Evidence-Based Medicine ; Humans ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy

Humans ; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis ; methods ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Seasons

OBJECTIVETo systematically evaluate the efficacy of intranasal antihistamine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

METHODSThe randomized controlled trials (RCT) about intranasal antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis between January 1985 and January 2014 were searched in OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, WanFang Data and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures, extracted the data, and evaluated the methodological quality, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTSA total of thirteen RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of intranasal antihistamine group was superior to the placebo group in total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), the difference was significant[WMD = -1.96, 95%CI (-2.06;-1.85), P < 0.01], and individual nasal symptom scores (blocked nose, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) [WMD = -0.18, 95%CI (-0.28;-0.08); WMD = -0.45, 95%CI (-0.52;-0.38); WMD = -0.41, 95%CI (-0.58;-0.24), all P < 0.01], with significant differences. There was no significant difference between the intranasal antihistamine group and the corticosteroid group in TNSS [WMD = -1.51, 95%CI (-3.51;0.49), P = 0.14], but the intranasal antihistamines group was superior to the corticosteroid group in individual nasal symptom scores (blocked nose, rhinorrhea, and sneezing) [WMD = -0.23, 95%CI (-0.40;-0.06); WMD = -0.35, 95%CI (-0.65;-0.05); WMD = -0.25, 95%CI (-0.42;-0.08), all P < 0.05], with significant differences. The intranasal antihistamine group was superior to the oral antihistamines group in TNSS [WMD = -0.88, 95%CI (-1.51;-0.25), P < 0.01].

CONCLUSIONIntranasal antihistamine is effective in the control of nasal symptoms in AR patients.

Administration, Intranasal ; Adrenal Cortex Hormones ; Anti-Allergic Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Histamine Antagonists ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; Humans ; Nasal Obstruction ; Rhinitis, Allergic ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; Software

Objective:To observe the efficacy and safety of the M receptor antagonist Bencycloquidium bromide nasal spray in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with runny nose as the main symptom. Methods:From August 2021 to September 2021, 134 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were enrolled in the otolaryngology Outpatient Department of Peking University Third Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University and China-Japanese Friendship Hospital of Jilin University, including 71 males and 63 females, with a median age of 38 years. TNSS score and visual analogue scale（VAS） of total nasal symptoms were observed during 2 weeks of treatment with Bencycloquidium bromide nasal spray. Results:TNSS score decreased from （8.89±3.31） on day 0 to （3.71±2.51） on day 14（P<0.001）, VAS score of nasal symptoms decreased from （24.86±7.40） on day 0 to （6.84±5.94） on day 14（P<0.001）, VAS score of rhinorrhoea decreased from （6.88±2.06） on day 0 to （1.91±1.81） on day 14（P<0.001）. Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire（RQLQ） score decreased from （94.63±33.35） on day 0 to （44.95±32.28） on day 14（P<0.001）. The incidence of adverse reaction was low and no serious adverse events occurred during the whole experiment. Conclusion:Bencycloquidium bromide nasal spray has significant efficacy and good safety in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Male ; Female ; Humans ; Adult ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/drug therapy* ; Nasal Sprays ; Quality of Life ; Administration, Intranasal ; Rhinorrhea ; Double-Blind Method ; Treatment Outcome ; Rhinitis, Allergic/drug therapy*

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the treatment outcomes of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) as monotherapy or combined with the second-generation oral H1-histamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), and to provide a basis for optimizing clinical therapeutic strategies.

METHODSPubMed,EMBASE, CBMdisc and CJFD databases, retrieving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AR therapy literatures were searched. Based on the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, the related literatures were selected and the quality was evaluated by using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.1 software.For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The forest plots were drawn. The treatment outcomes included daytime nasal symptom scores (DNSS), nighttime symptom scores (NSS), composite symptom scores (CSS), daytime eye symptom scores (DESS), and the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) were used to evaluate the therapeutic effects of LTRA on seasonal and perennial AR.

