Clinical practice guideline for acupuncture and moxibustion: allergic rhinitis

Acupuncture is one of the most effective complementary therapies for allergic rhinitis (AR) and has been recommended by several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for AR. However, these CPGs mentioned acupuncture without making recommendations for clinical implementation and therapeutic protocols, therefore limiting the applicability of acupuncture therapies for AR. Hence, for the benefit of acupuncture practitioners around the world, the World Federation of Acupuncture-moxibustion Societies have initiated a project to develop the CPG for the use of acupuncture and moxibustion to treat AR. This CPG was developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, referring to the principles of the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. During the development of the CPG, the guideline development group (GDG) played an important role. The clinical questions, recommendations and therapeutic protocols were all formulated by the GDG using the modified Delphi method. The CPG contains recommendations for 15 clinical questions about the use of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions. These include one strong recommendation for the intervention based on high-quality evidence, three conditional recommendations for either the intervention or standard care, and 11 conditional recommendations for the intervention based on very low quality of evidence. The CPG also provides one filiform needle acupuncture protocol and five moxibustion protocols extracted based on the protocols presented in randomized controlled trials reviewed by the GDG.

Medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single medicinal plants in the management of allergic rhinitis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials which evaluated the use of single medicinal plant for allergic rhinitis among adults and children. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (n = 1879) were eligible while 27 (n = 1769) contributed data for meta-analyses. Most studies (studies = 20) compared medicinal plants against placebo and Petasites hybridus was most frequently investigated (studies = 5). Very-low-to-low-certainty evidence suggests that compared to placebo, single medicinal plants may improve overall total nasal symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02; participants = 249; studies = 5; I2 = 21%) especially nasal congestion and sneezing; and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ) scores (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.07; participants = 148; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Moderate-certainty evidence show no clear differences between single medicinal plants and antihistamine in overall symptoms (Total nasal symptoms: SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.18; participants = 149; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). As adjunctive therapy, moderate-certainty evidence shows that medicinal plants improved SNOT-22 scores when given as intranasal treatment (MD -7.47, 95% CI -10.75 to -4.18; participants = 124; studies = 2; I2 = 21%). Risk of bias domains were low or not clearly reported in most studies while heterogeneity was substantial in most pooled outcomes. Route of administration and age were identified to be plausible source of heterogeneity for certain outcomes. Medicinal plants appear to be well tolerated up to 8 weeks of use. Clear beneficial evidence of medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis is still lacking. There is a need for improved reporting of herbal trials to allow for critical assessment of the effects of each individual medicinal plant preparation in well-designed future clinical studies.

[Integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of combined allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome].

Combined allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome (CARAS) refers to a common respiratory disease that occurs simultaneously with clinical or subclinical allergic symptoms of the upper respiratory tract (allergic rhinitis) and the lower respiratory tract (asthma). The incidence of CARAS is high and the quality of life of the patients is greatly affected. At present, treatment of this comprehensive disease is often carried out separately in the otorhinolaryngology and respiratory departments. One of the reasons is a lack of coordinated treatment consensus on the comprehensive management of this disease. As a common respiratory disease, this syndrome also has a profound clinical basis of traditional Chinese medicine in its diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the Allergy Committee of Chinese Association of Integrative Medicine organized domestic experts in respiratory medicine, otolaryngology, allergy, pediatrics, traditional Chinese Medicine internal medicine and other related fields to discuss and summarize the etiology and anatomical characteristics, pathophysiology and pathogenesis, laboratory examination, diagnostic evaluation and differential diagnosis as well as treatment of both traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine, in order to provide integrated diagnosis and treatment opinions for this common integrative disease of upper and lower respiratory system in clinical practice.

Clinical practice guideline for acupuncture and moxibustion: Allergic rhinitis.

Acupuncture is one of the most effective complementary therapies for allergic rhinitis (AR) and has been recommended by several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for AR. However, these CPGs mentioned acupuncture without making recommendations for clinical implementation and therapeutic protocols, therefore limiting the applicability of acupuncture therapies for AR. Hence, for the benefit of acupuncture practitioners around the world, the World Federation of Acupuncture-moxibustion Societies have initiated a project to develop the CPG for the use of acupuncture and moxibustion to treat AR. This CPG was developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, referring to the principles of the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. During the development of the CPG, the guideline development group (GDG) played an important role. The clinical questions, recommendations and therapeutic protocols were all formulated by the GDG using the modified Delphi method. The CPG contains recommendations for 15 clinical questions about the use of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions. These include one strong recommendation for the intervention based on high-quality evidence, three conditional recommendations for either the intervention or standard care, and 11 conditional recommendations for the intervention based on very low quality of evidence. The CPG also provides one filiform needle acupuncture protocol and five moxibustion protocols extracted based on the protocols presented in randomized controlled trials reviewed by the GDG. Please cite this article as: Du SH, Chen S, Wang SZ, Wang GQ, Du S, Guo W, Xie XL, Peng BH, Yang C, Zhao JP. Clinical practice guideline for acupuncture and moxibustion: Allergic rhinitis. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(3): 245-257.

Comparison of treatment efficacy of omega-3 fish oil and montelukast in ovalbumin-protease-induced allergic rhinitis model in rats.

OBJECTIVES: Montelukast is a well-known leukotriene receptor antagonist commonly used in treating allergic rhinitis and asthma. Omega-3 fatty acid is also known as an antiallergic and immunomodulator molecule. This study aimed to elucidate the efficacy of systemic montelukast and omega-3 fatty acid treatment in allergic rhinitis models in Wistar Hannover rats. METHODS: This research was conducted on 28 healthy Wistar Hannover rats weighing 250-350 g. After establishing the allergic rhinitis model, nasal symptoms were observed and scored, and the nasal mucosa of all rats was investigated histologically. Light microscopy was utilized to evaluate the degree of ciliary loss, goblet cell hyperplasia, vascular congestion, vascular proliferation, inflammatory cell infiltration, eosinophil infiltration, and hypertrophy in chondrocytes. RESULTS: As a result of the analysis of the data obtained from the study, it was determined that typical allergic rhinitis symptoms such as nasal scratching and sneezing were significantly reduced in the rats in the montelukast and omega-3 treated group, and these symptoms did not increase after repeated intranasal OVA-protease applications. Histological examinations after fish oil treatment did not reveal typical inflammatory changes in allergic rhinitis. None of the rats in the montelukast and omega-3 groups had any increase in goblet cells, whereas 14.3% of the rats in the control group and 28.6% of the rats in the allergic rhinitis group had mild increase. Last but not least, 71.4% of rats in the allergic rhinitis group had a moderate increase. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Regarding the outcomes of this research, it was observed that w-3 fatty acids had antiallergic effects, both histopathological and clinical, in the allergic rhinitis model. We believe that further randomized controlled trials incorporating larger cohorts are warranted to verify the use of omega-3 fatty acids in treating allergic rhinitis. The level of evidence of this article is Level 2.

