Individualized treatment for allergic rhinitis based on key nasal clinical manifestations combined with histamine and leukotriene D4 levels

Shen, Changwei; Chen, Fang; Wang, Qianqian; Zhang, Xinyu; Li, Guanxue; Wen, Zhong

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.09.007

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There were 275 relevant studies identified through the initial search, 41 were from PubMed, 44 were from Embase, 31 were from Web of Science, 72 were from Cochrane Library, 8 were from Clinical Trials, 64 were from CNKI, and 15 articles were from other sources. After excluding duplicate articles and further evaluating the full text of the remaining articles, 23 articles ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ; Nayak et al, 2002 ; Pullerits et al, 2002 ; Hung et al, 2007 ; Xiao and Zhang, 2008 ; Day et al, 2009 ; Huang et al, 2009 ; Lu et al, 2009 ; Prenner et al, 2009 ; Horak et al, 2010 ; Yamamoto et al, 2012 ; Gong, 2016 ; Cai et al, 2017 ; Lin, 2017 ; Bian and Cui, 2018 ; Li, 2019 ; Liu, Zeng, and Zeng, 2019 ; Miao, 2020 ; Qiao, 2020 ; Shen et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Lu et al, 2022 ; Shi et al, 2022 ) were finally included in this meta-analysis. Lu et al ( Lu et al, 2009 ) reported 2 trials, which were identified as Lu a, and Lu b. Meltzer et al ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ) compared two doses of montelukast at 10 mg and 20 mg with loratadine-montelukast simultaneously, which were identified as Meltzer a, and Meltzer b. Shen et al ( Shen et al, 2020 ) divided the subjects into a sneezing group, a nasal congestion group and a mixed group according to different scores of nasal congestion and sneezing, which were identified as Shen a, Shen b, and Shen c. The flow diagram of study selection is presented in Figure 1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 23 studies with 24 trials ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ; Nayak et al, 2002 ; Pullerits et al, 2002 ; Hung et al, 2007 ; Xiao and Zhang, 2008 ; Day et al, 2009 ; Huang et al, 2009 ; Lu et al, 2009 ; Prenner et al, 2009 ; Horak et al, 2010 ; Yamamoto et al, 2012 ; Gong, 2016 ; Cai et al, 2017 ; Lin, 2017 ; Bian and Cui, 2018 ; Li, 2019 ; Liu, Zeng, and Zeng, 2019 ; Miao, 2020 ; Qiao, 2020 ; Shen et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Lu et al, 2022 ; Shi et al, 2022 ) and 4,902 participants were enrolled. 1976 patients in all studies were treated with loratadine-montelukast, 1,264 in 18 trials were with loratadine ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ; Nayak et al, 2002 ; Hung et al, 2007 ; Xiao and Zhang, 2008 ; Huang et al, 2009 ; Lu et al, 2009 ; Gong, 2016 ; Cai et al, 2017 ; Lin, 2017 ; Bian and Cui, 2018 ; Li, 2019 ; Liu, Zeng, and Zeng, 2019 ; Qiao, 2020 ; Shen et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Lu et al, 2022 ; Shi et al, 2022 ), 768 in 10 trials with montelukast ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ; Nayak et al, 2002 ; Pullerits et al, 2002 ; Xiao and Zhang, 2008 ; Huang et al, 2009 ; Lu et al, 2009 ; Yamamoto et al, 2012 ; Miao, 2020 ; Shen et al, 2020 ), and 894 in 8 trials with placebo ( Meltzer et al, 2000 ; Nayak et al, 2002 ; Pullerits et al, 2002 ; Day et al, 2009 ; Lu et al, 2009 ; Prenner et al...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Wang,

Ji,

Liao

et al. 2023

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Loratadine and montelukast are clinical first-line drugs in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). However, there is no clear evidence of the efficacy of loratadine combined with montelukast in the treatment of AR. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the loratadine-montelukast combination on AR.Methods: In this meta-analysis, searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search terms included loratadine, montelukast, allergic rhinitis, and clinical trials. Meta-analyses were conducted using Rev Man 5.3 and Stata 15 statistical software.Results: A total of 23 studies with 4,902 participants were enrolled. For the primary outcome, pooled results showed that loratadine-montelukast can significantly reduce total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), when compared with loratadine (SMD, −1.00; 95% CI, −1.35 to −0.65, p < 0.00001), montelukast (SMD, −0.46; 95% CI, −0.68 to −0.25, p < 0.0001), or placebo (SMD, −0.93; 95% CI, −1.37 to −0.49, p < 0.00001). For secondary outcomes, pooled results showed that compared with loratadine, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, nasal itching, nasal sneezing, nasal rhinorrhea, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaires (RQLQ). Compared with montelukast, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal itching, and nasal sneezing. Compared with placebo, loratadine-montelukast can significantly improve nasal congestion, and RQLQ.Conclusion: Loratadine-montelukast combination is superior to loratadine monotherapy, montelukast monotherapy, or placebo in improving AR symptoms. Therefore, loratadine-montelukast combination can be an option for patients with moderate-severe AR or poorly response to monotherapy.Systematic review registration number: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42023397519.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Wang,

