A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Focusing on Different Allergic Rhinitis Medications
- 1 November 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
- Vol. 23 (6), e1568-e1578
- https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000000242
Abstract
This study is aimed to investigate the effectiveness of 4 allergic rhinitis (AR) drugs (loratadine, cetirizine, montelukast, and desloratadine) in reducing functional problems in patients, as indicated by rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. After an exhaustive search of electronic databases containing published scientific literature, high-quality randomized controlled trials relevant to our study were selected based on a stringent predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 12.0 and comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA 2.0) software. The literature search broadly identified 386 studies, and after a multistep screening and elimination process, a total of 13 randomized controlled trials contributed to this network meta-analysis. These 13 high-quality studies contained a combined total of 6867 patients with AR on 4 different medications. The results of network meta-analysis revealed that, compared with placebo, all 4 mediations treated AR effectively [cetirizine: mean: -0.62, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) = -0.90 to -0.34, P < 0.001; loratadine: mean: -0.32, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.097, P = 0.005; montelukast: mean: -0.28, 95% CI = -0.54 to -0.023, P = 0.033; desloratadine: mean: -0.39, 95% CI = -0.60 to -0.18, P < 0.001]. A comparison of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of these 4 interventions clearly showed that cetirizine is the most optimal medication for AR treatment. In conclusion, this network meta-analysis provides the first evidence that cetirizine is the most efficacious treatment for AR compared with loratadine, montelukast, and desloratadine, significantly reducing the functional problems in patients with AR.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATAPLOS ONE, 2013
- A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitisAllergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 2013
- Quantifying the impact of between‐study heterogeneity in multivariate meta‐analysesStatistics in Medicine, 2012
- Allergic rhinitisAllergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 2011
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Rhinitis and sinusitisJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2010
- Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008*Allergy, 2008
- Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology AssessmentPharmacoEconomics, 2008
- Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysisJAMA, 2006
- Efficacy and tolerability of montelukast alone or in combination with loratadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in the fallAnnals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 2002