-
Drugs in Context 2018The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the...
The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs). The literature search was conducted on PubMed database, involving double-blind, randomized clinical trials published between January 1992 and 2018, written in English, and performed in humans. The number of articles finally selected for review was 112. Data from the majority of properly controlled clinical trials demonstrate that SLIT is effective not only with short-term use (first year) but also with long-term use (up to the third year of active therapy), for treating ARDs in children and adults. Both continuous and discontinuous schemes of administration showed significant reductions in symptom and medication scores. Moreover, a SLIT-induced disease-modifying effect has been documented mainly with grass pollen extracts, since improvement is maintained during at least 2 years of follow-up after a 3-year treatment period. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy should also be considered a preventive strategy, especially for decreasing bronchial asthma incidence in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis treated with SLIT. This therapy is also safe, producing only a few mainly local and mild-to-moderate adverse events, and usually self-limited in time. The registration and authorization of allergen SLIT preparations (grasses and house-dust mite tablets) as drugs by regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has represented a landmark in allergy immunotherapy research. Further long-term studies, specially designed with allergens other than grass pollen or house-dust mites, not only in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also on asthmatic subjects, as well as studies comparing different administration schedules and/or routes, are required in order to continue the progress in the modern development of this particularly promising therapy.
PubMed: 30416528
DOI: 10.7573/dic.212552 -
Nutrients Oct 2018In practice, it remains unclear what the best dietary approach is in subjects with pollen-related food allergy (PRFA). Our objective was to evaluate the effect of (1)...
In practice, it remains unclear what the best dietary approach is in subjects with pollen-related food allergy (PRFA). Our objective was to evaluate the effect of (1) dietary avoidance advice, (2) oral immunotherapy (OIT), (3) (heat) processing, and (4) consumption of hypoallergenic cultivars on frequency, severity, and eliciting dose of pollen-related food allergic reactions. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. All studies performing an in vivo investigation of one of the four interventions in adults with PRFA were included. Each study was assessed for quality and validity. Available data on frequency, severity, and eliciting dose of allergic reactions were extracted. Ten studies matched the eligibility criteria. No studies were retrieved on dietary avoidance advice. Two studies ( = 92) on apple OIT reported that tolerance was induced in 63% and 81% of subjects. Four studies (total = 116) focused on heat processing. Heating was found to completely eradicate symptoms in 15⁻71% of hazelnut allergic and 46% of celery allergic individuals. Four studies ( = 60) comparing low to high allergenic apple cultivars revealed that Santana (and possibly Elise) apples seemed to cause milder reactions than Golden Delicious. In the awareness that overall level of evidence was low, we conclude that OIT, heat processing, and hypoallergenic cultivars may diminish or completely prevent allergic reactions in some but not all subjects with PRFA.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Apium; Cooking; Corylus; Daucus carota; Food Hypersensitivity; Hot Temperature; Humans; Malus; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30332840
DOI: 10.3390/nu10101520 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017Atopic dermatitis (AD) can occur after contact with aeroallergens like house dust mites, pollen, and animal dander. Despite its controversial diagnostic value, the atopy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) can occur after contact with aeroallergens like house dust mites, pollen, and animal dander. Despite its controversial diagnostic value, the atopy patch test (APT) has been used as an important tool in the diagnosis of AD caused by house dust mites. Here, we present a meta-analysis comparing APT to the common skin prick test (SPT) in the diagnosis of mite-induced AD.
METHODS
A structured search was performed using online databases and bibliographies published as of April 30, 2017. All studies evaluating the accuracy of APT and SPT in the diagnosis of mite-induced atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome were selected, appraised, and data was extracted.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified for inclusion in our analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios for APT were 0.54 (95% CI 0.42-0.66), 0.72 (95% CI 0.56-0.85), 1.97 (95% CI 1.20-3.23), 0.63 (95% CI 0.48-0.83), and 3.12 (95% CI 1.53-6.39). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.65 (95% CI 0.61-0.69).
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis indicates that APT is a useful tool in the screening of mite-induced AD, although this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to high heterogeneity among the included studies.
PubMed: 29209493
DOI: 10.1186/s13601-017-0178-3 -
BMC Urology Apr 2017Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is still a challenge to manage for all physicians. We feel that a summary of the current literature and a... (Review)
Review
The role of flower pollen extract in managing patients affected by chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a comprehensive analysis of all published clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is still a challenge to manage for all physicians. We feel that a summary of the current literature and a systematic review to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of flower pollen extract would be helpful for physicians who are considering a phytotherapeutic approach to treating patients with CP/CPPS.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases up to June 2016 was performed. This comprehensive analysis included both pre-clinical and clinical trials on the role of flower pollen extract in CP/CPPS patients. Moreover, a meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. The NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) and Quality of Life related questionnaires (QoL) were the most commonly used tools to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of pollen extract.
RESULTS
Pre-clinical studies demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative role of pollen extract. 6 clinical, non-controlled studies including 206 patients, and 4 RCTs including 384 patients were conducted. The mean response rate in non-controlled studies was 83.6% (62.2%-96.0%). The meta-analysis revealed that flower pollen extract could significantly improve patients' quality of life [OR 0.52 (0.34-.0.81); p = 0.02]. No significant adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
Most of these studies presented encouraging results in terms of variations in NIH-CPSI and QoL scores. These studies suggest that the use of flower pollen extract for the management of CP/CPPS patients is beneficial. Future publications of robust evidence from additional RCTs and longer-term follow-up would provide more support encouraging the use of flower pollen extracts for CP/CPPS patients.
