-
The American Journal of Clinical... Mar 2019Nutrition during infancy and toddlerhood may influence health and disease prevention across the life span. Complementary feeding (CF) starts when human milk or infant...
BACKGROUND
Nutrition during infancy and toddlerhood may influence health and disease prevention across the life span. Complementary feeding (CF) starts when human milk or infant formula is complemented by other foods and beverages, beginning during infancy and continuing to age 24 mo.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to describe systematic reviews conducted for the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project to answer the following question: What is the relationship between the timing of the introduction of complementary foods and beverages (CFBs), or types and amounts of CFBs consumed, and the development of food allergy, atopic dermatitis/eczema, asthma, and allergic rhinitis?
METHODS
The literature was searched using 4 databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed) to identify articles published from January 1980 to February 2017 that met predetermined inclusion criteria. For each study, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. The evidence was qualitatively synthesized to develop a conclusion statement, and the strength of the evidence was graded.
RESULTS
Thirty-one included articles addressed the timing of CFB introduction, and 47 articles addressed the types and amounts of CFBs consumed.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence suggests that there is no relationship between the age at which CF first begins and the risk of developing food allergy, atopic dermatitis/eczema, or childhood asthma. Limited to strong evidence, depending on the specific food, suggests that introducing allergenic foods in the first year of life (after 4 mo) does not increase the risk of food allergy and atopic dermatitis/eczema but may prevent peanut and egg allergy. There is not enough evidence to determine a relationship between diet diversity or dietary patterns and atopic disease. Research is needed to address gaps and limitations in the evidence on CF and atopic disease, including research that uses valid and reliable diagnostic measures and accounts for key confounders and potential reverse causality.
Topics: Asthma; Breast Feeding; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Eczema; Feeding Behavior; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Infant; Infant Food; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 30982864
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy220 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Mar 2019During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these...
BACKGROUND
During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma.
METHODS
The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence.
RESULTS
The systematic reviews numbered 1-5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.
Topics: Adolescent; Asthma; Breast Feeding; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Feeding Behavior; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Infant; Infant Formula; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Newborn; Milk, Human; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 30982870
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy283 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Sprays; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 29932206
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012597.pub2 -
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