-
The World Allergy Organization Journal Oct 2019Allergic rhinitis has been suspected to be a risk factor for asthma in several studies but this association is not firmly established. The objective of this study was to...
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis has been suspected to be a risk factor for asthma in several studies but this association is not firmly established. The objective of this study was to synthesize the evidence of the association between allergic rhinitis and the risk of asthma through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We performed a search in Medline, Scopus, ISI Proceedings databases and other databases from inception until February 2019, followed by manual search to identify potentially relevant case-control and cohort studies that reported relative risk estimates and confidence intervals of the association between allergic rhinitis and asthma. Cross-sectional studies were excluded. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed and random effects models and quality of studies was assessed through a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine eligible studies, 22 cohort and 7 case-control studies, with a total of 274489 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. The results show that history of allergic rhinitis is significantly associated with the occurrence of asthma (OR = 3.82; 95% CI: 2.92-4.99). European studies showed a stronger association (OR = 4.35; (95% CI: 3.12-6.06) than non-European studies (OR = 2.75; 95% CI: 2.16-3.50), and case-control studies showed a stronger association (OR = 4.71; 95% CI: 3.58-6.17) than cohort studies (OR = 3.42; 95% CI: 2.60-4.50).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis shows that allergic rhinitis is strongly associated with asthma. Further prospective studies on the effect of treatment of allergic rhinitis on the development of asthma are needed. Relief of airway allergic manifestations may need dual control of allergic rhinitis and asthma.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO database with registration number CRD42017055156.
PubMed: 31660100
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2019.100069 -
Chinese Medicine 2020Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common symptomatic, inflammatory, and immunological disorder of nasal mucosa. Multiple clinical trials and systematic reviews have implicated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common symptomatic, inflammatory, and immunological disorder of nasal mucosa. Multiple clinical trials and systematic reviews have implicated acupuncture methods as potentially effective treatment strategies for AR, however, considering the great burden of AR, it is crucial to explore the most recent clinical evidence supporting acupuncture in AR. Besides, the methodologies reported in previous studies as well as those commonly applied during clinical practices greatly vary. Herein, we conducted network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of diverse acupuncture methods for AR treatment.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search for relevant reports published from inception to 1 July 2020 in several scientific databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CNKI, WF, VIP, CBM, AMED as well as related registration platforms. Primary outcomes as reported in the identified studies were assessed using nasal symptoms. All Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software. To ensure consistency among our reviewers, the intra-class correlation coefficient was used.
RESULTS
Exactly 39 studies with 3433 participants were covered in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that all acupuncture types were superior to sham acupuncture in terms of total nasal symptom score and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire. Moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention as it reduced nasal symptoms in 6 treatments. On the other hand, manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine was recommended as the most effective intervention in improving the quality of life in 9 treatments. Notably, moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention that changed the content of IgE in 9 treatments. Moreover, adverse events of these interventions were acceptable.
CONCLUSION
Our findings revealed that all acupuncture methods are effective and safe for AR. Moreover, either moxibustion or manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine are potentially the most effective treatment strategies for AR. Based on these findings, it is evident that acupuncture therapy is not inferior to pharmacologic therapy. Therefore, for AR patients who are either unresponsive to conventional medicine or are intolerant to adverse events, acupuncture therapy should be administered. However, the quality of these included trials was mainly ranked as moderate quality, we recommend additional well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes to validate these findings.
PubMed: 33062045
DOI: 10.1186/s13020-020-00389-9 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Aug 2021The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the most frequent pollutants and their effect on allergic rhinitis in Latin American countries. Observational... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the most frequent pollutants and their effect on allergic rhinitis in Latin American countries. Observational studies up to December 2020 and comparing different indoor and outdoor pollutants that had allergic rhinitis (AR) as an outcome were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted for the presence of allergic rhinitis. Estimates were presented as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Twenty-two publications comprised this review according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 12 had data that could be analyzed statistically. The most frequent pollutant was PM10, followed by NO2 /O3 and PM2.5 in studies conducted in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru. The OR of an exposed subject experiencing allergic rhinitis was 1.43 (95% CI 1.026; 1.980). The OR of children and adolescents experiencing of allergic rhinitis was 1.359 (95% CI 1.051; 1.759). Asymmetry and great variability in the effect estimated from the selected studies were observed. The publication bias was quantified by Kendall's correlation and Egger's test resulted in 0.152 (p-value = 0.493). Egger's test provided an intercept equal to 2.511 and a p-value = 0.398. The I2 statistic was 89.3% and reinforces the hypothesis of heterogeneity. This first systematic review conducted in Latin America confirmed the chance of a person exposed to pollutants and experiencing allergic rhinitis is 43% greater than that of a non-exposed person, reinforcing the importance of policies to reduce pollutant exposure and the use of protection systems for workforces exposed to occupational pollutants in work environments.
PubMed: 34471459
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100574 -
European Annals of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Posterior nasal nerve neurectomy (PNNN) is a surgical option for the treatment of refractory chronic rhinitis. It can be performed by surgical dissection, cryotherapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Posterior nasal nerve neurectomy (PNNN) is a surgical option for the treatment of refractory chronic rhinitis. It can be performed by surgical dissection, cryotherapy, or laser ablation. This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of PNNN on Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) in adults with chronic rhinitis. A systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and ClinicalKey databases was conducted in November 2021. Studies reporting PNNN performed as a single procedure in adult patients with allergic, non-allergic or mixed chronic rhinitis, and TNSS as the outcome measure, were included. Database search identified 39 articles, of which 8 (463 patients) were included in the review. Two were randomised sham-controlled trials and six were prospective single-arm, unblinded and uncontrolled studies. Pooled analysis of data from the two randomized controlled trials found active treatment was associated with a significantly greater responder (≥ 30% reduction in TNSS from baseline) rate (OR 3.85, 95%CI 2.23-6.64, p < 0.00001). This systematic review identified there is some limited evidence to suggest cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation of the posterior nasal nerve can improve TNSS in adult patients. However, this is from a limited number of trials with short follow-up. Future research should focus on prospective randomised controlled trials with larger numbers of participants and medium to long term follow up in order to help draw more valid conclusions regarding the true effectiveness of PNNN in this patient cohort.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Rhinitis; Prospective Studies; Denervation; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 36066203
DOI: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.268 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Apr 2023Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) are important tools to establish the effects of a given intervention. Investigators should focus on outcomes that patients perceive:... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) are important tools to establish the effects of a given intervention. Investigators should focus on outcomes that patients perceive: patient-important outcomes (PIOs), clinical endpoints that patients value directly and reflect how they feel, function, or survive. However, it is easier to consider surrogated outcomes to reduce costs and achieve better-looking results. The problem with these outcomes is that they indirectly measure PIOs, which might not correlate linearly or translate reliably into a positive PIO.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE for atopic disease RCTs rated among the top 10 allergic diseases and general internal medicine journals from the last 10 years. Two independent reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to collect data from all eligible articles. We gathered information regarding the type of study, title, author information, journal, intervention type, atopic disease, and primary and secondary outcomes. We assessed the outcomes investigators used in RCTs of atopic diseases and asthma.
RESULTS
This quantitative analysis included n = 135 randomized clinical trials. The most studied atopic disease during the period selected was asthma (n = 69), followed by allergic rhinitis (n = 51). When divided by atopic disease, primary outcomes in RCTs valuing allergic rhinitis had the most significant proportion of PIOs (76.7), asthma surrogated outcomes (38), and asthma/allergic rhinitis laboratory outcomes (42.9). PIOs in allergic rhinitis trials had the most significant proportion of PIOs favoring the intervention (81.4), asthma had the greatest proportion of surrogated outcomes (33.3), and asthma/allergic rhinitis laboratory outcomes (40). When divided by atopic disease, trials studying atopic dermatitis and urticaria had the same proportion of PIOs (64.7) as their secondary outcomes. Asthma had the highest (37.5) surrogate outcomes. Journals of general/internal medicine had a greater proportion of PIOs, and a post hoc analysis showed a significant difference in the proportion and secondary outcomes that favored the intervention between PIOs and laboratory outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Approximately 7.5 out of 10 primary outcomes in RCTs published in general/internal medicine are PIOs compared to 5 out of 10 primary outcomes in atopic disease journals. Investigators should focus on selecting patient-important outcomes in their clinical trials to establish clinical guidelines with better-quality recommendations that impact patients' life and values.
REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, NIHR) ID: CRD42021259256.
PubMed: 37179537
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100769 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2022To summarize the current evidence regarding the prevalence of Allergic rhinitis (AR) and its symptoms, triggers, and impact on the quality of life of the Saudi... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the current evidence regarding the prevalence of Allergic rhinitis (AR) and its symptoms, triggers, and impact on the quality of life of the Saudi population.
METHODS
A Computerized Search in MEDLINE via PubMed, MEDLINE Core database, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted using relevant keywords. A two-stage screening process, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by four independent reviewers. Comprehensive Meta-analysis was used for all statistical analyses (CMA; USA: version 3.3.070).
RESULTS
Sixteen articles (n= 31,990 patients) were included. The overall estimated prevalence of AR was 21.2%, 95% CI (12.8-33.1%). Males had a higher prevalence of AR than females (31.7% vs 27.1%), although the difference was not significant (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.78-1.953; p=0.356). Children and adolescents exhibited a lower prevalence of AR than adults (13.7% vs 31.1%). Urban AR prevalence was much greater than rural (38.4% vs 13.0%). Asthma, atopic dermatitis, and eczema are all associated with AR. The most common signs and symptoms of AR were headache 33.9%, watery discharge 28.6%, sneezing 24.6%, itchy nose, runny nose 22.2%, nasal obstruction or congestion 22.0%, loss of smell 21.9%, and wheezing 17.2%. The most prevalent triggers of AR were perfume 36.8%, dust 27.3%, air conditioning 23.4%, weather or temperature changes 17.8%, air pollution 14.5%, drugs or chemicals 13.8%, tobacco 10.8%, atopy 10.3%, and insects 10.2%.
CONCLUSION
The overall prevalence of AR in Saudi Arabia is 21.2%. The prevalence of AR was comparable in both males and females. However, it was higher in adults than in children and adolescents, and in urban areas than rural areas. Asthma, atopic dermatitis, and eczema co-occurrence with AR are common. AR has a negative impact on the quality of life of the patients in the form of interference with daily activities, sleep problems, difficulty of breath, and school absenteeism.
PubMed: 36582219
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S391142 -
Allergy Jan 2023Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have been reported, but have not yet been systematically reviewed. Seven... (Review)
Review
Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have been reported, but have not yet been systematically reviewed. Seven electronic databases were searched, from database inception to September 2021. English language randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort, and case-control studies that investigated the association between a biomarker and the development of comorbidities in AD patients were included. Two authors independently screened the records for eligibility, one extracted all data, and critically appraised the quality of studies and risk of bias. Fifty six articles met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 146 candidate biomarkers. The most frequently reported biomarkers were filaggrin mutations and allergen specific-IgE. Promising biomarkers include specific-IgE and/or skin prick tests predicting the development of asthma, and genetic polymorphisms predicting the occurrence of eczema herpeticum. The identified studies and biomarkers were highly heterogeneous, and associated with predominately moderate-to-high risk of bias across multiple domains. Overall, findings were inconsistent. High-quality studies assessing biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in people with AD are lacking. Harmonized datasets and independent validation studies are urgently needed.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Biomarkers; Immunoglobulin E; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36366871
DOI: 10.1111/all.15578 -
International Archives of... Oct 2022Allergic rhinitis (AR) is estimated to affect up to 30% of the world population. With the rise in cases, newer treatment modalities have been explored. Probiotics... (Review)
Review
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is estimated to affect up to 30% of the world population. With the rise in cases, newer treatment modalities have been explored. Probiotics have shown to reduce symptoms of AR and improve quality of life. A few systematic reviews have been published aiming to assess the role of probiotics in AR. To consolidate the recent evidence with an overview of systematic reviews by extracting data regarding subjective outcomes (from quality of life questionnaires, the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, the Daily Total Symptom Score, the incidence of AR, and the Rhinitis Total Symptom Score) and objective outcomes (levels of antigen-specific immunoglobulin E [IgE], total IgE, interleukin 10 [IL-10], interferon gamma [IFNG], eosinophil, and the T helper 1/T helper 2 [Th1/Th2] ratio). We conducted a literature search on the PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, and Cochrane Library up to April 14, 2020. The qualitative assessment was performed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. A total of 419 titles were screened, and 3 systematic reviews met our eligibility criteria. Probiotics in the treatment of AR have been shown to improve quality of life, the total nasal and ocular symptom scores, the daily total symptom scores and Th1/Th2 ratio. No difference was ascertained for rhinitis total symptom score, and the rates of antigen-specific IgE, total IgE, IL-10, INFG and eosinophil. The present review showed that there is considerable evidence that probiotics are useful in the treatment of AR. Further randomized trials targeting the limitations of the currently-available evidence can help ascertain the usefulness of probiotics in cases of AR.
