Likhit Khattiyawittayakun1,2, Kachorn Seresirikachorn1,3, Wirach Chitsuthipakorn4, Dichapong Kanjanawasee1,3, Kornkiat Snidvongs1,3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. 3. Endoscopic Nasal and Sinus Surgery Excellent Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Otolaryngology, Sawan Pracharak Hospital, Nakhon Sawan, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When a standard dose of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) fails to control symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), a double dose of INCS is optional. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of double-dose INCS. METHODS: Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of double-dose INCS vs standard-dose INCS for treating patients with AR were included. Data from the included studies were extracted and collected for meta-analyses. The outcomes were nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve studies (4166 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There were 5 pediatric studies (1868 patients), 5 adult studies (1414 patients), and 2 studies with mixed populations (884 patients). The meta-analysis results in adult patients favored the effects of double-dose INCS on: total nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.08; 4 studies; 568 patients) and total ocular symptom score (SMD -0.27; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03; 1 study; 259 patients). The meta-analysis results in pediatric patients did not show the difference between groups on total nasal symptom score (SMD -0.16; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.07; 3 studies; 801 patients). The meta-analysis of ocular symptom score in pediatric patients had insufficient data. There were no differences between groups on adverse events. CONCLUSION: Double-dose INCS showed better improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms in adult patients with AR when compared to the standard dose. These beneficial effects were not seen in the pediatric population. Adverse events between groups were not different.
BACKGROUND: When a standard dose of intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) fails to control symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), a double dose of INCS is optional. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of double-dose INCS. METHODS: Literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of double-dose INCS vs standard-dose INCS for treating patients with AR were included. Data from the included studies were extracted and collected for meta-analyses. The outcomes were nasal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve studies (4166 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There were 5 pediatric studies (1868 patients), 5 adult studies (1414 patients), and 2 studies with mixed populations (884 patients). The meta-analysis results in adult patients favored the effects of double-dose INCS on: total nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.08; 4 studies; 568 patients) and total ocular symptom score (SMD -0.27; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.03; 1 study; 259 patients). The meta-analysis results in pediatric patients did not show the difference between groups on total nasal symptom score (SMD -0.16; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.07; 3 studies; 801 patients). The meta-analysis of ocular symptom score in pediatric patients had insufficient data. There were no differences between groups on adverse events. CONCLUSION: Double-dose INCS showed better improvement in nasal and ocular symptoms in adult patients with AR when compared to the standard dose. These beneficial effects were not seen in the pediatric population. Adverse events between groups were not different.
Authors: Marzia Duse; Francesca Santamaria; Maria Carmen Verga; Marcello Bergamini; Giovanni Simeone; Lucia Leonardi; Giovanna Tezza; Annamaria Bianchi; Annalisa Capuano; Fabio Cardinale; Giovanni Cerimoniale; Massimo Landi; Monica Malventano; Mariangela Tosca; Attilio Varricchio; Anna Maria Zicari; Carlo Alfaro; Salvatore Barberi; Paolo Becherucci; Roberto Bernardini; Paolo Biasci; Carlo Caffarelli; Valeria Caldarelli; Carlo Capristo; Serenella Castronuovo; Elena Chiappini; Renato Cutrera; Giovanna De Castro; Luca De Franciscis; Fabio Decimo; Iride Dello Iacono; Lucia Diaferio; Maria Elisa Di Cicco; Caterina Di Mauro; Cristina Di Mauro; Dora Di Mauro; Francesco Di Mauro; Gabriella Di Mauro; Mattia Doria; Raffaele Falsaperla; Valentina Ferraro; Vassilios Fanos; Elena Galli; Daniele Giovanni Ghiglioni; Luciana Indinnimeo; Ahmad Kantar; Adima Lamborghini; Amelia Licari; Riccardo Lubrano; Stefano Luciani; Francesco Macrì; Gianluigi Marseglia; Alberto Giuseppe Martelli; Luigi Masini; Fabio Midulla; Domenico Minasi; Vito Leonardo Miniello; Michele Miraglia Del Giudice; Sergio Renzo Morandini; Germana Nardini; Agostino Nocerino; Elio Novembre; Giovanni Battista Pajno; Francesco Paravati; Giorgio Piacentini; Cristina Piersantelli; Gabriella Pozzobon; Giampaolo Ricci; Valter Spanevello; Renato Turra; Stefania Zanconato; Melissa Borrelli; Alberto Villani; Giovanni Corsello; Giuseppe Di Mauro; Diego Peroni Journal: Ital J Pediatr Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 2.638