The immediate effect of facial candling on inflammatory mediators, substance P, symptoms severity, and quality of life in allergic rhinitis patients: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Prevalence, causes and treatments of allergic rhinitis in Malaysia: a literature review

Recently, allergic rhinitis (AR) cases have been surging rapidly in many developing countries. However, the prevalence, risk factors and treatment modalities for AR within the Malaysian population have not been thoroughly evaluated. The present study aimed to provide a complete review of literature on allergic rhinitis in Malaysia. Available data indicated that the prevalence of AR varied across different age groups and regions in Malaysia, but there is an increasing trend among the younger population. The key contributing factor is exposure and sensitization towards several airborne allergens, mainly house dust mites, cat fur and fungi, with possible genetic predispositions. In addition, variations in the symptom severity may be associated with racial orientations. For management of the disease, standard prescriptions of conventional drugs (antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids and nasal decongestants) remain as the treatment of choice. A small proportion of the native residents tend to resort to alternative approaches of self-healing through aromatherapy and natural food consumption such as tiger’s milk mushroom and Tualang honey. In conclusion, the increase in the cases of AR in Malaysia is due to environmental and genetic factors which requires proper medical intervention as treatment strategies. The utilization of holistic approaches requires further studies and clear understanding prior to their integration into the standard of care. There are still many gaps in the knowledge and management of allergic rhinitis which demands further attention from the research community.

Knowledge and Perception of Facial Candling for Allergic Rhinitis among University Staff and Students

INTRODUCTION

Facial candling is a traditional method used for relieving symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR). This study aims to investigate the knowledge and perception of facial candling in a sample of staff and students in a public university in Malaysia.

METHODS

An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.

RESULTS

A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.

Acupuncture as an add-on therapy to sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis

This study retrospectively analyzed the effectiveness of acupuncture as add-on therapy (AAOT) to sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy (SASIT) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). A total of 120 eligible cases of adult patients with AR were included in this retrospective study. Of these, 60 patients received AAOT plus SASIT and were assigned to a treatment group, while the other 60 subjects underwent SASIT only, and were assigned to a control group. Primary outcome was AR symptoms. The secondary outcome was quality of life, as evaluated by the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). In addition, adverse events were also recorded during the study period. All outcomes were assessed before and after 8 weeks treatment. After 8 weeks treatment, patients in the treatment group had much better effectiveness in symptoms relief (P <.05), and quality of life improvement (activity domain, P = .04; practical domain, P = .03), compared with patients in the control group. In addition, although patients in the treatment group reported more mild pain at local area after the treatment than that in the control group (P <.01), no patients stopped the treatment. The results of this study showed that AAOT plus SASIT achieved more benefits in patients with AR than SASIT alone.