-
Clinical Otolaryngology : Official... Jul 2024Leukotrienes play a significant role in the pathogenesis of adenoid hypertrophy (A.H.). Therefore, we aimed to analyse the role of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Leukotrienes play a significant role in the pathogenesis of adenoid hypertrophy (A.H.). Therefore, we aimed to analyse the role of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, alone or in combination with mometasone, a potent local intranasal steroid, for the treatment of A.H.
METHODS
Participants were children with A.H. were treated with montelukast alone or montelukast and mometasone furoate. The main outcome measures were effect of montelukast on clinical symptoms of A.H. A literature review was conducted using online search engines, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, for randomized clinical trials assessing children with A.H. treated with montelukast alone or montelukast and mometasone furoate. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included with 742 children.
RESULTS
Our study reveals that montelukast alone or in combination with intranasal mometasone furoate significantly improves clinical symptoms of adenoid hypertrophy such as snoring, sleeping disturbance, mouth breathing and A/N ratio. Montelukast was superior to placebo in decreasing snoring (SMD = -1.00, 95% CI [-1.52, -0.49]), sleep discomfort (SMD = -1.26, 95% CI [-1.60, -0.93]), A/N ratio (MD = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, -0.09]) and mouth breathing (SMD = -1.36, 95% CI [-1.70, -1.02]). No difference was detected between montelukast and mometasone versus mometasone alone in snoring (SMD = -0.21, 95%CI [-0.69, 0.27]); however, the combination group was superior to the mometasone alone in mouth breathing (SMD = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.19]).
CONCLUSIONS
The limitation of studies included a small sample size, with an overall low to medium quality. Thus, further larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to provide more substantial evidence.
Topics: Humans; Adenoids; Cyclopropanes; Quinolines; Acetates; Sulfides; Hypertrophy; Child; Mometasone Furoate; Leukotriene Antagonists; Administration, Intranasal; Drug Therapy, Combination; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38700144
DOI: 10.1111/coa.14169 -
Sleep Medicine Apr 2024Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disease that can have significant negative impacts on a child's health and development. A comprehensive evaluation of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disease that can have significant negative impacts on a child's health and development. A comprehensive evaluation of different pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of OSA in children is still lacking.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions for the management of obstructive sleep apnea in pediatric population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CNKI were searched from 1950 to November 2022 for pediatric OSA.
STUDY SELECTION
Multiple reviewers included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning drugs on OSA in children.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Multiple observers followed the guidance of the PRISMA NMA statement for data extraction and evaluation. Bayesian network meta-analyses(fixed-effect model) were performed to compare the weighted mean difference (WMD), logarithmic odds ratios (log OR), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the included pharmacological interventions. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO website (CRD42022377839).
MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)
The primary outcomes were improvements in the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI), while secondary outcomes included adverse events and the lowest arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2).
RESULTS
17 RCTs with a total of 1367 children with OSA aged 2-14 years that met the inclusion criteria were eventually included in our systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ten drugs were finally included in the study. The results revealed that Mometasone + Montelukast (WMD-4.74[95%CrIs -7.50 to -2.11], Budesonide (-3.45[-6.86 to -0.15], and Montelukast(-3.41[-5.45 to -1.39] exhibited significantly superior therapeutic effects compared to the placebo concerning apnea hypopnea index (AHI) value with 95%CrIs excluding no effect. Moreover, Mometasone + Montelukast achieved exceptionally high SUCRA values for both AHI (85.0 %) and SaO2 (91.0 %).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The combination of mometasone furoate nasal spray and oral montelukast sodium exhibits the highest probability of being the most effective intervention. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety profiles of these interventions in pediatric patients with OSA.
Topics: Child; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Acetates; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Mometasone Furoate; Cyclopropanes; Quinolines; Sulfides
PubMed: 38460418
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2024.01.030 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2023Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. Although most...