Topics: Flowers; Humans; Male; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Pollen; Prostatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28431537
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-017-0223-5 -
Epidemiology and Health 2017Various allergens are implicated in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases in different regions. This study attempted to identify the most common allergens among patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Various allergens are implicated in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases in different regions. This study attempted to identify the most common allergens among patients with allergies based on the results of skin prick tests in different parts of Iran. Relevant studies conducted from 2000 to 2016 were identified from the MEDLINE database. Six common groups of allergen types, including animal, cockroach, food, fungus, house dust mite, and pollen were considered. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of each type of allergen. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. We included 44 studies in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of positive skin test results for at least one allergen was estimated to be 59% in patients with allergies in various parts of Iran. The number of patients was 11,646 (56% male and 44% female), with a mean age of 17.46±11.12 years. The most common allergen sources were pollen (47.0%), mites (35.2%), and food (15.3%). The prevalence of sensitization to food and cockroach allergens among children was greater than among adults. Pollen is the most common allergen sensitization in cities of Iran with a warm and dry climate; however, sensitization to house dust mites is predominant in northern and southern coastal areas of Iran.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Iran; Skin Tests; Urban Health; Urban Population
PubMed: 28171712
DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2017007 -
Clinical and Molecular Allergy : CMA 2016This meta-analysis compared the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or allergic asthma (AA) caused by perennial house dust... (Review)
Review
This meta-analysis compared the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or allergic asthma (AA) caused by perennial house dust mite (HDM) versus AR and/or AA caused by seasonal pollen allergy. Following a systematic search, the identified studies used the disease-specific rhinitis quality of life questionnaire or generic instruments (SF-36 and SF-12). Summary estimates obtained by meta-analysis showed that HRQL in patients with perennial HDM allergy was significantly worse than that of patients with seasonal pollen allergy, when measured by both disease-specific and generic HRQL instruments, and was reflected by an impact on both physical and mental health. A systematic review of cost data on AR and AA in selected European countries demonstrated that the majority of the economic burden was indirectly caused by high levels of absenteeism and presenteeism; there was little or no evidence of increasing or decreasing cost trends. Increased awareness of the detrimental effects of AR and/or AA on patients' HRQL and its considerable cost burden might encourage early diagnosis and treatment, in order to minimize the disease burden and ensure beneficial and cost-effective outcomes.
PubMed: 27708552
DOI: 10.1186/s12948-016-0049-9 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jan 2017
Review
Topics: Anemia, Hemolytic; Asymptomatic Diseases; Food; Food Coloring Agents; Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency; Humans; Menthol; Naphthalenes; Pollen; Prunus persica; Trigonella; Vicia faba
PubMed: 27650490
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13091 -
Allergy Sep 2016Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic review to assess SIT efficacy and safety for treating AE.
METHODS
We searched databases, ongoing clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings up to July 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SIT using standardized allergen extracts, compared with placebo/control, for treating AE in patients with allergic sensitization were eligible.
RESULTS
We identified 12 eligible trials with 733 participants. Interventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in children/adults allergic to house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen or other inhalants. Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow-up and nonblinding as the main concerns. For our primary outcomes, three studies (208 participants) reported no significant difference - patient-reported global disease severity improvement RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45, 1.26); and eczema symptoms mean difference -0.74 on a 20-point scale (95% CI -1.98, 0.50). Two studies (85 participants) reported a significant difference - SIT improved global disease severity RR 2.85 (95% CI 1.02, 7.96); and itch mean difference -4.20 on a 10-point scale (95% CI -3.69, -4.71). Meta-analysis was limited due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. For some secondary outcomes, meta-analyses showed benefits for SIT, for example investigator-rated improvement in eczema severity RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16, 1.88; six trials, 262 participants). We found no evidence of adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSION
We found no consistent evidence that SIT is effective for treating AE, but due to the low quality of evidence further research is needed to establish whether SIT has a role in AE treatment.
Topics: Allergens; Combined Modality Therapy; Dermatitis, Atopic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Eczema; Humans; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27184158
DOI: 10.1111/all.12932 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Adult; Allergens; Animals; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatophagoides farinae; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Desensitization, Immunologic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26871981
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008774.pub2 -
Electronic Physician Dec 2015Oxidative stress is a key factor involved in male infertility, which is due to an unnatural increase in environmental free radicals. In the majority of cases, this has a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Oxidative stress is a key factor involved in male infertility, which is due to an unnatural increase in environmental free radicals. In the majority of cases, this has a negative effect on a male's ability to impregnate a female. Currently, it is believed that spermatozoa can be protected against the damages induced by oxidative stress by saturating sperm with antioxidants. The antioxidant role of phoenix dactylifera pollen is capable of collecting the reactive oxygen and neutralizing it in and out of body cells. The present research provides a review of the antioxidant roles of phoenix dactylifera pollen on male infertility.
METHODS
This research is based on English-Language studies and articles found by comprehensively reviewing electronic databases, websites, books, and academic articles over the last 10 years.
RESULTS
The phenolic compounds of phoenix dactylifera pollen, due to the existing polyphenols, are strong chelators of heavy metals. Therefore, they are effective in eliminating environmental hydroxyl radicals. Moreover, these plants have high capacities of eliminating hydroxyl free radicals, picrylhydrazyl, diphenyl and phoenix dactylifera pollen and also inhibiting glutathione-S-transferase (GST).
CONCLUSION
Currently, the use of herbal antioxidants to neutralize reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reduce the negative effects of oxidative stress on body cells and tissues has attracted researchers' attention. Various substances, such as flavonoids and catechins, perform their antioxidant role by increasing the concentration of glutathione peroxidase. The final product of this process is an increase in the number of motile sperm, which can have significant effects on fertility.
PubMed: 26816585
DOI: 10.19082/1590