Methods: An electronic literature search was performed using MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (from their inception to December 2020). A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019126271).
Results: We retrieved a total of 285 articles, of which 11 satisfied our inclusion criteria. There were 452 participants with age ranged from 15 to 58 years old. Intralymphatic immunotherapy was given in three doses with intervals of four weeks between doses in 10 trials. One trial gave three and six doses with an interval of two weeks. Both primary and secondary outcomes showed no difference between ILIT and placebo for all trials. There was no difference in the combined symptoms and medication score (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.28), symptoms score (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.38), medication score (SMD -6.56, 95% CI -21.48 to 8.37), rescue medication (RR 12.32, 95% CI 0.72-211.79) and the overall improvement score (MD -0.07, 95% CI -2.28 to 2.14) between ILIT and placebo. No major adverse events noted.
Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy possibly has a role in the treatment of AR patients. This review found it is safe but not effective, which could be contributed by the high variation amongst the trials. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardized administration of ILIT and outcome measures.
METHODS: This was a three-arm, prospective, multi-national, population-based, community-level, implementation trial. Cases between January 2009 and June 2018 from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study were included. Sites either implemented a comprehensive (with quality improvement tool) or a basic DA-CPR package, or served as controls. Primary outcome was survival-to-discharge/30th day post-arrest. Secondary outcomes were BCPR and favorable neurological outcome. A before-after comparison was made within each country; this before-after change was then compared across the three groups using logistic regression.
RESULTS: 170,687 cases were analyzed. Before-after comparison showed that survival to discharge was higher in the 'implementation' period in all three groups: comprehensive odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI; [1.0-1.19]); basic OR 1.14, 95% CI (1.08-1.2); and control OR 1.25, 95% CI (1.02-1.53). Comparing between groups, the comprehensive group had significantly higher change in BCPR (comprehensive vs control ratio of OR 1.86, 95% CI [1.66-2.09]; basic vs control ratio of OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.85-1.05]; and comprehensive vs basic ratio of OR 1.97, 95% CI [1.87-2.08]) and survival with favorable neurological outcome (comprehensive vs basic ratio of OR 1.2, 95% CI [1.04-1.39]).
CONCLUSION: We evaluated the impact of a DA-CPR program across heterogeneous EMS systems and demonstrated that a comprehensive DA-CPR program had the most impact on BCPR and favorable neurological outcome.
METHODS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.
RESULTS: ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.
CONCLUSION: The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.