-
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Mar 2021To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To assess the effects of herbal medicine (HM) therapy in various durations and analyze the effects of HM separately by mechanism of action in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).
RECENT FINDINGS
Thirty-two studies were included (2,697 patients, mean age 34.6 years). For the ≤ 4 weeks of treatment duration, HM brought greater benefits over placebo in reduction of total nasal symptoms score (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98, -0.38; p <0.01) and improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.81, -0.25; p <0.01). For the 4-12 weeks duration, total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.22; 95%CI -0.4, -0.05; p =0.01) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire score (SMD -0.48; 95% CI -0.89, -0.06; p =0.03) favored the HM. However, HM therapy for longer than 12 weeks was related to tachyphylaxis and showed no benefit over placebo in any outcomes. There was no difference between the HM and standard treatment on symptoms improvement. Anti-allergic effect, anti-inflammatory effect, anti-leukotriene effect, and anti-histaminic effect of HM were revealed. HM was safe and their adverse effects were comparable placebo. HM therapy is safe and provides better results than placebo in improving nasal symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in patients with AR. Its beneficial effects are demonstrated only in less than 12 weeks of treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID: CRD42020168367.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Female; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Male; Plant Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33768322
DOI: 10.1007/s11882-021-00999-9 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Mar 2024Endoscopic vidian neurectomy is expected to provide good therapeutic relief in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) being refractory to medication therapy or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic vidian neurectomy is expected to provide good therapeutic relief in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) being refractory to medication therapy or conservative surgery. However, the evidence bases for its benefit remain debatable. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the therapeutic role of various forms of vidian neurectomy in refractory AR.
METHOD
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of primary studies that reported original patient data for endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and vidian-branch neurectomy, which includes selective vidian neurectomy (SVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN). The primary outcome was patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), to assess an improvement in nasal symptom severity and quality of patient's life. The incidence of surgical complications and other objective outcomes were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
This review included 24 clinical studies involving 1677 patients with refractory AR, of which 510 patients in six studies had combined chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and 95 patients in one study had combined asthma. Postoperative PROMs were significantly better than preoperatively in almost all patients who underwent vidianp (RQLQ: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40-2.92, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 5.15, 95% CI = 4.29-6.02, p < 0.001) or vidian-branch neurectomy (RQLQ in PNN: SMD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.45-4.13, p < 0.001; VAS in PNN: SMD = 4.38, 95% CI = 3.41-5.34, p < 0.001), and were generally better than in the conservative treatment group. Dividing with 18 months as the cutoff point, a subgroup analysis of the follow-up period was conducted, and the results showed that both long-term and short-term postoperative patients had considerably reduced symptoms compared to the preoperative period. The two surgical procedures, SVN and PNN, attributed to vidian-branch neurectomy have extremely few complications. However, EVN is more likely to cause dry eyes and palatal numbness, with no other serious complications. In patients with AR and CRSwNP, vidian or selective vidian neurectomy combined with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is more effective than conventional FESS (RQLQ: SMD = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.66-2.69, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 6.42, 95% CI = 4.78-8.06, p < 0.001). For patients who have both AR and asthma, SVN with pharyngeal branch excision is a potential treatment option.
CONCLUSION
EVN and vidian-branch neurectomy (including SVN and PNN) are effective treatments, but the former has a higher risk of complications. Additionally, vidian-branch neurectomy with FESS is beneficial for patients with mixed CRSwNP. SVN is a potential approach for patients with coexisting AR and asthma.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Denervation; Nose; Asthma; Rhinitis
PubMed: 37715589
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23259 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2024The relationship between keratoconus and various allergic diseases has been a subject of controversy.
BACKGROUND
The relationship between keratoconus and various allergic diseases has been a subject of controversy.
OBJECTIVE
In the present study, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between allergic rhinitis (AR) and keratoconus.
METHODS
Relevant and eligible studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed to evaluate the association between AR and keratoconus. Observational studies containing the number of patients with and without keratoconus and the number of patients with keratoconus diagnosed with or without AR were included. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and extracted data from the included studies. A bivariate meta-analysis was conducted to compare the odds of keratoconus occurrence in patients with and without AR. The main outcome was the odds ratio of keratoconus occurrence in patients with AR. A sensitivity test was performed using the adjusted odds ratio reported in the included studies to validate the findings.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 775,574 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 29,082 patients had keratoconus. The pooled odds ratio of keratoconus occurrence in patients with AR was 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36-2.15; P < 0.001; I = 96%), and the pooled adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.23-2.40; P = 0.001; I = 97%).
