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]

Background: Artemisia annua is an important autumnal pollen allergen for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in northern China. To date, no study has investigated allergen immunotherapy with A annua. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and mechanisms underlying A annua‐sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Methods: This was a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase III clinical trial involving 71 SAR patients, randomized to SLIT with A annua extract (n = 47) or placebo (n = 24) for 32 weeks. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS; primary clinical end point) was evaluated at baseline (peak pollen phase (PPP) in the previous year), initiation of A annua‐SLIT, 1st PPP during SLIT, end of SLIT and 2nd PPP during follow‐up. Blood samples and nasal secretions were collected at beginning and after SLIT for assessment of T cells and inflammatory mediators. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs) reported. Results: Artemisia annua‐SLIT significantly reduced TNSS to a greater level from baseline (from 9.45 ± 1.68 to 6.16 ± 2.27) than placebo (from 9.29 ± 2.09 to 9.05 ± 2.40) at the 1st PPP (P <.001) and sustained the improvement in symptoms throughout to the 2nd PPP. Preseasonal A annua‐SLIT for 16 weeks significantly decreased Th2 cells, increased nTreg and Tr1 cells in blood; and increased cystatin 1 (CST1) in nasal secretion after 16 and 32 weeks compared with pretreatment. Overall, 17/47 patients experienced mild local AEs and 2 patients mild systemic AEs, after A annua‐SLIT. Conclusion: Artemisia annua‐SLIT is an efficacious and safe treatment in patients with A annua SAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several foreign studies have shown long-term efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), but data on the long-term efficacy of SLIT in China are still lacking. Objective: We aimed to prospectively evaluate the long-term efficacy of a 2-year SLIT with Dermatophagoides farinae(D. farinae) drops in mono- and polysensitized children with allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: Eighty house dust mite (HDM)-sensitized children (aged 4–11 years) with AR were enrolled in this prospective study. There were 40 children in both the monosensitized (to HDM only) and polysensitized groups. Both groups were treated with standardized SLIT (D. farinae drops) for 2 years, combined with pharmacotherapy according to their individual requirements, and were followed up for 7 years. A combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) was assessed and compared between the 2 groups during and after SLIT. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events (AEs). Results: There were 31 (77.5%) monosensitized and 29 (72.5%) polysensitized children who completed the study. After 2-year SLIT, the CSMS of 2 groups significantly decreased compared to baseline. The improvement persisted during the first 5 years at each visit, with a significant difference (all p < 0.01). In the monosensitized group, the CSMS significantly increased during the 6th and the 7th year compared to year 2 (both p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the polysensitized group showed a significant worsening of CSMS from the 5th to the 7th year (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, there was a statistical difference between the 2 groups in the 5th year of the study (p < 0.05). No severe AEs were reported. Conclusions: The study confirmed the long-term effects which lasted for 7 years after 2-year SLIT in mono- and polysensitized children. Compared with the polysensitized children, the monosensitized children noted a more sustained benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]