Objective To review the research progress of the feasibility of a new treatment method for atrophic rhinitis (ATR) based on tissue engineering technology (seed cells, scaffold materials, and growth factors), and provide new ideas for the treatment of ATR. MethodsThe literature related to ATR was extensively reviewed. Focusing on the three aspects of seed cells, scaffold materials, and growth factors, the recent research progress of ATR treatment was reviewed, and the future directions of tissue engineering technology to treat ATR were proposed. Results The pathogenesis and etiology of ATR are still unclear, and the effectiveness of the current treatments are still unsatisfactory. The construction of a cell-scaffold complex with sustained and controlled release of exogenous cytokines is expected to reverse the pathological changes of ATR, promoting the regeneration of normal nasal mucosa and reconstructing the atrophic turbinate. In recent years, the research progress of exosomes, three-dimensional printing, and organoids will promote the development of tissue engineering technology for ATR. ConclusionTissue engineering technology can provide a new treatment method for ATR.
ObjectiveTo investigate the common inhalant allergens causing allergic rhinitis in underage patients, and provide references for clinical prevention of allergic rhinitis.
MethodsUnderage patients with allergic rhinitis admitted to our hospital between January 2010 and June 2013 were screened and skin prick test (SPT) was applied to investigate the response intensity to 22 kinds of common inhalant allergens and analyze the correlation of the positive rates and grades of allergens with age and sex.
ResultsA total of 402 patients were included, and 77.6% (312/402) of them reported positive reaction of SPT; and the top five allergens were dust mites (242/402, 60.2%), house dust (235/402, 58.5%), housefly (142/402, 35.3%), spring pollen Ⅲ (133/402, 33.1%) and mulberry silk (121/402, 30.1%), respectively. Compared with patients whose age was younger than 5 years, both the positive rates and grades of SPT were significantly higher in patients above 5 years old. Additionally, the higher positive rates and grades of SPT were also observed much more in male patients than female patients.
ConclusionThe most common inhalant allergens causing allergic rhinitis in underage patients are dust mites and house dust. And the SPT response intensity of inhalant allergens can be affected by age and gender.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of compound loratadine capsule in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Methods A multi-center randomized single blind controlled trial (by using a random number table generated random sequence and the sequence was concealed by sealed envelopes) was designed. Two hundred and forty outpatients with allergic rhinitis who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized to the treatment group (n=120 with compound loratadine capsule, 1 capsule q 24 h) or the control group (n=120 with loratadine tablet, 1 tablet q 12 h). All patients were given standard therapy. Results ① At the end of the treatment, in the compound loratadine group, 101 patients completed the study, and 19 patients withdrew. In the loratadine group, 103 patients completed the study, 17 patients withdrew. According to intention-to-treat analysis (ITT), the improvement rates of the treatment and control groups were 89.17% (107/120) and 88.33% (106/120) respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups (rank sum test, u=-1.8348, P＞0.05). According to per-protocol analysis (PP), the improvement rates of the treatment and control groups were 96.04% (97/101) and 91.26% (94/103) respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups (rank sum test, u=-1.625 7, P＞0.05). ② Adverse events were slight to moderate.The adverse event rates were 22.5% (27/120) and 21.67% (26/120) in the treatment and control groups respectively. No significant difference was seen between the two groups ( χ2 test, P＞0.05). Conclusion Compound loratadine capsule is effective and safe for allergic rhinitis.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of dust mite sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis.
MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) about SLIT treating allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients was searched in PubMed, EMbase, CBM, Ovid, The Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2014), CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to May 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.
ResultsA total of nine RCTs including 663 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that:the trial group was superior to the control group in reducing the scores of drug use (SMD=-0.61, 95%CI-0.94 to-0.27, P=0.000 4) and mite-specific serum IgE levels (follow-up time > 22 weeks:SMD=0.71, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.12, P=0.000 5). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the scores of nasal symptoms (SMD=0.06, 95%CI-0.13 to 0.25, P=0.55) and the incidence of adverse reaction (OR=1.3, 95%CI 0.89 to 1.90, P=0.17).
