Automatic pterygopalatine fossa segmentation and localisation based on DenseASPP.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis constitutes a widespread health concern, with traditional treatments often proving to be painful and ineffective. Acupuncture targeting the pterygopalatine fossa proves effective but is complicated due to the intricate nearby anatomy. METHODS: To enhance the safety and precision in targeting the pterygopalatine fossa, we introduce a deep learning-based model to refine the segmentation of the pterygopalatine fossa. Our model expands the U-Net framework with DenseASPP and integrates an attention mechanism for enhanced precision in the localisation and segmentation of the pterygopalatine fossa. RESULTS: The model achieves Dice Similarity Coefficient of 93.89% and 95% Hausdorff Distance of 2.53 mm with significant precision. Remarkably, it only uses 1.98 M parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our deep learning approach yields significant advancements in localising and segmenting the pterygopalatine fossa, providing a reliable basis for guiding pterygopalatine fossa-assisted punctures.

[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.

Baseline Severity and Disease Duration Can Predict the Response to Allergen-specific Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) has confirmed its efficacy in improving the symptoms of allergic rhinitis. However, no reliable biomarkers have been identified to predict the efficacy of AIT were found. We aimed to find clinical and immunological markers to predict efficacy in children after 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). A total of 285 children diagnosed with allergic rhinitis were recruited. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by comparing endpoint and baseline symptom and medication scores (SMS). Baseline clinical and immunological markers (serum total and specific immunoglobulin [Ig]E) and their correlation with clinical efficacy were analyzed. Of the 285 children recruited, 249 completed the 2-year SLIT program. After 2 years of SLIT, 68.3% of the children showed a significant response. Children in the Remarkable Response Group had the highest baseline SMS and most extended disease duration, followed by the Effective Relief and Unresponsive Group. Correlation analysis demonstrated that SMS improvement was positively correlated with baseline SMS (r=0.67) and disease duration (r=0.35). SMS improvement was not correlated with age, body mass index, total or specific IgE levels, or their ratios. Our results show that baseline SMS and disease duration can predict the efficacy of SLIT. Our study can guide the selection of suitable candidates for SLIT.

Increased Nasal Blimp1 + Treg Cells After Sublingual Immunotherapy Reflect the Efficacy of Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis.

INTRODUCTION: Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) plays a pivotal role in altering the immune status and tissue responses in allergic rhinitis (AR). This study focuses on the impact of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) involving dust mite drops, exploring the modulation of regulatory T cells (Treg) and their specific marker, BLIMP1, in the nasal mucosa. METHODS: Immune cells were isolated from nasal lavage fluid of patients with AR undergoing SLIT (n = 94). Treg cells were analyzed for BLIMP1 expression, and chemokine levels associated with Treg recruitment were assessed using Luminex assay. Patients were categorized on the basis of SLIT efficacy and followed for changes after discontinuation. RESULTS: SLIT induced a significant increase in nasal Treg cells (7.09 ± 2.59% vs. 0.75 ± 0.27%, P < 0.0001). BLIMP1 expression in Treg cells notably increased after SLIT (0.36 ± 0.22% to 16.86 ± 5.74%, P < 0.0001). Ineffective SLIT cases exhibited lower levels of nasal Treg and Blimp1 + Treg cells (both P < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis confirmed their potential as efficacy predictors (AUC = 0.908 and 0.968, respectively). SLIT discontinuation led to a significant reduction in Treg and Blimp1 + Treg cells (P < 0.001), emphasizing their maintenance during treatment. Pro-inflammatory cytokines decreased (P < 0.001), while CCL2 associated with Treg recruitment increased (P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: Elevated nasal Blimp1 + Treg cells serve as a predictive biomarker for SLIT responsiveness in pediatric AR. Their influence on immunotherapy effectiveness contributes to a nuanced understanding of SLIT mechanisms, allowing for disease stratification and personalized treatment plans. This study offers scientific support for predicting SLIT efficacy, enhancing the prospects of improved treatment outcomes in AR.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review.

Importance: Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches. Observations: Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid. Conclusions and Relevance: Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

Rinofototerapia como tratamiento adyuvante en la rinitis alérgica. Revisión de la literatura / Rhinophototherapy as adjuvant treatment in allergic rhinitis. Literature review

