Artificial Intelligence-Supported Development of Health Guideline Questions.

BACKGROUND: Guideline questions are typically proposed by experts. OBJECTIVE: To assess how large language models (LLMs) can support the development of guideline questions, providing insights on approaches and lessons learned. DESIGN: Two approaches for guideline question generation were assessed: 1) identification of questions conveyed by online search queries and 2) direct generation of guideline questions by LLMs. For the former, the researchers retrieved popular queries on allergic rhinitis using Google Trends (GT) and identified those conveying questions using both manual and LLM-based methods. They then manually structured as guideline questions the queries that conveyed relevant questions. For the second approach, they tasked an LLM with proposing guideline questions, assuming the role of either a patient or a clinician. SETTING: Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2024 guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of relevant questions generated. RESULTS: The authors retrieved 3975 unique queries using GT. From these, they identified 37 questions, of which 22 had not been previously posed by guideline panel members and 2 were eventually prioritized by the panel. Direct interactions with LLMs resulted in the generation of 22 unique relevant questions (11 not previously suggested by panel members), and 4 were eventually prioritized by the panel. In total, 6 of 39 final questions prioritized for the 2024 ARIA guidelines were not initially thought of by the panel. The researchers provide a set of practical insights on the implementation of their approaches based on the lessons learned. LIMITATION: Single case study (ARIA guidelines). CONCLUSION: Approaches using LLMs can support the development of guideline questions, complementing traditional methods and potentially augmenting questions prioritized by guideline panels. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-Mediated Diseases.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVES: We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. METHODS: The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

HLA and Delayed Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity.

Delayed drug allergy reactions (DDAR) are potentially fatal. Certain human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles have been associated with delayed allergy reactions following the administration of particular drugs. Examples are HLA-B*57:01 (abacavir), HLA-B*15:02/HLA-A*31:01 (carbamazepine), and HLA-B*58:01 (allopurinol). Based on the identification of these associations, it may now be possible to prevent certain allergy reactions that were, until recently, considered unpredictable. In this review, we will focus on the pharmacogenetics of the best-studied associations between specific HLA alleles and delayed allergy reactions and describe the pathogenesis models proposed so far. Finally, we will evaluate the genetic screening strategies available and discuss the clinical relevance of a better understanding of the immunogenetics and mechanisms involved in DDAR.

Protocol for the systematic reviews on the desirable and undesirable effects of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis informing the ARIA 2024 guidelines.

There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (AR). In the context of informing the 2024 revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines, we plan to perform three systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the desirable and undesirable effects (i) between intranasal and oral medications for AR; (ii) between combinations of intranasal and oral medications versus nasal or oral medications alone; and (iii) among different intranasal specific medications. We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs examining patients ≥ 12 years old with seasonal or perennial AR. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. If appropriate, we will perform a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis for each pair of assessed medication classes and outcomes, as well as a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy of intranasal medications among each other. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This set of systematic reviews will allow for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for AR and inform recommendations in the context of the ARIA guidelines.

Intranasal versus oral treatments for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for allergic rhinitis include intranasal or oral medications. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists in improving allergic rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. METHODS: We searched four bibliographic databases and three clinical trial datasets for randomised controlled trials (i) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis, and (ii) comparing intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus oral antihistamines or leukotriene receptor antagonists. We performed a meta-analysis of the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), development of adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 35 studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and displayed an unclear risk of bias. Superiority of intranasal treatments was found for all assessed outcomes. Intranasal corticosteroids were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (MD=-0.86; 95%CI=-1.21;-0.51; I2=70%), TOSS (MD=-0.36; 95%CI=-0.56;-0.17; I2=0%) and RQLQ (MD=-0.88; 95%CI=-1.15;-0.61; I2=0%), being mostly associated with clinically meaningful improvements. Superiority of intranasal corticosteroids at improving the TNSS was also found against oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (MD=-1.05; 95%CI=-1.33;-0.77). Intranasal antihistamines were more effective than oral antihistamines at improving the TNSS (MD=-0.47; 95%CI=-0.81;-0.14; I2=0%) and RQLQ (MD=-0.31; 95%CI=-0.56;-0.06; I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials suggest that intranasal treatments are more effective than oral treatments at improving symptoms and quality of life in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids are some of the most frequently used drug classes in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness differences may exist among different intranasal specific medications. This systematic review aims to analyse and synthesise all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in rhinitis nasal and ocular symptoms and in rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality-of-life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs (1) assessing patients ≥12 years old with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis and (2) comparing the use of intranasal antihistamines or corticosteroids versus placebo. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), the Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Certainty in the body of evidence for the analysed outcomes will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis for each assessed medication and outcome, presenting results as pooled mean differences and standardised mean differences. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses, considering (1) the risk of bias, (2) the follow-up period and (3) the drug dose. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023416573.