2021Phytotherapy ResearchOpen access

Oral application of Chinese herbal medicine for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hong Li, Jenny Kreiner, Ann Rann Wong, Mingdi Li, Yue Sun, Leyao Lu, Jianping Liu, Angela Wei Hong Yang

Open full text 25 citations

Abstract

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has long been used for allergic rhinitis (AR). This systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical effects and safety of oral CHM for AR by comparing it to Western medications (WM). Nineteen databases were searched up to May 27, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CHM on the primary or secondary outcomes comparing to WM, in any age of the patients, were included. The pooled results were expressed as mean difference, standardized mean difference, or odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Eighteen RCTs were included and 17 of them were evaluated in the meta-analysis. CHM may improve total nasal symptom scores, individual symptom scores (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, and nasal itching), quality of life, and recurrence rate, compared to antihistamines (loratadine and chlorpheniramine). Only mild and transient adverse events of CHM were reported. However, there were no significant differences in some subgroup analyses in total nasal symptom scores, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, and SF-36. Due to the small number of included studies, poor quality of trial design, and substantial heterogeneities, the potential of CHM for AR should be validated in large, multicenter, and well-designed RCTs in the future.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has long been used for allergic rhinitis (AR). This systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical effects and safety of oral CHM for AR by comparing it to Western medications (WM). Nineteen databases were searched up to May 27, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CHM on the primary or secondary outcomes comparing to WM, in any age of the patients, were included. The pooled results were expressed as mean difference, standardized mean difference, or odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Eighteen RCTs were included and 17 of them were evaluated in the meta-analysis. CHM may improve total nasal symptom scores, individual symptom scores (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, and nasal itching), quality of life, and recurrence rate, compared to antihistamines (loratadine and chlorpheniramine). Only mild and transient adverse events of CHM were reported. However, there were no significant differences in some subgroup analyses in total nasal symptom scores, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, and SF-36. Due to the small number of included studies, poor quality of trial design, and substantial heterogeneities, the potential of CHM for AR should be validated in large, multicenter, and well-designed RCTs in the future.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 25 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has long been used for allergic rhinitis (AR). This systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical effects and safety of oral CHM for AR by comparing it to Western medications (WM). Nineteen databases were searched up to May 27, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CHM on the primary or secondary outcomes comparing to WM, in any age of the patients, were included. The pooled results were expressed as mean difference, standardized mean difference, or odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Eighteen RCTs were included and 17 of them were evaluated in the meta-analysis. CHM may improve total nasal symptom scores, individual symptom scores (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, and nasal itching), quality of life, and recurrence rate, compared to antihistamines (loratadine and chlorpheniramine). Only mild and transient adverse events of CHM were reported. However, there were no significant differences in some subgroup analyses in total nasal symptom scores, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, sneezing, nasal itching, and SF-36. Due to the small number of included studies, poor quality of trial design, and substantial heterogeneities, the potential of CHM for AR should be validated in large, multicenter, and well-designed RCTs in the future.

Key concepts: Medicine, Loratadine, rhinorrhea, Nasal congestion, Itching, Randomized controlled trial, Odds ratio, Meta-analysis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Oral application of Chinese herbal medicine for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials — Research Paper | ScholarLens