-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bias; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33710614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub3 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2020Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked to offspring allergy risk. In turn, maternal diet is a potentially modifiable factor, which could be targeted as an allergy prevention strategy. In this systematic review, we focused on non-allergen-specific modifying factors of the maternal diet in pregnancy on allergy outcomes in their offspring.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of studies investigating the association between maternal diet during pregnancy and allergic outcomes (asthma/wheeze, hay fever/allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis (AD), food allergies, and allergic sensitization) in offspring. Studies evaluating the effect of food allergen intake were excluded. We searched three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) through February 26, 2019. Evidence was critically appraised using modified versions of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for intervention trials and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodological checklist for cohort and case-control studies and meta-analysis performed from RCTs.
RESULTS
We identified 95 papers: 17 RCTs and 78 observational (case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort) studies. Observational studies varied in design and dietary intakes and often had contradictory findings. Based on our meta-analysis, RCTs showed that vitamin D supplementation (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) is associated with a reduced risk of wheeze/asthma. A positive trend for omega-3 fatty acids was observed for asthma/wheeze, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.08). Omega-3 supplementation was also associated with a non-significant decreased risk of allergic rhinitis (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04). Neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids were associated with an altered risk of AD or food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal supplementation with vitamin D may have beneficial effects for prevention of asthma. Additional nutritional factors seem to be required for modulating the risk of skin and gastrointestinal outcomes. We found no consistent evidence regarding other dietary factors, perhaps due to differences in study design and host features that were not considered. While confirmatory studies are required, there is also a need for performing RCTs beyond single nutrients/foods.
Topics: Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Female; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32524677
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13303 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health... Jun 2016To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice.
METHODS
Medline (OvidSP), PubMed Publisher, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were systematically reviewed for articles providing data on the prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis and eczema in a GP setting. Studies were only included when they had a cross-sectional or cohort design and included more than 100 children (aged 0-18 years) in a general practice setting. All ISAAC studies (i.e. the open population) that geographically matched a study selected from the first search, were also included. A quality assessment was conducted. The primary outcome measures were prevalence of eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis in children aged 0-18 years.
RESULTS
The overall quality of the included studies was good. The annual and lifetime prevalences of the atopic disorders varied greatly in both general practice and the open population. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders was higher in the open population.
CONCLUSION
There are significant differences between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice. Data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting. This should be taken into account when considering a research topic or requirements for policy development. GPs should be aware of the possible misclassification of allergic disorders in their practice. Key Points Epidemiological data on atopic disorders in children can be obtained from various sources, each having its own advantages and limitations. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders is higher in the open population. GPs should take into account the possible misclassification of atopic disorders in their practice population. Policymakers should be aware that data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Diagnostic Errors; Female; General Practice; Humans; Male; Netherlands; Prevalence; Rhinitis, Allergic; Self Report; United Kingdom
PubMed: 27010253
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2016.1160629 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2, 2023. Outcomes included symptom scores (SSs), medication scores (MSs), symptom and medication scores (SMSs), new sensitizations, development of asthma, improvement, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-regression was carried out to explore the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was further conducted in terms of study design [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies], allergen [house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen], treatment duration (≥ 24, 12-23 or < 12 months), allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modality (drops or tablets), and AIT protocol [continuous, pre-seasonal, co-seasonal, or after the grass pollen season (GPS)]. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes. A Bayesian framework and a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model were developed for indirect comparison.
RESULTS
Totally 50 studies with 10813 AR children were included, with 4122 treated with SLIT, 1852 treated with SCIT, and 4839 treated with non-SLIT or non-SCIT therapy. For direct comparison, the SLIT group had a similar SS to the SCIT group [pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.46, 1.28, = 0.353]. Comparable MSs were observed in the SLIT and SCIT groups (pooled SMD: 0.82, 95%CI: -0.88, 2.53, = 0.344). For indirect comparison, no significant differences were found in SSs (pooled SMD: 1.20, 95% credibility interval (CrI): -1.70, 4.10), MSs (pooled SMD: 0.57, 95%CrI: -1.20, 2.30), SMSs (pooled SMD: 1.80, 95%CrI: -0.005, 3.60), new sensitizations [pooled relative risk (RR): 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.03, 3.58], and development of asthma (pooled RR: 0.68, 95%CrI: 0.01, 26.33) between the SLIT and SCIT groups; the SLIT group illustrated a significantly lower incidence of TRAEs than the SCIT group (pooled RR: 0.17, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.26).
CONCLUSION
Considering both efficacy and safety, SLIT might be a more favorable AIT than SCIT in the treatment of pediatric AR, which may serve as a decision-making reference for clinicians.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023460693).
Topics: Child; Humans; Allergens; Asthma; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pollen; Rhinitis, Allergic; Immunotherapy; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 38162647
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1274241 -
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 -
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 -
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