk ratio of adverse events favored BTX-A over cetirizine (one RCT).
CONCLUSIONS
BTX-A improved TNSS and QOL in patients with chronic rhinitis. These effects were demonstrated up to 24 weeks post treatment. BTX-A was safe, well tolerated, and may be considered in patients who are refractory to current standard-of-care therapies.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Botulinum Toxins; Cetirizine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33956405
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22813 -
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings Nov 2023Rhinitis, allergic rhinitis in particular, and urticaria are both common diseases globally. However, there is controversy with regard to the correlation between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rhinitis, allergic rhinitis in particular, and urticaria are both common diseases globally. However, there is controversy with regard to the correlation between rhinitis and urticaria. To examine the accurate association between rhinitis and urticaria. Three medical literature data bases were searched from data base inception until January 11, 2022. The prevalence and association between rhinitis and urticaria were estimated by meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled prevalence were calculated by using random-effects models. Urticaria prevalence in patients with rhinitis was 17.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-21.9%). The pooled prevalence of rhinitis was 31.3% (95% CI, 24.2%-38.4%) in patients with urticaria, and rhinitis prevalence in patients with acute urticaria and chronic urticaria was 31.6% (95% CI, 7.4%-55.8%) and 28.7% (95% CI, 20.4%-36.9%), respectively. Rhinitis occurrence was significantly associated with urticaria (OR 2.67 [95% CI, 2.625-2.715]). Urticaria and rhinitis were diagnosed based on different criteria, possibly resulting in a potential error of misclassification. Rhinitis and urticaria were significantly correlated. Physicians should be cognizant with regard to this relationship and address nasal or skin symptoms in patients.
Topics: Humans; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Prevalence; Urticaria; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 37919842
DOI: 10.2500/aap.2023.44.230063 -
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical... Aug 2017The review compares and contrasts seven major United States and international allergic rhinitis guidelines from 2008 to 2017. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The review compares and contrasts seven major United States and international allergic rhinitis guidelines from 2008 to 2017.
RECENT FINDINGS
Despite many treatment options for allergic rhinitis, patients often report lack of therapeutic control and a reduced quality of life. Guidelines intended to improve allergic rhinitis care have been evolving into evidence based, systematic reviews, with less reliance on consensus of expert opinion characteristic of more traditional guidelines. The first Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-based guideline developed in the United States for seasonal allergic rhinitis was first published in 2017.
SUMMARY
When critically analyzing the allergic rhinitis guidelines that use the rigorous Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, different groups of expert authors, using the same reference articles, will, at times, reach different conclusions regarding the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Factors potentially contributing to these divergent determinations include: lack of objective primary outcome measures in allergic rhinitis, poorly defined Minimal Clinically Important Difference, failure to include all interested parties in guideline development, for example, patients, and subjectivity inherent in the expert panel.
Topics: Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; United States
PubMed: 28658067
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000375 -
Allergologia Et Immunopathologia 2022The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of probiotics on allergic rhinitis (AR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of probiotics on allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS
Collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with probiotics as intervention measures for AR, two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, and used RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis to observe the effects of probiotics on Rhinitis Quality of Life (RQLQ) scores, Rhinitis Total Symptom Scores (RTSS), blood eosinophil count, total and antigen-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels by using the fixed- or the random-effects model to calculate the pooled risk for significant heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 2708 patients were included in 30 RCTs. Meta-analysis results showed that the RQLQ global scores (mean difference [MD] = -9.43; P < 0.00001), RQLQ nasal scores (MD = -1.52; P = 0.03), and RTSS nasal scores (MD = -1.96; P = 0.02) significantly improved in the probiotic group when compared with those in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in blood eosinophil count (MD = -0.09; P=0.82), RQLQ eye scores (MD = -1.45; P = 0.07), RTSS global scores (MD = -2.24; P = 0.26), RTSS eye scores (MD = -0.39; P = 0.31), total and antigen-specific serum IgE levels (MD = -0.04; P = 0.7 and MD = -0.08; P = 0.81) between the probiotic and the placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the placebo group, the quality of life and symptoms of patients with AR significantly improved in the probiotic group, thus providing a new potential method for the application of probiotics in AR. However, because of the limited evidence for the current study outcomes, the heterogeneity of research, and the differences in research results, more high-quality studies are needed to in the future.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 35527653
DOI: 10.15586/aei.v50i3.507 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Sep 2023Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a non-infective chronic inflammatory disease of nasal mucosa. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a non-infective chronic inflammatory disease of nasal mucosa.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal microbiome supplementation (GMS) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), concerning improvement on symptoms and signs, laboratory outcomes, quality of life, and medication scores.
METHODS
Five English databases were searched up to Dec 12th, 2022. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics were main therapies or adjuvants in experimental groups. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.4 Software, with meta-influence analyses, subgroup-analyses, meta-regression, and publication bias performed for exploration of heterogeneity by Stata V.14. Trial sequential analyses were performed by TSA 0.9, and quality of the results was accessed through the GRADE-pro GDT.
RESULTS
Finally, extracted from 53 articles, 65 RCTs involving 3,634 participants with sound worldwide representativeness were included. Primary results showed better improvement in GMS groups on TNSS (WMD=1.05, P for WMD=0.004, 95%CI:0.34 to 1.76), overall nasal condition (WMD=1.25, P for WMD<0.001, 95%CI:0.90 to 1.61), overall quality of life (WMD=6.16, P for WMD<0.001, 95%CI:4.92 to 7.40) and medication score (WMD=0.42, P for WMD=0.42, 95%CI:-0.06 to 0.90).However, GMS groups were inferior than the controls concerning reduction on serum total IgE (WMD=-1.81) and ratios of serum Th1/Th2 (WMD=-1.06). Meta-regressions suggested significant (p<0.05) variations of the effects in some comparisons. In addition, results of sub-group analyses firstly revealed potential influence between final results and the variables above. Instantly after intervention, the GRADE levels of evidence were sound, including "High ⨁⨁⨁⨁" in 10, "Moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯" in 33, and "Low ⨁⨁◯◯" in nine comparisons. However, overall certainties decreased obviously during follow-ups.
CONCLUSION
Overall, our pooled results firstly revealed that GMS yielded acceptable benefits for patients with AR compared with controls with sound certainties, after balancing the benefits and harms.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Probiotics
PubMed: 37418839
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2023.154948