No abstract

Purpose The allergic phenotype of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and central compartment atopic disease (CCAD) have been described. The CCAD is a radiological phenotype in patients with CRS that presents as a central mucosal disease due to allergy. The subset of patients having chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has not been well characterized. We aim to describe the clinical and radiological characterizations of patients presenting with the allergic phenotype of CRSwNP. Patients and Methods A cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital was performed. Adult patients diagnosed with CRSwNP who had both allergology and radiological assessments were enrolled. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis, Lund–Kennedy (LK) endoscopic scoring, Lund–Mackay (LM) computed tomography scan of paranasal sinuses (CTPNS) scoring, CCAD features, skin prick test (SPT) and level of specific IgE were assessed. All the patients underwent SPT for house dust mites. Results A total of 38 patients were enrolled. Symptoms, endoscopic and CTPNS scores were higher in the allergy and CCAD groups compared to the nonallergy and nonCCAD groups. The symptom of “need to blow nose” was statistically significant in allergy vs nonallergy ( p =0.01) and CCAD vs nonCCAD ( p =0.02). There were significant differences in the endoscopic scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p =0.01; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p =0.03), and CT scores in both allergy and CCAD (allergy vs nonallergy, p =0.02; CCAD vs nonCCAD, p =0.02). All patients with CCAD have worse scoring than nonCCAD (LK score, p =0.03; LM score, p =0.02). Patients with allergy have more polypoidal involvement of the middle turbinates (left middle turbinate, p =0.141; right middle turbinate, p =0.074) and CCAD (left middle turbinate, p =0.017; right middle turbinate, p =0.009) than nonallergy and nonCCAD patients. Conclusion Allergic phenotype of CRSwNP has a worse clinical and radiological disease burden. Optimal treatment of allergy is essential for a better outcome.

No abstract

Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating AR. An electronic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing bilastine with placebo and standard pharmacotherapy were included. The included studies must have diagnosis of AR established by clinicians and the outcomes must have a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up period. The primary outcomes assessed were total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (NSS) and non-nasal symptom score (NNSS). The secondary outcomes were discomfort due to rhinitis, quality of life (QOL) and adverse events. The risk of bias and quality of evidence for all studies were appraised. The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. The search identified 135 records after removal of duplicates. Following screening and review of the records, fifteen full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Five trials involving 3,329 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bilastine was superior to placebo in improving TSS, NSS, NNSS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL but has comparable efficacy with other OAHs in TSS, NSS, NNS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL. There was no difference in adverse effects when bilastine was compared against placebo and other OAHs except for somnolence. Bilastine has fewer incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high quality. Bilastine is effective and safe in treating the overall symptoms of AR with comparable efficacy and safety with other OAHs except somnolence. Whilst bilastine has similar efficacy to cetirizine, somnolence is notably less in bilastine.

Background Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a potential treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). We aimed to determine the efficacy (primary outcomes) and safety (secondary outcomes) of ILIT in treating patients with AR. 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.