Search

This article presents the findings of a 13-year retrospective study on the sensitization profiles of aeroallergens among allergic rhinitis (AR) patients in China. The study included 16,664 patients from three different centers. The most common aeroallergens were house dust mites, cockroaches, mustard plants, and maple trees. Children had a higher sensitization rate than adults, and AR patients with asthma had a higher sensitization rate than AR patients without asthma. The sensitization rates of the aeroallergens changed significantly from 2009 to 2021, with different trends observed in the three centers. The study provides valuable information on prevalent aeroallergens in China and proposes a panel of five aeroallergens for the diagnosis of AR. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Artemisia is a major kind of grass pollen in Northern China that can cause multiple kinds of common allergic diseases, such as allergic rhinitis (AR), conjunctivitis, or asthma. Recently, Artemisia annua Allergens Sublingual Immunotherapy Drops have been proved effective and safe for treating seasonal AR (SAR) with or without allergic conjunctivitis patients and were available in China. We sought to further investigate the different intervention times of A. annua-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for evaluating efficacy and safety in patients with SAR. Methods: A total of 88 subjects aged 18–52 years with SAR were enrolled and randomized into the SLIT group and control group. Forty-five patients received a course of SLIT with A. annua extracts along with pharmacotherapy as SLIT group and 43 patients only used symptomatic drugs as control group. Furthermore, SLIT group was randomly divided into 12–13 weeks' pre-seasonal treatment group and 8–9 weeks' pre-seasonal treatment group to receive different duration of SLIT before pollen season. Monosensitized and polysensitized groups were also the subgroups of SLIT group according to the sensitization status of patients. The combined symptom and medication score (CSMS), total nasal symptom score (TNSS), total medication score (TMS), visual analog score (VAS) were evaluated during the peak pollen phase in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs) reported. Results: Compared to control group, CSMS, TNSS, TMS, VAS were significantly improved during the course of SLIT (p < 0.001). Besides, clinical improvement in nasal symptoms and reduction of medication use was also observed in SLIT group, compared to the baseline value (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, we observed that there was no significant difference between monosensitized group (n = 8) and polysensitized group (n = 29), as well as 12–13 weeks' preseasonal treatment group (n = 20) and 8–9 weeks' pre-seasonal treatment group (n = 17) belonging to the SLIT group in clinical efficacy (p > 0.05). No severe systemic AEs were reported. Conclusions: This study proved that A. annua-SLIT can provide equivalent efficacy and safety for SAR patients under the circumstance of accepting the pre-seasonal treatment of 8–9 or 12–13 weeks, regardless of monosensitization or polysensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]