Efficacy of a novel air filtration pillow for avoidance of perennial allergens in symptomatic adults

Nasal Disorders

Nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, and epistaxis are common presenting concerns in primary care clinics. Nasal disorders affect the quality of life for many children and families. Rarely, these complaints may represent a life-threatening condition among infant obligate nasal breathers or cases of unusual pathology. The most common causes of rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction vary by age and include physiologic, infectious, allergic, foreign body, irritant, and traumatic causes. Less commonly, children may have congenital malformations, sinonasal masses, or autoimmune disease. The most common causes of epistaxis are inflammatory, environmental, and traumatic causes and medication misuse, but rarely, children may have predisposing anatomic, hematologic, or vascular abnormalities or even sinonasal tumors. In this article, we provide a thorough review of the common nasal disorders treated every day in primary care clinics and mention briefly some of the rare but serious cases that may be overlooked without considering a full differential diagnosis.

KAAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment for various allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and bee venom allergy that induces tolerance to offending allergens. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing because of the increasing discovery of potential candidates for AIT and evolving interest in new therapeutic approaches. This guideline is an updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT published in 2010. This updated guideline proposes an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. The guideline deals with basic knowledge and methodological aspects of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, patient selection, allergens extract selection, schedule and doses, management of adverse reactions, efficacy measurements, and special consideration in pediatrics. The guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy will be covered in detail in a separate article.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

KAAACI Allergic Rhinitis Guidelines: Part 2. Update in Non-pharmacological Management

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and non-medical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the "KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy" in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on non-pharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

Avoidance Measures for Patients with Allergic Rhinitis: A Scoping Review

Environmental allergen control is recommended as an essential part of allergic rhinitis (AR) management guidelines. In this scoping review, our objective is to identify measures of allergen avoidance and to evaluate their effectiveness in the management of AR. We conducted systematic searches for randomized controlled trials and observational studies in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science databases. We included all types of control measures based on allergen eviction or reduction in exposure. Overall, 18 studies satisfied our criteria and were thus included for further analysis. The majority of the studies (15 out of 18) reported decreases in overall AR symptom scores, improvements in quality of life, or reductions in medication usage. However, due to the low number of participants and the limitations in study designs, it is not possible to make a definitive recommendation on the use of these interventions in the management of AR. A multifaceted approach, including treatment, prevention, and eradication of allergens from the environment, may be necessary to effectively reduce symptoms.

Topical cyclosporine versus allergen specific immunotherapy in perennial allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

Symptom control in the long-term with less side effects is important in perennial allergic conjunctivitis, since would improve quality of life. This study aimed to assess the clinical efficacies of topical cyclosporin A and subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) in terms of sign control in perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 20 adult patients with perennial allergic conjunctivitis and confirmed sensitization to house dust mites with skin prick test. Patients were assigned to either topical cyclosporine A treatment or SCIT. The participants were followed for 6 months, and signs scores were recorded at 1, 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Overall, both cyclosporine and immunotherapy groups showed significant improvements in papillary reaction (p = 0.011 and 0.003, respectively), limbal involvement (p = 0.031 and 0.001), and conjunctival hyperemia (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) scores during the 6-month follow-up. However, only cyclosporine group showed a significant improvement in corneal involvement scores (p = 0.015) during the study period. When scores at different time points were compared, significant improvement in conjunctival hyperemia was evident at 6 months in both groups when compared to baseline (cyclosporine group, 0.7 ± 0.68 vs. 2.4 ± 0.84, 70.8% decrease, p = 0.01; immunotherapy group, 0.3 ± 0.48 vs. 2.3 ± 0.95, 87.0% decrease, p = 0.004), whereas for limbal involvement such an improvement was only evident in the immunotherapy group (0.1 ± 0.32 vs. 1.3 ± 0.95, 92.3% decrease, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen immunotherapy and cyclosporin A treatment may provide effective sign relief in perennial allergic conjunctivitis. It may represent an encouraging treatment option particularly for cases with perennial allergic conjunctivitis refractive to other treatments and positive skin prick test to a specific allergen (house dust in the present study). Long-term relief by SCIT would reduce the side effects of polypharmacotherapy. Larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm our findings.

Effect of air filtration on house dust mite, cat and dog allergens and particulate matter in homes

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Human allergy to cats: A review for veterinarians on prevalence, causes, symptoms and control

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

Human allergy to cats affects a substantial and growing proportion of the global population, and cat allergy is regarded as the third most common cause of human respiratory allergies, and the second most common indoor cause. Veterinarians will frequently encounter owners who are cat-allergic, and having an understanding of this disease and the methods available to help control the allergy will assist them in giving appropriate advice, alongside human healthcare professionals.

AIM

The aim of this review is to summarise currently available data on the prevalence, causes, symptoms and control of human allergy to cats. In terms of managing cat allergy, the emphasis is on reviewing current and emerging modalities to reduce environmental exposure to cat allergens rather than on pharmacotherapy or immunotherapy, as it is in these areas in particular that the veterinarian may be able to offer help and advice to complement that of human healthcare professionals.

EVIDENCE BASE

The information in this review is drawn from the current and historical literature on human allergy to cats, and approaches to reduce exposure to cat allergens and manage symptoms of cat allergy.

Efficacy of indoor air purification in the treatment of Artemisia pollen-allergic rhinitis: A randomised, double-blind, clinical controlled trial

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a high‐efficiency air purifier in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Design

We conducted a randomised, double‐blind, clinical controlled trial with active and inactive versions of an air purifier. Our study included patients with allergic rhinitis who were sensitive to Artemisia pollen and treatment of the indoor environment using air filtration at night. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of indoor air filtration during the Artemisia pollen scattering season in Yulin City in Shanxi Province, China.

Setting

The First Hospital of Yulin (Yulin City, Shanxi Province, China).

Participants

A total of 90 patients with allergic rhinitis who were sensitive to allergens of Artemisia pollen were randomly assigned to one of two groups in equal numbers.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the difference in visual analogue scale scores from baseline. Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in nasal symptoms, allergy symptom scores, responses to the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores and tolerability scores for the air purifier.

Results

Based on the allergy symptom score, we found significant differences in rhinitis symptoms between the groups who used the active versus the inactive air purifier.

Conclusions

The results of our investigation demonstrated the health benefits of particle filtration.

Effectiveness of the Air Purification Strategies for the Treatment of Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis

We updated the meta-analysis published by McDonald et al. [Chest 2002;122;1535-1542] by reviewing the effectiveness of air purification for the treatment of home-related allergic asthma (dust mite, dog, cat, and cockroach). We analysed the trials included by McDonald et al. as well as studies published since 2000. Data on asthma symptoms scores (ASS), medication use, forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1 %pred), histamine provocative concentration causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 (PC20), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were extracted. The effectiveness was examined using metafor (registered in Prospero CRD42019127227). Ten trials including a total of 482 patients (baseline characteristics: mean FEV1 %pred 83.2%, I2 = 96.7%; mean PC20 4.93 mg/mL, I2 = 44.0%; mean AQLQ 4.67 [max. 7], I2 = 93.7%; mean FeNO 36.5 ppb, I2 = 0%) were included. We assessed the mean differences in the AQLQ scores as +0.36 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, p = 0.01, n = 302, I2 = 0%) and the FeNO levels as -6.67 ppb (95% CI -10.56 to -2.77, p = 0.0008, n = 304, I2 = 0%). The standardised mean differences in all other health outcomes were not significant (ASS -0.68, p = 0.20; medication use: -0.01, p = 0.94; FEV1 %pred -0.11, p = 0.34; PC20 +0.24, p = 0.53). We found statistically significant mean differences in the AQLQ scores and FeNO levels in patients with predominantly mild to moderate asthma at baseline. A large trial reported great improvement in the subgroup of patients receiving Global Initiative for Asthma step 4 therapy. We recommend that future studies on air purification focus on patients with severe and poorly controlled allergic asthma.

HEPA filtration improves asthma control in children exposed to traffic-related airborne particles

Traffic-related airborne particles are associated with asthma morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration on the concentrations of traffic particles and the resultant effect on children with asthma. Forty-three children with asthma were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. A HEPA air cleaner or a placebo "dummy" was placed in participants' homes for four weeks, interrupted by a one-month washout period, before crossing over to the other treatment arm for four weeks. Air sampling and health outcomes, including asthma control (ACQ) and quality of life (AQLQ) measures, were completed prior to and at the end of each treatment arm. Indoor concentrations of traffic particles were significantly reduced with the HEPA treatment but not with the "dummy" treatment. In participants with poorly controlled asthma and lower quality of life at baseline, ACQ and AQLQ scores were significantly improved (1.3 to 0.9, P = .003 and 4.9 to 5.5, P = .02, respectively) following the HEPA treatment. In this study, HEPA filtration is associated with improved clinical outcomes and quality of life measures in children with uncontrolled asthma.

