Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of selective H1-antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Both selective H1-antihistamine (SAH) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) have been shown to be effective in treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is optimal. This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR.PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for all eligible studies that compared the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR up to September 7, 2014. The pooled mean difference (MD), odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.Nine studies with 5781 SAR patients were included. The results showed that SAH is superior to LTRA in terms of the daytime eye symptoms score (DESS) and composite symptoms score (CSS) for SAR (MD = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10, P = 0.000, I2 = 99%; MD = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.010, I2 = 98%), whereas LTRA overmatched SAH with respect to the night-time symptoms score (NSS) (MD?=?-0.04, 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.02, P = 0.000, I2 = 97%). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that the dose, duration and gender of the patients might impact the comparisons of the effects of SAH and LTRA on their efficacy for SAR.This meta-analysis suggested that SAH and LTRA have similar effects and safety for SAR, but SAH is more appropriate for daytime nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus and sneezing), while LTRA is better suited for nighttime symptoms (difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakenings, and nasal congestion on awakening), respectively. Meanwhile, the dose, duration and gender of patients may influence the anti-SAR effects of SAH and LTRA.

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4226613 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and safety of selective H1-antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.

Xu Yu Y Zhang Jixiang J Wang Jun J

PloS one 20141110 11

<h4>Background</h4>Both selective H1-antihistamine (SAH) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) have been shown to be effective in treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is optimal. This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for all eligible studies that compared the efficacy and safety of SAH and L ...[more]

PMID: 25383622

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Allergic rhinitis symptoms can be reduced by behaviorally conditioning antihistamine. It is unclear whether these findings extend to histamine-induced itch or work when participants are informed about the conditioning procedure (open-label conditioning). The current study aims to investigate the efficacy of (open-label) antipruritic behavioral conditioning for histamine-induced itch. METHODS:Healthy participants (n = 92; 84% female) were randomized to I) an open-label conditioned, II) closed-label conditioned, III) conditioned-not-evoked control, or IV) nonconditioned control group. A two-phase conditioning paradigm was used. During acquisition, a conditioned stimulus (CS; distinctively tasting beverage) was repeatedly paired with the H1-antihistamine levocetirizine (groups I-III). During evocation, the CS was paired with placebo (I, II), or instead of the CS, water was paired with placebo (III). The nonconditioned control group (IV) received CS with placebo in both phases. Itch after histamine iontophoresis and physiological data (i.e., spirometry, heart rate, skin conductance) were assessed. Combined conditioned and combined control groups were first compared, and analyses were repeated for separate groups. RESULTS:Marginally lower itch was reported in the combined conditioned compared with the control groups (F(1,88) = 2.10, p = .076, ?partial = 0.02); no differences between separate groups were found. No effects on physiological data were found, except for heart rate, which reduced significantly and consistently for control groups, and less consistently for conditioned groups (group by time interaction: F(7,80) = 2.35, p = .031, ?partial = 0.17). CONCLUSION:Limited support was found for the efficacy of antipruritic behavioral conditioning, regardless of whether participants were informed about the conditioning procedure. The application of open-label conditioning in patient populations should be further researched. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.trialregister.nl; ID NTR5544.

Project description:Background:Artemisia annua is the most common outdoor aeroallergen throughout Northern China; however, no multicenter study has investigated sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) as a treatment option for Artemisia annua-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an innovative SLIT for Artemisia annua-related AR. Methods:This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted in China (NCT XXX). A total of 702 Artemisia annua-sensitized eligible patients were randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to receive Artemisia annua-SLIT or placebo. The treatment lasted 32 weeks; including 5-weeks up-dosing phase and 27-weeks maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was the daily combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (CSMRS), and secondary endpoints were daily total nasal symptom score (dTNSS) and daily rescue medication score (dRMS) during peak pollen period. Safety of treatment was evaluated according to adverse events (AEs) experienced. Results:Mean daily CSMRS was significantly improved during the peak pollen period in the SLIT group compared with the placebo group (1.46 ± 0.47 vs 1.88 ± 0.42, P < 0.0001 in full analysis set [FAS]; 1.49 ± 0.52 vs 1.95 ± 0.46, P < 0.0001 in per protocol set [PPS]); representing a 22.3% and 23.6% reduction, respectively, relative to placebo. In specifically Artemisia annua monosensitized patients, mean daily CSMRS reductions were demonstrated as 24.1% and 27.0% in the FAS and PPS populations, respectively, when comparing the active treatment to placebo treatment. Similarly, SLIT decreased dTNSS in peak pollen period by 19.0% in FAS and 22.3% in PPS, respectively, relative to placebo. In coincidence, dRMS in peak pollen period was reduced by 22.0% in FAS and 26.0% in PPS. 65.8% patients in SLIT group experienced treatment-related AEs, none of which was serious. Conclusion:This study indicates that SLIT with Artemisia annua drops is an effective and safe treatment option in Chinese patients with Artemisia Annua-induced AR.

Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture has shown beneficial effects for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR); however, it is time and cost intensive. We investigated feasibility and effects of self-administered body acupressure as a self-care technique that stimulates acupuncture points with manual pressure in SAR patients.MethodsWe conducted a two-armed randomized controlled exploratory trial to compare effects of self-administered acupressure over 4 weeks at five acupuncture points plus rescue medication (RM) with cetirizine compared to RM alone in SAR patients. Among other outcome parameters, we assessed disease-related quality of life (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ]), overall SAR symptoms by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a rescue medication score (RMS) after 4 and 8 weeks.ResultsForty-one SAR patients (mean age 38.5 ± 10.0 years, n = 21, 51.2% women) were randomized. Compared to RM alone (n = 21), acupressure plus RM (n = 20) was associated with relevant improvements after 4 weeks, shown by the difference between groups in adjusted means of RQLQ: - 0.9 points (95% CI - 1.6 to - 0.2; p = 0.011) and VAS overall SAR symptoms: - 21.6 mm (95% CI - 36.3 to - 6.8; p = 0.005). The RMS was lower in the acupressure group than in the control group: 1.9 points (95% CI - 3.8 to - 0.1; p = 0.120). Group differences decreased slightly until week 8. The acupressure was feasible and safe.ConclusionResults of this exploratory study indicate that self-applied acupressure is feasible, may improve disease-specific quality of life and reduce disease-related symptoms as well as anti-allergic medication intake in SAR patients. High-quality confirmatory studies including a sham-control group are needed in the future. Trial registration DRKS-ID: DRKS00014310. Date of registration in DRKS: 2018/04/24. Investigator sponsored/initiated trial (IST/IIT): yes. Ethics approval/approval of the ethics committee: Approved (leading) Ethics Committee No. EA1/033/18, Ethik-Kommission der Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00014310.

Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of selective H1-antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.

Publications

The efficacy and safety of selective H1-antihistamine versus leukotriene receptor antagonist for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure