Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China.
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China.
Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2020 Jul;34(4):564-572. doi: 10.1177/1945892420912370. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
Pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) still remains unsatisfying regarding its effect and safety. Barrier protection measures may be a good choice for the patients with AR.
To assess the efficacy and safety of barrier protection measures in the treatment of AR.
We selected relevant randomized controlled trials published between January 1, 1990, and February 20, 2019, by searching Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary outcome for this analysis was rhinitis symptom scores, overall quality of life, nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPIF), and adverse events. Differences were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was assessed with the statistic ( < .1) and the statistic.
Fifteen RCTs (with data for 1154 participants) satisfied our inclusion criteria. The types of barrier protection measures comprised cellulose, pollen blocker cream, microemulsion, and nasal filter. To reduce the potential risk of bias and heterogeneity, we carried out subgroup analysis according to different types of barrier protection measures (cellulose: WMD = -2.18, 95% CI, -3.01 to -1.35, < .00001; pollen blocker cream: WMD = -4.55, 95% CI, -6.10 to -3.00, < .00001; microemulsion: WMD = -0.22, 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.03, = .03). Findings from our meta-analysis show that, compared with placebo, barrier protection measures can yield improved symptomatic control for AR, with no increase in adverse events. Furthermore, barrier protection measures can improve the quality of life and NPIF.
Although further studies are still needed, our findings clearly lend support to barrier protection measures as a safe and efficacious option for the treatment of AR patients.
过敏性鼻炎（AR）的药物治疗在疗效和安全性方面仍然不尽如人意。屏障保护措施可能是 AR 患者的一个不错选择。
评估屏障保护措施治疗 AR 的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了 Embase、PubMed、Cochrane、Web of Knowledge 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库，以评估 1990 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 2 月 20 日期间发表的相关随机对照试验。本分析的主要结局是鼻炎症状评分、总体生活质量、鼻峰吸气流量（NPIF）和不良事件。对于连续结果，差异表示为加权均数差（WMD）和 95%置信区间（CI）。通过统计量（ < .1）和 Q 统计量评估试验间的统计学异质性。
15 项 RCT（共纳入 1154 名参与者）符合纳入标准。屏障保护措施的类型包括纤维素、花粉阻滞剂乳膏、微乳液和鼻过滤器。为了降低潜在的偏倚和异质性风险，我们根据不同类型的屏障保护措施进行了亚组分析（纤维素：WMD = -2.18，95%CI，-3.01 至-1.35， < .00001；花粉阻滞剂乳膏：WMD = -4.55，95%CI，-6.10 至-3.00， < .00001；微乳液：WMD = -0.22，95%CI，-0.42 至-0.03， = .03）。我们的荟萃分析结果表明，与安慰剂相比，屏障保护措施可改善 AR 的症状控制，且不会增加不良反应。此外，屏障保护措施可提高生活质量和 NPIF。
尽管仍需要进一步研究，但我们的研究结果明确支持屏障保护措施作为 AR 患者安全有效的治疗选择。
