Objective To assess the effectiveness of dust mite sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for treating allergic rhinitis. Methods The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about SLIT treating allergic rhinitis were collected in MEDLINE, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 10, 2012), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from inception to October, 2012. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the quality, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 8 RCTs involving 788 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, SLIT showed no obvious difference in the total effective rate (RR=1.15, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.50, P=0.29), but it was superior in decreasing the scores of both nasal symptom (SMD= −1.13, 95%CI −2.07 to −0.20, P=0.02) and drug intake (SMD= −0.60, 95%CI −1.06 to −0.15, P=0.009). Conclusion SLIT can improve the symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis, and it can also decrease the using frequency of antihistamine, beta-blocker and nasal spray steroids.
变应原特异性免疫治疗(SIT)是目前已知的唯一能改变变态反应性疾病患者对变应原免疫的类型，并有可能治愈变态反应性疾病的方法。通常是通过反复多次皮下注射，即皮下免疫治疗(SCIT)，诱导患者对变应原的耐受，但因其不良反应较大，并有可能引起过敏性休克等原因而使其应用受到限制。近来通过舌下含服的方法进行免疫治疗，即舌下免疫治疗(SLIT)，引起了临床上广泛的兴趣。与SCIT相比，SLIT完全由患者自己使用药物，因此更方便，临床研究也证实这种方法更安全，也更有效。而且与药物治疗相比，SLIT可以显著降低临床费用，减轻患者和社会的负担。但是SLIT诱导免疫耐受的确切机制目前仍不清楚。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of compound loratadine capsule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Methods A multi-center randomized single blind controlled trial (by using a random number table generated random sequence and the sequence was concealed by sealed envelopes) was designed. Two hundred and forty outpatients with allergic rhinitis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized to the treatment group (n=120 with compound loratadine capsule, 1 capsule q 24 h) or the control group (n=120 with loratadine tablet, 1 tablet q 12 h). All patients were given standard therapy. Results ① At the end of the treatment, in the compound loratadine group, 101 patients completed the study, and 19 patients withdrew. In the loratadine group, 103 patients completed the study, 17 patients withdrew. According to intention-to-treat analysis (ITT), the improvement rates of the treatment and control groups were 89.17% (107/120) and 88.33% (106/120) respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups (rank sum test, u=-1.8348, P＞0.05). According to per-protocol analysis (PP), the improvement rates of the treatment and control groups were 96.04% (97/101) and 91.26% (94/103) respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups (rank sum test, u=-1.625 7, P＞0.05). ② Adverse events were slight to moderate.The adverse event rates were 22.5% (27/120) and 21.67% (26/120) in the treatment and control groups respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups ( χ2 test, P＞0.05). Conclusion Compound loratadine capsule is effective and safe for allergic rhinitis.
Objective To evaluate the safety of intranasal use of beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, fluticasone propionate and mometasone for adults and children with chronic sinusitis/nasal polyps and allergic rhinitis. Methods Randomized controlled trials were located. Study quality was evaluated by two researchers independently. RevMan 4.2 was used for meta-analysis. Results Seven RCTs involving 826 patients were included. Compared with placebo, local use of fluticasone proprionate in adults showed no statistically significant trend to increase incidence of acute sinusitis (OR 16.87, 95% CI 0.87 to 301.62), but no significant difference was seen for epistaxis (OR 7.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 157.14): 1 trial, 60 patients. In another trial, no cases of nasal atrophy were reported in either fluticasone or placebo groups. No significant differences were seen between local use ofbudesonide and placebo in adults for dryness of nasal mucosa (OR 3.38, 95%CI 0.66 to 17.18) and epistaxis (OR 2.20, 95%CI 0.39 to 12.32): 1 trial, 193 participantions. No significant difference was seen between budesonide and pollinex for headache (OR 1.71, 95%CI 0.52 to 5.62). No differences were seen between placebo and fluticasone propionate in children for epistaxis (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.20 to 3.66), headache (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.02 to 2.83), plasma cortisol concentration (OR 1.56, 95%CI 0.06 to 38.69) and dryness of nasal mucosa (OR 4.76, 95%CI 0.25 to 89.54). Beclomethasone dipropionate in children showed no statistical differences for dryness of nasal mucosa (OR 0.51, 95%CI 0.14 to 1.87), epistaxis (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.26 to 1.73) and rhinitis (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.04 to 5.36). No decrease of plasma cortisol concentration was detected in either group. Mometasone and placebo showed no significant differences in children for epistaxis (OR 1.57, 95%CI 0.41 to 5.95), rhinitis (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.01 to 8.22) or headache (OR 0.33, 95%CI 0.01 to 8.22). Decrease of plasma cortisol concentration was not detected. Conclusions According to this systematic review, long term intranasal use of steroid for adults and children may be safe based on the two high quality, four moderate quality trials and one with b bias. High quality studies with larger sample sizes and in other languages are needed to provide ber evidence.
