Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Allergy: Increased Allergen Sensitization Versus Real Allergic Rhinitis Multimorbidity: a Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn ◽  
Mongkhon Sompornrattanaphan ◽  
Triphoom Suwanwech ◽  
Premyot Ngaotepprutaram
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Allergen Sensitization

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of intralymphatic immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nor Rahimah Aini ◽  
Norhayati Noor ◽  
Mohd Khairi Md Daud ◽  
Sarah K. Wise ◽  
Baharudin Abdullah
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Intralymphatic Immunotherapy

Efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the ocular symptoms of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jison Hong ◽  
Brett Bielory ◽  
J. Loren Rosenberg ◽  
Leonard Bielory
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Intranasal Corticosteroids ◽  
Ocular Symptoms

Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Improves Sleep Quality in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Sukato ◽  
Jason M. Abramowitz ◽  
Marina Boruk ◽  
Nira A. Goldstein ◽  
Richard M. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Endoscopic Sinus Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Sinus Surgery ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Poor Sleep

Objective Up to 75% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) suffer with poor sleep quality and reduced quality of life. Endoscopic sinus surgery has demonstrated encouraging results in improving sleep function. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the change in sleep quality after surgery for CRS. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords “sinusitis” or “rhinosinusitis” and “sleep.” Studies were included only when adults underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and were evaluated pre- and postoperatively by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), the sleep domain of Sino-Nasal Outcome Test–22, or the sleep domain of Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Results The database search yielded 1939 studies, of which 7 remained after dual-investigator screening. The standardized mean differences (95% CI) for the ESS, PSQI, and AHI were −0.94 (−1.63 to −0.26), −0.80 (−1.46 to −0.14), and −0.20 (−0.32 to −0.07), indicating large, moderate to large, and small improvements, respectively. All analyses displayed high heterogeneity ( I2 = 95%-99%). Conclusion Sleep quality, as measured by the ESS and PSQI surveys, shows substantial improvement after surgery for CRS, with smaller improvement seen for AHI. Generalizability of our results is limited by high heterogeneity among studies and by broad confidence intervals that cannot exclude small to trivial changes. The findings of this meta-analysis provide insight into the effect of CRS-related endoscopic sinus surgery on sleep quality, which should guide future research direction and counseling of patients in the clinical setting.

Pilot study of delayed hypersensitivity testing with fungal allergens in patients with allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis

2005 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. S196
Author(s):  
G.W. Volcheck ◽  
P.A. Harris ◽  
H. Kita ◽  
D.M. Richardson ◽  
M.D.P. Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Delayed Hypersensitivity ◽  
Fungal Allergens

Surgical therapy vs continued medical therapy for medically refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zara M. Patel ◽  
Andrew Thamboo ◽  
Luke Rudmik ◽  
Jayakar V. Nayak ◽  
Timothy L. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Surgical Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis

Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Werner ◽  
John V. Bosso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Skin Prick Testing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Nasal Provocation ◽  
Intralymphatic Immunotherapy ◽  
Standardized Mean Difference

Background: Only a fraction of patients with allergic rhinitis receive allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is most commonly delivered subcutaneously in a series of injections over 3‐5 years. Common obstacles to completing this therapy include cost and inconvenience. Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) has been proposed as a faster alternative, which requires as few as three injections spaced 4 weeks apart. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence that supports the use of ILIT for allergic rhinitis. Methods: Clinical trials were identified in the published literature by using an electronic search strategy and were evaluated by using a risk of bias tool. Treatment outcome (symptom scores, medication scores, and combined symptom and medication scores) and provocation testing results (nasal provocation and skin-prick testing) were included in a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference with subgrouping by using a random-effects model. Overall adverse event rates were tabulated, and overall risk ratios were calculated by using a random-effects model. Results: We identified 17 clinical trials that met eligibility criteria. The standardized mean difference of ILIT on the symptom and medication score was ‐0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], ‐0.98 to ‐0.46; p < 0.0001) (n = 10). The standardized mean difference of ILIT on nasal provocation and skin-prick testing was ‐1.00 (95% CI, ‐1.38 to ‐0.61; p < 0.0001) (n = 7) and ‐0.73 (95% CI, ‐0.99 to ‐0.47; p < 0.0001) (n = 7), respectively. No statistically significant heterogeneity was detected. The overall adverse event rate was 39.5% for ILIT and 23.5% for placebo. Also, 98.4% of adverse events were mild. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ILIT was safe, conferred desensitization to seasonal and nonseasonal allergens, alleviated allergic rhinitis symptoms, and reduced medication use. A larger randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial will be necessary for wider adaptation of this form of AIT.

Montelukast in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Grainger ◽  
A. Drake-Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document