scholarly journals Indirect moxibustion for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 102804
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Moxibustion ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Intranasal Azelastine and Fluticasone as Combination Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-418
Author(s):  
Peter M. Debbaneh ◽  
Anna K. Bareiss ◽  
Sarah K. Wise ◽  
Edward D. McCoul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Symptom Scores

Objective Combination therapy with intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate is an option for treatment of allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines existing literature to determine efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis compared to monotherapy. Data Sources The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials using AzeFlu nasal spray. Review Methods Randomized, controlled trials that reported symptom relief of allergic rhinitis in males and females of all ages were included. Results were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard. Results Systematic review identified 8 articles suitable for review. The risk of bias was generally low. All studies exhibited a greater decrease in patient-reported symptom scores in patients treated with combination therapy compared to monotherapy or placebo. Meta-analysis revealed superiority of combination therapy in reducing Total Nasal Symptom Score compared to placebo (mean change from baseline: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.82 to −1.99; P < .001; I 2 = 60%), azelastine (mean change from baseline: −1.40; 95% CI, −1.82 to −0.98; P < .001; I 2 = 0%), and fluticasone (mean change from baseline: −0.74; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.31; P < .001; I 2 = 12%). Conclusion Current evidence supports both efficacy and superiority of combination intranasal azelastine and fluticasone in reducing patient-reported symptom scores in patients with allergic rhinitis. Combination nasal spray should be considered as second-line therapy in patients with allergic rhinitis that is not controlled with monotherapy.

Interventions to Reduce Alcohol Harms in Low and Middle Income Countries: a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Brief Motivational Intervention ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document