-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Sep 2022Despite the vaginal mucosa is able to respond to allergenic stimuli, vaginal allergic responses have been under investigated in clinical practice. Thus, we aimed to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Despite the vaginal mucosa is able to respond to allergenic stimuli, vaginal allergic responses have been under investigated in clinical practice. Thus, we aimed to identify the most frequent etiological agents responsible for vulvovaginal allergies, the prevalent signs/symptoms, and the diagnostic tests applied in this clinical condition.
METHODS
Literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020167238). Studies were divided in two groups depending on allergen exposure route. Due to a significant number of studies correlating allergy to Candida infection, subgroup analysis was included.
RESULTS
In direct exposure cases, Human Seminal Plasma was the most prevalent allergen, sensitizing 73% of affected women. These women presented localized swelling and burning as prevalent symptoms, affecting 42/68 and 36/68 women, respectively. Cutaneous Prick tests were applied in 58/68 women, either alone or combined with IgE measurements. Regarding cases of indirect/unidentified exposure, house dust mites was the most prevalent allergen (54%), followed by pollen (44%). Predominant symptoms were vulvar pruritus and burning, affecting 67/98 and 52/98 women. Skin prick test was the most prevalent diagnostic method used among different studies. Hypersensitivity toward Candida antigen was present in only half (163/323) of women presenting concomitant allergy and Candida infection.
CONCLUSION
From the two types of allergen exposure that can cause vulvovaginal allergic responses, direct contact of the antigen with the vulva and/or vagina was the most prevalent. Still, allergens can also sensitize the vaginal mucosa secondarily to other exposure route, specifically aeroallergens.
Topics: Allergens; Candidiasis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Skin Tests; Vulvovaginitis
PubMed: 34825938
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06332-z -
Rhinology Dec 2021Allergic rhinitis (AR), an IgE mediated inflammatory disease, significantly impacts quality of life of a considerable proportion of the general population. Omalizumab, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis (AR), an IgE mediated inflammatory disease, significantly impacts quality of life of a considerable proportion of the general population. Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been evaluated for both seasonal and perennial AR. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in inadequately controlled AR.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search of RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of omalizumab in AR. We synthesized evidence for clinical improvement of AR symptoms, quality of life, reduction of the use of rescue medication, and adverse events.
RESULTS
The systematic search returned 289 articles, of which 12 RCTs were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis. Omalizumab reduced the Daily Nasal Symptom Severity Score (DNSSS) by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.41 points with large heterogeneity; omalizumab significantly reduced the DNSSS both in the 3 cedar pollen-induced AR trials by -0.97 points and to a lower extent in the remaining five non-cedar trials by -0.19 points. Omalizumab also improved the Daily Ocular Symptom Severity Score (DOSSS) by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.30 points with large heterogeneity; the Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.45 points with no heterogeneity and the mean daily consumption of rescue antihistamines by a summary standardized mean difference of -0.21 with large heterogeneity. No statistically significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events was observed between omalizumab and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Our findings further support the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the management of patients with allergic rhinitis inadequately controlled with a conventional treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Nose; Omalizumab; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34714895
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin21.159 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Oct 2016The efficacy of immunotherapy for cedar pollinosis using a single cedar antigen extract via the sublingual route is uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of immunotherapy for cedar pollinosis using a single cedar antigen extract via the sublingual route is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for patients with cedar pollinosis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared SLIT with a placebo for patients with cedar pollinosis were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the symptom medication score, and secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and serum IgE and IgG4 levels.
RESULTS
We analyzed 4 RCTs with a total of 762 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that SLIT significantly decreased symptom medication scores compared with placebo groups (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.75 to -0.14; P = .02; I = 93%), and subgroup analysis revealed that SLIT had a significant positive effect on cedar pollinosis when pollen concentration was less (SMD, -2.29; 95% CI, -3.64 to -2.16; P < .001) or more (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.21; P < .001; I = 0%) than 1,200/cm, and treatment duration was longer than 1 year (SMD, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.26; P < .001; I = 0%). Adverse events were reported in 237 of 405 patients (58.5%) receiving SLIT vs 192 of 357 patients (53.8%) receiving the placebo.