Translation and Validation of the Chinese Language Version of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis.

Objective: Due to the escalating global prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and its status as an independent risk factor for asthma, timely and effective control of AR is crucial. Achieving this often involves the accurate assessment of AR. Currently, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is widely used as an assessment tool, but its measurement effectiveness in Chinese AR patients remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARAT10 scale (CARAT10-C) and analyze its application value in the assessment of allergic rhinitis and asthma control trials. Methods: The study enrolled 130 patients with AR from the Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) outpatient department of a comprehensive teaching hospital from March to May 2022 as participants. The reliability and validity of the CARAT10-C scale were assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (CAC), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), and Bartlett's sphericity test. Additionally, the study analyzed the effectiveness of the CARAT10-C scale in its application within the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT). Results: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranges between 0 and 1, with higher values indicating better reliability. Significant differences in exploratory factor analysis suggest good validity. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the CARAT10-C scale was 0.806. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the eigenvalues of Component 1 (3.851) and Component 2 (2.193) were both greater than 1, with a cumulative variance contribution rate (CVCR) of 60.436%. Items 6-10 were primarily loaded on Component 1 (Asthma), while items 1-4 were mainly influenced by Component 2 (AR), with loading ranges of 0.508-0.874, all significant at P < .001. The composite reliability (CAC) of the CARAT10-C scale was 0.806, exceeding 0.8, indicating high reliability. Component 1 had a CAC of 0.834, and Component 2 had a CACs of 0.807, both exceeding 0.8, indicating high reliability for both components. Conclusion: The CARAT10-C scale demonstrates good reliability and validity in the preliminary assessment of AR. It holds potential value in the evaluation and management of AR in China, although the specific application effects still require further investigation.

[Study on allergen components of birch pollen in Beijing area].

Objective:To explore the allergen components of birch pollen in the Beijing area and interpret its clinical significance. Methods:A total of 58 patients with birch pollen allergy were included in the cross-sectional study and divided into allergic rhinitis（AR） and allergic asthma（AA） groups according to clinical manifestations. Concentration of birch pollen allergen sIgE, as well as Bet v 1, Bet v 2, Bet v 4 and Bet v 6 sIgE were detected by ImmunoCAP immunolinked immunoassay. Differences of sIgE concentration of birch pollen allergen component in AR and AA were analyzed. Results:There were 44（75.9%） cases of AR and 14（24.1%） cases of AA were enrolled. All the 18 patients with spring pollen allergy were AR patients without AA. There were 40 cases with both spring and autumn pollen allergy, of which 26 cases（65%） were AR and 14 cases（35%） were AA. The sIgE of birch pollen allergen was level 2 or above in all subjects. 94.8% were positive for any four allergen components. 77.6% were mono-sensitized to any allergen component while 17.2% were dual-sensitized. The positive rate of Bet v 1 and/or Bet v 2 was 93.1%. The positive rates of four protein components were: Bet v 1（82.8%）, Bet v 2（29.3%）, Bet v 6（1.7%）, Bet v 4（0%）. sIgE of birch pollen was positively correlated with sIgE level of Betv 1（r=0.898, P<0.001）. The sIgE concentration of Bet v2 in AA group was significantly higher than that in AR group（[4.34±14.35] kUA/L vs [1.56±3.26] kUA/L, P<0.05）. There was no significant difference in other components. Conclusion:Bet v 1 is the main allergen component of birch pollen in the Beijing area, and Bet v 1 plus Bet v 2 can diagnose more than 90% of birch pollen allergy.

Mahuang Fuzi Xixin decoction alleviates allergic rhinitis by inhibiting NLRP3/Caspase-1/GSDMD-N-mediated pyroptosis.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent nasal inflammatory disorder, and pyroptosis plays a crucial role in aggravating AR. Current medications for AR treatment still have deficiencies, and finding new agents is of great interest. Mahuang Fuzi Xixin decoction (MFXD), an ancient Chinese medicine, is now commonly used to treat AR, which has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects, but its underlying mechanism is unknown. AIM OF THIS STUDY: This study aims to evaluate the effects of MFXD on AR and explore its potential mechanisms in view of the regulatory effect on pyroptosis. METHODS: MFXD, Mahuang, Fuzi, and Xixin water extracts were analyzed using ultra high performance liquid chromatography-Orbitrap-high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry. In in vivo study, the effects of MFXD on AR treatment were evaluated in an ovalbumin-induced mouse model. Mice were administered saline (control and model groups), MFXD (1.375, 2.75 g/kg), and dexamethasone (2.5 mg/kg) for 13 days. AR symptoms were evaluated by blinded observers. Immunoglobulin E (IgE) and histamine levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Expression of pyroptosis-related proteins (NLRP3, ASC, Caspase-1 p10/p20, GSDMD-N and IL-1ß) in AR mouse nasal mucosa were estimated by immunohistochemistry. In in vivtro study, the effects of MFXD on pyroptosis were assessed in human nasal epithelial cells (HNEpCs) stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and incubated with MFXD (12.5, 25, and 50 µg/mL). Pyroptosis-related protein expression was measured by western blotting. RESULTS: Thirty-three compounds in MFXD were identified, including ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, higenamine, aconine, aconitine, benzoylmesaconitine, benzoylhypaconine and hypaconitine. In the in vivo study, oral taken of MFXD/dexamethasone significantly ameliorated AR symptoms, reduced swelling of the nasal mucosa, and decreased the levels of IgE and histamine in AR mice serum. MFXD/dexamethasone attenuated histopathological changes and reduced the expression of pyroptosis-related proteins in nasal mucosa, indicating the inhibitory effect on nasal epithelial pyroptosis. In the in vitro study, MFXD (50 µg/mL) significantly alleviated cytotoxicity, protected cells from swelling and rupture, and downregulated the expression of pyroptosis-related proteins in LPS/ATP-induced HNEpCs. CONCLUSION: MFXD suppressed nasal epithelial pyroptosis by inhibiting the NLRP3/Caspase-1/GSDMD-N signaling pathway, which alleviates AR. Our results offer valuable insights into potential AR therapies and provide evidence for the clinical utilization of MFXD to treat AR.