PubMed: 36405454
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749370 -
PloS One 2024Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single medicinal plants in the management of allergic rhinitis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials which evaluated the use of single medicinal plant for allergic rhinitis among adults and children. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (n = 1879) were eligible while 27 (n = 1769) contributed data for meta-analyses. Most studies (studies = 20) compared medicinal plants against placebo and Petasites hybridus was most frequently investigated (studies = 5). Very-low-to-low-certainty evidence suggests that compared to placebo, single medicinal plants may improve overall total nasal symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02; participants = 249; studies = 5; I2 = 21%) especially nasal congestion and sneezing; and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ) scores (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.07; participants = 148; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Moderate-certainty evidence show no clear differences between single medicinal plants and antihistamine in overall symptoms (Total nasal symptoms: SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.18; participants = 149; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). As adjunctive therapy, moderate-certainty evidence shows that medicinal plants improved SNOT-22 scores when given as intranasal treatment (MD -7.47, 95% CI -10.75 to -4.18; participants = 124; studies = 2; I2 = 21%). Risk of bias domains were low or not clearly reported in most studies while heterogeneity was substantial in most pooled outcomes. Route of administration and age were identified to be plausible source of heterogeneity for certain outcomes. Medicinal plants appear to be well tolerated up to 8 weeks of use. Clear beneficial evidence of medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis is still lacking. There is a need for improved reporting of herbal trials to allow for critical assessment of the effects of each individual medicinal plant preparation in well-designed future clinical studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Plants, Medicinal; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Administration, Intranasal; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 38603736
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297839 -
Occupational and Environmental Medicine Nov 2020There is consistent evidence of increased respiratory symptoms in occupational cleaners; however, uncertainty remains on type of respiratory health effects, underlying... (Review)
Review
There is consistent evidence of increased respiratory symptoms in occupational cleaners; however, uncertainty remains on type of respiratory health effects, underlying causal agents, mechanisms and respiratory phenotypes. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and if possible, a meta-analysis of the available literature to characterise and quantify the cleaning-related respiratory health effects. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and included studies that evaluated the association of any respiratory health outcome with exposure to cleaning occupation or products in occupational cleaners. A modified GRADE was used to appraise the quality of included studies. We retrieved 1124 articles, and after applying our inclusion criteria, 39 were selected for the systematic review. We performed a meta-analysis of the 21 studies evaluating asthma which showed a 50% increased pooled relative risk in cleaners (meta-relative risk (RR)=1.50; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.56). Population-based cross-sectional studies showed more stable associations with asthma risk. No evidence of atopic asthma as dominant phenotype emerged. Also, we estimated a 43% increased risk (meta-RR=1.43; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.56) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Evidence for associations with bronchial-hyper-responsiveness, lung function decline, rhinitis, upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms was weaker. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that working as a cleaner is associated with an increased risk of reversible and even irreversible obstructive airway diseases. All studies lacked quantitative exposure assessment to cleaning products; this would help elucidate underlying causal agents and mechanisms. Exposure control and respiratory surveillance among cleaners is warranted to prevent the associated respiratory health burden. Trial registration number: CRD4201705915.
PubMed: 33234692
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2020-106776