CONCLUSION
This study revealed a statistically significant benefit of SLIT in patients with cedar pollinosis. However, these findings were based on analysis of a small number of RCTs. Additional large-sample and high-quality RCTs are necessary for further study.
Topics: Allergens; Cryptomeria; Humans; Pollen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 27566862
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.024 -
Environmental Research Oct 2020Exposure to Plant Protection Products, PPPs, (fungicides, herbicides and insecticides) is a significant stressor for bees and other pollinators, and has recently been...
Exposure to Plant Protection Products, PPPs, (fungicides, herbicides and insecticides) is a significant stressor for bees and other pollinators, and has recently been the focus of intensive debate and research. Specifically, exposure through contaminated pollen and nectar is considered pivotal, as it presents the highest risk of PPP exposure across all bee species. However, the actual risk that multiple PPP residues might pose to non-target species is difficult to assess due to the lack of clear evidence of their actual concentrations. To consolidate the existing knowledge of field-realistic residues detected in pollen and nectar directly collected from plants, we performed a systematic literature review of studies over the past 50 years (1968-2018). We found that pollen was the matrix most frequently evaluated and, of the compounds investigated, the majority were detected in pollen samples. Although the overall most studied category of PPPs were the neonicotinoid insecticides, the compounds with the highest median concentrations of residues in pollen were: the broad spectrum carbamate carbofuran (1400 ng/g), the fungicide and nematicide iprodione (524 ng/g), and the organophosphate insecticide dimethoate (500 ng/g). In nectar, the highest median concentration of PPP residues detected were dimethoate (1595 ng/g), chlorothalonil (76 ng/g), and the insecticide phorate (53.5 ng/g). Strong positive correlation was observed between neonicotinoid residues in pollen and nectar of cultivated plant species. The maximum concentrations of several compounds detected in nectar and pollen were estimated to exceed the LD for honey bees, bumble bees and four solitary bee species, by several orders of magnitude. However, there is a paucity of information for the biggest part of the world and there is an urgent need to expand the range of compounds evaluated in PPP studies.
Topics: Animals; Bees; Insecticides; Neonicotinoids; Pesticide Residues; Plant Nectar; Pollen; Pollination
PubMed: 32795671
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109873 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Sep 2017The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) is based on cutaneous and serological assessment to determine immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease. However, discrepancies... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) is based on cutaneous and serological assessment to determine immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease. However, discrepancies between these tests and nasal provocation exist. Patients diagnosed as non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) but with positive nasal allergen provocation test (NAPT) may represent a local allergic condition or entopy, still suitable to allergy interventions. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of nasal reactivity toward allergens among AR and NAR patients, and to describe the diagnostic characteristics of NAPT methodologies.
METHODS
EMBASE (1947-) and Medline (1946-) were searched until December 8, 2015. A search strategy was used to identify studies on AR or NAR patients subjected to diagnostic local nasal provocation. All studies providing original NAPT data among the AR or NAR population were included. Meta-analysis of proportion data was presented as a weighted probability % (95% confidence interval [CI]).
RESULTS
The search yielded 4504 studies and 46 were included. The probability of nasal allergen reactivity for the AR population was 86.3% (95% CI, 84.4 to 88.1) and in NAR was 24.7% (95% CI, 22.3 to 27.2). Reactivity was high with pollen for both AR 97.1% (95% CI, 94.2 to 99.2) and NAR 47.5% (95% CI, 34.8 to 60.4), and lowest with dust for both AR 79.1% (95% CI, 76.4 to 81.6) and NAR 12.2% (95% CI, 9.9 to 14.7). NAPT yielded high positivity when defined by subjective end-points: AR 91.0% (95% CI, 86.6 to 94.8) and NAR 30.2% (95% CI, 22.9 to 37.9); and lower with objective end-points: AR 80.8% (95% CI, 76.8 to 84.5) and NAR 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2 to 17.2).