CONCLUSION
Patients with AR showed significantly higher odds of keratoconus occurrence than those without AR. Future studies are warranted to investigate the causal relationship and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early screening using methods such as corneal topography and referral for keratoconus in patients with AR.
PubMed: 38851486
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2024.05.050 -
Allergy Jan 2016A growing number of studies suggest that maternal stress during pregnancy promotes atopic disorders in the offspring. This is the first systematic review to address... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies suggest that maternal stress during pregnancy promotes atopic disorders in the offspring. This is the first systematic review to address prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) and the subsequent risk of atopy-related outcomes in the child.
METHODS
The review was performed in accordance to the PRISMA criteria. We searched and selected studies in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and PsychINFO until November 2014.
RESULTS
Sixteen (with 25 analyses) of 426 identified articles met the review criteria. Five main PNMS exposures (negative life events, anxiety/depression, bereavement, distress and job strain) and five main atopic outcomes (asthma, wheeze, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and IgE) were assessed across the studies. Overall, 21 of the 25 analyses suggested a positive association between PNMS and atopic outcomes. Of the 11 exposure-response analyses reported, six found statistically significant trends.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review suggests a relationship between maternal stress during pregnancy and atopic disorders in the child. However, the existing studies are of diverse quality. The wide definitions of often self-reported stress exposures imply a substantial risk for information bias and false-positive results. Research comparing objective and subjective measures of PNMS exposure as well as objective measures for atopic outcome is needed.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Infant; Maternal Exposure; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Stress, Physiological; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 26395995
DOI: 10.1111/all.12762 -
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 -
Combined medical therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: Systematic review and meta-analyses.International Forum of Allergy &... Dec 2022Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antihistamines (ATH) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are primary treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). When monotherapy of either primary treatment fails to control symptoms, combined medical therapy is an option. In this meta-analysis we assessed the additional effects of different medical combinations compared with primary treatments.
METHODS
Systematic searches on PubMed and EMBASE were updated on November 4, 2021. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effects of combinations with monotherapy were included. There were 7 comparisons: (1) ATH-decongestant vs ATH; (2) ATH-leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) vs ATH; (3) INCS-ATH vs INCS; (4) INCS-LTRA vs INCS; (5) INCS-decongestion vs INCS; (6) INCS-saline irrigation vs INCS; and (7) ATH-saline irrigation vs ATH. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Outcomes were composite nasal symptom score, composite ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies were included. Compared with ATH alone, the ATH-decongestant combination improved composite nasal symptoms; ATH-LTRA improved nasal symptoms in patients with perennial AR; and ATH-nasal saline improved both symptoms and QoL. Compared with INCS alone, the INCS-intranasal ATH combination improved nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and QoL; INCS-LTRA improved ocular symptoms but not nasal symptoms; and INCS-nasal saline improved QoL but not symptoms. There were no additional effects observed from adding oral ATH or topical decongestant to INCS.
CONCLUSION
After ATH monotherapy fails to control symptoms, addition of decongestant, saline, or LTRA can improve the outcomes. When INCS monotherapy is ineffective, addition of intranasal ATH can improve nasal symptoms; LTRA can improve ocular symptoms, and saline irrigation can improve QoL.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Nasal Decongestants; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial; Leukotriene Antagonists; Histamine Antagonists; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 35446512
DOI: 10.1002/alr.23015 -
Allergy Nov 2022Antibiotic use during pregnancy may increase the risk for asthma in children. We performed a meta-analysis assessing prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antibiotic use during pregnancy may increase the risk for asthma in children. We performed a meta-analysis assessing prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march. A systematic literature search protocol (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020191940) was registered and searches were completed using Medline, Proquest, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials. Screening for inclusion criteria: published in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic, intervention (use of any antibiotic at any time point during pregnancy), and disease (reporting atopic disease incidence in children with a primary outcome of asthma or wheeze), and exclusion criteria: reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies, yielded 27 studies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that antibiotic use during pregnancy is associated with an increased relative risk (RR) of developing wheeze RR 1.51 (95% CI: 1.17-1.94) or asthma RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.22-1.34) during childhood. Assessment of the atopic march in association with asthma or wheeze revealed that antibiotic use during pregnancy also increases the risk for eczema/dermatitis RR 1.28 (95% CI: 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis RR 1.13 (95% CI: 1.02-1.25). One study found an increase in food allergy RR 1.81 (95% CI: 1.11-2.95). Maternal antibiotic use during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for wheeze or asthma development in children, as well as for diseases involved in the atopic march. There was high heterogeneity in the data, and the certainty of the evidence was determined to be low quality, highlighting the need for more high-quality studies on this topic. These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
