Intranasal Corticosteroids Compared with Oral Antihistamines in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Juel-Berg Nanna1,Darling Peter2,Bolvig Julie3,Foss-Skiftesvik Majken H.14,Halken Susanne5,Winther Lone1,Hansen Kirsten Skamstrup16,Askjaer Nikolaj7,Heegaard Steffen89,Madsen Anders R.2,Opstrup Morten S.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, Denmark

2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology (Ear Nose and Throat), Head and Neck Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

3. Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark

4. National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, Denmark

5. Department of Pediatrics, Hans Christian Andersen Children's Hospital, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

6. Department of Pediatrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

7. Primary Health Care, Laegerne Aldershvilevej, Bagsvaerd, Denmark

8. Department of Ophthalmology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark

9. Department of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark

Abstract

Background Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) (corticosteroid nasal sprays) and oral antihistamines (OA) are two of the most common treatments for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews on this topic including trials published after 2007. Objective To compare INS with nonsedating OAs as treatments for AR. Methods The systematic review and meta-analysis were based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation principles and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome approach. Primary literature was searched up to January 22, 2015. Criteria for eligibility were randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and/or adverse effects of INS and OA in patients with AR. Continuous outcome data were analyzed by using standardized mean differences (SMD) for multiple outcome measures, and mean differences in the case of a single study or outcome. Pooled estimates of effects, 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated by using random-effects models. Results The meta-analysis included five randomized controlled trials with a total of 990 patients. INS were superior to OAs in improving total nasal symptoms score (SMD -0.70 [95% CI, -0.93 to -0.477]) and in relieving the following: nasal obstruction (SMD -0.56 [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.29]), rhinorrhea (SMD -0.47 [95% CI, -1.00 to 0.05]), nasal itching (SMD -0.42 [95% CI, -0.65 to -0.18]), sneezing (SMD -0.52 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.32]), and quality of life mean difference -0.90 [95% CI, -1.18 to -0.62]). There was no difference in relief of ocular symptoms (SMD -0.08 [95% CI, -0.23 to 0.08]). In addition, four randomized controlled trials were included in a narrative analysis. The results in the narrative analysis were comparable with those found in the meta-analysis. Conclusion INS were superior to OAs in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life in patients with AR.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine,Otorhinolaryngology,Immunology and Allergy

Cited by 49 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3