-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been... (Review)
Review
Bilastine is a non-sedating second generation H1 oral antihistamine (OAH) for treating allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The effect of bilastine has not previously been evaluated in a meta-analysis. The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of bilastine in treating AR. An electronic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Science Direct and Google Scholar up to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing bilastine with placebo and standard pharmacotherapy were included. The included studies must have diagnosis of AR established by clinicians and the outcomes must have a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up period. The primary outcomes assessed were total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (NSS) and non-nasal symptom score (NNSS). The secondary outcomes were discomfort due to rhinitis, quality of life (QOL) and adverse events. The risk of bias and quality of evidence for all studies were appraised. The meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 software based on the random-effects model. The search identified 135 records after removal of duplicates. Following screening and review of the records, fifteen full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Five trials involving 3,329 patients met the inclusion criteria. Bilastine was superior to placebo in improving TSS, NSS, NNSS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL but has comparable efficacy with other OAHs in TSS, NSS, NNS, rhinitis discomfort score and QOL. There was no difference in adverse effects when bilastine was compared against placebo and other OAHs except for somnolence. Bilastine has fewer incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high quality. Bilastine is effective and safe in treating the overall symptoms of AR with comparable efficacy and safety with other OAHs except somnolence. Whilst bilastine has similar efficacy to cetirizine, somnolence is notably less in bilastine.
PubMed: 35082662
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.731201 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established.
OBJECTIVE
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to address the effect and safety of probiotics on allergic rhinitis.
METHODS
We systematically searched databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials] from inception until June 1, 2021. Qualified literature was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included. The results showed that probiotics significantly relieved allergic rhinitis symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.44, -0.13]; = 0.0003, = 89%), decreased Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores compared with the control group (SMD, -0.64, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.49], < 0.00001, = 97%), and increased T helper cell 1(Th1)/Th2 ratio (mean difference [MD], -2.47, 95% CI [-3.27, -1.68], < 0.00001, = 72%). There was no significant change in overall or specific IgE levels between probiotic-treated and placebo-treated subjects (SMD, 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34], = 0%, and SMD, -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.13], = 0.72, = 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, probiotic supplement seems to be effective in ameliorating allergic rhinitis symptoms and improving the quality of life, but there is high heterogeneity in some results after subgroup analysis and clinicians should be cautious when recommending probiotics in treating allergic rhinitis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO (CRD42021242645).
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35663980
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.848279 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. It is characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings, nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process. Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g. asthma and atopic dermatitis).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% of participants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receiving mepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08 to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks: on a 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab (95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study; 72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab) versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. In these patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Allergic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bias; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Humans; Nasal Obstruction; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33710614
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013513.pub3 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2023We aim to assess the impact of montelukast on paediatric patients with asthma/allergic rhinitis, measured using patient-reported outcome measures, compared with other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We aim to assess the impact of montelukast on paediatric patients with asthma/allergic rhinitis, measured using patient-reported outcome measures, compared with other treatments or placebo.
METHODS
Protocol registration CRD42020216098 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). MEDLINE and Embase databases were used to conduct the search. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data, and a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. Meta-analyses were constructed to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Out of 3937 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria, mostly randomised clinical trials (sample sizes: 21-689 patients). The SMD of change pooled estimators for the global, mental and physical domains of health-related quality of life were not statistically significant. For daytime and night-time symptoms scores, the SMD (95% CI) was in favour of inhaled corticosteroids (-0.12, -0.20- -0.05 and -0.23, -0.41- -0.06, respectively). The pooled estimator for global asthma symptoms was better for montelukast when compared with placebo (0.90, 0.44-1.36).
CONCLUSIONS
The synthesis of the available evidence suggests that, in children and adolescents, montelukast was effective in controlling asthma symptoms when compared with placebo, but inhaled corticosteroids were superior in controlling symptoms, especially at night-time. These findings of our systematic review concur with current guidelines for asthma treatment.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Child; Quality of Life; Asthma; Rhinitis, Allergic; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37852659
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0124-2023 -
PloS One 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the associations of allergic rhinitis with sleep duration and sleep impairment. Observational studies published before... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the associations of allergic rhinitis with sleep duration and sleep impairment. Observational studies published before August 2019 were obtained through English language literature searches in the PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases. Mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were extracted and used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was confirmed by the I2-heterogeneity test. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of study design. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to determine the level of evidence. In total, 2544 records were identified through database searches; 914 duplicate records were excluded, 1452 records were removed after screening of titles and abstracts, 151 records were excluded after full-text screening, and 27 articles were included in the final meta-analyses. A total of 240,706,026 patients (19,444,043 with allergic rhinitis) were considered. No significant difference in sleep duration between the allergic rhinitis and the control groups was found. Patients with allergic rhinitis presented with significantly higher sleep quality scores, sleep disturbances scores, and sleep latency scores; more frequent use of sleep medications; and lower sleep efficiency as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and polysomnography. Meta-analyses for adjusted odds ratios showed that allergic rhinitis was also associated with higher risks of nocturnal dysfunctions, including insomnia, nocturnal enuresis, restless sleep, sleep-disordered breathing, obstructive sleep apnea, and snoring. Meta-analysis for adjusted odds ratio also showed that allergic rhinitis was associated with daytime dysfunction, including difficulty waking up, daytime sleepiness, morning headache, and the use of sleep medications. The overall quality of evidence ranged from low to very low, indicating that caution is required when interpreting these results. This study demonstrates that there is a significant association of AR with sleep characteristics.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Polysomnography; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sleep; Sleep Apnea Syndromes; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Sleep Wake Disorders; Snoring; Young Adult
PubMed: 32053609
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228533 -
European Journal of Medical Research Apr 2022In this study, we attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis (AR), and to test the robustness of the estimated effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In this study, we attempted to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis (AR), and to test the robustness of the estimated effects.