Objective This review compared clinical effectiveness, cardiac safety and economics of astemizole, loratadine, cetirizine and terfenadine to provide evidence for adjustment of Essential Drug List in China. Search strategy We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase and Chinese Biomedical Database. Fourteen databases for drug safety and pharmaceutical economics were additionally searched. Selection Criteria Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, published in English and Chinese and comparing two or more of these four antihistamines for allergic rhinitis and urticaria were included for study of effectiveness. Non-randomized clinical trials were additionally included for economic evaluation. Cardiac safety studies of antihistamines for allergic diseases of any type were included. Quality Appraisal Jadad scale was primarily applied to randomized controlled trials. Allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis were also appraised. The QUOROM statement was applied to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Data extraction and analyses For the study of effectiveness, composite data were primarily extracted and analyzed by fixed effect model. Sensitivity analysis was done to explore the heterogeneity. For the study of cardiac safety, cases of adverse drug reactions and death were summarized. Difference of occurrence rate in sex and age were analyzed if possible.Electrocardiography and clinical symptoms were summarized. Results No studies on economic evaluation were identified. 27 and 6 randomized controlled trials, including 3 227 participants, for allergic rhinitis and urticaria were identified. Cetirizine was superior to loratadine (n=709) in symptom score and onset of action, superior to terfenadine (n=645) in Quality of Life and superior to astemizole (n=498) in patient satisfaction and onset of action. 73 h-ADR cases were identified in astemizole, 27 cases in terfenadine, 1 case in loratadine and none in cetirizine. No deaths were identified. Combination of terfenadine plus grapefruit juice (n=l8), itraconazole (n=6), nefazodone (n=67), and loratadine administration concomitant with cemitidine (n=30) significantly prolonged QTc interval. Conclusions Cetirizine was superior to other three antihistamines in terms of clinical effectiveness and drug safety. Astemizole and terfenadine could cause significantly more cardiac-related adverse reactions than cetirizine and loratadine.
【摘要】 目的 观察鼻内镜下激光治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。 方法 2005年6月－2008年7月采用鼻内镜下Nd:YAG激光治疗变应性鼻炎患者384例，其中男206例，女178例；年龄13~74岁，平均31岁。病程1~33年，平均7.7年。按照2004年制定的《变应性鼻炎诊治原则及推荐方案》评分均gt;6分。术前及术后1、6、24个月时分别对患者症状和体征进行评分和分析。 结果 所有患者均获随访，随访时间1~24个月，平均22.7个月。其中术后1、6、24个月分别有384、380和358例患者获随访。统计术前及术后1、6、24个月时症状以及体征评分总分分别为（11.32±1.03）、（3.06±1.17）、（3.32±1.37）、（4.09±2.03）分，术后各时间点评分均较术前显著改善，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；术后各时间点间差异均有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），其中以术后1个月效果最好。 结论 鼻内镜下激光治疗变应性鼻炎疗效确切，但远期有一定复发率。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of operation by laser under nasal endoscope for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Methods A total of 384 patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing operation by Nd : YAG laser under nasal endoscope from June 2005 to July 2008 were enrolled in the study, including 208 males and 178 females with their age ranged from 13 to 74 years old averaging at 31.2 years. The course of the disease ranged from 1 to 33 years averaging at 7.7 years. According to The Treatment Principle and Recommending Program for Allergic Rhinitis regulated in 2004, the scores of these cases were all higher than 6. Scoring and analysis of patients’ symptoms and body signs were performed before operation and 1, 6, and 24 months after operation. Results All the patients were followed up with the time period ranged from 1 to 24 months averaging at 22.7 months. A total of 384, 380 and 358 patients were followed up respectively 1, 6, and 24 months after operation. The general score of symptoms and body signs before operation, 1, 6, 24 months after operation were respectively 11.32±1.03, 3.06±1.17, 3.32±1.37, and 4.09±2.03. The scores after operation were significantly better than that before operation (Plt;0.05). The curative effect at the first month was the best. Conclusion Operation by laser under nasal endoscope is one of the valid, feasible methods for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but during the long-term period, recurrence in some cases is possible.
【摘要】 目的 观察低温等离子射频治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征（obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome，OSAHS）合并变应性鼻炎的疗效。 方法 对2010年1－5月收治的42例OSAHS合并变应性鼻炎患者，采用低温等离子射频双下鼻甲减容、鼻腔内蝶腭神经及筛前神经末梢阻滞，并配合鼻中隔成形等手术。使用Epworth嗜睡评分量表（epworth sleepiness scale， ESS）和视觉模拟评分法（visual analogue scale，VAS）对治疗前及治疗3个月后的总体感受评分。 结果 ESS评分与VAS评分均符合正态分布，手术前、后ESS评分[（14.22±4.21）分，（6.78±4.12）分]与VAS评分[（8.34±2.72）分，（3.96±1.02）分]差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 低温等离子射频治疗OSAHS合并变应性鼻炎疗效较好。【Abstract】 Objective To observe the clinical effect of treatment by low-temperature plasma radio frequency on obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) complicated with allergic rhinitis. Methods A total of 42 patients with OSAHS complicated with allergic rhinitis between January 2010 and May 2010 were chosen. All of the patients were treated by low-temperature plasma radio frequency nerve block, concha nasalis inferior ablation and other operations such as nasal septal construction. The nerve terminals of sphenopalatine nerve and anterior ethmoid nerve were blocked by ablation. Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were used to estimate the curative effects. Results The results of ESS and VAS were consistent with gaussian distribution. There were statistical significant difference between the scores of pre-and post-operation (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The low-temperature plasma radio frequency treatment for OSAHS complicated with allergic rhinitis is easy，safe and efficient.
目的:分析三种不同术式治疗慢性肥厚性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法: 对206例慢性肥厚性鼻炎患者分别采用低温等离子消融术,改良的传统下鼻甲部分切除术及下鼻甲成形术三种术式,比较其临床疗效。结果: 206例患者中8例因术后创面出血而愈合时间延长,2例出现鼻腔干燥结痂,2例因头痛症状不能改善到神经内科治疗,其余患者症状均获显著改善。结论: 下鼻甲成形术、下鼻甲等离子消融术能更好地体现微创手术的理念,疗效优于传统下鼻甲部分切除术。