ConclusionSLIT could decrease the use frequency of antihistamine, β-agonist and nasal spray steroids, and it has less adverse reaction and better safety in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis. But SLIT could neither effectively alleviate nasal symptoms nor reduce mite-specific serum IgE levels of pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis in a short time.
ObjectiveTo observe the effect of Budesonide formoterol inhalant on teenager patients with allergic rhinitis accompanied with asthma.
MethodsForty-five teenager patients with allergic rhinitis accompanied with asthma treated between January 2012 and December 2013 were randomly divided into general treatment group, budesonide group and budesonide formoterol group, with 15 patients in each. Another 15 subjects undergoing physical examination were designated as the control group. Besides routine treatment, the budesonide group was also treated with budesonide inhalation at 100-200 μg twice a day, and the budesonide formoterol group was also treated with budesonide formoterol inhalation at 160 μg and 4.5 μg twice a day. The course of treatment lasted for four weeks. The patients were followed up for four weeks after the use of medicine halted. After treatment, exhaled nitric oxide (NO) examination were performed.
ResultsThe amount of NO in the exhaled gas in all the three treatment groups were significantly different from the control group (P<0.05), and it was also significantly different between the Budesonide group and the budesonide formoterol group (P<0.05).
ConclusionBudesonide formoterol inhalant has a good effect on teenager patients with allergic rhinitis accompanied with asthma in terms of improving exhaled NO.
摘要:目的:評價孟魯司特用于過敏性鼻炎的臨床療效和安全性。方法:計算機檢索PubMed、維普及CNKI數據庫,手工收集有關孟魯司特用于過敏性鼻炎治療的臨床研究,根據納入和剔除標準匯集文獻,采用Jadad量表進行納入文獻質量評價,對總體治療有效性使用Revman4.2軟件進行Meta分析。結果:療效評價共納入9個臨床隨機對照研究共650例。有效率孟魯司特組高于對照組,異質性檢驗顯示各亞組及其合并總有效率P值均大于0.1,I2lt;50%,采用固定效應模型計算。2周時孟魯司特組和對照組無統計學差異(Pgt;0.1),但2月、3月時二組均有顯著性統計學差異(Plt;0.000 01),三個亞組綜合分析孟魯司特組和對照組有顯著性統計學差異(Plt;0.000 01),不良反應差異無統計學意義。結論:現有臨床證據顯示孟魯司特較傳統抗過敏藥物對過敏性鼻炎的治療有效,但由于納入研究存在選擇性偏倚和測量性偏倚的可能性,勢必影響結果的論證強度。故期待更多高質量的隨機雙盲對照試驗性研究,以提供更高質量的證據。Abstract: Objective: To evaluate montelukast for allergic rhinitis clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: We searched the PubMed,VIP and CNKI databases, manual collection of clinical study about allergic rhinitis treatment of montelukast, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for pooling of literature, Jadad scale used for quality assessment of the literature. Then use Revman4.2 Meta analysis software to evaluate the overall effectiveness. Results: Nine RCT clinical study have been included, The results showed that montelukast group was higher than control group on efficient control, Heterogeneity test showed that the subgroup and its total effective rate is Pgt;01,I2lt;50%. Therefore, we adopted a fixed effects model. After 2 weeks montelukast group and the control group no significant difference (Pgt;0.1). But after 2,3 month the two groups were statistically significant differences(Plt;0.000 01). On a comprehensive analysis of the three subgroups, montelukast group and the control group statistically significant differences(Plt;0.000 01), adverse drug reactions was no significant difference. Conclusion: The available clinical evidence to show that montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and effective, However, due to the existence of selection and measurement bias, This may affect the outcome of the argument strength.Therefore look forward to more highquality randomized and doubleblind controlled trials to provide highquality evidence.