METHODS
The Cochrane methodology standard was followed to conduct this systematic review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with other therapies for AR were included. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis was conducted to test the robustness of pooled results. Thirty trials with 4413 participants were included.
RESULTS
Acupuncture improved the nasal symptoms on Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) and quality of life measured by Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in adults with AR, compared to acupuncture with no intervention. Acupuncture was also shown to be more effective than sham acupuncture for nasal symptom (RQLQ subscale, n = 489, MD - 0.60, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.04) and quality of life (RQLQ, n = 248, - 8.47 95% CI - 14.91, - 2.03). No clear difference was observed between acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine. Interestingly, trial sequential analysis (TSA) failed to confirm the aforementioned results. The effect of acupuncture for children/adolescents with AR remains unclear due to insufficient data. The performance bias and attrition bias are serious in most studies that were included. Selection bias may also have affected the quality of the evidence.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture may have an advantage over no intervention and sham acupuncture in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life for adults with AR. The effect of acupuncture and cetirizine or loratadine for AR may be similar. Additional trials are necessary to confirm these results.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adolescent; Adult; Cetirizine; Child; Humans; Loratadine; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35462555
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00682-3 -
Nutrients Sep 2022We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of vitamin D (VitD) supplementation on children with allergic diseases. MEDLINE, Embase,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of vitamin D (VitD) supplementation on children with allergic diseases. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, and three Chinese databases were searched up to 15 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a VitD supplementation versus a placebo for children with allergic diseases were included. Thirty-two RCTs with 2347 participants were included. VitD supplementation did not reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations in children compared with placebo overall (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65 to 1.08, p = 0.18), but reduced the risk of asthma exacerbation in children with baseline serum 25(OH)D of <10 ng/mL compared with placebo (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation significantly reduced Scoring Atopic Dermatitis or the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores in children with atopic dermatitis compared with placebo (standard mean difference = −0.5, 95% CI: −0.87 to −0.12, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation also reduced the symptom-medication score in children with allergic rhinitis compared with placebo (mean (standard deviation): 43.7 (3.3) vs. 57.8 (4.4), p = 0.001). In conclusion, VitD supplementation did not reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children overall but may reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children with serum 25(OH)D concentration < 10 ng/mL. VitD supplementation reduces the severity of atopic dermatitis and symptoms of allergic rhinitis in children.
Topics: Asthma; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Rhinitis, Allergic; Vitamin D
PubMed: 36235600
DOI: 10.3390/nu14193947 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2023Oral H antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Oral H antihistamines are the first-line treatment for patients with allergic rhinitis, while it is uncertain which kind and dosage of the antihistamines are more effective in improving symptoms of patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of different oral H antihistamine treatments on patients with allergic rhinitis by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
The search was executed in PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0, and the outcome measures of the analysis were symptom score reductions of patients. Relative risks with 95% Confidence Intervals were used in the network meta-analysis to compare the clinical effect of treatments involved, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRAs) were also calculated to rank the treatments' efficacy.
RESULTS
18 eligible randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 9419 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. All the antihistamine treatments outperformed placebo in total symptom score reduction and each individual symptom score reduction. According to the results of SUCRA, rupatadine 20 mg and rupatadine 10 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of total symptom score (SUCRA: 99.7%, 76.3%), nasal congestion score (SUCRA: 96.4%, 76.4%), rhinorrhea score (SUCRA: 96.6%, 74.6%) and ocular symptom score (SUCRA: 97.2%, 88.8%); rupatadine 20 mg and levocetirizine 5 mg were ranked relatively high in reductions of nasal itching score (SUCRA: 84.8%, 83.4%) and sneezing score (SUCRA: 87.3%, 95.4%); loratadine 10 mg was ranked the lowest in each symptom score reduction besides placebo.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that rupatadine is the most effective in alleviating symptoms of patients with allergic rhinitis among different oral H antihistamine treatments involved, and rupatadine 20 mg performs better than rupatadine 10 mg. While loratadine 10 mg has inferior efficacy for patients to the other antihistamine treatments.
Topics: Humans; Loratadine; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine Antagonists; Rhinitis, Allergic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37271114
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2023.03.009 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2020Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked to offspring allergy risk. In turn, maternal diet is a potentially modifiable factor, which could be targeted as an allergy prevention strategy. In this systematic review, we focused on non-allergen-specific modifying factors of the maternal diet in pregnancy on allergy outcomes in their offspring.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of studies investigating the association between maternal diet during pregnancy and allergic outcomes (asthma/wheeze, hay fever/allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis (AD), food allergies, and allergic sensitization) in offspring. Studies evaluating the effect of food allergen intake were excluded. We searched three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) through February 26, 2019. Evidence was critically appraised using modified versions of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for intervention trials and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodological checklist for cohort and case-control studies and meta-analysis performed from RCTs.
RESULTS
We identified 95 papers: 17 RCTs and 78 observational (case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort) studies. Observational studies varied in design and dietary intakes and often had contradictory findings. Based on our meta-analysis, RCTs showed that vitamin D supplementation (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) is associated with a reduced risk of wheeze/asthma. A positive trend for omega-3 fatty acids was observed for asthma/wheeze, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.08). Omega-3 supplementation was also associated with a non-significant decreased risk of allergic rhinitis (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04). Neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids were associated with an altered risk of AD or food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal supplementation with vitamin D may have beneficial effects for prevention of asthma. Additional nutritional factors seem to be required for modulating the risk of skin and gastrointestinal outcomes. We found no consistent evidence regarding other dietary factors, perhaps due to differences in study design and host features that were not considered. While confirmatory studies are required, there is also a need for performing RCTs beyond single nutrients/foods.
Topics: Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Female; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32524677
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13303 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074