Ji,

Liao

et al. 2023

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Хронический полипозный риносинусит -заболевание, характеризующиеся хроническим воспалением слизистой оболочки носа и носовых пазух. В тканях полипов и интраназальном секрете наблюдается увеличение концентрации различных медиаторов воспаления, в частности интерлейкинов, вследствие повышения их синтеза de novo эффекторными клетками [1,2,3,4]. Особенное значение придается повышению концентрации цитокинов, задействованных в развитии, рекрутировании и активации эозинофилов (ИЛ-4, ИЛ-12, ИЛ-13, ГМ-КСФ), основных провоспалительных (ИЛ-1, ИЛ-2, ФНО-а, ИЛ-10), регуляторных цитокинов (ИЛ-10, ТLR2b), способствующих хронизации воспалительного процесса в носовой полости [5].…”

Section: актуальность проблемыunclassified

Результаты анализа частоты распределение полиморфизма rs1800895 592c>a в гене IL10 среди больных с ХПРС

Khasanov

Джураев²,

Shaumarov

et al. 2023

EJOHNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Хронический полипозный риносинусит (ХПРС) относят к актуальным проблемам оториноларингологии в виду высокой распространенности заболевания и его медико-социальной значимости. На данном статьи представлены результаты проведенных генетических исследований полиморфизма rs1800895 592C>A в гене IL10 у больных с ХПРС. Материал и методы. В соответствии с целью исследования и для выполнения поставленных задач клинические исследования были проведены у 140 больных с ХПРС и с хроническими риносинуситами, находившихся на обследовании и лечении в ЛОР-отделении многопрофильной клиники Ташкентской медицинской академии в 2017-2020 гг. Результаты. Резюмируя полученные результаты, можно сделать вывод об отсутствии значимых различий в частоте выявления аллельных и генотипических вариантов полиморфного локуса rs1800895 592 C>A в гена IL10 в 1- и 2-группах больных. Значимый вклад данного локуса в формирование и развитие той или иной форм ХРС отсутствует. Однако у пациентов ХПРС, по сравнению с группой контроля выявляется существенная тенденция к снижению частоты генотипа А/А. Согласно коэффициенту соотношения шансов, риск формирования ХПРС у носителей данного генотипа увеличен в 2.4 раза (χ2=14.71; Р=0.70; RR=0.83; OR=0.14; 95% CI:1.78-0.39).

show abstract

“…Its main pathological feature is allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), which binds to the IgE receptors on mast cells and basophils, releases chemical mediators such as histamine, leukotrienes, and cytokines, and acts on nasal mucosa that can lead to the development of allergic rhinitis symptoms [ 2 ]. Hyperfunction of T-helper-type 2 mucosal cells accelerates the process of AR [ 3 ]. The main symptoms of AR include paroxysmal sneezing, watery nose, nasal itching, and nasal blockage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Yuan

Xiong

Yang

et al. 2020

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a noninfectious inflammatory disease caused by allergic individuals exposed to allergens. Western medicine therapy for treating AR causes obvious adverse events, while thunder fire moxibustion (TFM) is known as a safe and effective treatment for AR. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TFM for treating AR. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from inception to April 5, 2020, were searched without any language restriction. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. The primary outcomes were the total effective rate and the TNSS. The secondary outcomes included TNNSS, RQLQ, VAS, serum IgE, IgA, or IgG level, and adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected; methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 software. Results. A total of 18 RCTs were included, including 1600 patients. The results of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect in a total effective rate of T = TFM (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.03, 1.12]; P=0.45; I2 = 0%) and T = TFM + other treatments (RR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.11, 1.25]; P=0.03; I2 = 53%). In addition, TFM intervention also showed significant difference in total symptom score (T = TFM + other treatments) (MD = −1.42; 95% CI [−1.55, −1.29]; P=0.03; I2 = 60%) in patients with AR. Conclusion. Existing evidence shows that TFM is safe and effective for AR. Due to the universal low quality of the eligible trials and low evidence level, we should draw our conclusions with caution. Therefore, clinical researchers should carry out more large-sample, multicentre, high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials in the future to verify the clinical efficacy of TFM in treating AR.

show abstract

Individualized treatment for allergic rhinitis based on key nasal clinical manifestations combined with histamine and leukotriene D4 levels

Cited by 7 publications

References 34 publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of loratadine combined with montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Результаты анализа частоты распределение полиморфизма rs1800895 592c>a в гене IL10 среди больных с ХПРС

The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About