Method to develop a regional guide for the allergenic potential of tree pollen.

Allergic rhinitis, caused by airborne pollen, is a common disease with a great impact on the quality of life for patients and high costs for society. Prevention of high pollen concentrations in the air is relevant for creating a safe environment for allergic patients. Due to climate change, the heat in cities during the summer is a recurring problem. The local climate can be improved by using the cooling properties of trees, providing shade and cooling by evapotranspiration. When deciding which tree species will be planted, it is important to take into account the allergenicity of the pollen that the tree produces. Available guides, used all over the world, on the allergenicity of pollen are very divers in content and interpretation and not applicable for the Netherlands. In this study a method is described to develop a guide for the allergenic potential of tree pollen in a region, in this case the Netherlands. For the most common tree species in the Netherlands the scientific knowledge on the allergenicity of the pollen was collected, followed by an inventory on regional pollen abundance. Subsequently, the sensitization pattern in a patient group with possible inhalation allergy was analyzed. Based on these data allergenicity of the tree pollen was classified into five classes. Eight tree species/genera of the 61 most planted tree species in the Netherlands are considered to have a very strong to moderate allergenic potential. We propose to use this methodology to develop regional-specific guides classifying the allergenic potential of tree pollen.

Three Artemisia pollens trigger the onset of allergic rhinitis via TLR4/MyD88 signaling pathway.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of allergic rhinitis is high, making it a relatively common chronic condition. Countless patients suffer from seasonal Allergic rhinitis (AR). The objective of this investigation is to examine the potential involvement of common pollen allergens in seasonal allergic rhinitis, and study the proposed mechanism of Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)/Myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (MyD88) signaling pathway in the induction of AR. METHOD: A mouse AR model (sensitized group) was constructed with pollen extracts and ovalbumin (OVA) of Artemisia annua (An), Artemisia argyi (Ar) and Artemisia Sieversiana (Si), and thereafter, AR symptom score was performed. After successful modeling, mouse serum and nasal mucosa tissues were extracted for subsequent experiments. The expression levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE), Interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-13 and Tumor Necrosis Factor-α (TNF-α) in serum were detected using Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining methods were used to observe the pathological changes of the nasal mucosal tissue; Utilizing immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining, the expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) p65 in mouse nasal mucosa were quantified; The mRNA and protein expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 in nasal mucosa of sensitized mice were detected with Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) and Western Blot. Finally, the in vitro culture of Human nasal mucosal epithelial cells (HNEpC) cells was conducted, and cells were treated with 200 µg/ml Artemisia annua pollen extract and OVA for 24 h. Western Blot assay was used to detect the expression level of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 proteins before and after HNEpC cells were treated with MyD88 inhibitor ST-2825. RESULT: On the second day after AR stimulation, the mice showed obvious AR symptoms. H&E results showed that compared to the control group, the nasal mucosal tissue in the sensitized group was significantly more inflamed. Furthermore, ELISA assay showed increased expression levels of IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13 and TNF-α in serum of mice induced by OVA and Artemisia annua pollen, Artemisia argyi pollen and Artemisia Sieversiana pollen than those of the control group. However, the expression level of IL-2 was lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Using Immunohistochemistry staining visually observed the expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 in mouse nasal mucosa tissues and quantitatively analyzed. The expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 in the sensitized group were higher than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The results from qRT-PCR and Western Blot showed that the mRNA and protein expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 in nasal mucosa of the sensitized group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Finally, HNEpC cells were cultured in vitro and analyzed using Western Blot. The expression levels of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB p65 in OVA and An groups were significantly increased (P < 0.05). After ST-2825 treatment, TLR4 protein expression was significantly increased (P < 0.05) and MyD88 and NF-κB p65 protein expression were significantly decreased (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: To sum up, the occurrence and development of AR induced by OVA and pollen of Artemisia annua, Artemisia argyi and Artemisia Sieversiana were related to TLR4/MyD88 signal pathway.

WU Zhongchao's experience in treatment of allergic rhinitis by acupuncture-moxibustion at "band-like function zone of back-shu points". / 吴中朝针灸背俞功能带治疗变应性鼻炎经验撷要.

The paper introduces professor WU Zhongchao's clinical experience in treatment of allergic rhinitis by acupuncture and moxibustion. Allergic rhinitis is closely associated with the dysfunction of lung, spleen and kidney. Based on the theory of "band-like function zone of back-shu points", the main acupoints related to the affected zangfu organs are selected to enhance the conductivity, regulate zangfu function and strengthen the antipathogenic qi specially; and the supplementary points are combined in terms of syndrome/pattern differentiation so that both symptoms and root causes of the disease can be treated simultaneously, the symptoms of allergic rhinitis be attenuated and the recurrence be prevented.

[Standard technical specifications for methacholine chloride (Methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023)].