Effectiveness of a portable air cleaner in removing aerosol particles in homes close to highways

Outdoor traffic-related airborne particles can infiltrate a building and adversely affect the indoor air quality. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration of traffic-related particles. Here, we investigated the effectiveness of portable HEPA air cleaners in reducing indoor concentrations of traffic-related and other aerosols, including black carbon (BC), PM2.5 , ultraviolet absorbing particulate matter (UVPM) (a marker of tobacco smoke), and fungal spores. This intervention study consisted of a placebo-controlled cross-over design, in which a HEPA cleaner and a placebo "dummy" were placed in homes for 4-weeks each, with 48-hour air sampling conducted prior to and during the end of each treatment period. The concentrations measured for BC, PM2.5 , UVPM, and fungal spores were significantly reduced following HEPA filtration, but not following the dummy period. The indoor fraction of BC/PM2.5 was significantly reduced due to the HEPA cleaner, indicating that black carbon was particularly impacted by HEPA filtration. This study demonstrates that HEPA air purification can result in a significant reduction of traffic-related and other aerosols in diverse residential settings.

Efficacy of indoor air purification in treating Artemisia (mugwort) pollen allergic rhinitis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a worldwide health problem. Allergen avoidance is strongly recommended for AR patients. Air purification can reduce concentrations of particles in indoor air, including those of allergens. Air purifiers have been recommended by clinicians for AR patients, but few studies have focused on the removal of airborne allergens from home environments. Such studies have been limited by a lack of blinding, small samples, or a failure to measure allergen levels, disease activity, or a combination of these factors. This study investigates the efficacy of a high-efficiency air purifier in reducing disease activity in the homes of AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia (mugwort) pollen.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, clinical controlled trial that will test active and inactive versions of an air purifier (Atmosphere®; Amway China). Sixty AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia pollen will be assigned randomly to two groups of equal numbers. All patients will undergo a 4-week treatment period and a 4-week observation period. Evaluation will be conducted at baseline (day 0) and on days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 56. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in visual analog scale scores from baseline. Secondary outcomes will be changes from baseline in nasal symptoms, allergy symptom scores, responses to the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, and tolerability scores for the air purifier. Side effects of treatment will be recorded.

DISCUSSION

Reducing exposure to allergens can reduce the risk of conditions such as AR. We hypothesise that AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia pollen will not suffer symptoms in a pollen-free environment. AR patients can remove pollen from their homes using air purifiers, decreasing the risk of symptoms. We expect that our study results will provide reliable evidence for determining the effects of air-purification therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-INR-17012481 . (Retrospectively registered 26 August 2017).

Efficacy of indoor air purification in treating Artemisia (mugwort) pollen allergic rhinitis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a worldwide health problem. Allergen avoidance is strongly recommended for AR patients. Air purification can reduce concentrations of particles in indoor air, including those of allergens. Air purifiers have been recommended by clinicians for AR patients, but few studies have focused on the removal of airborne allergens from home environments. Such studies have been limited by a lack of blinding, small samples, or a failure to measure allergen levels, disease activity, or a combination of these factors. This study investigates the efficacy of a high-efficiency air purifier in reducing disease activity in the homes of AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia (mugwort) pollen.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, clinical controlled trial that will test active and inactive versions of an air purifier (Atmosphere®; Amway China). Sixty AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia pollen will be assigned randomly to two groups of equal numbers. All patients will undergo a 4-week treatment period and a 4-week observation period. Evaluation will be conducted at baseline (day 0) and on days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 56. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in visual analog scale scores from baseline. Secondary outcomes will be changes from baseline in nasal symptoms, allergy symptom scores, responses to the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, and tolerability scores for the air purifier. Side effects of treatment will be recorded.

DISCUSSION

Reducing exposure to allergens can reduce the risk of conditions such as AR. We hypothesise that AR patients sensitive to the allergens produced by Artemisia pollen will not suffer symptoms in a pollen-free environment. AR patients can remove pollen from their homes using air purifiers, decreasing the risk of symptoms. We expect that our study results will provide reliable evidence for determining the effects of air-purification therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-INR-17012481 . (Retrospectively registered 26 August 2017).

Effect of a Novel Photoelectrochemical Oxidation Air Purifier on Nasal and Ocular Allergy Symptoms

Background

Photoelectrochemical oxidation (PECO) is a new air purification technology developed to reduce circulating indoor allergens. PECO removes particles as small as 0.1 nm with the destruction of organic matter otherwise not trapped by a traditional filter and removes volatile organic compounds.

Objective

We hypothesized that with daily use, the device would reduce user nasal and ocular allergy total symptom scores (TSS) within 4 weeks.