Introducción y objetivo: La rinitis alérgica es una enfermedad inflamatoria crónica de la mucosa nasal, mediada por inmunoglobulina E. Afecta a uno de cada seis individuos, con una prevalencia del 10% al 40 % en la población. En los últimos años se ha propuesto el uso de la rinofototerapia para reducir sus síntomas en pacientes que no pueden beneficiarse de los corticosteroides intranasales o los antihistamínicos orales; así como tratamiento adyuvante a los mismos. El objetivo de esta revisión es analizar la eficacia de la rinofototerapia como tratamiento adyuvante en la rinitis alérgica. Método: Se realizó una revisión siguiendo las directrices PRISMA. Se consultaron las bases de datos de PubMed, Cinahl, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, Lilacs, IBECS, CENTRAL, SciELO, y WOS. Se utilizó la herramienta Cochrane para valorar el riesgo de sesgo y la calidad de la evidencia se evaluó GRADE. Resultados: La rinofototerapia es un tratamiento adyuvante eficaz en la rinitis alérgica. La muestra total fue de 251 pacientes. En todos los estudios fue segura la aplicación de rinofototerapia y la duración del tratamiento osciló entre dos y seis semanas, con una media de tres veces por semana. Discusión: En el futuro sería necesario continuar investigando para establecer un protocolo unificado en cuanto a la frecuencia, duración y número de sesiones. Así como analizar el posible efecto sinérgico de este tratamiento con otras terapias. Conclusiones: La rinofototerapia fue eficaz en pacientes con rinitis alérgica. Esta terapia mejora los síntomas clínicos de estornudos, rinorrea, obstrucción nasal, prurito nasal, prurito de paladar, las mediciones del flujo máximo inspiratorio nasal, la calidad de vida del paciente y la severidad de los síntomas. (AU)

Introduction and objective: Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, mediated by immunoglobulin E. It affects one in six individuals, with a prevalence of 10% to 40% in the population. In recent years, the use of rhinophototherapy has been proposed to reduce its symptoms in patients who cannot benefit from intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines; as well as adjuvant treatment to them. The objective of this review is to analyze the efficacy of rhinophototherapy as adjuvant treatment in allergic rhinitis. Method: A review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Cinahl, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, Lilacs, IBECS, CENTRAL, SciELO, and WOS databases were consulted. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence was assessed GRADE. Results: Rhinophototherapy is an effective adjuvant treatment in allergic rhinitis. The total sample was 251 patients. In all studies, the application of rhinophototherapy was safe and the duration of treatment ranged from two to six weeks, with an average of three times per week. Discussion: In the future it would be necessary to continue researching to establish a unified protocol regarding the frequency, duration and number of sessions. As well as analyzing the possible synergistic effect of this treatment with other therapies. Conclusions: Rhinophototherapy was effective in patients with allergic rhinitis. This therapy improves clinical symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, nasal itching, palate itching, nasal inspiratory peak flow measurements, patient quality of life, and symptom severity. (AU)

Evaluation of the treatment strategy for complicated allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To carry out a comprehensive evaluation of treatment modification for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) complicated by anxiety-neurotic disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: Patients with SAR in the acute stage on the background of anxiety disorders were studied. Immunological studies were carried out, an assessment of the dynamics of indicators of the quality of life of patients, the level of anxiety / depression was assessed. In the clinical group, a variant of therapy modification was proposed. RESULTS: Results: Significant changes in the subpopulation ratio of lymphocytes, an increase in the immunoregulatory index, which indicated the severity of the immunological process, were revealed in SAR patients in the acute stage against the background of anxiety disorders. At the same time, a significant activation of the humoral link of immunity was observed: an increase and a significant increase in IgE in the blood serum and an increase in the content of sIgA in the nasal secretion. In most patients, eosinophilia was found in the peripheral blood and in the rhinocytogram before treatment. In the study of the quality of life of patients, changes in many parameters were found. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The combination of "Nazafort Allergy Protection" and Atarax seems to be the most successful, which significantly improved the physical and psycho-emotional state of patients with SAR, complicated by anxiety and neurotic disorders. This combination led to an increase in the stress resistance of patients.

[Research progress of immune cell markers in allergic rhinitis for the evaluation of allergen immunotherapy].

Allergic rhinitis（AR） is a chronic inflammation of nasal mucosa mediated by IgE, which prevalence is increasing year by year. Allergen immunotherapy（AIT） has been proved to be effective in the treatment of AR. Patients can usually achieve satisfactory clinical remission after the standard course of treatment. At present, sIgE/tIgE is mainly used to evaluate the severity of allergy in patients with AR before immunotherapy, but there is no recognized biomarker for evaluating the efficacy of AIT. Based on the mechanism that immune cells participate in the formation of immune tolerance during AIT, this paper reviews the latest progress of immune cell markers in allergic rhinitis for the evaluation of the efficacy of AIT in recent years, in order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation basis for AR patients during immunotherapy.