The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value in the diagnosis and treatment of bronchial asthma. A consensus working group consisting of experts from the Pulmonary Function and Clinical Respiratory Physiology Committee of the Chinese Association of Chest Physicians, the Task Force for Pulmonary Function of the Chinese Thoracic Society, and the Pulmonary Function Group of Respiratory Branch of the Chinese Geriatric Society jointly developed this consensus. Based on the "Guidelines for Pulmonary Function-Bronchial Provocation Test" published in 2014, the issues encountered in its use, and recent developments, the group has updated the Standard technical specifications of methacholine chloride (methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023). Through an extensive collection of expert opinions, literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, and multiple rounds of online and offline discussions, the consensus addressed the eleven core issues in MCT's clinical practice, including indications, contraindications, preparation of provocative agents, test procedures and methods, quality control, safety management, interpretation of results, and reporting standards. The aim was to provide clinical pulmonary function practitioners in healthcare institutions with the tools to optimize the use of this technique to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment.Summary of recommendationsQuestion 1: Who is suitable for conducting MCT? What are contraindications for performing MCT?Patients with atypical symptoms and a clinical suspicion of asthma, patients diagnosed with asthma requiring assessment of the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness, individuals with allergic rhinitis who are at risk of developing asthma, patients in need of evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment, individuals in occupations with high safety risks due to airway hyperresponsiveness, patients with chronic diseases prone to airway hyperresponsiveness, others requiring assessment of airway reactivity.Absolute contraindications: (1) Patients who are allergic to methacholine (MCh) or other parasympathomimetic drugs, with allergic reactions including rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face, tongue, and throat), severe dizziness, and dyspnea; (2) Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma attacks or those who have required mechanical ventilation for asthma attacks in the past three months; (3) Patients with moderate to severe impairment of baseline pulmonary function [Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) less than 60% of the predicted value or FEV1<1.0 L]; (4) Severe urticaria; (5) Other situations inappropriate for forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement, such as myocardial infarction or stroke in the past three months, poorly controlled hypertension, aortic aneurysm, recent eye surgery, or increased intracranial pressure.Relative contraindications: (1) Moderate or more severe impairment of baseline lung function (FEV1%pred<70%), but individuals with FEV1%pred>60% may still be considered for MCT with strict observation and adequate preparation; (2) Experiencing asthma acute exacerbation; (3) Poor cooperation with baseline lung function tests that do not meet quality control requirements; (4) Recent respiratory tract infection (<4 weeks); (5) Pregnant or lactating women; (6) Patients currently using cholinesterase inhibitors (for the treatment of myasthenia gravis); (7) Patients who have previously experienced airway spasm during pulmonary function tests, with a significant decrease in FEV1 even without the inhalation of provocative.Question 2: How to prepare and store the challenge solution for MCT?Before use, the drug must be reconstituted and then diluted into various concentrations for provocation. The dilution concentration and steps for MCh vary depending on the inhalation method and provocation protocol used. It is important to follow specific steps. Typically, a specified amount of diluent is added to the methacholine reagent bottle for reconstitution, and the mixture is shaken until the solution becomes clear. The diluent is usually physiological saline, but saline with phenol (0.4%) can also be used. Phenol can reduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, and its presence does not interfere with the provocation test. After reconstitution, other concentrations of MCh solution are prepared using the same diluent, following the dilution steps, and then stored separately in sterile containers. Preparers should carefully verify and label the concentration and preparation time of the solution and complete a preparation record form. The reconstituted and diluted MCh solution is ready for immediate use without the need for freezing. It can be stored for two weeks if refrigerated (2-8 ℃). The reconstituted solution should not be stored directly in the nebulizer reservoir to prevent crystallization from blocking the capillary opening and affecting aerosol output. The temperature of the solution can affect the production of the nebulizer and cause airway spasms in the subject upon inhaling cold droplets. Thus, refrigerated solutions should be brought to room temperature before use.Question 3: What preparation is required for subjects prior to MCT?(1) Detailed medical history inquiry and exclusion of contraindications.(2) Inquiring about factors and medications that may affect airway reactivity and assessing compliance with medication washout requirements: When the goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma treatment, bronchodilators other than those used for asthma treatment do not need to be discontinued. Antihistamines and cromolyn have no effect on MCT responses, and the effects of a single dose of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are minimal, thus not requiring cessation before the test. For patients routinely using corticosteroids, whether to discontinue the medication depends on the objective of the test: if assisting in the diagnosis of asthma, differential diagnosis, aiding in step-down therapy for asthma, or exploring the effect of discontinuing anti-inflammatory treatment, corticosteroids should be stopped before the provocation test; if the patient is already diagnosed with asthma and the objective is to observe the level of airway reactivity under controlled medication conditions, then discontinuation is not necessary. Medications such as IgE monoclonal antibodies, IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies, traditional Chinese medicine, and ethnic medicines may interfere with test results, and clinicians should decide whether to discontinue these based on the specific circumstances.(3) Explaining the test procedure and potential adverse reactions, and obtaining informed consent if necessary.Question 4: What are the methods of the MCT? And which ones are recommended in current clinical practice?Commonly used methods for MCT in clinical practice include the quantitative nebulization method (APS method), Forced Oscillalion method (Astograph method), 2-minute tidal breathing method (Cockcroft method), hand-held quantitative nebulization method (Yan method), and 5-breath method (Chai 5-breath method). The APS method allows for precise dosing of inhaled Methacholine, ensuring accurate and reliable results. The Astograph method, which uses respiratory resistance as an assessment indicator, is easy for subjects to perform and is the simplest operation. These two methods are currently the most commonly used clinical practice in China.Question 5: What are the steps involved in MCT?The MCT consists of the following four steps:(1) Baseline lung function test: After a 15-minute rest period, the subjects assumes a seated position and wear a nose clip for the measurement of pulmonary function indicators [such as FEV1 or respiratory resistance (Rrs)]. FEV1 should be measured at least three times according to spirometer quality control standards, ensuring that the best two measurements differ by less than 150 ml and recording the highest value as the baseline. Usually, if FEV1%pred is below 70%, proceeding with the challenge test is not suitable, and a bronchodilation test should be considered. However, if clinical assessment of airway reactivity is necessary and FEV1%pred is between 60% and 70%, the provocation test may still be conducted under close observation, ensuring the subject's safety. If FEV1%pred is below 60%, it is an absolute contraindication for MCT.(2) Inhalation of diluent and repeat lung function test for control values: the diluent, serving as a control for the inhaled MCh, usually does not significantly impact the subject's lung function. the higher one between baseline value and the post-dilution FEV1 is used as the reference for calculating the rate of FEV1 decline. If post-inhalation FEV1 decreases, there are usually three scenarios: ①If FEV1 decreases by less than 10% compared to the baseline, the test can proceed, continue the test and administer the first dose of MCh. ②If the FEV1 decreases by≥10% and<20%, indicating a heightened airway reactivity to the diluent, proceed with the lowest concentration (dose) of the provoking if FEV1%pred has not yet reached the contraindication criteria for the MCT. if FEV1%pred<60% and the risk of continuing the challenge test is considerable, it is advisable to switch to a bronchodilation test and indicate the change in the test results report. ③If FEV1 decreases by≥20%, it can be directly classified as a positive challenge test, and the test should be discontinued, with bronchodilators administered to alleviate airway obstruction.(3) Inhalation of MCh and repeat lung function test to assess decline: prepare a series of MCh concentrations, starting from the lowest and gradually increasing the inhaled concentration (dose) using different methods. Perform pulmonaryfunction tests at 30 seconds and 90 seconds after completing nebulization, with the number of measurements limited to 3-4 times. A complete Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) measurement is unnecessary during testing; only an acceptable FEV1 measurement is required. The interval between two consecutive concentrations (doses) generally should not exceed 3 minutes. If FEV1 declines by≥10% compared to the control value, reduce the increment of methacholine concentration (dose) and adjust the inhalation protocol accordingly. If FEV1 declines by≥20% or more compared to the control value or if the maximum concentration (amount) has been inhaled, the test should be stopped. After inhaling the MCh, close observation of the subject's response is necessary. If necessary, monitor blood oxygen saturation and auscultate lung breath sounds. The test should be promptly discontinued in case of noticeable clinical symptoms or signs.(4) Inhalation of bronchodilator and repeat lung function test to assess recovery: when the bronchial challenge test shows a positive response (FEV1 decline≥20%) or suspiciously positive, the subject should receive inhaled rapid-acting bronchodilators, such as short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) or short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA). Suppose the subject exhibits obvious symptoms of breathlessness, wheezing, or typical asthma manifestations, and wheezing is audible in the lungs, even if the positive criteria are not met. In that case, the challenge test should be immediately stopped, and rapid-acting bronchodilators should be administered. Taking salbutamol as an example, inhale 200-400 µg (100 µg per puff, 2-4 puffs, as determined by the physician based on the subject's condition). Reassess pulmonary function after 5-10 minutes. If FEV1 recovers to within 10% of the baseline value, the test can be concluded. However, if there is no noticeable improvement (FEV1 decline still≥10%), record the symptoms and signs and repeat the bronchodilation procedure as mentioned earlier. Alternatively, add Ipratropium bromide (SAMA) or further administer nebulized bronchodilators and corticosteroids for intensified treatment while keeping the subject under observation until FEV1 recovers to within 90% of the baseline value before allowing the subject to leave.Question 6: What are the quality control requirements for the APS and Astograph MCT equipment?