Oral antihistamines for the symptom of nasal obstruction in persistent allergic rhinitis-a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

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.

Download Full-text

Ear Acupressure for Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2021/6699749 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-20

Author(s):

Juan Zhong ◽

Shuqin Liu ◽

Dan Lai ◽

Tao Lu ◽

Yifeng Shen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Symptom Score ◽

Latin American ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background. The treatment effects and safety of ear acupressure (EAP) for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have yet to be clarified. Objective. To evaluate the effects and safety of EAP in AR patients. Design. Systematic review of published studies. Methods. A total of 24 English and Chinese databases (PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Informit, ScienceDirect, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences), ProQuest, AMED, Blackwell Synergy, PsycINFO, Panteleimon, AcuBriefs, KoreaMed, IndMed, Ingenta, mRCT, ISI Web of Knowledge, ERIC, VIP Information (http://www.cqvip.com), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (http://www.cnki.net), Cochrane Library, Chinese Cochrane Centre Controlled Trials Register Platform, and Wanfang Chinese Digital Periodical and Conference Database) were searched from their respective inceptions to August 2020 to collect randomized controlled trials of ear acupressure for allergic rhinitis. We performed literature inclusion, data extraction, and trial quality evaluations. Methodological quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Revman5.3 was used for all analyses. Results. A total of 203 trials were identified and eleven studies involved 1094 participants aged 3–70 years. EAP was better than control group interventions in terms of effectiveness (risk ratio (RR): 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.70; P < 0.0001 ). EAP was superior to sham EAP in terms of improvement of the total nasal symptom score (RR: −0.50; 95% CI: −0.96–0.05; P = 0.03), sneezing score (RR: −0.36; 95% CI: −0.59–0.12; P = 0.003), global QoL score (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.04–0.08; P = 0.03), and eye symptom score (RR: −0.36; 95% CI: −0.67–0.05; P = 0.02). Conclusions. Despite the positive results, it is premature to confirm the efficacy of EAP for treating AR. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm safety and efficacy.

Download Full-text