CONCLUSION
Local allergen reactivity is demonstrated in 26.5% of patients previously considered non-allergic. Similarly, AR, when defined by skin-prick test (SPT) or serum specific IgE (sIgE), may lead to 13.7% of patients with inaccurate allergen sensitization or non-allergic etiologies.
Topics: Allergens; Humans; Nasal Provocation Tests; Rhinitis
PubMed: 28727909
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21988 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2020To systematically review the effect and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for allergic diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effect and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for allergic diseases.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CQ VIP Database, Wanfang Data, and international trial register from their inception to July 29, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EPIT versus no EPIT for allergen-triggered allergic reactions. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with 1,085 participants (aged from 10 months to 65 years) comparing EPIT with placebo for peanut, cow milk, or grass-pollen allergy met the eligibility criteria. A substantial benefit in terms of desensitization in EPIT group was more likely for peanut or cow milk protein allergy (risk ratio [RR] 2.34, 95% CI 1.69-3.23; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). EPIT increased local-treatment-related adverse events (L-TRAE; RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.36; I2 = 82%; moderate certainty evidence). But there were no significantly increased risk of any TRAEs (low certainty evidence) or systemic-TRAEs (S-TRAEs; very low certainty evidence) in EPIT group. The incidence rate of serious AEs, the use of rescue medications, and anaphylactic reactions stratified by organ systems including skin and mucosa, eyes and upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and gastrointestinal system in EPIT group were similar to placebo group. In subgroup analysis, desensitization of EPIT was significantly effective in peanut allergy (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.64-3.21; I2 = 0%) and children <12 years (RR 2.85, 95% CI 1.92-4.24; I2 = 0%) with high certainty evidence. Only epicutaneous grass-pollen immunotherapy significantly increased the risk of S-TRAE (RR 4.65, 95% CI 1.10-19.64; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION
The systematic review suggests that EPIT might induce desensitization in peanut allergy and an increased risk of local AEs. These findings should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited study and heterogeneity. More data in the older (children ≥12 years and adults) and other allergic diseases are needed.
Topics: Humans; Allergens; Clinical Trials as Topic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Hypersensitivity; Treatment Outcome; Infant; Child, Preschool; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged
PubMed: 31801149
DOI: 10.1159/000504366 -
Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex... Sep 2023The phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasingly real and relevant health problem. It is essential to verify the spread of this phenomenon in the... (Review)
Review
The phenomenon of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasingly real and relevant health problem. It is essential to verify the spread of this phenomenon in the environment. The European honey bee, Apis mellifera L., is a globally managed pollinator continuously used for biomonitoring thanks to its morphological and behavioural characteristics. During their foraging activities, a large number of honey bees move in the area surrounding the hive within a 1.5 km of radius. Besides, their body covered with hair and bristles are able to intercept pollen and minute particles, such as atmospheric particles, contaminants and microorganisms. For these reasons, A. mellifera L. is widely used as an environmental sentinel, especially for detecting pollutants, pesticides, microorganisms, and AMR. This systematic review aimed to collect and summarize the role of honey bee colonies as a biological monitor of AMR pathogenic bacteria and the environmental spread of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). From honey bees were isolated a wide range of pathogenic and environmental bacteria strains, harbouring AMR and ARGs. However, AMR and ARGs were detected not only in environmental bacteria but also in symbiotic bacteria colonizing the bee gut. This systematic review highlights the employment of potential use of honey bees as AMR sentinel helpful for ecosystem health to implement possible control measures for humans, animals and plants, in the context of the "One-Health" approach.
