Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Kay Khine Soe; Thanachit Krikeerati; Chatkamol Pheerapanyawaranun; Suvimol Niyomnaitham; Phichayut Phinyo; Torpong Thongngarm

doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose intranasal corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Front Pharmacol. 2023 May 23:14:1184552. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1184552. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Kay Khine Soe¹, Thanachit Krikeerati², Chatkamol Pheerapanyawaranun³, Suvimol Niyomnaitham¹, Phichayut Phinyo^{4

5

6}, Torpong Thongngarm²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
² Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
³ Siriraj Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
⁴ Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
⁵ Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
⁶ Musculoskeletal Science and Translational Research (MSTR), Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: acceptability; allergic rhinitis; efficacy; intranasal corticosteroid; meta-analysis; systematic review; total nasal symptom score; total ocular symptom score.

Publication types

Review

Grants and funding

This study was partially supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, and the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.