METHODS: The participants were divided into control and allergic rhinitis groups based on the clinical symptoms and skin prick tests. The AR group was treated with intranasal corticosteroid after the diagnosis. The nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) levels were compared between control and AR groups. In the AR group, the visual analogue scale (VAS), Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, and nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were assessed pre- and post-treatment.
RESULTS: One hundred ten adults were enrolled. The nasal FeNO level was significantly higher in AR compared to control (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study done in Baghdad on 112 patients who attended Al-Zahraa Allergic Center. Their demographic characteristics, total IgE, eosinophil counts and PCR result for COVID-19 were determined.
RESULTS: The means for IgE and eosinophils were 245.7±260.1IU/ml and 444.5±117.1cells/microliter sequentially. Around 32.1% had high IgE level (i.e., atopic) and 11.6% had COVID-19. Among the atopic patients, 33.3%, 30.5% and 36.2% had atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis and asthma respectively. More than half (58.3%) of them were male, 55.5% aged <45 years, 36.2% were retired or had no job, 69.5% were graduated from secondary school or more and 88.8% lived in urban areas. There is no significant association in IgE level between those with and without COVID-19, which means that exposure to SARS Cov2 virus could not be a trigger or exacerbation for atopic diseases. Also, there was no association between atopic patients with COVID-19 and those without it regarding type of atopy, age, sex, occupation, education, type of living area.
CONCLUSIONS: Atopy is not a risk factor for COVID-19.
METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.
CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.
Materials and Methods: The study used a qualitative exploratory design, comprising 12 in-depth interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to explore all relevant aspects of the topic, which were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim. All the interviews were conducted in a few beauty salons in purposively selected city areas in the state of Kedah, Malaysia.
Results: Of the 12 patients, seven (58%) reported a positive experience of facial candling treatment, with improvement in the condition of their allergic rhinitis. Specific themes about the experience of facial candling treatment that were identified within the transcript data included knowledge about facial candling, options for disease treatment, effectiveness of facial candling, sources of information, comparison, application of treatment, treatment budget, and safety. The major strength lies in the fact that reasons for using facial candling were uncovered from the perspectives of people with allergic rhinitis through the in-depth interviews.
Conclusions: The motives of these participants for using facial candling are mainly due to cultural influence and its low cost of treatment. There were mixed responses from the participants about the usefulness of facial candling. Most of the respondents had not assessed the safety of prolonged use of facial candling and regarded it as a safe procedure as this has been practiced for generations.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the mean percentages and absolute counts of CD4+ memory T cell subsets between: (i) non-allergic controls and AR patients; (ii) mild AR patients and moderate-severe AR patients.
METHODS: Sensitization to Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus were determined in 33 non -allergic controls, 28 mild AR and 29 moderate-severe AR patients. Flow cytometry was used to determine the percentage of CD4+ na?ve (TN; CD45RA+CCR7+), central memory (TCM; CD45RA-CCR7+), effector memory (TEM; CD45RA-CCR7-) and TEMRA (CD45RA+CCR7-) T cells from the peripheral blood. The absolute counts of CD4+ T cell subsets were obtained by dual platform method from flow cytometer and hematology analyzer.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the mean percentages and absolute counts of CD4+ T cell subsets between non-allergic controls and AR patients sensitized to HDMs. However, there were significant reduction in the mean percentage (p=0.0307) and absolute count (p=0.0309) of CD4+ TEMRA cells in moderate-severe AR patients compared to mild AR patients sensitized to HDMs and 13/24 (54.2%) moderate-severe AR patients sensitized to HDMs had persistent symptoms.
CONCLUSION: Reduction in the mean percentage and absolute count of CD4+CD45RA+CCR7- TEMRA cells were observed in moderate-severe AR patients compared to mild AR patients in our population of AR patients sensitized to HDMs.