[Allergen-specific immunotherapy : A brief overview in association with allergic conjunctivitis]. / Allergenspezifische Immuntherapie : Ein kurzer Überblick im Zusammenhang mit der allergischen Konjunktivitis.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal and disease-modifying treatment for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated type I allergies. Regular exposure to the causative allergen results in an immunomodulatory effect by which the predominant T­helper (Th) 2 lymphocyte response is shifted to a Th1 lymphocyte response and more allergen-specific blocking immunoglobulins are produced. The approval of substances for AIT is regulated by the Therapy Allergens Ordinance (TAV). There are subcutaneous and/or sublingual AITs for the following indications: allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic asthma and insect venom allergy. In this article the indications for allergic conjunctivitis are discussed in particular. Clinical symptoms and a relevant type 1 sensitization are the prerequisites for the indications for AIT. The assessment of the indications and carrying out an AIT should only be carried out by physicians who have been trained in allergology.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Is allergen immunotherapy a model of personalized treatment in pediatric respiratory allergy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent evidence on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as a model of personalized medicine in the treatment of children and adolescents with respiratory allergies. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analysis and systematic review studies continue to point out that AIT is an effective treatment for children with respiratory allergies. Molecular allergy allows the understanding of patient sensitization profiles that frequently change the prescription of AIT. There is still a lack of evidence showing that this personalized prescription of AIT is associated with better clinical outcomes. The nasal allergen challenge has extended the indications of AIT for a new group of subjects with local allergic rhinitis. Patient selection of allergens involved in the increasingly personalized composition of extracts to be used in AIT increasingly characterizes it as personalized medicine. SUMMARY: Despite the numerous studies carried out to identify the best biomarker to evaluate the response to AIT, there is still much disagreement, and clinical assessment (symptoms, quality of life, among others) continues to be the best way to evaluate the therapeutic success of AIT.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

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.

Local allergic rhinitis - a narrative review.

This narrative review aims to provide an up-to-date definition of local allergic rhinitis (LAR), its classification, mechanisms, comorbidities, recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and define needs in this area. Both 'PubMed' and 'Science Direct' literature was reviewed systematically, and a manual search for studies not previously encountered in the databases was also carried out. Published studies were identified in PubMed covering the period from 1947 to 2022. The following keyword search strategy was used: (local allergic rhinitis* OR entopy* OR local Immunoglobulin E * OR nasal specific Immunoglobulin E). LAR involves Type 2 nasal inflammation with local IgE and cannot be diagnosed by systemic methods, such as skin prick or blood IgE tests. A nasal allergen challenge is necessary for diagnosis. LAR can respond to usual AR treatments, including allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT). LAR is a novel entity that requires additional investigation in terms of prevalence, proper diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. The target outcomes and possible benefits of this review are to achieve a consensus for the study and diagnosis of LAR and increase interest in this area.

Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the landscape of biomarker in allergic rhinitis patient undergoing intracervical lymphatic immunotherapy and related pan-cancer analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the leading allergic diseases worldwide. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) induces persistent specific allergen tolerance to achieve remission of the symptoms in AR patients. We creatively conducted the intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy (ICLIT) for AR patients. However, the underlying molecular mechanism of immune cell response of AIT in AR remains elusive. METHOD: To investigate the transcriptome profile in AR patients who underwent ICLIT, we comprehensively investigated the transcriptional changes in B cells from peripheral blood mononuclear cells of AR patient by single-cell RNA sequencing. Immunoglobulins and relative key gene, which influences the B cell differentiation, was demonstrated. The biomarkers' association with different types of tumors was investigated. RESULTS: Naive B cells, germinal center B cells, activated memory B cells, and memory B cells constituted the B cells subsets. The expression of IGHE, IGHGs, IGHA, IGHD, and IGHM from memory B cells was validated. Pseudotime analysis further indicated the dynamic change from the expression of the immunoglobulins in the memory B cells, suggesting that ITGB1 may contribute to the differentiation procedure of memory B cells. The cell-cell communication among these immune cells demonstrated the significantly enhanced CD23, BTLA signaling after ICLIT in AR patient. ITGB1 was upregulated in 13 tumors and downregulated in six others. High ITGB1 expression was linked to poor prognosis in eight types of tumors. ITGB1 expression showed correlations with tumor mutation burden, tissue purity, and microsatellite instability in different types of tumors. DISCUSSION: ITGB1 was demonstrated as a potential biomarker for AR patients after ICLIT and is significant in identifying immune infiltration in tumor tissue and predicting tumor prognosis.

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.

Differential modulation of allergic rhinitis nasal transcriptome by dupilumab and allergy immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Nasal epithelial cells are important regulators of barrier function and immune signaling; however, in allergic rhinitis (AR) these functions can be disrupted by inflammatory mediators. We aimed to better discern AR disease mechanisms using transcriptome data from nasal brushing samples from individuals with and without AR. METHODS: Data were drawn from a feasibility study of individuals with and without AR to Timothy grass and from a clinical trial evaluating 16 weeks of treatment with the following: dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds interleukin (IL)-4Rα and inhibits type 2 inflammation by blocking signaling of both IL-4/IL-13; subcutaneous immunotherapy with Timothy grass (SCIT), which inhibits allergic responses through pleiotropic effects; SCIT + dupilumab; or placebo. Using nasal brushing samples from these studies, we defined distinct gene signatures in nasal tissue of AR disease and after nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and assessed how these signatures were modulated by study drug(s). RESULTS: Treatment with dupilumab (normalized enrichment score [NES] = -1.73, p = .002) or SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), but not SCIT alone (NES = +1.16, p = .107), significantly repressed the AR disease signature. Dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), SCIT (NES = -2.99, p < .001), and SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -3.15, p < .001) all repressed the NAC gene signature. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate type 2 inflammation is an important contributor to the pathophysiology of AR disease and that inhibition of the type 2 pathway with dupilumab may normalize nasal tissue gene expression.