(1) APS Method Equipment Quality Control: The APS method for MCT uses a nebulizing inhalation device that requires standardized flowmeters, compressed air power source pressure and flow, and nebulizer aerosol output. Specific quality control methods are as follows:a. Flow and volume calibration of the quantitative nebulization device: Connect the flowmeter, an empty nebulization chamber, and a nebulization filter in sequence, attaching the compressed air source to the bottom of the chamber to ensure airtight connections. Then, attach a 3 L calibration syringe to the subject's breathing interface and simulate the flow during nebulization (typically low flow:<2 L/s) to calibrate the flow and volume. If calibration results exceed the acceptable range of the device's technical standards, investigate and address potential issues such as air leaks or increased resistance due to a damp filter, then recalibrate. Cleaning the flowmeter or replacing the filter can change the resistance in the breathing circuit, requiring re-calibration of the flow.b. Testing the compressed air power source: Regularly test the device, connecting the components as mentioned above. Then, block the opening of the nebulization device with a stopper or hand, start the compressed air power source, and test its pressure and flow. If the test results do not meet the technical standards, professional maintenance of the equipment may be required.c. Verification of aerosol output of the nebulization chamber: Regularly verify all nebulization chambers used in provocation tests. Steps include adding a certain amount of saline to the chamber, weighing and recording the chamber's weight (including saline), connecting the nebulizer to the quantitative nebulization device, setting the nebulization time, starting nebulization, then weighing and recording the post-nebulization weight. Calculate the unit time aerosol output using the formula [(weight before nebulization-weight after nebulization)/nebulization time]. Finally, set the nebulization plan for the provocation test based on the aerosol output, considering the MCh concentration, single inhalation nebulization duration, number of nebulization, and cumulative dose to ensure precise dosing of the inhaled MCh.(2) Astograph method equipment quality control: Astograph method equipment for MCT consists of a respiratory resistance monitoring device and a nebulization medication device. Perform zero-point calibration, volume calibration, impedance verification, and nebulization chamber checks daily before tests to ensure the resistance measurement system and nebulization system function properly. Calibration is needed every time the equipment is turned on, and more frequently if there are significant changes in environmental conditions.a. Zero-point calibration: Perform zero-point calibration before testing each subject. Ensure the nebulization chamber is properly installed and plugged with no air leaks.b. Volume calibration: Use a 3 L calibration syringe to calibrate the flow sensor at a low flow rate (approximately 1 L/s).c. Resistance verification: Connect low impedance tubes (1.9-2.2 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) and high impedance tubes (10.2-10.7 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) to the device interface for verification.d. Bypass check: Start the bypass check and record the bypass value; a value>150 ml/s is normal.e. Nebulization chamber check: Check each of the 12 nebulization chambers daily, especially those containing bronchodilators, to ensure normal spraying. The software can control each nebulization chamber to produce spray automatically for a preset duration (e.g., 2 seconds). Observe the formation of water droplets on the chamber walls, indicating normal spraying. If no nebulization occurs, check for incorrect connections or blockages.Question 7: How to set up and select the APS method in MCT?The software program of the aerosol provocation system in the quantitative nebulization method can independently set the nebulizer output, concentration of the methacholine agent, administration time, and number of administrations and combine these parameters to create the challenge test process. In principle, the concentration of the methacholine agent should increase from low to high, and the dose should increase from small to large. According to the standard, a 2-fold or 4-fold incremental challenge process is generally used. In clinical practice, the dose can be simplified for subjects with good baseline lung function and no history of wheezing, such as using a recommended 2-concentration, 5-step method (25 and 50 g/L) and (6.25 and 25 g/L). Suppose FEV1 decreases by more than 10% compared to the baseline during the test to ensure subject safety. In that case, the incremental dose of the methacholine agent can be reduced, and the inhalation program can be adjusted appropriately. If the subject's baseline lung function declines or has recent daytime or nighttime symptoms such as wheezing or chest tightness, a low concentration, low dose incremental process should be selected.Question 8: What are the precautions for the operation process of the Astograph method in MCT?(1) Test equipment: The Astograph method utilizes the forced oscillation technique, applying a sinusoidal oscillating pressure at the mouthpiece during calm breathing. Subjects inhale nebulized MCh of increasing concentrations while continuous monitoring of respiratory resistance (Rrs) plots the changes, assessing airway reactivity and sensitivity. The nebulization system employs jet nebulization technology, comprising a compressed air pump and 12 nebulization cups. The first cup contains saline, cups 2 to 11 contain increasing concentrations of MCh, and the 12th cup contains a bronchodilator solution.(2) Provocation process: Prepare 10 solutions of MCh provocant with gradually increasing concentrations.(3) Operational procedure: The oscillation frequency is usually set to 3 Hz (7 Hz for children) during the test. The subject breathes calmly, inhales saline solution nebulized first, and records the baseline resistance value (if the subject's baseline resistance value is higher than 10 cmH2O·L-1·s-1, the challenge test should not be performed). Then, the subject gradually inhales increasing concentrations of methacholine solution. Each concentration solution is inhaled for 1 minute, and the nebulization system automatically switches to the next concentration for inhalation according to the set time. Each nebulizer cup contains 2-3 ml of solution, the output is 0.15 ml/min, and each concentration is inhaled for 1 minute. The dose-response curve is recorded automatically. Subjects should breathe tidally during the test, avoiding deep breaths and swallowing. Continue until Rrs significantly rises to more than double the baseline value, or if the subject experiences notable respiratory symptoms or other discomfort, such as wheezing in both lungs upon auscultation. At this point, the inhalation of the provocant should be stopped and the subject switchs to inhaling a bronchodilator until Rrs returns to pre-provocation levels. If there is no significant increase in Rrs, stop the test after inhaling the highest concentration of MCh.Question 9: How to interpret the results of the MCT?The method chosen for the MCT determines the specific indicators used for interpretation. The most commonly used indicator is FEV1, although other parameters such as Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) and Rrs can also be used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness.Qualitative judgment: The test results can be classified as positive, suspiciously positive, or negative, based on a combination of the judgment indicators and changes in the subject's symptoms. If FEV1 decreases by≥20% compared to the baseline value after not completely inhaling at the highest concentration, the result can be judged as positive for Methacholine bronchial challenge test. If the patient has obvious wheezing symptoms or wheezing is heard in both lungs, but the challenge test does not meet the positive criteria (the highest dose/concentration has been inhaled), and FEV1 decreases between 10% and 20% compared to the baseline level, the result can also be judged as positive. If FEV1 decreases between 15% and 20% compared to the baseline value without dyspnea or wheezing attacks, the result can be judged as suspiciously positive. Astograph method: If Rrs rises to 2 times or more of the baseline resistance before reaching the highest inhalation concentration, or if the subject's lungs have wheezing and severe coughing, the challenge test can be judged as positive. Regardless of the result of the Methacholine bronchial challenge test, factors that affect airway reactivity, such as drugs, seasons, climate, diurnal variations, and respiratory tract infections, should be excluded.Quantitative judgment: When using the APS method, the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness can be graded based on PD20-FEV1 or PC20-FEV1. Existing evidence suggests that PD20 shows good consistency when different nebulizers, inhalation times, and starting concentrations of MCh are used for bronchial provocation tests, whereas there is more variability with PC20. Therefore, PD20 is often recommended as the quantitative assessment indicator. The threshold value for PD20 with the APS method is 2.5 mg.The Astograph method often uses the minimum cumulative dose (Dmin value, in Units) to reflect airway sensitivity. Dmin is the minimum cumulative dose of MCh required to produce a linear increase in Rrs. A dose of 1 g/L of the drug concentration inhaled for 1-minute equals 1 unit. It's important to note that with the continuous increase in inhaled provocant concentration, the concept of cumulative dose in the Astograph method should not be directly compared to other methods. Most asthma patients have a Dmin<10 Units, according to Japanese guidelines. The Astograph method, having been used in China for over twenty years, suggests a high likelihood of asthma when Dmin≤6 Units, with a smaller Dmin value indicating a higher probability. When Dmin is between 6 and 10 Units, further differential diagnosis is advised to ascertain whether the condition is asthma.Precautions:A negative methacholine challenge test (MCT) does not entirely rule out asthma. The test may yield negative results due to the following reasons:(1) Prior use of medications that reduce airway responsiveness, such as ß2 agonists, anticholinergic drugs, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, theophylline, corticosteroids, etc., and insufficient washout time.(2) Failure to meet quality control standards in terms of pressure, flow rate, particle size, and nebulization volume of the aerosol delivery device.(3) Poor subject cooperation leads to inadequate inhalation of the methacholine agent.(4) Some exercise-induced asthma patients may not be sensitive to direct bronchial challenge tests like the Methacholine challenge and require indirect bronchial challenge tests such as hyperventilation, cold air, or exercise challenge to induce a positive response.(5) A few cases of occupational asthma may only react to specific antigens or sensitizing agents, requiring specific allergen exposure to elicit a positive response.A positive MCT does not necessarily indicate asthma. Other conditions can also present with airway hyperresponsiveness and yield positive results in the challenge test, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, viral upper respiratory infections, allergic alveolitis, tropical eosinophilia, cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary transplant, congestive heart failure, and more. Furthermore, factors like smoking, air pollution, or exercise before the test may also result in a positive bronchial challenge test.Question 10: What are the standardized requirements for the MCT report?The report should include: (1) basic information about the subject; (2) examination data and graphics: present baseline data, measurement data after the last two challenge doses or concentrations in tabular form, and the percentage of actual measured values compared to the baseline; flow-volume curve and volume-time curve before and after challenge test; dose-response curve: showing the threshold for positive challenge; (3) opinions and conclusions of the report: including the operator's opinions, quality rating of the examination, and review opinions of the reviewing physician.Question 11: What are the adverse reactions and safety measures of MCT?During the MCT, the subject needs to repeatedly breathe forcefully and inhale bronchial challenge agents, which may induce or exacerbate bronchospasm and contraction and may even cause life-threatening situations. Medical staff should be fully aware of the indications, contraindications, medication use procedures, and emergency response plans for the MCT.