Methods

The study was performed among 46 individuals with self-reported allergies using a portable PECO air purifier. Self-reported TSS were calculated at baseline and weekly for 4 weeks following initiation of continuous use of the system. TSS was the sum of total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) and total ocular symptom scores (TOSS) for the week.

Results

There was a statistically significant change in overall TSS from baseline to 4 weeks (10.1 at baseline and 4.35 postintervention) resulting in a mean difference of 5.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.32-7.18; P < .0001). There was a statistically significant change in TNSS from baseline to 4 weeks (6.3 at baseline and 3.04 postintervention) resulting in a mean difference of 3.26 (95% CI 2.33-3.19; P < .0001). There was a statistically significant change in TOSS from baseline to 4 weeks (3.82 at baseline and 1.3 postintervention) resulting in a mean difference of 2.52 (95% CI 1.74-3.3; P < .0001).

Conclusion

With the use of PECO air purification technology, TSS, TNSS, and TOSS decreased significantly. These improvements were consistent over the 4-week course of device use.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Effectiveness of air purifier on health outcomes and indoor particles in homes of children with allergic diseases in Fresno, California: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Epidemiologic studies indicate that indoor air pollution is correlated with morbidity caused by allergic diseases. We evaluated the effectiveness of reducing the levels of indoor fine particulate matter <2.5 micrometer diameter (PM_2.5) in Fresno, California using air purifiers on health outcomes in children with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The active group (with air purifiers) and the control group consisted of eight houses each. Air purifiers were installed in the living rooms and bedrooms of the subjects in the active group during the entire 12-week study duration. Childhood asthma control test, peak flow rate monitoring, and nasal symptom scores were evaluated at weeks 0, 6, and 12.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, the active group showed a trend toward an improvement of childhood asthma control test scores and mean evening peak flow rates, whereas the control group showed deterioration in the same measures. Total and daytime nasal symptoms scores significantly reduced in the active group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively). The average indoor PM_2.5 concentrations reduced by 43% (7.42 to 4.28 μg/m³) in the active group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention with air purifiers reduces indoor PM_2.5 levels with significant improvements in nasal symptoms in children with allergic rhinitis in Fresno.

Effect of alcaftadine 0.25% on ocular itch associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis: a pooled analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis represent the majority of cases of ocular allergy. This analysis was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% in preventing ocular itching associated with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Pooled data from two double-masked, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model of allergic conjunctivitis were analyzed. Subjects randomized to receive treatment with alcaftadine 0.25% or placebo were challenged with seasonal (grass, ragweed, trees) or perennial (cat dander, cat hair, dog dander, dust mites, cockroach) allergens, 16 hours after treatment instillation. The primary efficacy measure was subject-evaluated mean ocular itching at 3 minutes post-CAC. Secondary measures included ocular itching at 5 and 7 minutes post-CAC. The proportion of subjects with minimal itch (itch score <1) and zero itch (itch score =0), and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 189 subjects enrolled in the two studies were treated with alcaftadine or placebo. Overall, 129 subjects were challenged with seasonal allergens and 60 subjects were challenged with perennial allergens. Alcaftadine 0.25% achieved a statistically significant reduction in mean itch score at 3, 5, and 7 minutes post-CAC compared with placebo in subjects challenged with seasonal allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points) and those challenged with perennial allergens (P<0.0001 at all time points). A higher percentage of subjects treated with alcaftadine compared with placebo achieved minimal itch (P≤0.001 versus placebo at all time points) and zero itch (P<0.05 at all time points except 7 minutes for perennial) when challenged with either seasonal or perennial allergens. No treatment-related or serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily alcaftadine 0.25% ophthalmic solution was well tolerated and demonstrated effective relief of ocular itching in subjects challenged with allergens classic for triggering either seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Efficacy of environmental controls for inhalant allergies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the efficacy of environmental controls as part of the management for inhalant allergic disease (allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma).

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence of efficacy of environmental controls for allergic disease can be categorized into two types of studies: environmental controls reducing measured allergen levels and environmental controls affecting clinical outcomes (e.g., symptom scores, medication use, or measured lung function). Multiple environmental control strategies have demonstrated efficacy in reducing allergen levels; however, clinical benefit secondary to allergen reduction has been variable. Clinical benefit is seen more consistently in studies that remove the allergic patient from a high allergen environment, than in studies that attempt to reduce the allergen level within the home. Prevention of sensitization using environmental controls in the prenatal and infant periods has been studied, but it has been difficult to demonstrate a consistent reduction in the development of allergic disease or decrease symptom severity. Allergen exposure early in life may paradoxically promote tolerance in some populations and sensitizations in others.

