Systematic evaluation and Meta analysis of the treatment of allergic rhinitis with needle-embedding therapy

Abstract Objective The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/3-hour algorithm is one of the most widely strategies used for rule-out or rule-in of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, a systematic evaluation of its performance has not been conducted. Furthermore, recent studies showed that the 0/3-hour algorithm is non-superior to the 0/1-hour algorithm. Purpose This study aims to summarize the safety and efficacy of the 0/3-hour algorithm and its comparative performance with the 0/1-hour algorithm. Methods We conducted literature search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published between 1 January 2008 and 31 May 2019. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the primary and secondary outcomes, defined as index myocardial infarction and triage efficacy, major adverse cardiac event (MACE) or mortality at 30 days, respectively. Results A total of 10,832 patients from 9 studies with a pooled AMI prevalence of 16% were analyzed. The 0/3-hour algorithm ruled out 69% of the patients with a pooled sensitivity of 94.2% [95% CI: 87.6%–97.4%] and negative predictive value of 98.6% [95% CI: 97.0%–99.4%]; 17% of the patients were ruled in with a pooled specificity of 94.9% [95% CI: 88.6%–97.8%] and positive predictive value of 72.9% [95% CI: 54.6%–85.7%]. The 30-day mortality and 30-day MACE for patients that were ruled out were 0.0% [95% CI: 0.0%–0.0%] and 1.4% [95% CI: 0.9%–2.0%], respectively. In a pooled analysis of 3 cohorts, the 0/3-hour algorithm had a non-superior sensitivity compared with the 0/1-hour algorithm (94.4% [95% CI: 87.0%–97.7%] vs. 98.4% [95% CI: 95.4%–99.7%]). The 0/3-hour algorithm also had a similar rule-out efficacy compared with the 0/1-hour algorithm (52% [95% CI: 39%–65%] vs. 53% [95% CI: 42%–64%]). Conclusion The widely used 0/3-hour algorithm has sensitivity substantially below the consensus goal of 99% and may not be sufficiently safe for triage of myocardial infarction. Furthermore, the 0/3-hour algorithm is not superior to the 0/1-hour algorithm despite the additional triage time. Performance of ESC 0/3-hour algorithm Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Taiwan National Ministry of Science and Technology Grants

Download Full-text

Mass drug administration campaigns for scabies and impetigo: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001132 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e001132

Author(s):

Pousali Ghosh ◽

Wubshet Tesfaye ◽

Avilasha Manandhar ◽

Thomas Calma ◽

Mary Bushell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Drug Administration ◽

Mass Drug Administration ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Random Effect ◽

Systematic Evaluation ◽

Clear Understanding

IntroductionScabies is recognised as a neglected tropical disease, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable populations around the world. Impetigo often occurs secondarily to scabies. Several studies have explored mass drug administration (MDA) programmes, with some showing positive outcomes—but a systematic evaluation of such studies is yet to be reported. The main aim of this systematic review is to generate comprehensive evidence on the effect and feasibility of MDA programmes in reducing the burden of scabies and impetigo.Methods and analysisA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Electronic databases to be searched will include CINAHL EBSCOhost, Medline Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed and SCOPUS. In addition, grey literature will be explored via the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit, OaIster database and WHO. No language restrictions will be applied. All treatment studies following an MDA protocol, including randomised/quasi-controlled trials, and prospective before–after interventional studies, will be considered. The main outcome is the change in prevalence of scabies and impetigo The Cochrane collaboration risk of bias assessment tool will be used for assessing the methodological quality of studies. A random-effect restricted maximum likelihood meta-analysis will be performed to generate pooled effect (OR) using STATA V.16. Appropriate statistical tests will be carried out to quantify heterogeneity between studies and publication bias.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since data will be extracted from published works. The findings will be communicated to the scientific community through a peer-reviewed journal publication. This systematic review will present an evidence on the effect of MDA interventions on scabies and impetigo, which is instrumental to obtain a clear understanding of the treatments widely used in these programmes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020169544,

Download Full-text

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

Clinical and Translational Allergy ◽

10.1002/clt2.12055 ◽

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

Download Full-text

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

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings ◽

10.2500/aap.2021.42.210028 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 42 (4) ◽

pp. 283-292 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of acupoint catgut embedding therapy for polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

World Journal of Acupuncture - Moxibustion ◽

10.1016/s1003-5257(18)30010-2 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 27 (4) ◽

pp. 41-51 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Chao-chao YU ◽

Chao-yang MA ◽

Yuan XIONG ◽

Miao WU ◽

Feng SHEN ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Polycystic Ovary Syndrome ◽

Polycystic Ovary ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Ovary Syndrome ◽

Embedding Therapy

Download Full-text

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

Clinical Otolaryngology ◽

10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01276.x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 31 (5) ◽

pp. 360-367 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

J. Grainger ◽

A. Drake-Lee

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Bilastine in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.731201 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Aranjit Singh Randhawa ◽

Norhayati Mohd Noor ◽

Mohd Khairi Md Daud ◽

Baharudin Abdullah

Keyword(s):

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Symptom Score ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Nasal Symptom ◽

Comparable Efficacy ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Quality Of Evidence

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.

Download Full-text