Efficacy and safety of intralymphatic immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a potential treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to determine the efficacy (primary outcomes) and safety (secondary outcomes) of ILIT in treating patients with AR.Methods
An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).Results
We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.Conclusions
Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
SUBMITTER: Aini NR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369948 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIntralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).MethodsMEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Library were used to conduct electronic searches for clinical trials comparing ILIT and placebo in patients with AR. The final search took place on August 24, 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The outcomes included combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), Skin-prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized as mean difference (MD)/standard mean difference (SMD) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThirteen studies (454 participants) were included in this study. The ILIT group had better clinical improvement on the CSMS (random effects model, SMD-0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], P = 0.02) and RQLQ (fixed-effects model, MD-0.42, 95% CI [0.69, 0.15], P = 0.003) than the placebo group. The booster injection was beneficial for CSMS (P < 0.0001), and the 4-week injection interval was superior to the 2-week injection period for improving VAS (P < 0.0001). Local swelling or erythema was the main AE following injection (random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], P = 0.005). Discussion. For individuals with AR, ILIT is safe and effective. ILIT alleviates clinical symptoms and reduces pharmaceutical consumption without causing severe AEs. However, the validity of this study is compromised by the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included researches. RegistrationCRD42022355329.
| S-EPMC10185423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProbiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established.ObjectiveWe undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to address the effect and safety of probiotics on allergic rhinitis.MethodsWe systematically searched databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials] from inception until June 1, 2021. Qualified literature was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsTwenty-eight studies were included. The results showed that probiotics significantly relieved allergic rhinitis symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.44, -0.13]; p = 0.0003, I 2 = 89%), decreased Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores compared with the control group (SMD, -0.64, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.49], p < 0.00001, I 2 = 97%), and increased T helper cell 1(Th1)/Th2 ratio (mean difference [MD], -2.47, 95% CI [-3.27, -1.68], p < 0.00001, I 2 = 72%). There was no significant change in overall or specific IgE levels between probiotic-treated and placebo-treated subjects (SMD, 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34], I 2 = 0%, and SMD, -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.13], p = 0.72, I 2 = 0%, respectively).ConclusionsTo sum up, probiotic supplement seems to be effective in ameliorating allergic rhinitis symptoms and improving the quality of life, but there is high heterogeneity in some results after subgroup analysis and clinicians should be cautious when recommending probiotics in treating allergic rhinitis.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO (CRD42021242645).
| S-EPMC9161695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating AR. An electronic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing bilastine with placebo and standard pharmacotherapy were included. The included studies must have diagnosis of AR established by clinicians and the outcomes must have a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up period. The primary outcomes assessed were total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (NSS) and non-nasal symptom score (NNSS). The secondary outcomes were discomfort due to rhinitis, quality of life (QOL) and adverse events. The risk of bias and quality of evidence for all studies were appraised. The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. The search identified 135 records after removal of duplicates. Following screening and review of the records, fifteen full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Five trials involving 3,329 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bilastine was superior to placebo in improving TSS, NSS, NNSS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL but has comparable efficacy with other OAHs in TSS, NSS, NNS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL. There was no difference in adverse effects when bilastine was compared against placebo and other OAHs except for somnolence. Bilastine has fewer incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high quality. Bilastine is effective and safe in treating the overall symptoms of AR with comparable efficacy and safety with other OAHs except somnolence. Whilst bilastine has similar efficacy to cetirizine, somnolence is notably less in bilastine.
| S-EPMC8784885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Guizhi Decoction associated formulas for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. A total of seven online databases were searched to collect studies published up to Feb 23rd, 2020. Study quality of each included article was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Systematic reviews were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.3 Software. Among the included trials, Guizhi Decoction associated formulas alone (or plus Western medicine, or acupoint-based therapy) were main therapies in experimental groups. Interventions in control groups include Western medicine, Guizhi Decoction associated formulas alone, Chinese patent medicine, and placebo control. Primary outcomes in this study include recovery rate, accumulative marked effective rate, accumulative effective rate, and recurrence rate. Finally, 23 trials involving 2281 participants were included. Results of systematic reviews show that Guizhi Decoction and associated formulas alone, plus Western medicine or plus acupoint-based therapies, were significantly better compared with using Western medicine alone in terms of efficacy. In addition, the formulas plus nasal TCM fumigation therapy could improve effective rate for AR treatment compared to using the formulas alone. More types and cases of adverse events were reported in the control groups (Western medicine alone), but events of included trials were all mild and did not need specific medical intervention. More RCTs of high quality, and large sample size, with appropriate blinding methods or nonblinded pragmatic trials of Guizhi Decoction and associated formulas for AR are needed.
| S-EPMC7817259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis (AR), and to test the robustness of the estimated effects.MethodsThe Cochrane methodology standard was followed to conduct this systematic review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with other therapies for AR were included. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis was conducted to test the robustness of pooled results. Thirty trials with 4413 participants were included.ResultsAcupuncture improved the nasal symptoms on Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and quality of life measured by Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in adults with AR, compared to acupuncture with no intervention. Acupuncture was also shown to be more effective than sham acupuncture for nasal symptom (RQLQ subscale, n = 489, MD - 0.60, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.04) and quality of life (RQLQ, n = 248, - 8.47 95% CI - 14.91, - 2.03). No clear difference was observed between acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine. Interestingly, trial sequential analysis (TSA) failed to confirm the aforementioned results. The effect of acupuncture for children/adolescents with AR remains unclear due to insufficient data. The performance bias and attrition bias are serious in most studies that were included. Selection bias may also have affected the quality of the evidence.ConclusionAcupuncture may have an advantage over no intervention and sham acupuncture in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life for adults with AR. The effect of acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine for AR may be similar. Additional trials are necessary to confirm these results.