Topics: Child; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Food Hypersensitivity; Respiratory Sounds
PubMed: 35689800
DOI: 10.1111/all.15404 -
Mediators of Inflammation 2023Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS
MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Library were used to conduct electronic searches for clinical trials comparing ILIT and placebo in patients with AR. The final search took place on August 24, 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The outcomes included combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), Skin-prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized as mean difference (MD)/standard mean difference (SMD) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (454 participants) were included in this study. The ILIT group had better clinical improvement on the CSMS (random effects model, SMD-0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], = 0.02) and RQLQ (fixed-effects model, MD-0.42, 95% CI [0.69, 0.15], = 0.003) than the placebo group. The booster injection was beneficial for CSMS ( < 0.0001), and the 4-week injection interval was superior to the 2-week injection period for improving VAS ( < 0.0001). Local swelling or erythema was the main AE following injection (random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], = 0.005). . For individuals with AR, ILIT is safe and effective. ILIT alleviates clinical symptoms and reduces pharmaceutical consumption without causing severe AEs. However, the validity of this study is compromised by the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included researches. CRD42022355329.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37197570
DOI: 10.1155/2023/9377518 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Oct 2023Many potential environmental risk factors, protective factors, and biomarkers of AR have been published, but so far, the strength and consistency of their evidence are... (Review)
Review
Many potential environmental risk factors, protective factors, and biomarkers of AR have been published, but so far, the strength and consistency of their evidence are unclear. We conducted a comprehensive review of environmental risk, protective factors, and biomarkers for AR to establish the evidence hierarchy. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic database from inception to December 31, 2022. We calculated summary effect estimate (odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and standardized mean difference (SMD)), 95% confidence interval, random effects p value, I statistic, 95% prediction interval, small study effects, and excess significance biases, and stratification of the level of evidence. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). We retrieved 4478 articles, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The 43 eligible articles identified 31 potential environmental risk factors (10,806,206 total population, two study not reported), 11 potential environmental protective factors (823,883 total population), and 34 potential biomarkers (158,716 total population) for meta-analyses. The credibility of evidence was convincing (class I) for tic disorders (OR = 2.89, 95% CI 2.11-3.95); and highly suggestive (class II) for early-life antibiotic use (OR = 3.73, 95% CI 3.06-4.55), exposure to indoor dampness (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.27-1.75), acetaminophen exposure (OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.41-1.69), childhood acid suppressant use (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.23-1.59), exposure to indoor mold (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.26-2.18), coronavirus disease 2019 (OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.06-0.22), and prolonged breastfeeding (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.79). This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022384320).
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetaminophen; Biomarkers; COVID-19; Protective Factors; Rhinitis, Allergic; Risk Factors; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37490237
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08964-2 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Mar 2022Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR);... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR); however, appraisal of treatment effect has been heterogenous, and few studies have interpreted these outcomes in context with measures of nasal airflow.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for common therapy classes for AR to assess standardized treatment effect on validated patient-reported outcomes and physiologic measures of airflow.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane library databases to identify randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Treatment effects of INCS, POAH, and ASIT on total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were analyzed by meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies with 4673 AR patients were identified, with 5 INCS, 8 POAH, and 9 ASIT trials. INCS improved TNSS (mean difference [MD] 0.90; = .002) and PNIF (MD 13.31 L/min [ = .0007]. POAH improved quality of life assessed by RQLQ [MD 0.36; < .001], but no improvement was found in PNIF. ASIT improved RQLQ [MD 0.65; < .001], with a trend toward improvement in TNSS.
CONCLUSION
Overall, INCS resulted in a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in symptom scores and physiologic measures in AR. POAH and ASIT both improved symptom scores and quality of life, but their impacts upon nasal airflow are uncertain. There is a lack of studies assessing the effect of INCS on quality of life and the effect of POAH on symptom severity, particularly for mild AR. Future studies should assess the effect of treatment for each of these patient-reported measures.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Sprays; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 34546814
DOI: 10.1177/19458924211041438