METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence.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.
METHODS: EMBASE (1947-) and Medline (1946-) were searched until December 8, 2015. A search strategy was used to identify studies on AR or NAR patients subjected to diagnostic local nasal provocation. All studies providing original NAPT data among the AR or NAR population were included. Meta-analysis of proportion data was presented as a weighted probability % (95% confidence interval [CI]).
RESULTS: The search yielded 4504 studies and 46 were included. The probability of nasal allergen reactivity for the AR population was 86.3% (95% CI, 84.4 to 88.1) and in NAR was 24.7% (95% CI, 22.3 to 27.2). Reactivity was high with pollen for both AR 97.1% (95% CI, 94.2 to 99.2) and NAR 47.5% (95% CI, 34.8 to 60.4), and lowest with dust for both AR 79.1% (95% CI, 76.4 to 81.6) and NAR 12.2% (95% CI, 9.9 to 14.7). NAPT yielded high positivity when defined by subjective end-points: AR 91.0% (95% CI, 86.6 to 94.8) and NAR 30.2% (95% CI, 22.9 to 37.9); and lower with objective end-points: AR 80.8% (95% CI, 76.8 to 84.5) and NAR 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2 to 17.2).
CONCLUSION: Local allergen reactivity is demonstrated in 26.5% of patients previously considered non-allergic. Similarly, AR, when defined by skin-prick test (SPT) or serum specific IgE (sIgE), may lead to 13.7% of patients with inaccurate allergen sensitization or non-allergic etiologies.
METHODS: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was performed on patients who had undergone nasal endoscopy and allergy testing. Allergy status was determined by positive serology or epicutaneous testing. Endoscopy was reviewed by blinded assessors for middle turbinate head edema. Appearance was graded as either normal, focal, multifocal, diffuse, or polypoid edema. Receiver-operator (ROC) analysis, likelihood ratio (LR), sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were determined.
RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven patients representing 304 nasal cavities were assessed (42% female, age 39.74 ± 14.7 years, 57% allergic). Diffuse edema (PPV 91.7%/LR = 8) and polypoid edema (PPV 88.9%/LR = 6.2) demonstrated the strongest association with inhalant allergy. Multifocal edema was used as a cut-off to represent inhalant allergy from ROC analysis, which demonstrated 94.7% specificity and 23.4% sensitivity. The PPV for multifocal was 85.1% and LR = 4.4.
CONCLUSION: Middle turbinate edema is a useful nasal endoscopic feature to predict presence of inhalant allergy and, although not sensitive, has excellent PPV.