SUMMARY

Although many studies evaluating a single environmental control strategy fail to show an improvement in clinical outcomes, comprehensive environmental controls may provide some benefit. Additionally, studies that relocate patients to low allergen environments tend to demonstrate clinical improvement.

Health benefits of particle filtration

The evidence of health benefits of particle filtration in homes and commercial buildings is reviewed. Prior reviews of papers published before 2000 are summarized. The results of 16 more recent intervention studies are compiled and analyzed. Also, reviewed are four studies that modeled health benefits of using filtration to reduce indoor exposures to particles from outdoors. Prior reviews generally concluded that particle filtration is, at best, a source of small improvements in allergy and asthma health effects; however, many early studies had weak designs. A majority of recent intervention studies employed strong designs and more of these studies report statistically significant improvements in health symptoms or objective health outcomes, particularly for subjects with allergies or asthma. The percentage improvement in health outcomes is typically modest, for example, 7% to 25%. Delivery of filtered air to the breathing zone of sleeping allergic or asthmatic persons may be more consistently effective in improving health than room air filtration. Notable are two studies that report statistically significant improvements, with filtration, in markers that predict future adverse coronary events. From modeling, the largest potential benefits of indoor particle filtration may be reductions in morbidity and mortality from reducing indoor exposures to particles from outdoor air.

Time for new methods for avoidance of house dust mite and other allergens

Asthma is a common disease in which environmental exposures and lifestyle factors play critical roles in expression and symptoms. Recommended methods for reducing exposure to domestic allergens as a component of asthma and rhinitis management have changed little over the last 30 years. The data that implementation of these provides clinical benefit are inconsistent. We contend that current methods are ineffective at reducing chronic personal exposure. More effective strategies can be developed based on understanding when people are exposed, the sources of this exposure and the activities associated with this exposure. Developing new methods should be founded on understanding the aerodynamic behavior of particles, their aerosolization, removal from surfaces, and the complex relationships between exposures and clinical outcomes. It will also require developing better proxy measures of chronic exposure, identifying markers for the sub-set of people who benefit, and integrating this with strategies addressing other domestic exposures and lifestyle factors.

Effectiveness of air filters and air cleaners in allergic respiratory diseases: a review of the recent literature

Air filtration is frequently recommended as a component of environmental control measures for patients with allergic respiratory disease. Residential air filtration can be provided by whole house filtration via the home’s heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system, by portable room air cleaners, or a combination of the two. Appliances to filter the sleep breathing zone also have been developed. High-efficiency whole house filtration, high-efficiency particulate air sleep zone air filtration, and high-efficiency particulate air room air cleaners all appear to provide various degrees of benefit. Recent studies of various types of filtration, used alone or as part of more comprehensive environmental control measures, are reviewed.

It's time to rethink mite allergen avoidance

The role of allergen exposure in the etiology of allergic sensitization and asthma is complex. Advice on strategies to avoid domestic allergens remains contentious because trials of interventions aimed to prevent asthma or reduce symptoms have often failed to demonstrate benefits. Asthma management guidelines differ widely in their recommendations, while Web-based information often claims benefits associated with products. In this rostrum we argue that although many factors have a role in both the etiology and the exacerbation of asthma, allergen exposure probably remains an important contributor to the manifestations of the disease. Currently, there is no evidence-based framework for effective domestic allergen avoidance interventions to reduce chronic aeroallergen exposure. The development of an effective approach to allergen avoidance requires a better understanding of (a) the physical nature of chronic aeroallergen exposure and methods for measuring and reducing this, (b) the interaction between allergen exposure and innate immune modulators at different disease stages, and (c) markers enabling the identification of individuals who would benefit from this. The strategic risk of overemphasizing other novel mechanisms and approaches to asthma management is that we will prematurely abandon and fail to improve an existing approach that could have a significant impact on the development, progression, and symptoms of the disease.

Allergic rhinitis and asthma: celebrating 100 years of immunotherapy

Since Noon first described allergen immunotherapy a century ago the basic premise of subcutaneous injections (SCIT) of relevant aeroallergens to induce clinical tolerance has remained true [1]. Indeed, allergen immunotherapy did not change dramatically over the first 75 years, but over the past 25 years there have been a number of important advancements leading to newer approaches and novel formulations. Here we review the top 50 articles published in the past 2 years on allergens, environmental control, and immunotherapy for asthma and allergic rhinitis and the use of immunomodulators in allergic disease.