scholarly journals Management of allergic rhinitis with leukotriene receptor antagonists versus selective H1-antihistamines: a meta-analysis of current evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Feng ◽  
Ya-Ping Meng ◽  
Ying-Ying Dong ◽  
Chang-Yu Qiu ◽  
Lei Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Nasal Symptoms ◽  
H1 Antihistamines ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor

Abstract Background Inconsistencies remain regarding the effectiveness and safety of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and selective H1-antihistamines (SAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the medications. Methods Relevant head-to-head comparative RCTs were retrieved by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane’s Library databases from inception to April 20, 2020. A random-effects model was applied to pool the results. Subgroup analyses were performed for seasonal and perennial AR. Results Fourteen RCTs comprising 4458 patients were included. LTRAs were inferior to SAHs in terms of the daytime nasal symptoms score (mean difference [MD]: 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 0.08, p = 0.003, I2 = 89%) and daytime eye symptoms score (MD: 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08, p = 0.009, I2 = 89%), but were superior in terms of the nighttime symptoms score (MD: − 0.04, 95% CI − 0.06 to − 0.02, p < 0.001, I2 = 85%). The effects of the two treatments on the composite symptom score (MD: 0.02, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.05, p = 0.30, I2 = 91%) and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire (RQLQ) (MD: 0.01, 95% CI − 0.05 to 0.07, p = 0.71, I2 = 99%) were similar. Incidences of adverse events were comparable (odds ratio [OR]: 0.97, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.25, p = 0.98, I2 = 0%). These results were mainly obtained from studies on seasonal AR. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusions Although both treatments are safe and effective in improving the quality of life (QoL) in AR patients, LTRAs are more effective in improving nighttime symptoms but less effective in improving daytime nasal symptoms compared to SAHs.

Leukotriene Receptor Antagonist Addition to H1-Antihistamine Is Effective for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 591-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kachorn Seresirikachorn ◽  
Wirach Chitsuthipakorn ◽  
Dichapong Kanjanawasee ◽  
Likhit Khattiyawittayakun ◽  
Kornkiat Snidvongs
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Ocular Symptoms ◽  
Nasal Symptoms ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor

Background Histamine and leukotriene are released after being triggered by allergen exposure. The combination of leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) and H1-antihistamine (AH) is utilized to control the allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms after the failure of either AH or LTRA. Objective This study aimed to investigate the effects of the combination of H1-antihistamine and leukotriene receptor antagonist (AH-LTRA) in patients with AR. Methods Randomized controlled trials studying the effects of AH-LTRA versus AH alone on rhinoconjuncitivits symptoms in patients with AR were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. The outcomes were nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, disease-specific quality of life, and adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between AH-LTRA and AH. Subgroup analyses by AR subtype, asthma, and pediatric patients were performed. Results Fourteen studies (3271 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The results favored the effects of AH-LTRA on (1) composite nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.36, −0.03), (2) rhinorrhea (SMD: −0.14; 95% CI: −0.27, −0.02), and (3) sneezing (SMD: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.27, −0.02). Subgroup analyses revealed that results favored the effects of AH-LTRA for perennial AR (SMD: −0.57; 95% CI: −0.87, −0.26) but not in the seasonal AR subgroup (SMD: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.21, 0.04), P = .004. There were no differences between AH-LTRA and AH on nasal obstruction, itching, ocular symptoms, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of life Questionnaire and adverse events. Due to limited number of included studies, effects on asthma and pediatric subgroups could not be assessed. Conclusion For controlling rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms in patients with AR, AH-LTRA provided greater beneficial effects on composite nasal symptoms, rhinorrhea, and sneezing compared to AH alone. These effects were shown in patients with perennial AR.

Oral Antihistamines Alone vs in Combination with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 158 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Liu ◽  
Xu Zhou ◽  
Jianrong Chen ◽  
Feng Liu
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Nasal Symptoms ◽  
Eye Symptoms ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor

