-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all community cases. Moderate-to-severe atopic eczema can have a profound effect on the quality of life for both sufferers and their families. In addition to the effects of intractable itching, skin damage, soreness, sleep loss and the social stigma of a visible skin disease, other factors such as frequent visits to doctors, special clothing and¿the need to constantly apply messy topical applications all add to the burden of disease. The cause of atopic eczema is unknown, though a genetic pre-disposition and a combination of allergic and non-allergic factors appear to be important in determining disease expression. Treatment of atopic eczema in the UK is characterised by a profusion of treatments aimed at disease control. The evidential basis of these treatments is often unclear. Most people with atopic eczema are managed in primary care where the least research has been done.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this scoping review are two-fold. To produce an up-to-date coverage 'map' of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments of atopic eczema. To assist in making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence using qualitative and quantitative methods.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources included electronic searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, the Cochrane Skin Group specialised register of trials, hand-searching of atopic eczema conference proceedings, follow-up of references in retrieved articles, contact with leading researchers and requests to relevant pharmaceutical companies.
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Only RCTs of therapeutic agents used in the prevention and treatment of people with atopic eczema of any age were considered for inclusion. Only studies where a physician diagnosed atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction was conducted by two observers onto abstraction forms, with discrepancies resolved by discussion.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The quality assessment of retrieved RCTs included an assessment of: a clear description of method and concealment of allocation of randomisation, the degree to which assessors and participants were blinded to the study interventions, and whether all those originally randomised were included in the final main analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Where possible, quantitative pooling of similar RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's methods. Where statistical heterogeneity was found, sources of heterogeneity in terms of study participants, formulation or posology of intervention, and use of co-treatments were explored. Where pooling was not deemed to be appropriate, detailed descriptions of the study characteristics and main reported results were presented along with comments on study quality.
RESULTS
A total of 1165 possible RCTs were retrieved in hard copy form for further scrutiny. Of these, 893 were excluded from further analysis because of lack of appropriate data. The 272 remaining RCTs of atopic eczema covered at least 47 different interventions, which could be broadly categorised into ten main groups. Quality of reporting was generally poor, and limited statistical pooling was possible only for oral cyclosporin, and only then after considerable data transformation. There was reasonable RCT evidence to support the use of oral cyclosporin, topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches and ultraviolet light therapy. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations on maternal allergen avoidance for disease prevention, oral antihistamines, Chinese herbs, dietary restriction in established atopic eczema, homeopathy, house dust mite reduction, massage therapy, hypnotherapy, evening primrose oil, emollients, topical coal tar and topical doxepin. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Infective Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Complementary Therapies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Diet; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Eczema; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 11134919
DOI: No ID Found -
The Ocular Surface Oct 2019We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count, improvement of symptoms and mites' eradication, stratified on type of treatments and mode of delivery of treatments (local or systemic).
METHOD
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google scholar and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting an efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies (14 observational and 5 randomized clinical trials), for a total of 934 patients, 1741 eyes, and 13 different treatments. For mites count, eradication rate, and symptoms improvement, meta-analysis included fifteen, fourteen and thirteen studies, respectively. The overall effect sizes for efficiency of all treatments, globally, were 1.68 (95CI 1.25 to 2.12), 0.45 (0.26-0.64), and 0.76 (0.59-0.90), respectively. Except usual lid hygiene for mites count, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario ointment (CHEO) for both eradication rate and symptoms, and CHEO, 2% metronidazole ointment, and systemic metronidazole for eradication rate, all treatments were efficient. Stratified meta-analysis did not show significant differences between local and systemic treatments (1.22, 0.83 to 1.60 vs 2.24, 1.30 to 3.18 for mites count; 0.37, 0.21 to 0.54 vs 0.56, 0.06 to 0.99 for eradication rate; and 0.77, 0.58 to 0.92 vs 0.67, 0.25 to 0.98 for symptoms improvement).