Fructus Xanthii and Magnolia liliiflora Volatile Oils Liposomes-Loaded Thermosensitive in situ Gel for Allergic Rhinitis Management.

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to fabricate a Fructus Xanthii and Magnolia liliiflora volatile oils liposomes-loaded thermosensitive in situ gel (gel/LIP/volatile oil) for effectively treating allergic rhinitis via intranasal administration. Patients and Methods: Particle size, polymer dispersity index (PDI), entrapment effectiveness, and cumulative drug permeation of the developed liposomes were assessed. Then, a thermoreversible in situ gel was created using the liposomes loaded with volatile oils of Fructus Xanthii and Magnolia liliiflora. The effectiveness of this treatment for allergic rhinitis was confirmed by evaluating nasal symptoms, and hematological results, after injecting the formulation into the ovalbumin (OVA)-sensitized mice, we conducted hematoxylin-eosin staining (HE) and immunohistochemistry to evaluate the outcomes. The effects of the gel/LIP/volatile oil formulation for nasal delivery of volatile oil in the treatment of rhinitis were then assessed. Results: The average particle size was 95.1 ± 3.6 nm, and the encapsulation efficiencies of Fructus Xanthii and Magnolia liliiflora volatile oils were 70.42 ± 5.41% and 67.10 ± 6.08%, respectively. Drug loadings of Fructus Xanthii and Magnolia liliiflora volatile oils were 9.10 ± 0.98% and 16.10 ± 1.03%, respectively. The binary formulation produced a gel rapidly in the nasal cavity with a strong mucosal adherence at a temperature of delivering volatile oil to the nasal mucosa steadily and continuously. After nasal administration, the gel/LIP/volatile oil sustained the volatile oil delivery into the mucosa. In comparison to the monolithic formulations, the gel/LIP/volatile oil binary formulation exhibited superior performance in terms of drug delivery capability and pharmacodynamic effects. Conclusion: This binary preparation displayed the ability to deliver drugs to the nasal mucosa and exhibited positive pharmacodynamic effects in treating OVA-induced rhinitis in mice. As a result, it has the potential to serve as a delivery platform for Traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