PubMed: 37385360
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122120 -
Frontiers in Plant Science 2021Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine) is a mammalian neurohormone, antioxidant and signaling molecule that was first discovered in plants in 1995. The first studies... (Review)
Review
Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine) is a mammalian neurohormone, antioxidant and signaling molecule that was first discovered in plants in 1995. The first studies investigated plant melatonin from a human perspective quantifying melatonin in foods and medicinal plants and questioning whether its presence could explain the activity of some plants as medicines. Starting with these first handful of studies in the late 1990s, plant melatonin research has blossomed into a vibrant and active area of investigation and melatonin has been found to play critical roles in mediating plant responses and development at every stage of the plant life cycle from pollen and embryo development through seed germination, vegetative growth and stress response. Here we have utilized a systematic approach in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocols to reduce bias in our assessment of the literature and provide an overview of the current state of melatonin research in plants, covering 1995-2021. This review provides an overview of the biosynthesis and metabolism of melatonin as well as identifying key themes including: abiotic stress responses, root development, light responses, interkingdom communication, phytohormone and plant signaling. Additionally, potential biases in the literature are investigated and a birefringence in the literature between researchers from plant and medical based which has helped to shape the current state of melatonin research. Several exciting new opportunities for future areas of melatonin research are also identified including investigation of non-crop and non-medicinal species as well as characterization of melatonin signaling networks in plants.
PubMed: 34249052
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.683047 -
Archives of Disease in Childhood Jul 2004To evaluate the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in respiratory allergy in children. (Review)
Review
AIMS
To evaluate the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in respiratory allergy in children.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted. The search was focused on all the double blind (and double dummy if necessary) studies.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, Abstract of Cochrane Airways Group, hand search, and archives of some SLIT producers. All the selected studies were assessed and evaluated for quality in a standardised independent way.
RESULTS
Eight randomised, double blind, placebo controlled studies on SLIT were selected. Five studies were run with house dust mite (HDM), one with olive pollen, one with wall pellitory (Parietaria) pollen, and one with grass pollen. A quantitative evaluation of the studies was not possible because the outcomes and the results of single studies were presented according to different criteria. Therefore only qualitative analysis was performed. No clinically relevant results were shown, independently from statistical significance, in the use of SLIT for respiratory allergies due to seasonal allergens (olive, wall pellitory, and grass pollens) and, on the whole, for rhinoconjunctivitis due to HDM in children. For mild to moderate persistent asthma due to HDM, statistically significant and low to moderate relevant clinical effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
SLIT can be currently considered to have low to moderate clinical efficacy in children of at least 4 years of age, monosensitised to HDM, and suffering from mild to moderate persistent asthma. This benefit seems to be adjunctive with respect to the environmental preventive measures against HDM.
Topics: Administration, Sublingual; Allergens; Animals; Asthma; Child; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Humans; Immunotherapy; Mites; Pollen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Respiratory Hypersensitivity; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15210490
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2003.030411 -
Allergy Dec 2015The association between seasonality and diagnosis and/or recrudescence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) remains unclear, with some studies demonstrating a higher... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between seasonality and diagnosis and/or recrudescence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) remains unclear, with some studies demonstrating a higher diagnostic rate in those months with a higher aeroallergen load while others rule out this association.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases for studies on the seasonality of the initial diagnosis or recrudescence (i.e., food bolus impaction) of EoE. Summary estimates, including 95% confidence intervals, were calculated for seasonal variation in diagnosis or incidence of food bolus impaction. A random-effects meta-regression model was made using aggregate-level data to compare seasonality in EoE diagnosis and recrudescence. Publication bias risks were assessed by means of funnel plot analysis.
RESULTS
Of 1078 references found, data were finally collected from 18 studies which included a total of 16,846 EoE patients. Of all new cases of EoE diagnosed per year, 27.1% were diagnosed in spring and 21.5% in winter. No overall statistical differences in the annual seasonal distribution of newly diagnosed EoE cases were observed in the random-effects meta-regression model (P = 0.132). Similarly, a homogenous distribution of episodes of EoE recrudescence throughout the year was noted, with no significant differences between seasons (P = 0.699). No significant publication bias was found.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found no significant variations in the seasonal distribution of either the diagnosis or clinical recrudescence of EoE throughout the year.
Topics: Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Prevalence; Recurrence; Seasons
PubMed: 26392117
DOI: 10.1111/all.12767