BACKGROUND
Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. Although most episodes of OME in children resolve spontaneously within a few months, when persistent it may lead to behavioural problems and a delay in expressive language skills. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, medical, surgical and other treatments, such as autoinflation. Oral or topical steroids are sometimes used to reduce inflammation in the middle ear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of topical and oral steroids for OME in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane ENT Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies on 20 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared topical or oral steroids with either placebo or watchful waiting (no treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes, determined by a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise, were: 1) hearing, 2) OME-specific quality of life and 3) systemic corticosteroid side effects. Secondary outcomes were: 1) presence/persistence of OME, 2) other adverse effects (including local nasal effects), 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial outcomes, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function and 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies in this review (2770 children). Most studies of oral steroids used prednisolone for 7 to 14 days. Studies of topical (nasal) steroids used various preparations (beclomethasone, fluticasone and mometasone) for between two weeks and three months. All studies had at least some concerns regarding risk of bias. Here we report our primary outcomes and main secondary outcome, at the longest reported follow-up. Oral steroids compared to placebo Oral steroids probably result in little or no difference in the proportion of children with normal hearing after 12 months (69.7% of children with steroids, compared to 61.1% of children receiving placebo, risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.33; 1 study, 332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in OME-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) in OM8-30 score 0.07, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.34; 1 study, 304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Oral steroids may reduce the number of children with persistent OME at 6 to 12 months, but the size of the effect was uncertain (absolute risk reduction ranging from 13.3% to 45%, number needed to treat (NNT) of between 3 and 8; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain regarding the risk of systemic corticosteroid side effects, and we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome. Oral steroids compared to no treatment Oral steroids may result in little or no difference in the persistence of OME after three to nine months (74.5% children receiving steroids versus 73% of those receiving placebo; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; 2 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence on adverse effects was very uncertain. We did not identify any evidence on hearing or disease-related quality of life. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to placebo We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean change in hearing threshold after two months was -0.3 dB lower (95% CI -6.05 to 5.45; 1 study, 78 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that nasal steroids make little or no difference to disease-specific quality of life after nine months (OM8-30 score, MD 0.05 higher, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.46; 1 study, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of nasal steroids on persistence of OME at up to one year. Two studies reported this: one showed a potential benefit for nasal steroids, the other showed a benefit with placebo (2 studies, 206 participants). The evidence was also very uncertain regarding the risk of corticosteroid-related side effects, as we were unable to provide a pooled effect estimate. Topical (intranasal) steroids compared to no treatment We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, the mean difference in final hearing threshold after four weeks was 1.95 dB lower (95% CI -3.85 to -0.05; 1 study, 168 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nasal steroids may reduce the persistence of OME after eight weeks, but the evidence was very uncertain (58.5% of children receiving steroids, compared to 81.3% of children without treatment, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 2 studies, 134 participants). We did not identify any evidence on disease-related quality of life or adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, oral steroids may have little effect in the treatment of OME, with little improvement in the number of children with normal hearing and no effect on quality of life. There may be a reduction in the proportion of children with persistent disease after 12 months. However, this benefit may be small and must be weighed against the potential for adverse effects associated with oral steroid use. The evidence for nasal steroids was all low- or very low-certainty. It is therefore less clear if nasal steroids have any impact on hearing, quality of life or persistence of OME. Evidence on adverse effects was very limited. OME is likely to resolve spontaneously for most children. The potential benefit of treatment may therefore be small and should be balanced with the risk of adverse effects. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Otitis Media with Effusion; Steroids
PubMed: 38088821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015255.pub2 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Nov 2023The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the mainstay of CRS therapies. However, their impact on microbial communities needs to be better understood. This systematic review summarizes the evidence about antibiotics' and steroids' impact on the nasal microbiota in patients with CRS.
METHODS
The search strategy was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The authors searched all papers in the three major medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) using the PICO tool (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). The search was carried out using a combination of the key terms "Microbiota" or "Microbiome" and "Chronic Rhinosinusitis".
RESULTS
Overall, 402 papers were identified, and after duplicate removal (127 papers), excluding papers off-topic (154) and for other structural reasons (110), papers were assessed for eligibility; finally, only 11 papers were included and summarized in the present systematic review. Some authors used only steroids, other researchers used only antibiotics, and others used both antibiotics and steroids. With regard to the use of steroids as exclusive medical treatment, topical mometasone and budesonide were investigated. With regard to the use of antibiotics as exclusive medical treatments, clarithromycin, doxycycline, roxithromycin, and amoxicillin clavulanate were investigated. Regarding the use of both antibiotics and steroids, two associations were investigated: systemic prednisone combined with amoxicillin clavulanate and topical budesonide combined with azithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact that therapies can have on the nasal microbiome of CRS patients is very varied. Further studies are needed to understand the role of the nasal microbiome, prevent CRS, and improve therapeutic tools for personalized medicine tailored to the individual patient.
PubMed: 38003898
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111583 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Aug 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of Mepitel Film in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of Mepitel Film in preventing acute radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) across randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched on 5 March 2023 to identify relevant RCTs. RD assessment tools and outcomes were compared across studies. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated based on random-effects analysis using RevMan 5.4.
RESULTS
Three RCTs conducted between 2018 and 2020 were included. Mepitel Film decreased RD severity when compared to Sorbolene or Biafine but not when compared to mometasone. A per-protocol analysis of two of the trials revealed that, overall, Mepitel Film significantly reduced the incidence of grade 2-3 RD (odds ratio (OR), 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.65; p = 0.005) and moist desquamation (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10-0.46; p < 0.0001) and decreased average patient, researcher, and combined components of the Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale (the standardized mean difference (SMD) for patient ratings, - 2.56; 95% CI, - 3.15 to - 1.96, p < 0.00001; SMD for researcher ratings, - 3.47; 95% CI, - 6.63 to - 0.31, p = 0.03; SMD for combined scores, - 3.68; 95% CI, - 6.43 to - 0.92, p = 0.009). Noted issues with Mepitel Film included itchiness and poor adherence.
CONCLUSION
While there were discrepancies across studies, Mepitel Film demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of grade 2-3 RD and moist desquamation. These findings emphasize the need for further examining Mepitel Film's efficacy across diverse patient groups and the importance of standardizing RD severity assessment methodologies and control arms.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Motion Pictures; Dermatitis
PubMed: 37594538
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07988-w -
PloS One 2023The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from...
Effect of any form of steroids in comparison with that of other medications on the duration of olfactory dysfunction in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review of randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies.
BACKGROUND
The life quality of about two-thirds of patients with COVID-19 is affected by related olfactory dysfunctions. The negative impact of olfactory dysfunction ranged from the decreased pleasure of eating to impaired quality of life. This research aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the effects of corticosteroid treatments by comparing that to other currently available treatments and interventions.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist's 27-point checklist was used to conduct this review. PubMed (Public/Publisher MEDLINE), PubMed Central and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases were conveniently selected and Boolean search commands were used for a comprehensive literature search. Five core search terms were "effects of treatments", " COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction", "corticosteroids", "treatments" and "interventions". The reporting qualities of the included studies were appraised using JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) appraisal tools. The characteristics of the 21 experimental studies with a total sample (of 130,550) were aggregated using frequencies and percentages and presented descriptively. The main interventions and their effects on the duration of the COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction were narratively analyzed.
RESULTS
Among patients with COVID-19, the normal functions of the olfactory lobe were about 23 days earlier to gain with the treatments of fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray compared with that of mometasone furoate nasal spray and oral corticosteroid. The smell loss duration was reduced by fluticasone and triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray 9 days earlier than the inflawell syrup and 16 days earlier than the lavender syrup. The nasal spray of corticosteroids ended the COVID-19-related smell loss symptoms 2 days earlier than the zinc supplementation, about 47 days earlier than carbamazepine treatment and was more effective than palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) and luteolin and omega-3 supplementations and olfactory training. Treatment with oral corticosteroid plus olfactory training significantly improved Threshold, Discrimination and Identification (TDI) scores compared with olfactory training alone. A full dose of the COVID-19 vaccination was not uncertain to reduce the COVID-19-related smell loss duration.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroid treatment is effective in reducing the duration of COVID-19-related smell loss and olfactory training, the basic, essential and effective intervention, should be used as a combination therapy.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Sprays; Anosmia; Quality of Life; Triamcinolone Acetonide; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Fluticasone
PubMed: 37531338
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288285 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.
PubMed: 37288109
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jun 2023Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a frequently occurring adverse reaction during radiotherapy in cancer patients. While the use of topical corticosteroids (TCs) is common for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Radiation dermatitis (RD) is a frequently occurring adverse reaction during radiotherapy in cancer patients. While the use of topical corticosteroids (TCs) is common for the treatment of RD, its role in preventing severe reactions remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the evidence on the use of TCs as prophylaxis of RD.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using OVID MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane databases (between 1946 and 2023) to identify studies examining TC use in the prevention of severe RD. Statistical analysis was completed using RevMan 5.4 to calculate pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals. Forest plots were then developed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with a total of 1041 patients met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported on mometasone furoate (MF) and four studies reported on betamethasone. Both TCs were associated with a significant improvement in the prevention of moist desquamation [OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.25, 0.47], p < 0.00001], but betamethasone was found to be more effective than MF [OR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.18, 0.46], p < 0.00001 and OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.25, 0.61], p < 0.0001, respectively]. A similar finding was seen in reducing the development of grade 2 or higher RD according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence supports the use of TCs in preventing severe reactions of RD. Both MF and betamethasone were found to be effective; however, betamethasone, a higher potency TC, is more effective despite MF being more commonly reported in literature.
Topics: Humans; Dermatologic Agents; Betamethasone; Radiodermatitis; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37280403
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07820-5 -
EClinicalMedicine Apr 2023Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A... (Review)
Review
Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) commonly develops in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and is often characterized by erythema, desquamation, and pain. A systematic review was conducted to summarize the current evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of ARD. Databases were searched from 1946 to September 2020 to identify all original studies that evaluated an intervention for the prevention or management of ARD, with an updated search conducted in January 2023. A total of 235 original studies were included in this review, including 149 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Most interventions could not be recommended due to a low quality of evidence, lack of supporting evidence, or conflicting findings across multiple trials. Photobiomodulation therapy, Mepitel® film, mometasone furoate, betamethasone, olive oil, and oral enzyme mixtures showed promising results across multiple RCTs. Recommendations could not be made solely based on the published evidence due to limited high-quality evidence. As such, Delphi consensus recommendations will be reported in a separate publication.
PubMed: 37181415
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101886 -
European Archives of... Apr 2022GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = - 0.99; [95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.79]; P < 0.01; I = 0), iTNSS (MD = - 1.05; [95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.67]; P < 0.01; I > 50%), rTOSS (MD = - 0.50; [95% CI - 0.72 to - 0.29]; P < 0.01; I = 0), iTOSS (MD = - 0.64; [95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.26]; P < 0.01; I > 50%), PNSS (MD = - 1.01; [95% CI - 1.32 to - 0.69]; P < 0.01; I = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = - 0.43; [95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.30]; P < 0.01; I = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43-2.45]; P < 0.01; I = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT.
CONCLUSION
GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Anti-Allergic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Sprays; Olopatadine Hydrochloride; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34591150
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-07085-w