RESULTSEleven of clinical RCTs including 14 809 cases of AR patients, aged 15 to 85 years old, were available for Meta-analysis. Montelukast, a drug of LTRA, was primarily evaluated in the study. The results of Meta-analysis showed: (1) Compared with the placebo, montelukast statistically significantly reduced the DNSS,NSS, CSS, and RQLQ scores in patients with seasonal and perennial AR, as well as the DESS in patients with seasonal AR.(2) There were no statistical differences in the improvement of the CSS,DESS, and RQLQ scores in patients with seasonal AR after the treatment by montelukast compared with loratadine, a second-generation oral H1-histamine.(3) Montelukast statistically significantly reduced the NSS, but not DNSS, in patients with seasonal AR compared with loratadine.(4) The combination therapy of montelukast and loratadine statistically significantly improved the CSS compared with either montelukast or loratadine monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONSMontelukast, a representative drug of LTRA, can be used as first-line therapy for AR, with comprehensive improvement of the nasal and ocular symptoms and the quality of life in AR patients. Montelukast combined with loratadine can significantly improve the diurnal and nocturnal symptoms for patients with seasonal AR, and the curative effect is better than the single use of montelukast or loratadine.

Acetates ; therapeutic use ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Leukotriene Antagonists ; therapeutic use ; Loratadine ; Nose ; Quality of Life ; Quinolines ; therapeutic use ; Rhinitis, Allergic ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo observe the clinical efficacy of Flos Magnoliae volatile oil nano-liposome nasal drops (FMO) in treating pediatric allergic rhinitis (PAR).

METHODSAdopting parallel controlled method, the 191 patients with PAR were randomized into two groups. The observation group was treated with FMO, and the control group with Cetirizine. The clinical efficacy, main symptoms, signs, syndromes scores of Chinese medicine, and peripheral eosinophil (EOS) count were observed after 3-week treatment.

RESULTSIn the observation group, the total effective rate was 94.84%, which was higher than that in the control group (78.72%); the effective rate on alleviating main symptoms (sneezing, nasal obstruction), signs (nasal mucosa edema, pallor) and the EOS count were significantly lowered, all were better than those in the control group (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONFMO has some positive effects on PAR, it might be realized by lowering the peripheral EOS.

Child ; Child, Preschool ; Drugs, Chinese Herbal ; Eosinophils ; Female ; Humans ; Liposomes ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Oils, Volatile ; therapeutic use ; Phytotherapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome

Acetates ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Female ; Humans ; Leukotriene Antagonists ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Quinolines ; therapeutic use ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Single-Blind Method

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of prophylactic drugs on allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Thirty patients diagnosed as allergic rhinitis based on mugwort allergen were randomly divided into three groups: budesonide group (n = 10), saline group (n = 10) and control group (n = 10). The patients in budesonide group and saline group respectively received budesonide nasal spray (64 microg per, 256 microg once daily) and saline nasal spray twice daily starting two weeks before the date which the patient onset last year and continuing up to the end of the pollen season. The patients in control group were treated without any processing. The nasal symptom scores and attack times of the three groups was recorded. RESULT: During the pollen season, 2 patients attacked in the budesonide group (20%), and all the patients attacked in saline group and control group (100%). Statistical significance was found among the three groups (P < 0.01), and between budesonide group and the other two groups (P < 0.01). The budesonide group had lower symptom score than the other two groups and a postponed attack time. All the differences had Statistical significance (Value of chi-square statistic = 21. 558, P < 0.01, Fisher exact test P < 0.01). CONCLUSION Prophylactic administration of budesonide, starting two weeks before the date which the patient onset may release symptom and even avoid the attack of the allergic rhinitis based on mugwort allergen.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; therapeutic use ; Budesonide ; therapeutic use ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pollen ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; immunology ; prevention & control ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Aerius to seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHOD: Using randomized, controlled method, treatment group 40 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days; control group 35 cases, oral administration Aerius 5 mg/d for 12 days, investigating their efficacy and safety. RESULT: The total effective rate of treatment group was 92.50%, while control group was 85.71%, there was significant difference between them (P<0.05). Significant improvements of seasonal allergic rhinitis nasal obstruction were seen in treatment group after using Aerius (P<0.05). The incidence of side effect of treatment group was 2.50%. CONCLUSION Aerius is safe and can effectively reduction in nasal and nonnasal symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Anti-Allergic Agents ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Female ; Histamine H1 Antagonists ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Loratadine ; adverse effects ; analogs & derivatives ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

Administration, Intranasal ; Adult ; Aerosols ; Androstadienes ; therapeutic use ; Anti-Inflammatory Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Budesonide ; therapeutic use ; Child ; Female ; Fluticasone ; Humans ; Male ; Mometasone Furoate ; Nasal Polyps ; drug therapy ; Pregnadienediols ; therapeutic use ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial ; drug therapy ; epidemiology ; pathology ; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal ; drug therapy ; Singapore ; epidemiology ; Sinusitis ; drug therapy ; Triamcinolone Acetonide ; therapeutic use