The effectiveness of pollen allergen immunotherapy on allergic rhinitis over 18 years: A national cohort study in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Because long-term effectiveness of pollen allergen immune therapy (AIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is not well-described, we studied effectiveness over 18 years in Denmark. METHODS: A register-based cohort study using data on filled prescriptions, 1995-2016, Denmark. In a cohort of 1.1 million intranasal corticosteroid inhaler users (proxy for AR), we matched users treated with grass, birch or mugwort AIT 1:2 with non-treated users on baseline year and 24 characteristics in the 3 years prior to baseline. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of using anti-allergic nasal inhaler during the pollen season in the treated versus non-treated group by years since baseline. RESULTS: Among 7760 AR patients treated with pollen AIT, the OR of using nasal inhaler 0-5 years after baseline was reduced when compared with 15,520 non-treated AR individuals (0-2 years, OR 0.84 (0.81-0.88); 3-5 years, OR 0.88 (0.84-0.92)), but was close to unity or higher thereafter (6-9 years, OR 1.03 (0.97-1.08); 10-18 years, OR 1.18 (1.11-1.26)). In post hoc analyses, results were more consistent for those who already had 3 of 3 baseline years of use, and in patients using nasal inhaler in the latest pollen season (0-2 years, OR 0.76 (0.72-0.79); 3-5 years OR 0.86 (0.81-0.93); 6-9 years, OR 0.94 (0.87-1.02); 10-18 years, OR 0.94 (0.86-1.04)) as opposed to no such use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with pollen AIT in routine care to a higher degree stopped using anti-allergic nasal inhaler 0-5 years after starting the standard 3 years of therapy, and not beyond 5 years. Post hoc analyses suggested effectiveness was more consistent among patients with persistent AR.

Fire needle acupuncture at Neiyingxiang (EX-HN 9) in the treatment of moderate and severe refractory perennial allergic rhinitis: A case report.

RATIONALE: In recent decades, the incidence of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) has been increasing annually. However, some patients could not achieve adequate symptomatic relief with routine pharmacological treatment. Consequently, there exists an urgent clinical imperative for the development of safe and efficacious treatments with sustained therapeutic impact to ameliorate the symptomatic burden and enhance the quality of life. PATIENT CONCERNS: The patient was a 35-year-old woman. She had suffered moderate and severe refractory PAR for decades and failed to sustain symptom mitigation from regular treatment. DIAGNOSES: Perennial allergic rhinitis. INTERVENTIONS: The patient underwent a 4-week course of fire needle acupuncture at Neiyingxiang, administered weekly, during which all allopathic medication was discontinued. OUTCOMES: The total nasal symptoms score, total non nasal symptoms score, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire, and the total nasal resistance of the patient were decreased after treatment and achieved symptomatic relief. Follow-up conducted 3 months post-treatment revealed enduring symptom relief, with only sporadic nasal congestion elicited by cold stimulus. LESSONS: This case proves that, fire needle acupuncture at Neiyingxiang may be beneficial in treating moderate and severe refractory PAR patient and have a lasting effect.

No causal association between allergic rhinitis and migraine: a Mendelian randomization study.

PURPOSE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and migraine are among the most common public health problems worldwide. Observational studies on the correlation between AR and migraine have reported inconsistent results. This study aimed to investigate the causal relationship of AR with migraine and its subtypes, including migraine with aura (MA) and migraine without aura (MO). METHODS: Bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was performed with publicly available summary-level statistics of large genome-wide association studies to estimate the possible causal effects. The inverse variance-weighted method was selected for primary analysis and was supplemented with the weighted median, weighted mode, and MR-Egger methods. The causal analysis using summary effect estimates (CAUSE) were further performed to verify the causality. Several sensitivity tests, including the leave-one-out, Cochran's Q, MR-Egger intercept, and MR-PRESSO tests, were performed to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: AR did not exhibit a significant causal correlation with the elevated risk of any migraine (odd ratio (OR), 0.816; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.511-1.302; P = 0.394), MA (OR, 0.690; 95% CI 0.298-1.593; P = 0.384), or MO (OR, 1.022; 95% CI 0.490-2.131; P = 0.954). Consistently, reverse MR analysis did not reveal causal effects of any migraine or its subtypes on AR. Almost all sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: This MR study did not reveal a clear causal association between AR and migraine risk. More research is warranted to reveal the complex association between AR and migraine.

[A multi-dimensional analysis of pollen broadcasting concerns in Chinese population: a large-scale multi-center cross-sectional survey].

