Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.

In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.

This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.

The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.

Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.

The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-2008-update-13eqfzaw4u.pdf

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

Background: Allergic rhinitis represents a global health problem affecting 10% to 20% of the population. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been widely used to treat the approximately 500 million affected patients globally. Objective: To develop explicit, unambiguous, and transparent clinical recommendations systematically for treatment of allergic rhinitis on the basis of current best evidence. Methods: The authors updated ARIA clinical recommendations in collaboration with Global Allergy and Asthma European Network following the approach suggested by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: This article presents recommendations about the prevention of allergic diseases, the use of oral and topical medications, allergen specific immunotherapy, and complementary treatments in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The guideline panel developed evidence profiles for each recommendation and considered health benefits and harms, burden, patient preferences, and resource use, when appropriate, to formulate recommendations for patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals. Conclusion: These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Patients, clinicians, and policy makers are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-guidelines-3pawic20n9.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2010 Revision

Background
Allergic rhinitis is the most common of the allergic diseases. Despite improved understanding of the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and advances in its pharmacological treatment, its prevalence has increased worldwide. For patients whose symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medical treatment, allergen injection immunotherapy is advised. An allergen-based treatment may reduce symptoms, the need for medication and modify the natural course of this disease.

Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous specific allergen immunotherapy, compared with placebo, for reducing symptoms and medication requirements in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2006), MEDLINE (1950 to 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), Pre-MEDLINE, KOREAMED, INDMED, LILACS, PAKMEDINET, Scisearch, mRCT and the National Research Register. The date of the last search was February 2006.

Selection criteria
All studies identified by the searches were assessed to identify randomised controlled trials involving participants with symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis and proven allergen sensitivity, treated with subcutaneous allergen specific immunotherapy or corresponding placebo.

Data collection and analysis
Two independent authors identified all studies reporting double-blind, placebo controlled randomised trials of specific immunotherapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis due to tree, grass or weed pollens. Two authors independently performed quality assessment of studies. Data from identified studies were abstracted onto a standard extraction sheet and subsequently entered into RevMan 4.2.8. Analysis was performed using the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) method and a random-effects model; P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The primary outcome measures were symptom scores, medication use, quality of life and adverse events.

Main results
We retrieved 1111 publications of which 51 satisfied our inclusion criteria. In total there were 2871 participants (1645 active, 1226 placebo), each receiving on average 18 injections. Duration of immunotherapy varied from three days to three years. Symptom score data from 15 trials were suitable for meta-analysis and showed an overall reduction in the immunotherapy group (SMD -0.73 (95% CI -0.97 to -0.50, P < 0.00001)). Medication score data from 13 trials showed an overall reduction in the immunotherapy group (SMD of -0.57 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.33, p<0.00001)). Clinical interpretation of the effect size is difficult. Adrenaline was given in 0.13% (19 of 14085 injections) of those on active treatment and in 0.01% (1 of 8278 injections) of the placebo group for treatment of adverse events. There were no fatalities.

Authors' conclusions
This review has shown that specific allergen injection immunotherapy in suitably selected patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis results in a significant reduction in symptom scores and medication use. Injection immunotherapy has a known and relatively low risk of severe adverse events. We found no long-term consequences from adverse events.

/pdf/allergen-injection-immunotherapy-for-seasonal-allergic-41pan5fuyh.pdf

Allergen injection immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group

Background Allergen specific immunotherapy has long been a controversial treatment for asthma. Although beneficial effects upon clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. The recommendations of professional bodies have ranged from cautious acceptance to outright dismissal. With increasing interest in new allergen preparations and methods of delivery, we updated the systematic review of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effects of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register up to 2005, Dissertation Abstracts and Current Contents. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials using various forms of allergen specific immunotherapy to treat asthma and reporting at least one clinical outcome. Data collection and analysis Three authors independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion. Two authors independently performed quality assessment of studies. Main results Eighty-eight trials were included (13 new trials). There were 42 trials of immunotherapy for house mite allergy; 27 pollen allergy trials; 10 animal dander allergy trials; two Cladosporium mould allergy, two latex and six trials looking at multiple allergens. Concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only 16 of these trials. Significant heterogeneity was present in a number of comparisons. Overall, there was a significant reduction in asthma symptoms and medication, and improvement in bronchial hyper-reactivity following immunotherapy. There was a significant improvement in asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.59, 95% confidence interval -0.83 to -0.35) and it would have been necessary to treat three patients (95% CI 3 to 5) with immunotherapy to avoid one deterioration in asthma symptoms. Overall it would have been necessary to treat four patients (95% CI 3 to 6) with immunotherapy to avoid one requiring increased medication. Allergen immunotherapy significantly reduced allergen specific bronchial hyper-reactivity, with some reduction in non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity as well. There was no consistent effect on lung function. If 16 patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a local adverse reaction. If nine patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a systemic reaction (of any severity). Authors' conclusions Immunotherapy reduces asthma symptoms and use of asthma medications and improves bronchial hyper-reactivity. One trial found that the size of the benefit is possibly comparable to inhaled steroids. The possibility of local or systemic adverse effects (such as anaphylaxis) must be considered.

Injection allergen immunotherapy for asthma.

Summary
Background The allergological relevance of Ambrosia in Europe is growing but the efficacy of the injective immunotherapy for this allergen has been documented only in Northern America.

Objective We sought to study the safety and efficacy of injective immunotherapy in European patients sensitized to Ambrosia artemisiifolia.

Methods Thirty-two patients (18 M/14 F, mean age 36.78, range 23–60 years) suffering from rhinoconjunctivitis and/or asthma and sensitized to Ambrosia were enrolled and randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) study lasting 1 year. A maintenance dose corresponding to 7.2 μg of Amb a 1 was administered at 4-week intervals after the build-up. During the second and the third year, all patients were under active therapy in an open fashion. Symptom and medication scores, skin reactivity to Ambrosia (parallel line biological assay), and pollen counts were assessed throughout the trial.

Results Twenty-three patients completed the trial. No severe adverse event was observed. During the DBPC phase, actively treated patients showed an improvement in asthmatic symptoms (P=0.02) and drug (P=0.0068) scores days with asthmatic symptoms (P=0.003), days with rhinitis symptoms (P=0.05), and days with intake of drugs (P=0.0058), as compared to before therapy. No improvement for any of these parameters was detected in the placebo group. Moreover, the number of days with rhinitis and asthma was significantly higher in the placebo as compared to the active group (P=0.048 and P<0.0001, respectively). Patients who switched from placebo to active therapy improved in rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, and drug intake. The skin reactivity decreased significantly (12.2-fold, P=0.0001) in the active group whereas a slight increase (1.07-fold, P=0.87) was observed in the placebo group after the DBPC phase. After switching to active therapy, patients previously under placebo showed a significant decrease of this parameter (4.78-fold, P=0.002).

Conclusion Injective immunotherapy is safe and clinically effective in European patients sensitized to Ambrosia.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a biologically standardized extract of Ambrosia artemisiifolia pollen: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

F. Mocchetti

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a biologically standardized extract of Ambrosia artemisiifolia pollen: a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study