CONCLUSION
We reported the efficiency of the different treatments of Demodex blepharitis. Because of less systemic side effects, local treatments seem promising molecules in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antiparasitic Agents; Blepharitis; Eye Infections, Parasitic; Humans; Ivermectin; Metronidazole; Miotics; Mite Infestations; Mites; Pilocarpine; Tea Tree Oil
PubMed: 31229586
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.06.004 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011Eczema, as defined by the World Allergy Organization (WAO) revised nomenclature in 2003, affects 15% to 20% of school children and 2% to 5% of adults worldwide. About... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Eczema, as defined by the World Allergy Organization (WAO) revised nomenclature in 2003, affects 15% to 20% of school children and 2% to 5% of adults worldwide. About 50% of people with eczema demonstrate atopy, with specific immunoglobulin E responses to allergens.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical medical treatments, and dietary interventions in adults and children with established eczema? What are the effects of breastfeeding, reducing allergens, or dietary interventions for primary prevention of eczema in predisposed infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: breastfeeding, controlling house dust mites, corticosteroids, dietary exclusion of eggs or cow's milk, elementary diets, emollients, essential fatty oils, few-foods diet, multivitamins, pimecrolimus, probiotics, pyridoxine, reducing maternal dietary allergens, tacrolimus, vitamin E, and zinc supplements.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Animals; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Emollients; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Pyroglyphidae
PubMed: 21609512
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Jul 2022The treatment of allergic rhinitis is important due to the burden that the disease causes globally. The objective of this review is to explore the efficiency of house... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of allergic rhinitis is important due to the burden that the disease causes globally. The objective of this review is to explore the efficiency of house dust mite and grass pollen extracts in allergic rhinitis treatment.
METHODS
We performed research in electronic databases and searched relevant articles on PubMed, CINAHL, OVID, ScienceDirect, Cochrane CENTRAL, and MEDLINE. We used keywords such as 'allergic rhinitis', 'sublingual immunotherapy', 'randomized controlled trials', 'grass pollen', 'allergen immunotherapy', and 'house dust mite'. We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quality assessment of included studies was performed independently by two authors.
RESULTS
We included nine eligible RCTs in this review. Five RCTs were about grass pollen extracts and four RCTs were about house dust mite extracts. Most of the studies reported positive results and suggested further evaluation of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) treatment. Grass pollen extracts mostly used were Dactylis glomerata, Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Phleum pratense, and Parietaria. House dust mite extracts used were from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farina. According to the quality assessment, no bias was observed in the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although sublingual allergen immunotherapy shows a benefit compared to placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and rhino-conjunctivitis in adults, the results are interpreted with caution due to the high heterogenicity among studies in treatment protocols and dosing. More standardization among studies is needed.
PubMed: 36039254
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27289 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Leaves of the Australian tea tree plant were used traditionally by First Nations Australians for treating wounds, burns, and insect bites. Tea tree oil, the essential...
Leaves of the Australian tea tree plant were used traditionally by First Nations Australians for treating wounds, burns, and insect bites. Tea tree oil, the essential oil steam-distilled from , is well-known for its medicinal properties, the evidence for most applications however is limited. This review aimed to critically appraise evidence from clinical trials examining the therapeutic efficacy and safety of tea tree oil on outcomes. Randomized controlled trials with participants of any age, gender, or health status, comparing tea tree oil to any control were included, without limit on publication date. Electronic databases were searched on 12 August 2022 with additional records sourced from article reference sections, reviews, and industry white papers. Risk of bias was assessed by two authors independently using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 1.0 tool. Results were summarized and synthesized thematically. Forty-six articles were eligible from the following medical fields ( = 18, = 9, = 9, = 6, = 3; and = 1). Results indicate that oral mouthwashes with 0.2%-0.5% tea tree oil may limit accumulation of dental plaque. Gels containing 5% tea tree oil applied directly to the periodontium may aid treatment of periodontitis as an adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing. More evidence is needed to confirm the benefits of tea tree oil for reducing acne lesions and severity. Local anti-inflammatory effects on skin, if any, also require further elucidation. Topical tea tree oil regimens show similar efficacy to standard treatments for decolonizing the body from methicillin-resistant , although intra-nasal use of tea tree oil may cause irritation to mucous membranes. Tea tree oil with added iodine may provide an effective treatment for lesions in young children. More evidence on efficacy of tea tree oil-based eyelid wipes for mite control are needed. Side effects were reported in 60% of included studies and were minor, except where tea tree oil was applied topically in concentrations ≥ 25%. Overall, the quality of research was poor to modest and higher quality trials with larger samples and better reporting are required to substantiate potential therapeutic applications of tea tree oil. PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021285168].
PubMed: 37033604
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1116077 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2018Spider mites, including , , and , are common pests in gardens, greenhouses, and orchards. Exposure, particularly occupational exposure, to these organisms may lead to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spider mites, including , , and , are common pests in gardens, greenhouses, and orchards. Exposure, particularly occupational exposure, to these organisms may lead to the development of respiratory or contact allergies. However, the prevalence of sensitivity to spider mites is unclear.
METHODS
We examined the literature to generate an estimate of the global prevalence of allergies to spider mites.
RESULTS
Electronic databases were searched and twenty-three studies reporting the prevalence of sensitivity to spider mites (based on skin prick tests or IgE-based detection systems) in an aggregate total of 40,908 subjects were selected for analysis. The estimated overall rate of spider mite sensitivity was 22.9% (95% CI 19-26.8%). Heterogeneity was high and meta-regression analysis considering variables such as published year, country, number of study subjects, methods for allergen detection (skin prick test, ImmunoCAP, RAST testing, or intradermal test), and mite species revealed no single significant source. Twelve of the 23 studies reported rates of monosensitization (i.e., patients responsive to spider mites but no other tested allergen), yielding a global average of 7% (95% CI 5-9%), hence spider mites represent a unique source of allergens.
CONCLUSIONS
Spider mites are an important cause of allergic symptoms. However, the publication bias and heterogeneity evident in this study indicate that further trials using standardized detection methods are needed to determine the association of exposure and symptoms as well as the specific patient characteristics that influence developing spider mite sensitivity.
PubMed: 29946417
DOI: 10.1186/s13601-018-0209-8 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proved to be effective and safe in adult asthma. But it is still controversial in children. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proved to be effective and safe in adult asthma. But it is still controversial in children.
OBJECT
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT in asthmatic children with allergy to house dust mite.
METHOD
We searched the databases of Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE (from 1 January 1990 to 1 December 2022). Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and critically appraised the risk of bias. We used the Revman 5 to synthesize the effect sizes.
RESULTS
We finally selected 38 eligible studies including 21 randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT and 17 observational studies to assess the safety. The results revealed that short-term asthma symptom scores were declined with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.19 (95% CI: -1.87, -0.50) in 12 researches with high heterogeneity. Short-term asthma medication scores were decreased with SMD -1.04 (95% CI: -1.54, -0.54) in 12 heterogeneous researches. One study showed no significant reduction in combined symptom and medication scores without providing details. No studies we reviewed reported long-term efficacy. SCIT resulted in an obviously increased risk of adverse reactions compared with placebo. For secondary outcomes, SCIT improved life quality and reduced the numbers of annual asthma attacks and allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity, but without significant improvement in pulmonary function, asthma control or hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT can reduce the short-term symptom scores and medication scores regardless of different treatment duration or mono/polysensitization, but with an increased incidence of local and systemic adverse effects. Further studies on pediatric asthma are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy, and clarify the effectiveness of SCIT in specific population using mix allergen extracts or with severe asthma. Overall, it is recommended for children with mild-moderate HDM-driven allergic asthma.
PubMed: 37397157
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1137478 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment.
METHODS
A literature search was performed on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sublingual immunotherapy for AR were screened and extracted from the establishment of those databases to November 2022. Subsequently, a network meta-analysis was performed using a statistical software R 4.2.
RESULTS
Totally 22 RCTs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and screened from 1,164 literature were included. A total of 4,941 AR patients were involved in the 22 trials, as well as five interventions including placebo, pharmacotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, and sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, based on symptom scores after different interventions for AR, the most effective treatments for AR were in order as follows: sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract, placebo, and pharmacotherapy. Importantly, sublingual immunotherapy had fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.
CONCLUSION
Sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite for AR has the best efficacy, whereas traditional medicine has the worst. More high-quality studies with a large sample and multiple centers are needed to verify this conclusion in the future, so as to further provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for the clinical treatment options of AR patients.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Pyroglyphidae; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 37063866
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1144816 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2015Dust mite sensitization plays a controversial role in the development of atopic dermatitis. Despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy, dust mite avoidance is commonly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dust mite sensitization plays a controversial role in the development of atopic dermatitis. Despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy, dust mite avoidance is commonly recommended for the prevention and treatment of atopic dermatitis. We aimed to evaluate whether dust mite avoidance strategies reduce the risk of developing atopic dermatitis in high-risk infants compared to randomized controls.
METHODS
Studies were obtained by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and The Global Resource of Eczema Trials databases. We included randomized, controlled trials of high-risk infants treated with a dust mite avoidance intervention and assessed for atopic dermatitis. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria (total n = 3040). Studies were largely unblinded but otherwise of reasonable quality. Three trials utilizing a dust mite avoidance approach but not additional interventions were combined in a meta-analysis. Dust mite avoidance provided no benefit in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-1.49, I(2) = 73%).
CONCLUSIONS
Dust mite avoidance strategies alone or in combination with additional allergen avoidance modalities do not decrease the risk of developing atopic dermatitis and, given the current state of the evidence, should not be recommended for this purpose. The utility of dust mite avoidance for the treatment of atopic dermatitis or for the prevention and treatment of asthma or seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis are outside the scope of this review.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Antigens, Dermatophagoides; Dermatitis, Atopic; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Models, Statistical; Primary Prevention; Pyroglyphidae; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26235650
DOI: 10.1111/pai.12452