Objective To evaluate whether an adjuvant therapy of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) based on oral H1-antihistamines (H1) can increase efficacy of allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment. Data Sources The search involved databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception up to September 23, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared efficacy of LTRAs + H1 vs H1 alone were eligible. Review Methods Pooled comparative effects were measured using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis comparing seasonal vs perennial AR was prespecified to explore the source of heterogeneity. The evidence quality of each outcome was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results A total of 8 RCTs were included (n = 1886), and all measured outcomes used scaled scores. Compared with H1 alone, H1 + LTRAs were superior to improve overall daytime (WMD, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.19 to –0.03, high quality) and composite (WMD, –0.12; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.01; low quality) nasal symptoms. Specifically, H1 + LTRAs had better efficacy against composite nasal rhinorrhea, sneezing, and daytime itching but not congestion. The effects were more pronounced in patients with perennial AR compared to those with seasonal AR. There were no significant differences in nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms between the 2 groups. Conclusion The current evidence suggests that LTRAs + H1 can increase the therapeutic efficacy against daytime and composite nasal symptoms, including rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching; however, it does not affect nighttime nasal symptoms and eye symptoms. The patients with perennial AR may benefit more from the combination therapy.

scholarly journals Acupuncture methods for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zihan Yin ◽  
Guoyan Geng ◽  
Guixing Xu ◽  
Ling Zhao ◽  
Fanrong Liang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Acupuncture Therapy ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Effective Intervention ◽  
Manual Acupuncture ◽  
Nasal Symptoms

Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common symptomatic, inflammatory, and immunological disorder of nasal mucosa. Multiple clinical trials and systematic reviews have implicated acupuncture methods as potentially effective treatment strategies for AR, however, considering the great burden of AR, it is crucial to explore the most recent clinical evidence supporting acupuncture in AR. Besides, the methodologies reported in previous studies as well as those commonly applied during clinical practices greatly vary. Herein, we conducted network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of diverse acupuncture methods for AR treatment. Methods We conducted a literature search for relevant reports published from inception to 1 July 2020 in several scientific databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CNKI, WF, VIP, CBM, AMED as well as related registration platforms. Primary outcomes as reported in the identified studies were assessed using nasal symptoms. All Meta-analyses were performed with RevMan, ADDIS, and STATA software. To ensure consistency among our reviewers, the intra-class correlation coefficient was used. Results Exactly 39 studies with 3433 participants were covered in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that all acupuncture types were superior to sham acupuncture in terms of total nasal symptom score and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire. Moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention as it reduced nasal symptoms in 6 treatments. On the other hand, manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine was recommended as the most effective intervention in improving the quality of life in 9 treatments. Notably, moxibustion was recommended as the most effective intervention that changed the content of IgE in 9 treatments. Moreover, adverse events of these interventions were acceptable. Conclusion Our findings revealed that all acupuncture methods are effective and safe for AR. Moreover, either moxibustion or manual acupuncture plus conventional medicine are potentially the most effective treatment strategies for AR. Based on these findings, it is evident that acupuncture therapy is not inferior to pharmacologic therapy. Therefore, for AR patients who are either unresponsive to conventional medicine or are intolerant to adverse events, acupuncture therapy should be administered. However, the quality of these included trials was mainly ranked as moderate quality, we recommend additional well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes to validate these findings.

scholarly journals The Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Spine Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Wei-Ting Wu ◽  
Tsung-Min Lee ◽  
Der-Sheng Han ◽  
Ke-Vin Chang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Degenerative Spine ◽  
Degenerative Spine Disease ◽  
Spine Disease

The association of sarcopenia with poor clinical outcomes has been identified in various medical conditions, although there is a lack of quantitative analysis to validate the influence of sarcopenia on patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease (LDSD) from the available literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with LDSD and examine its impact on clinical outcomes. The electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) were systematically searched from inception through December 2020 for clinical studies investigating the association of sarcopenia with clinical outcomes in patients with LDSD. A random-effects model meta-analysis was carried out for data synthesis. This meta-analysis included 14 studies, comprising 1953 participants. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia among patients with LDSD was 24.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3%–34.3%). The relative risk of sarcopenia was not significantly increased in patients with LDSD compared with controls (risk ratio, 1.605; 95% CI, 0.321–8.022). The patients with sarcopenia did not experience an increase in low back and leg pain. However, lower quality of life (SMD, −0.627; 95% CI, −0.844–−0.410) were identified postoperatively. Sarcopenia did not lead to an elevated rate of complications after lumbar surgeries. Sarcopenia accounts for approximately one-quarter of the population with LDSD. The clinical manifestations are less influenced by sarcopenia, whereas sarcopenia is associated with poorer quality of life after lumbar surgeries. The current evidence is still insufficient to support sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Acupuncture in Management of Functional Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Lu Wang ◽  
Mingmin Xu ◽  
Qianhua Zheng ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Ying Li
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Functional Constipation ◽  
Responder Rate ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Increased Risk

Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation (FC). Methods. A rigorous literature search was performed in English (PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medical (CBM), Wanfang database, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP)) electronic databases from their inception to October 2019. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared acupuncture therapy with sham acupuncture or pharmacological therapies. The outcome measures were evaluated, including the primary outcome of complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) and secondary outcomes of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), constipation symptoms scores (CSS), responder rate, the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire, and safety evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan5.3. Results. The merged data of 28 RCTs with 3525 participants indicated that acupuncture may be efficient for FC by increasing CSBMs (p<0.00001; MD = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.03]; I2 = 0%) and improving constipation symptoms (p=0.03; SMD = −0.4 [95% CI, −0.78 to −0.03]; I2 = 74%), stool formation (p<0.00001; MD = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.34]; I2 = 0%), quality of life (p<0.00001; N = 1, MD = −0.33 [95% CI, −0.45 to −0.21]), and responder rates (p=0.02; RR = 2.16; [95% CI, 1.1 to 4.24]; I2 = 69%) compared with the effects of sham treatment. No increased risk of adverse events was observed (p=0.44; RR = 1.18; [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.81]; I2 = 0%). With regard to medication comparisons, the pooled data indicated that acupuncture was more effective in increasing CSBMs (p=0.004; MD = 0.53 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.88]; I2 = 88%) and improving patients’ quality of life (p<0.00001; SMD = −0.73 [95% CI, −1.02 to −0.44]; I2 = 64%), with high heterogeneity. However, there were no significant differences in responder rate (p=0.12; RR = 1.31; [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.82]; I2 = 53%), BSFS (p=0.5; MD = 0.17 [95% CI, −0.33 to 0.68]; I2 = 93%), or CSS (p=0.05; SMD = −0.62 [95% CI, −1.23 to −0.01]; I2 = 89%). Regarding safety evaluation, acupuncture was safer than medications (p<0.0001; RR = 0.3; [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.52]; I2 = 30%). Conclusions. Current evidence suggests that acupuncture is an efficient and safe treatment for FC. Acupuncture increased stool frequency, improved stool formation, alleviated constipation symptoms, and improved quality of life. However, the evidence quality was relatively low and the relationship between acupuncture and drugs is not clear. More high-quality trials are recommended in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019143347.

Treatment and Prevention of Periprosthetic Capsular Contracture in Breast Surgery With Prosthesis Using Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Pașca ◽  
Eduard-Alexandru Bonci ◽  
Codruța Chiuzan ◽  
Nicoleta Monica Jiboc ◽  
Vlad Alexandru Gâta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Capsular Contracture ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor

Abstract Background Capsular Contracture (CC) is the most common long-term complication of breast surgery with prosthesis. Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists (LRAs) have been tested as a potential treatment; however, mixed results have been observed. Objectives This study presents a meta-analysis to clarify the treatment and prophylactic capabilities of LRAs in the management of CC. Methods A systematic literature search in the most popular English databases was performed to identify relevant primary publications. We included all studies that evaluated the treatment and preventive capabilities of LRAs using the Baker scale assessment. Results Six eligible studies were included based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, totalling 2276 breasts, out of which 775 did not receive LRAs and 1501 did. Final pooled results showed that LRAs could help manage CC with a Risk Difference (RD) of -0.38 with the corresponding 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between -0.69 and -0.08, showing statistical significance at a Z value of 2.48, p=0.01. Subgroup analysis based on the type of drug used showed that only montelukast yielded statistical significance (RD=-0.27, 95% CI between -0.51 and -0.03, Z=2.20, p=0.03). Zafirlukast did not seem to influence CC. Further subgroup analysis based on treatment timing showed that prophylaxis was ineffective and only treatment for ongoing CC yielded statistical significance. Conclusions The current meta-analysis proved that LRAs could be used in the management of CC. Only treatment for the ongoing CC showed statistical significance. Montelukast seemed to be more efficient with a safer profile for adverse effects, while zafirlukast yielded no statistical significance.

scholarly journals Urticaria is not a sentence. The clinical cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
I V Danilycheva ◽  
A E Shulzhenko ◽  
N G Bondarenko
Keyword(s):  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Therapeutic Antibody ◽  
Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria ◽  
Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists ◽  
H1 Antihistamines ◽  
Leukotriene Receptor ◽  
Clinical Cases

Omalizumab - monoclonal therapeutic antibody to human IgE, is effectively used for the treatment of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (HSC), refractory to 4 times increased doses of antihistamines. The article describes two cases of effective treatment of patients (HSC) with omalizumab (Xolair® «Novartis Pharma» LLC) after a long period of unsuccessful therapy with H1-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document