| S-EPMC9036742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough allergen specific immunotherapy (SIT) represents the only immune- modifying and curative option available for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), the optimal schedule for specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is still unknown. The objective of this study is to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of cluster SCIT for patients with AR.MethodsBy searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane clinical trials database from 1980 through May 10th, 2013, we collected and analyzed the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cluster SCIT to assess its efficacy and safety.ResultsEight trials involving 567 participants were included in this systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed that cluster SCIT have similar effect in reduction of both rhinitis symptoms and the requirement for anti-allergic medication compared with conventional SCIT, but when comparing cluster SCIT with placebo, no statistic significance were found in reduction of symptom scores or medication scores. Some caution is required in this interpretation as there was significant heterogeneity between studies. Data relating to Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in 3 included studies were analyzed, which consistently point to the efficacy of cluster SCIT in improving quality of life compared to placebo. To assess the safety of cluster SCIT, meta-analysis showed that no differences existed in the incidence of either local adverse reaction or systemic adverse reaction between the cluster group and control group.ConclusionBased on the current limited evidence, we still could not conclude affirmatively that cluster SCIT was a safe and efficacious option for the treatment of AR patients. Further large-scale, well-designed RCTs on this topic are still needed.
| S-EPMC3904879 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC11008904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAt present, there are many commonly used moxibustion methods in clinical practice, but it is unclear which moxibustion is more suitable for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), so we used a network meta-analysis to analyze the effectiveness of various moxibustion types in the treatment of AR.MethodsWe searched 8 databases for comprehensive inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for moxibustion in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The search time was from the beginning of database establishment to January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to analyze the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCT was performed using the R software GEMTC and the RJAGS package.ResultsA total of 38 RCTs were included, involving 4257 patients and 9 types of moxibustion. The network meta-analysis results revealed that heat-sensitive moxibustion (HSM) not only has the best effect in terms of effective rate (Odd ratio [OR]: 32.77, 95% Credible intervals [CrIs]: 1.86-1360.2) among the nine types of moxibustion, but also has good effect in improving the quality of life score (standard mean differences [SMD]: 0.6, 95% CrIs: 0.07-1.29). In terms of improving IgE and VAS scores, various types of moxibustion were comparable to the efficacy of western medicine.ConclusionThe results showed that HSM was the most effective treatment for AR compared with other types of moxibustion. Therefore, it can be regarded as a complementary and alternative therapy for AR patients with poor effects of traditional treatment and patients who are susceptible to adverse reactions of western medicine.
| S-EPMC9981372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNasal nitric oxide (nNO) levels in allergic rhinitis (AR), healthy people or nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) have shown contradicting results in previous studies. By meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that measured nNO in AR patients to assess nNO's ability to discriminate AR from healthy people or NAR.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CNKI until December 15, 2020. Differences were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), by random-effects method.ResultsA total of 10 original studies with 561 AR patients, 327 healthy controls, 123 NAR patients were included in the narrative synthesis and 9 studies in the meta-analysis. nNO in AR was significantly increased compared with healthy controls (SMD: 0.989; 95% CI: 0.402, 1.576; p = .001) or NAR (SMD: 0.680; 95% CI: 0.101, 1.259; p = 0.021). However, subgroup analysis based on measuring process and patient characteristics showed that no significant differences were detected in nNO between AR patients with nasal polyps or sinusitis or marked ostial obstruction and healthy controls.ConclusionsnNO is a potential indicator for recognizing AR. Nasal polyps, sinusitis and marked ostial obstruction should be considered before nNO is applied to detect AR.
| S-EPMC8342207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a common allergic disorder that impairs social and physical functioning as well as quality of life. It is characterized by sneezing, rhinorrhea, congestion, and itching which respond suboptimally to drug therapy. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties that have shown promise in some studies. We aimed to systematically review LLLT's effectiveness in treating AR and meta-analyze our findings.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on November 24, 2023. All studies investigating LLLT on AR were included, and a pre-post meta-analysis of nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing) in the LLLT-treated arm was conducted. Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) scores before and after LLLT were also meta-analyzed alongside a pairwise meta-analysis of LLLT with placebo, acupuncture, steroids/antihistamines, and ultraviolet lasers. A random-effects model was used with a conservative pre-post correlation of 0.4 and standardized mean difference (SMD) as the effect size.ResultsSixteen studies were included in this review, and we found that nasal symptoms are alleviated post-LLLT in people with AR (SMD: -1.4, 95 CI: [-2.07 to -1.13], p value <0.001). RQLQ scores were also reduced after LLLT (SMD = -0.72, 95 CI: [-0.94 to -0.50], p value <0.001), and very few adverse events were reported. This meta-analysis, however, had significant publication bias and heterogeneity. When compared to a placebo, LLLT did not significantly improve nasal symptoms (SMD: -0.69, p value = 0.167), which might mean the post-LLLT nasal symptom alleviation is due to a placebo effect. Comparisons to other treatment modalities were too few to deduce anything meaningful, although it does appear that LLLT is less effective than UV lasers.ConclusionLLLT is most likely effective at alleviating nasal symptomology and has a low likelihood of adverse event incidence, yet more high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to compare LLLT to a placebo to ensure its superiority to the placebo effect, as well as non-inferiority clinical trials to compare it to standard treatments.
| S-EPMC11370728 | biostudies-literature