-
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Oct 2015Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an allergic disorder caused by both immunological dysregulation and epidermal barrier defect. Several studies have investigated the association... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an allergic disorder caused by both immunological dysregulation and epidermal barrier defect. Several studies have investigated the association between AD and mental health disorders. Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a heterogeneous group of neurodevelopmental conditions characterized by impairments in social communication and restricted, stereotyped interests and behaviors. The concurrent increased prevalence of AD and ASD in the last decades has led many scientists to investigate the relationship between the two diseases.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the association between AD and ASD.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed and ScienceDirect were searched up to March 2015 for all reports examining the association between ASD and AD. Descriptive statistics of the studies are reported.
RESULTS
The review included 18 studies assessing the association between ASD and AD. Of these studies, two focused on ASD in relation to AD alone, 14 discussed ASD in relation to both AD and other atopic disorders, and two evaluated AD in parents of children with ASD. Most of these studies found a positive association between the two disorders, although there were some studies going in the opposite direction. The entity of the association is somewhat inconsistent among the different studies given that the frequencies of AD in ASD compared with a control group ranged from 7 to 64.2%. In addition, odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) gave different results as three studies found a weak association with an OR below 2 and a nonsignificant p value, and three other studies found a moderate or strong association with an OR ranging from 1.52 to 7.17 and a significant p value. When all atopic disorders were considered when evaluating the risk of ASD, the association was strong with an HR of 3.4 or an OR of 1.24 and p < 0.001.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the results of this systematic review seem to reveal an association between ASD and AD, suggesting that subjects with ASD have an increased risk of presenting with AD compared with typically developing controls, and vice versa. This association is supported by clinical/epidemiological aspects, shared genetic background and common immunological and autoimmune processes. However, the variability in study population and design, and the presence of other risk factors acting as confounding factors, sometimes contribute to inconsistent results. Further studies are needed to clarify the underlying pathophysiologic mechanism explaining the association between ASD and AD and to explore the causal association between the two conditions.
Topics: Asthma; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Prevalence; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 26254000
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-015-0145-5 -
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 -
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 -
The Laryngoscope Apr 2023Topical intranasal anticholinergics are commonly prescribed for the relief of chronic rhinitis and associated symptoms, warranting thorough assessment of the supporting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Topical intranasal anticholinergics are commonly prescribed for the relief of chronic rhinitis and associated symptoms, warranting thorough assessment of the supporting evidence. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticholinergic nasal sprays in the management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis symptom severity and duration.
METHODS
A search encompassing the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted. Primary studies describing rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and/or postnasal drip outcomes in rhinitis patients treated with an anticholinergic spray were included for review.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1,029 unique abstracts, of which 12 studies (n = 2,024) met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis and 9 (n = 1,920) for meta-analysis. Median follow-up was 4 weeks and ipratropium bromide was the most extensively trialed anticholinergic. Compared to placebo, anticholinergic treatment was demonstrated to significantly reduce rhinorrhea severity scores (standardized mean difference [95% CI] = -0.77 [-1.20, -0.35]; -0.43 [-0.72, -0.13]) and duration (-0.62 [-0.95, -0.30]; -0.29 [-0.47, -0.10]) in allergic and non-allergic rhinitis patients respectively. Benefit was less consistent for nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and sneezing symptoms. Reported adverse effects included nasal mucosa dryness or irritation, epistaxis, headaches, and pharyngitis, though comparison to placebo found significantly greater risk for epistaxis only (risk ratio [95% CI] = 2.19 [1.22, 3.93]).
CONCLUSION
Albeit treating other symptoms with less benefit, anticholinergic nasal sprays appear to be safe and efficacious in reducing rhinorrhea severity and duration in both rhinitis etiologies. This evidence supports their continued use in the treatment of rhinitis-associated rhinorrhea.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 Laryngoscope, 133:722-731, 2023.
Topics: Humans; Rhinitis; Cholinergic Antagonists; Nasal Sprays; Epistaxis; Rhinorrhea
PubMed: 35838014
DOI: 10.1002/lary.30306 -
Allergy and Asthma Proceedings Jul 2021Only a fraction of patients with allergic rhinitis receive allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is most commonly delivered subcutaneously in a series of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Only a fraction of patients with allergic rhinitis receive allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is most commonly delivered subcutaneously in a series of injections over 3-5 years. Common obstacles to completing this therapy include cost and inconvenience. Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) has been proposed as a faster alternative, which requires as few as three injections spaced 4 weeks apart. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence that supports the use of ILIT for allergic rhinitis. Clinical trials were identified in the published literature by using an electronic search strategy and were evaluated by using a risk of bias tool. Treatment outcome (symptom scores, medication scores, and combined symptom and medication scores) and provocation testing results (nasal provocation and skin-prick testing) were included in a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference with subgrouping by using a random-effects model. Overall adverse event rates were tabulated, and overall risk ratios were calculated by using a random-effects model. We identified 17 clinical trials that met eligibility criteria. The standardized mean difference of ILIT on the symptom and medication score was -0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.46; p < 0.0001) ( = 10). The standardized mean difference of ILIT on nasal provocation and skin-prick testing was -1.00 (95% CI, -1.38 to -0.61; p < 0.0001) ( = 7) and -0.73 (95% CI, -0.99 to -0.47; p < 0.0001) ( = 7), respectively. No statistically significant heterogeneity was detected. The overall adverse event rate was 39.5% for ILIT and 23.5% for placebo. Also, 98.4% of adverse events were mild. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ILIT was safe, conferred desensitization to seasonal and nonseasonal allergens, alleviated allergic rhinitis symptoms, and reduced medication use. A larger randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial will be necessary for wider adaptation of this form of AIT.
Topics: Allergens; Desensitization, Immunologic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Skin Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34187620
DOI: 10.2500/aap.2021.42.210028 -
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