Qin JY, Huang G, Pan ZH, Liao LF, Hu HF. Different medications for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2024; 12(4): 98508 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v12.i4.98508]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Heng-Fen Hu, PhD, Chief Doctor, Doctor, Professor, Medical School, Hunan Vocational and Technical College of Environmental Biology, No. 165 Wangcheng Road, Shigu District, Hengyang 421005, Hunan Province, China. huhengfenfen@126.com
Research Domain of This Article
Otorhinolaryngology
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Meta-Anal. Dec 18, 2024; 12(4): 98508 Published online Dec 18, 2024. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v12.i4.98508
Different medications for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Jiang-Yuan Qin, Geng Huang, Zhi-Hui Pan, Lan-Fang Liao, Heng-Fen Hu
Jiang-Yuan Qin, Zhi-Hui Pan, Lan-Fang Liao, The Third Department of Surgery, Guangxi Armed Police Corps Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
Geng Huang, Department of Health, Guangxi Armed Police Corps, Nanning 530021, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
Heng-Fen Hu, Medical School, Hunan Vocational and Technical College of Environmental Biology, Hengyang 421005, Hunan Province, China
Co-corresponding authors: Lan-Fang Liao and Heng-Fen Hu.
Author contributions: Qin JY and Huang G contributed to the conception and design of the study, and acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data; Pan ZH, Liao LF, and Hu HF contributed to the drafting of the article or making critical revisions related to the relevant intellectual content of the manuscript. All authors validated and approved the version of the article to be published.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no competing interest to disclose.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Heng-Fen Hu, PhD, Chief Doctor, Doctor, Professor, Medical School, Hunan Vocational and Technical College of Environmental Biology, No. 165 Wangcheng Road, Shigu District, Hengyang 421005, Hunan Province, China. huhengfenfen@126.com
Received: June 28, 2024 Revised: October 13, 2024 Accepted: November 12, 2024 Published online: December 18, 2024 Processing time: 167 Days and 5.2 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
While the efficacy of medications such as fluticasone furoate (FF), fluticasone propionate (FP), and azelastine-fluticasone (AF) has been substantiated in comparison to their respective placebo controls, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative effectiveness of different intranasal agents.
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy of FP, FF, and AF in the treatment of adult patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) using a meta-analytic approach.
METHODS
A computer search was conducted in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness and safety of FF, FP, and AF in treating SAR. Data on treatment safety and efficacy were extracted and analyzed through meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies were included, comprising 10590 participants. The results of the direct meta-analysis indicated that, compared to placebo, both relative Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and relative Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) significantly decreased post-intervention [mean difference (MD) = -1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.73 to -1.22; MD = -0.66, 95%CI: -0.82 to -0.49], with similar findings observed across the FF, FP, and AF subgroups. The network meta-analysis results showed that for improving rTNSS and rTOSS, the SUCRA values ranking from highest to lowest were AF, FP, FF, and placebo. Improvements in rTNSS and rTOSS with FP, FF, and AF were all significantly greater than those observed with placebo, with AF demonstrating superior efficacy compared to both FP and FF. No statistically significant difference in rTNSS improvement was found between FP and FF, although FP exhibited significantly greater improvement in rTOSS compared to FF.
CONCLUSION
In adult patients with SAR, the combination of azelastine and fluticasone shows a significant effect in improving nasal and ocular symptoms, with FP demonstrating marked improvement in ocular symptoms compared to FF.
Core Tip: We have collected the relevant literature on the efficacy of nasal corticosteroids in treating olfactory dysfunction in allergic rhinitis, which has been publicly published both domestically and internationally in recent years, and conducted a meta-analysis to provide evidence-based medical evidence for clinical nursing of this disease.