Objective: To investigate the concern about pollen broadcasting in Chinese population from multiple dimensions and to understand the information about allergic rhinitis (AR) in China by analyzing related factors. Methods: From March 1 to September 30, 2022, a large-scale multi-center cross-sectional survey was conducted based on the Questionnaire Star platform in 21 Chinese hospitals. A total of 7 056 subjects from 7 regions in China: Northeast, North, East, Central, South, Southwest, and Northwest China were included. Basic characteristics (including social demographic characteristics and disease characteristics of AR patients), concern about pollen broadcasting, the willingness of pollen-induced AR (PiAR) patients to receive pollen broadcasting, and the treatment satisfaction rate of AR patients were collected. The chi-square test, multivariate linear regression model, and Logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the concern about pollen broadcasting in the Chinese population and related factors from multiple dimensions. Results: Among 7 056 subjects, 23.02% were concerned about pollen broadcasting. Among 3 176 self-reported AR and 1 019 PiAR patients, 25.60% and 39.16% were concerned about pollen broadcasting, respectively, which was higher than that of non-AR or non-PiAR subjects (χ2 value was 21.74 and 175.11, respectively, both P<0.001). Among AR patients, the proportion of spring and autumn allergen-positive patients concerned about pollen broadcasting was higher than that in perennial allergen-positive patients (χ2 value was 20.90 and 19.51, respectively, both P<0.001). The proportion of AR patients with asthma, sinusitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases was higher than those without complications (χ2 value was 50.83, 21.97, 56.78, 7.62, respectively, all P<0.05). The proportion of AR patients in North China who could find pollen broadcasting locally was 31.01%, significantly higher than those in other regions (all P<0.05). Multivariate linear regression model analysis showed that among PiAR patients, those with higher per capita household income and higher AR disease cognition levels had been concerned about pollen broadcasting in the past, and those complicated with allergic conjunctivitis had stronger intention to receive pollen broadcasting (B value was 0.24, 0.13, 0.66, 0.47, respectively, all P<0.05). The higher the disease cognition level of PiAR patients, the stronger their willingness to actively participate in treatment (R2=0.72, P<0.001). Only 18.89% of AR patients felt satisfied with the treatment effect. Logistic regression analysis showed that in AR patients, the treatment satisfaction rate was significantly higher among those concerned about pollen broadcasting compared to those who were not (OR=1.83, P<0.001). Conclusions: Currently, the dissemination of pollen broadcasting in China is hindered by various factors such as disease cognition level. The treatment satisfaction among AR patients remains unsatisfactory.

The Multiple Trajectories of the Allergic March

The allergic march comprises the sequential appearance of a series of allergic comorbidities. However, variability in the onset and progression of allergic diseases generates a heterogeneous scenario that does not follow a linear and single trajectory. Almost half of the pediatric population presents at least 1 allergy symptom. However, only 4%-6% present multimorbidity, with several allergic diseases co-occurring. It has recently been shown that although they share etiological mechanisms and risk factors, allergic diseases arise independently. In most cases, progression is not consecutive, or at least not the same in all patients. TH2-mediated inflammation, epithelial barrier dysfunction, and genetic predisposition play a fundamental role in the etiology of allergic diseases, on which the interaction with the exposome acts decisively. Therefore, studying diseases from an omics point of view is essential when attempting to describe the various trajectories of allergic progression and to propose effective interventions to prevent multimorbidity. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of the current perception of the allergic march, including clinical observations, omics data, risk factors, and measures aimed at modifying its course or even preventing its onset. (AU)

La marcha alérgica ha dado respuesta durante mucho tiempo a un escenario de aparición secuencial de diferentes comorbilidades alérgicas. Sin embargo, la variabilidad en la aparición y progresión de las diferentes enfermedades alérgicas dibuja un escenario heterogéneo que no responde a una trayectoria lineal y única. Aunque en la actualidad casi la mitad de la población infantil presenta al menos un síntoma de alergia, tan solo un 4-6% presenta multimorbilidad, coexistiendo varias entidades alérgicas. Recientemente se ha demostrado que, aunque compartiendo mecanismos etiológicos y factores de riesgo, estas enfermedades alérgicas surgen de manera independiente y que, en la mayoría de los casos, no se observa una progresión consecutiva, o al menos, no la misma en todos los pacientes. La inflamación mediada por células T helper de tipo 2 (Th2), la disfunción de la barrera epitelial y la predisposición genética juegan un papel fundamental en la etiología de estas enfermedades, sobre los que actúan de manera determinante la interacción con el exposoma. Por ello, el estudio de las enfermedades, desde un punto de vista de las ómicas, es fundamental para describir las diferentes trayectorias de la marcha alérgica y proponer intervenciones eficaces para evitar escenarios de multimorbilidad. En esta revisión narrativa se incluye una descripción general de la percepción actual de la marcha alérgica, incluidas observaciones clínicas, datos ómicos, factores de riesgo y medidas preventivas propuestas para modificar su curso o incluso prevenir su aparición. (AU)

The Art of Immunotherapy.

Selection of a patient with rhinitis/conjunctivitis or asthma for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) requires several decisions. First, does the patient's sensitization, pattern of exposure to an allergen, and degree of exposure to that allergen reasonably suggest a causal relationship? Does the level and duration of symptoms warrant the cost and inconvenience of immunotherapy, or is the patient motivated by the disease-modifying potential of AIT? If AIT is selected, is the choice to be greater safety and convenience with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets, but with treatment probably limited to 2 or 3 allergens, or for subcutaneous immunotherapy where multiple allergen therapy is the rule and efficacy may be somewhat greater, at least initially, or does the physician go off-label into the unknowns of liquid SLIT? Are there extracts of sufficient potency to achieve likely effective doses? How does the physician deal with large local or systemic reactions, with gaps in treatment, with pollen seasons, and the use of premedication or cautionary prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors? How can adherence to AIT be improved? These and other questions are addressed in this paper.

Examining the Correlation between Allergic Conjunctivitis and Allergic Rhinitis.

Objective: This study aims to assess the correlation between allergic conjunctivitis (AC) and allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: A total of 462 patients diagnosed with either allergic conjunctivitis or allergic rhinitis and treated at our hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into two groups, the AC group and the AR group, based on their initial department of consultation. The AC group comprised 232 patients diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis in the ophthalmology department, while the AR group consisted of 230 patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis in the ENT department. Allergen analysis was conducted on patients presenting with both AC and AR and conjunctival and nasal mucosal scrapings were performed to examine eosinophil presence. The study analyzed the association between allergic AC and AR. Results: In the AC group, 174 patients (75.00%) had concurrent AR, while in the AR group, 169 patients (73.48%) had concurrent AC. Inhalant allergen testing among patients with concurrent AC and AR revealed that the primary inhalant allergens were dust mites, house dust, and fungi, with specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) positivity of 91.23%. Testing for food allergens identified fish, shrimp, and crab as ingestive allergens, with a specific IgE positivity of 58.58%. Eosinophil presence was assessed through conjunctival and nasal mucosal scrapings in patients with concurrent AC and AR. Eosinophils were detected in 188 cases (54.81%) through conjunctival scraping and 197 cases (57.43%) through nasal mucosal scraping, with no significant differences observed (P > .05). Conclusions: AC and AR share a common pathophysiological process and allergen profile, with the conjunctiva and nasal mucosa serving as sites of allergic reactions. This study suggests the integration of AC prevention and treatment into AR prevention strategies.