RESUMO
Objective@#By use of Meta analysis to compare efficacy, safety and compliance of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) on allergic rhinitis (AR).@*Methods@#Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, CNKI Database, Wan Fang and Chinese Sci-tech Journal Database (from established time to May of 2018) were searched for trials about the AR treated by SCIT and SLIT. The relevant literatures were screened, and the randomized controlled studies were chosen. Nasal symptom scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, adverse reactions and compliance were used as the outcome indicators, and the methodological quality of the literatures was evaluated strictly. The extracted data were analyzed by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14 software.@*Results@#A total of 20 randomized controlled studies were included, the overall quality of which was relatively high. No publication bias was found. There was no significant difference in nasal symptom scores, VAS scores and compliance between SCIT and SLIT (SMD value was 0.03, 0.14, respectively, RR=1.12; 95%CI value was -0.17-0.23, -0.03-0.31, 0.92-1.35, respectively, all P>0.05); SLIT group resulted in lower overall incidence of adverse reactions than that of SCIT group (RR=1.79, 95%CI: 1.42-2.26, P<0.05).@*Conclusion@#Both SCIT and SLIT have similar eppecacy and compliance for treatment of AR, while adverse reactions are more frequently observed in SCIT.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE To explore the expression of Maspin in invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (IFRS) and the value of Maspin in the diagnosis of IFRS. METHODS Forty two cases of fungal rhinosinusitis (FRS) were set as the experimental group, which included 12 cases of IFRS and 30 cases of noninvasive fungal rhino-sinusitis (NIFRS). At the same time, 30 cases of chronic rhino-sinusitis were set as control group. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to detect the expression of Maspin. RESULTS Compared with the control group, the expression of Maspin in FRS group decreased statistically (t=-3.367, P<0.05). The IFRS group, compared with other two groups, had the lowest expression of Maspin (t=-3.390, P<0.05; t=-4.143, P<0.05). By using Maspin score of 5.70 as the cut-off point, the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of IFRS was 91.7% and 88.3% respectively. CONCLUSION The expression of Maspin is very low in IFRS group. Down-regulation of Maspin expression may be a potential indicator for diagnosis of IFRS.